Podcasts about Fifth Amendment

After Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in December 2021 on five federal counts tied to Jeffrey Epstein's sexual-abuse operation, attention immediately shifted to sentencing, the survivors, and the unanswered question of who else had participated in or enabled the scheme. In June 2022, Judge Alison Nathan sentenced Maxwell to 20 years in federal prison, describing her conduct as calculated and emphasizing that she had helped identify, groom and normalize the abuse of underage girls. Several survivors addressed the court, portraying Maxwell not as a passive companion to Epstein but as an active manipulator who helped make vulnerable girls feel safe before their exploitation. The conviction provided a rare measure of accountability, but it did not produce the broader reckoning many expected: no sweeping prosecution of additional alleged facilitators followed, and many records connected to Epstein's network remained sealed, redacted or fiercely contested.Maxwell then began a prolonged campaign to overturn the verdict, arguing that Epstein's Florida non-prosecution agreement protected her, that juror misconduct had compromised the trial and that procedural errors required a new one. The Second Circuit upheld her conviction in September 2024, and the Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal on October 6, 2025, leaving the conviction and sentence intact. Her case nevertheless remained politically explosive: she was transferred in August 2025 to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Bryan, Texas, after meeting privately with senior Justice Department officials, prompting accusations that she was receiving preferential treatment. She later invoked the Fifth Amendment before Congress while indicating that she might provide information in exchange for clemency, reinforcing the sense that—even after her conviction—the full story of Epstein's operation, its enablers and the institutional failures surrounding it had still not been publicly resolved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Hamline University political science professor David Schultz and John Williams look at the Bill of Rights and discuss the strengths, weaknesses and challenges presented by this 235 year-old document. Today, John and David break down the ‘all-encompassing’ Fifth Amendment.

Hamline University political science professor David Schultz and John Williams look at the Bill of Rights and discuss the strengths, weaknesses and challenges presented by this 235 year-old document. Today, John and David break down the ‘all-encompassing’ Fifth Amendment.

Hamline University political science professor David Schultz and John Williams look at the Bill of Rights and discuss the strengths, weaknesses and challenges presented by this 235 year-old document. Today, John and David break down the ‘all-encompassing’ Fifth Amendment.

Judge Ralph Wilson Jr.'s nineteen-page order dismissing the murder charge against Aaron Spencer catalogued eleven specific failures by the lead detective and applied the most consequential legal characterization available: intentional conduct, bad faith, and a due process violation under both the federal and Arkansas state constitutions. The court specifically rejected the state's characterization of the evidence handling as negligent.The evidentiary chain at issue involves a dashcam and SD card recovered from Michael Fosler's truck — the sole potential objective record of the final encounter between Spencer and Fosler. Detective Robbie McCain removed the camera from the windshield without photographic documentation. He extracted the SD card and viewed it on his personal computer, in violation of departmental protocol — confirmed by his commanding officer — requiring that electronic evidence be submitted to the Attorney General's forensics unit without alteration. He stored the camera in an unsealed envelope in his office rather than the evidence room. The camera was not entered into evidence for over a year. No documentation accompanied any step of the process.The SD card was not present when the AG's special agent opened the submitted package. Twelve additional SD cards were recovered from Fosler's residence and vehicle during separate searches. None was identified as the dashcam card. No duplicate or record of the card's contents was ever created. The court found a "reasonable possibility" that the detective did not observe what he testified to having observed.The court identified the dashcam footage as the only potential neutral evidentiary record — given Spencer's Fifth Amendment protections and the potential impact of trauma on his daughter's testimonial capacity. Wilson also flagged a one-month discrepancy between the sheriff's office's claimed shipping date and the AG's confirmed receipt date. The state characterized this as administrative error. The court did not accept that characterization.Spencer killed Fosler after finding him with his thirteen-year-old daughter. Fosler faced 43 felony charges involving the child and was released on bond with a no-contact order in effect. The day following the dismissal, Sheriff John Staley — the thirteen-year incumbent whom Spencer defeated in the Republican primary — terminated Detective McCain, citing policy violations. The prosecuting attorney who pursued the case is retiring.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AaronSpencer #LonokeCounty #JudgeWilson #BadFaith #DashcamEvidence #Coverup #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #Arkansas #JusticeForSpencer

The dashcam in Michael Fosler's truck was the one piece of evidence that could have objectively recorded the final encounter between Aaron Spencer and the man Spencer says he killed to protect his thirteen-year-old daughter. Detective Robbie McCain pulled the camera off the windshield without photographing it. Removed the SD card and viewed it on his personal computer — violating department protocol confirmed by his own commanding officer. Stored the camera in an untaped envelope in his office cabinet for over a year instead of the evidence room. Never logged it. Never documented it.The SD card disappeared somewhere between McCain's office and the Attorney General's forensics lab. When the AG's special agent opened the package, the card wasn't there. Twelve other SD cards were recovered across Fosler's house and truck in separate searches. None was the dashcam card. No copy of the card's contents was ever created. No record of what was on it exists.Judge Ralph Wilson Jr. documented every step in a nineteen-page order. He didn't call it negligence. He called it intentional. He found bad faith, a pattern of policy violations, and a due process violation under both federal and state constitutional law. He wrote that the dashcam footage was the only potential neutral record of what happened — because Spencer has a Fifth Amendment right not to testify and his daughter's testimony may be affected by trauma.Spencer shot and killed Fosler after finding him with his daughter. Fosler had been charged with 43 felonies involving the girl and was out on bond with a no-contact order. Spencer has maintained he was protecting his child. The murder charge was dismissed.Two days after Wilson signed the order, Sheriff John Staley — the thirteen-year incumbent Spencer defeated in the Republican primary — fired Detective McCain. The sheriff's office cited policy violations without confirming a connection to the dismissal. The prosecutor who pushed the case is retiring. Wilson flagged a one-month gap between when the sheriff's office says they shipped the camera and when the AG says they received it. The state called it clerical error. Wilson wasn't buying it.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AaronSpencer #LonokeCounty #DashcamEvidence #SDCard #JudgeWilson #Coverup #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #Arkansas #JusticeForSpencer

Judge Ralph Wilson Jr. had a choice of words. He chose "intentional." Not negligent. Not careless. Not unfortunate. He found bad faith, a pattern of policy violations, "the appearance of a coverup," and a due process violation under both the federal and Arkansas state constitutions. Then he dismissed the murder charge against Aaron Spencer. Two days later, the detective was fired.The nineteen-page order documents every step. Detective Robbie McCain removed a dashcam from Michael Fosler's truck without photographing it. Pulled the SD card and viewed it on his personal computer — violating the department's own protocol that electronic evidence goes to the AG's forensics unit untouched. Stored the camera in an untaped envelope in his office cabinet instead of the evidence room. None of it logged. None documented. The camera sat there for over a year before it was entered into evidence.The SD card vanished. When the AG's special agent opened the package, the card wasn't inside. Twelve other SD cards were found across Fosler's property. None was the dashcam card. No copy was ever made. No record of its contents exists. Wilson found a "reasonable possibility" the detective didn't see what he testified he saw.That dashcam was the only potential neutral record of what happened. Spencer has a Fifth Amendment right not to testify. His daughter's testimony may be affected by trauma. Without the card, the objective record is gone.Spencer killed Fosler after finding him with his thirteen-year-old daughter. Fosler had been charged with 43 felonies involving the girl and was out on bond with a no-contact order. Spencer has maintained he was protecting his child.Sheriff John Staley — the thirteen-year incumbent Spencer defeated in the Republican primary — fired McCain the day after the dismissal. Called it a policy violation. The prosecutor is retiring. Wilson flagged a one-month gap in the chain of custody the state called clerical error. Wilson wasn't buying it. The order reads like a roadmap for a federal investigation that hasn't been opened.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AaronSpencer #LonokeCounty #JudgeWilson #Coverup #DetectiveFired #DashcamEvidence #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #Arkansas #JusticeForSpencer

In this episode of John Solomon Reports, we kick off with a deep dive into the ongoing scrutiny of ActBlue, the Democrats' primary online fundraising platform. Host John Solomon welcomes Chairman Bryan Steil of the House Administration Committee, who discusses the recent testimony from ActBlue's CEO, who invoked the Fifth Amendment during questioning. What does this mean for the organization, and what implications could arise from allegations of foreign donations and misleading Congress? Steil sheds light on these critical issues and what may lie ahead.In the second segment, climate change claims come under the microscope as John invites Mark Marano from Climate Depot to share insights on the shifting narrative within the climate activism movement. As promises of the Green New Deal fall short, Marano highlights the latest developments and challenges the prevailing rhetoric, ensuring listeners stay informed about the realities behind the headlines.Next, John introduces Natasha Owens, a talented Christian and country artist, who shares her new song addressing the phenomenon of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Owens' humorous take on the topic promises to entertain while also provoking thought, making for a delightful and engaging segment.Finally, the episode wraps up with a health news update from NativePath, featuring insights from Dr. Chad Walding on recent developments in health and wellness. As listeners strive for better health, this segment aims to provide valuable information and tips for a healthier lifestyle.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

If Donald Trump were to issue a presidential pardon to Ghislaine Maxwell for her federal crimes, the doctrine of dual sovereignty could allow the state of New York to pursue separate charges against her without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This legal principle recognizes that the federal government and state governments are distinct sovereigns, each with the authority to enforce their own laws. Therefore, a pardon at the federal level does not immunize a person from state prosecution for conduct that also violates state law. If Maxwell's actions—such as recruiting and trafficking minors—also violated New York state statutes, she could face a new, independent indictment from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office or New York Attorney General, regardless of the federal pardon.New York has already demonstrated its willingness to pursue high-profile sex trafficking and abuse cases, particularly when federal accountability fails or falters. The state has broad human trafficking, sexual abuse, and child endangerment laws that overlap with Maxwell's federally convicted conduct. If prosecutors believe there is sufficient evidence that Maxwell's crimes occurred within New York's jurisdiction or harmed residents of the state, they could initiate charges anew under state law. In fact, the political and public appetite for state-level accountability could intensify following a federal pardon, as it would be seen by many as a miscarriage of justice. In that case, dual sovereignty becomes not just a legal tool—but a last-resort mechanism to ensure that Maxwell still faces consequences.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

If Donald Trump were to issue a presidential pardon to Ghislaine Maxwell for her federal crimes, the doctrine of dual sovereignty could allow the state of New York to pursue separate charges against her without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This legal principle recognizes that the federal government and state governments are distinct sovereigns, each with the authority to enforce their own laws. Therefore, a pardon at the federal level does not immunize a person from state prosecution for conduct that also violates state law. If Maxwell's actions—such as recruiting and trafficking minors—also violated New York state statutes, she could face a new, independent indictment from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office or New York Attorney General, regardless of the federal pardon.New York has already demonstrated its willingness to pursue high-profile sex trafficking and abuse cases, particularly when federal accountability fails or falters. The state has broad human trafficking, sexual abuse, and child endangerment laws that overlap with Maxwell's federally convicted conduct. If prosecutors believe there is sufficient evidence that Maxwell's crimes occurred within New York's jurisdiction or harmed residents of the state, they could initiate charges anew under state law. In fact, the political and public appetite for state-level accountability could intensify following a federal pardon, as it would be seen by many as a miscarriage of justice. In that case, dual sovereignty becomes not just a legal tool—but a last-resort mechanism to ensure that Maxwell still faces consequences.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

1. ActBlue Investigation Allegations ActBlue is a major Democratic fundraising platform. The CEO pleaded the Fifth Amendment repeatedly during congressional testimony. There are allegations of illegal foreign donations, including possible contributions from foreign nationals. Congressional Republicans are investigating whether ActBlue: Allowed foreign donations Misled Congress Failed to implement fraud safeguards 2. Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Controversy Being investigated for funding extremist groups (including the KKK) via informants. Allowing funds to allegedly support activities like cross-burning (as claimed in DOJ allegations). The CEO is described as evasive during testimony, deferring to legal proceedings. Includes a segment about questioning the CEO on a politician with a Nazi tattoo. 3. Missing Migrant Children & Immigration Policy the Biden administration: Lost track of hundreds of thousands of migrant children. Failed to vet sponsors receiving children. Many children were subjected to abuse, forced labor, or trafficking. The Trump administration has allegedly recovered 146,000+ children. Democratic immigration policies are enabling harm. Lists votes where Democrats allegedly opposed deportation policies for certain offenders. Used to argue Democrats are: Soft on immigration enforcement Prioritizing undocumented immigrants over public safety 4. “Green New Deal” / Government Funding Criticism Discusses Department of the Interior actions to cut funding to: Environmental groups DEI-related programs Claims: Democrats funnel taxpayer money to allied nonprofits These groups then advance political agendas Describes this as corruption or misuse of funds Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You’re listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for June 11, 2026. We open with one of the most disturbing stories we've covered — federal officials have located 146,000 unaccompanied migrant children who entered the country during the Biden administration and disappeared into a broken government tracking system. Nearly half a million unaccompanied children were transferred into federal custody between 2019 and 2023, and the government lost track of three out of every four of them. Over 32,000 failed to appear for immigration court hearings — children who legally don't even have the capacity to be responsible for that. We point out that some sponsors used the same addresses and names over and over to claim multiple children — a hallmark of trafficking networks — and that acting Attorney General Todd Blanch confirmed this program was exploited for sexual assault and trafficking. We make the case that this level of failure isn't incompetence. It's a feature, not a bug, of an administration that prioritized volume over accountability — and we ask where these children go to get their childhoods back. In our Top 3 Things You Need to Know, President Trump paused another round of attacks on Iran after announcing a breakthrough in negotiations, with a final deal expected to be signed in Europe as early as this weekend — including guarantees Iran will never possess a nuclear weapon and that the Strait of Hormuz will reopen to shipping without Iranian tolls. Then the CEO of ActBlue refused to answer questions during a congressional hearing, repeatedly citing attorney-client privilege and Fifth Amendment protections amid allegations of fraudulent campaign donations including foreign contributions. And a Michigan court overturned the conviction of one of the men accused of plotting to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020, ruling that kidnapping isn't a violent felony under Michigan's terrorism statute — we revisit the role the FBI itself played in organizing that plot. We also cover New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani attending the NBA Finals at Madison Square Garden with a roughly $1,000 standing-room ticket — despite running a campaign built on taxing the wealthy and claiming he'd have to move back in with his parents due to financial strain. We make the broader point about socialism and its leaders — the people at the top always seem to find their way to the good seats while telling everyone else to live within their needs. Our American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson tackle the question of whether MAGA is dead, as several prominent former Trump-aligned commentators have recently suggested. They point to Trump-endorsed candidates sweeping primaries in South Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas as evidence the movement is alive and well, and discuss the pattern of high-profile pundits — Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens — making abrupt reversals after years of consistency, while Trump's messaging has remained the same. They draw a comparison to Ann Coulter's earlier break with Trump over the border wall timeline, suggesting some of these breaks come from single-issue voters whose patience ran out on one specific promise. We dig into the controversy over whether ICE enforcement should pause during the World Cup — with activists arguing that immigration enforcement makes undocumented immigrants feel unsafe attending games. We point out the absurdity by comparison — nobody argues pickpocketing laws should be suspended during the Super Bowl. In our Digging Deep segment, we cover the case of a Somali World Cup referee who was denied entry into the United States after Customs and Border Protection flagged his connections to Al-Shabaab, an Al-Qaeda affiliate — and his own social media posts containing antisemitic statements. We walk through why this isn't about ethnicity, despite Al-Shabaab itself issuing a statement calling it racial discrimination, and why a country has every right to keep people connected to designated terrorist organizations out, regardless of their profession. We also cover the first arrest from a new federal fraud task force's top-10 most-wanted list — a $100 million bank fraud case in Orange County involving falsified title insurance documents and altered digital metadata. For our Bright Spot, a new study out of the University of Maryland School of Medicine and published in the Annals of Family Medicine found that patients who received five minutes of intercessory prayer — including the laying on of hands — experienced significantly greater pain and anxiety reduction than those who listened to faith music or meditation, with benefits lasting up to six weeks. Remarkably, the results held regardless of whether the patient receiving prayer was a believer — what mattered was the faith of the person doing the praying. We connect it to the biblical example of the centurion asking Jesus to heal his servant, and note that researchers are now suggesting intercessory prayer become standard medical practice. And we close with Jimmy Kimmel mocking Spencer Pratt over losing his home in the LA wildfires by renting him a U-Haul — which we call exactly what it is, shameful — and the congressional baseball game, where Republicans beat Democrats 11-2, with Florida Rep. Greg Steube striking out five batters and Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt named MVP for a diving catch that left him bloodied. May your pursuit of happiness bring you joy. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bill Gates testifies behind closed doors in the House Epstein probe, telling lawmakers Jeffrey Epstein tried to use knowledge of his extramarital affairs to pressure him back into his orbit. A new inflation report shows consumer prices rising at the fastest annual pace in three years, as President Trump reveals a secret U.S. military effort to keep oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz. ActBlue's CEO invokes the Fifth Amendment and refuses to answer questions before Congress, as Republicans investigate whether the Democratic fundraising platform allowed illegal foreign donations to flow into U.S. elections. A Somali World Cup referee is denied entry into the United States after officials reportedly flagged possible terror-related concerns just days before the tournament begins.   Lean: Discover why LEAN is becoming the choice for real weight‑loss results—shop now at https://TAKELEAN.com use code MK.   Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Greg Kelly Reports | June 10, 2026 - The episode opens with breaking coverage of U.S. strikes on Iranian targets, framing the response as a limited but forceful move tied to Iran's aggression and to fast-moving negotiations that could still produce a near-term deal. - Graham Platner's Maine Senate campaign is portrayed as a political scandal in plain sight, with the show hammering his Nazi tattoo, questioning his military-based PTSD narrative, and arguing that Democrats have knowingly nominated an extremist fraud. - The show draws a direct contrast between Donald Trump's media accessibility and Joe Biden's controlled appearances, presenting Trump's long late-night exchanges with reporters as a sign of stamina, message discipline, and transparent leadership. - A major focus falls on the Southern Poverty Law Center and ActBlue, with the episode highlighting congressional scrutiny, Fifth Amendment invocations, and allegations that left-wing political infrastructure is built on deception, slander, and potentially improper funding streams. - The broader message ties together war, politics, and institutional trust, using Iran, Platner, NASA, Social Security, and the Epstein controversy to argue that Americans are being misled by elite narratives while real power struggles play out in plain view. The Greg Kelly Reports podcast is sponsored in part by : CROWN ATLANTIC - Don't put off getting Life Insurance another day. Go to ⁠⁠⁠http://LifeForLess.com⁠⁠⁠ for your free quote and more information today. Make the switch to NEWSMAX today! Get your 15 day free trial of NEWSMAX+ at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://NewsmaxPlus.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Tara Show: ActBlue's Mass Resignations and the 38 Million Smurfing Campaign Host Tara breaks down the latest explosive developments from the House Judiciary and Administration Committees regarding the Democratic fundraising giant, ActBlue. Reacting to the viral congressional hearing where ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment rights, Tara discusses the unraveling of a massive small-dollar "smurfing" scheme. She dives into allegations surrounding millions of unverified donations, the sudden mass resignation of ActBlue's entire internal legal and compliance team, and the potential infiltration of illicit foreign funds into American campaign coffers. > ActBlue investigation, Regina Wallace-Jones, Jim Jordan hearing, campaign finance fraud, illicit foreign donations, donor smurfing, political fundraising scandals, independent political commentary

In this comprehensive broadcast, host Tara exposes the hidden operational currents linking American economic survival with global and domestic battlegrounds. Tara breaks down a breaking announcement from President Donald Trump detailing plans to seize control of Iran's Kharg Island oil infrastructure. She lays out a controversial strategy: why the administration deliberately permitted the Strait of Hormuz to remain unstable to force European market dependencies away from a China-backed Middle East and into full-capacity US refineries. On the domestic and intelligence fronts, the program uncovers the massive, unravelling small-dollar "smurfing" scandal at Democratic fundraising hub ActBlue, where CEO Regina Wallace-Jones invoked the Fifth Amendment under intense congressional questioning regarding 38 million foreign-tied donations. Tara connects these financial channels to sweeping local issues, exposing a chilling House Oversight report on a $9 billion welfare fraud scheme in Tim Walz's Minnesota—where DHS officials allegedly used police-state surveillance tactics to stalk and terrorize local whistleblowers. Finally, she crosses the Atlantic to tear into UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's new, severe speech censorship policies in the wake of violent riots in Belfast. Tara warns that the UK's incoming digital ID mandates and device-level image scanning represent a dangerous blueprint for personal privacy that Western liberals are eager to import. > Kharg Island military operations, Strait of Hormuz oil crisis, ActBlue investigation, campaign finance fraud, Tim Walz fraud scandal, Minnesota whistleblower intimidation, Keir Starmer online safety act, digital surveillance state, 287g immigration enforcement, independent political analysis

Host Tara covers three major developments breaking across the national and local stages. First, she dives into the fallout from the House Judiciary Committee hearing where ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment rights over an alleged 38-million small-dollar foreign donation "smurfing" operation. Next, Tara analyzes a breaking Truth Social post from President Donald Trump explicitly stating that the US plans to strike Iran and assume total control of Kharg Island and its energy infrastructure, matching his strategy in Venezuela. Finally, she confronts South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster's inaction on illegal immigration following a tragic local vehicle accident that killed two young boys on the Asheville Highway. Tara contrasts South Carolina's approach with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis's aggressive expansion of 287(g) federal deputy powers, which has yielded over 25,000 arrests under Operation Tidal Wave. > ActBlue investigation, Regina Wallace-Jones, Trump Iran strategy, Kharg Island, South Carolina illegal immigration, Ron DeSantis 287g, Operation Tidal Wave, campaign finance fraud, independent political commentary

In this episode of John Solomon Reports, we dive into the latest developments surrounding the ActBlue investigation, which has gained traction in Congress, the Treasury Department, and the FBI after years of reporting. Host John Solomon sets the stage for an impactful discussion, starting with Senator Marsha Blackburn, who shares her strategies for advancing the Save America Act and discusses the pressing issue of term limits in Congress.Next, Congressman Andrew Clyde of Georgia joins to provide insights on the urgent FISA reform as the law approaches its expiration. Clyde addresses the political tension surrounding the potential renewal and the implications of President Trump's temporary pick to run the DNI.In the third segment, Dr. Peter McCullough, a trusted voice on health issues from The Wellness Company, returns to discuss the recent panic over Ebola and reassures listeners about its potential impact. He also touches on emerging studies regarding the use of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in cancer treatment, sparking interest in their possible therapeutic benefits.Additionally, John highlights significant news from the military front, including President Trump's ordered strikes on Iran in response to recent provocations, as well as a dramatic hearing where the CEO of ActBlue invoked her Fifth Amendment rights during questioning about foreign funding and possible deception before Congress.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hour 2 Segment 1 Tony starts the second hour of the show talking about the U.S. removing millions of barrels of Iranian oil. Hour 2 Segment 2 Tony talks about Karmelo Anthony found guilty of the murder of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years. Tony also talks about Jasmine Crockett’s response to the verdict. Hour 2 Segment 3 Tony gets into three more things: more on the U.S. removing millions of barrels of Iranian oil, a Sudanese migrant getting arrested after trying to behead someone in Ireland, more on Graham Platner winning the Maine primary election, and Nancy Mace not advancing in South Carolina’s governor race. Hour 2 Segment 4 Tony wraps up the second hour of the show talking about the ActBlue CEO invoking the Fifth Amendment multiple times during her testimony to Congress. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hour 1 Segment 1 Tony starts the first hour of the show talking about Graham Platner winning the Maine primary election. Tony later plays President Donald Trump speaking on signing the Republican immigration enforcement bill into law. Hour 1 Segment 2 Tony continues to play President Trump speaking on signing the Republican immigration enforcement bill into law. Hour 1 Segment 3 Tony talks about the U.S. launching new attacks on Iran after they struck down one of the Apache helicopters. Hour 1 Segment 4 Tony wraps up the first hour of the show talking about President Trump answering questions about Graham Platner and Susan Collins. Tony also talks about Vice President J.D. Vance referring Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Keith Ellison to the DOJ for fraud investigation. Hour 2 Segment 1 Tony starts the second hour of the show talking about the U.S. removing millions of barrels of Iranian oil. Hour 2 Segment 2 Tony talks about Karmelo Anthony found guilty of the murder of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years. Tony also talks about Jasmine Crockett’s response to the verdict. Hour 2 Segment 3 Tony gets into three more things: more on the U.S. removing millions of barrels of Iranian oil, a Sudanese migrant getting arrested after trying to behead someone in Ireland, more on Graham Platner winning the Maine primary election, and Nancy Mace not advancing in South Carolina’s governor race. Hour 2 Segment 4 Tony wraps up the second hour of the show talking about the ActBlue CEO invoking the Fifth Amendment multiple times during her testimony to Congress. Hour 3 Segment 1 Tony starts the final hour of the show joined with Dr. Matt Will, economist from the University of Indianapolis, to talk about the May 2026 CPI reports. Hour 3 Segment 2 Tony talks more about the screwworm infestation that’s taking over Texas cattle herds. Hour 3 Segment 3 Tony continues his conversation with Dr. Matt Will to talk about why the inflation numbers are not a cause for alarm, and how President Donald Trump can make it better. Hour 3 Segment 4 Tony wraps up another edition of the show talking more about Graham Platner winning the Maine primary election. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As an attorney, are there ever circumstances where you may counsel your clients to waive their Fifth Amendment rights? Rocky Dhir talks with experienced trial lawyers Rachael Jones and Jay Ethington to gain a deeper understanding of the Fifth Amendment, particularly as it pertains to client testimony. Drawing from their many years of trial experience in both prosecution and defense, Rachael and Jay explain the intricacies of a person's right to remain silent—avoiding self-incrimination either in trial, when speaking with law enforcement officers, or in a variety of other scenarios. Their conversation digs deep into the nuances of the Fifth Amendment to help lawyers best serve their clients, educate jurors, and be thoroughly prepared for the rigors of trial.  Become a member: State Bar of Texas Join us in Houston on June 11 & 12: 2026 State Bar of Texas Annual Meeting Read the latest edition of the Texas Bar Journal: texasbar.com/tbj 

DOCKET ALERTS:   War Powers Resolution fails in both Houses of Congress.   DHS is ramping up for an immigration surge in Maryland and has purchased an 825,000-square-foot warehouse in Hagerstown. The state is suing to block the facility on environmental grounds. In Baltimore, Judge Julie Rubin joins judges in New York and Los Angeles in holding that ICE is systematically violating the Fifth Amendment rights of immigrants in "temporary" detention by holding them for days on end without hygiene, medical care, or access to counsel.   Kalshi customers have filed a class action suit over the company's refusal to pay out on bets — oops, we mean CONTRACT SWAPS — that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would leave office as Supreme Leader of Iran before March 1.   Trump continues to defy the Constitution's requirement that he get Senate approval for principal officers. We discussed it in our post on Judge Lamberth holding that Kari Lake was never legally serving as head of the US Agency for Global Media, and thus her directives are null and void. And Judge Matthew Brann has ruled once again that Attorney General Pam Bondi can't evade senate confirmation for the US Attorney in New Jersey — no, not even if she spreads the appointment out among three lawyers, not just one.    And we'll talk about the Trump administration's humiliating U-turn as it tries to un-dismiss the appeal in the case of the executive orders targeting law firms, as well as Anthropic's complaint against the government. Turns out, defying Trump can be good for business!   Subscriber Bonus: The Trump administration just dismissed the antitrust suit against Live Nation mid-trial for, uh, reasons.    ICE awards $113 million to build out Hagerstown detention center https://www.thebanner.com/politics-power/national-politics/ice-hagerstown-detention-center-contract-AHIV2KEHQJAVFMWBYKO2YBWOCU/   Maryland v. Noem [ICE Warehouse] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72313096/state-of-maryland-v-noem/?order_by=desc   D.N.N. v. Liggins [ICE temporary holding facility in Baltimore] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70321567/dnn-v-liggins/   Risch v. Kalshi https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72371954/risch-v-kalshiex-llc/   Judge Rules That Kari Lake Is Still A Loser [Law and Chaos] https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/judge-rules-that-kari-lake-is-still   US v. Naviwala [US Attorney New Jersey] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68269162/united-states-v-naviwala   Susman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President (DC Cir. Appeal) [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71202175/susman-godfrey-llp-v-executive-office-of-the-president/   Anthropic v. US Dep't of War, [docket via CourtListener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465515/   Business Insider, "Claude Hits Number One In The App Store" https://www.businessinsider.com/anthropic-claude-hits-number-one-app-store-openai-chatgpt-2026-2   US v. LiveNation Entertainment (Ticketmaster antitrust lawsuit) [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68557723/united-states-of-america-v-live-nation-entertainment-inc/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

The New York Times‘ obituary (5/18/26) for former LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman quotes him saying that “policemen never get the benefit of the doubt.” The racism of Mark Fuhrman, the Los Angeles police detective whose involvement in the O.J. Simpson murder investigation helped sink the prosecution's case, was so well-known comedian Dana Carvey once mocked him with a Nazi salute, calling him “Mark the Fuhrer-man.” Fuhrman's death this month (New York Times, 5/18/26) took middle-aged and older Americans back to 1995, when the televised trial of Simpson, accused of murdering his ex-wife and her friend, dominated media for much of the year. During the trial, audio recordings and witness testimony revealed Fuhrman's use of the n-word and other racist views, sinking his credibility as the cop responsible for recovering the “bloody glove,” the key piece of evidence tying Simpson to the killings. Because he had previously testified that he never used the word, it opened an opportunity for the defense to suggest he wasn't honest about other things—and had a motivation to frame a Black celebrity. Unrelenting racism In July 2017, CNN‘s Kyra Phillips played new excerpts from the Fuhrman tapes. The tapes portrayed hours of unrelenting racism. “All these n*****s in L.A. city government…all of them should be lined up against a wall and fucking shot,” he said. And often sexism as well: “What if I’ve just been raped by two buck n*****s, and a female shows up?” During the trial, witness Kathleen Bell testified that Fuhrman had said, “If I had my way, all the n*****s would be gathered together and burned.” Bell told the court, “When he sees a Black man with a white woman driving in a car, he pulls them over,” with no traffic violation needed (Washington Post, 9/5/95). Fuhrman became the national representation of the American racist cop. He invoked the Fifth Amendment when questioned about his handling of evidence (LA Times, 9/7/95), offering the shadow of a doubt the jury needed to acquit the former football and movie star. In his fiery closing argument, defense attorney Johnnie Cochran characterized Fuhrman as “this perjurer, this racist, this genocidal racist.” Fuhrman pleaded no contest to a perjury charge a year later (CNN, 10/2/96). But there was something bigger about Fuhrman, and it's something we can deeply feel in the media environment today. ‘Unwitting catalyst’ Mark Fuhrman interviewed in ESPN‘s OJ: Made in America (2016). The legal “dream team” Simpson assembled certainly focused on pushing the jury for an acquittal—that's a defense lawyer's job. But as outlined in both the dramatized The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story on FX and ESPN's OJ: Made in America, defense lead Cochran also built a larger case for a larger audience. (Side note: FAIR's Janine Jackson briefly appears in the ESPN documentary in a segment about media coverage of the trial.) Nicole Brown Simpson was killed at her Los Angeles home, along with Ron Goldman, on June 12, 1994, just two years after the city was engulfed in racial rioting as a result of an acquittal of police officers who had been videotaped brutally beating a Black man, Rodney King. For much of America, the rioting was a dividing moment. Civil rights activists saw it as the explosion of a powder keg under pressure of decades of tension between LA's Black community and the cops. A great deal of white America saw the rioting as an inexplicable overreaction. Press voices had their doubts too. Newsweek (5/10/92) called the looting “a manic fiesta, a TV game show with every looter a winner.” Cochran set out to change the narrative, to demonstrate to the white public that Black Los Angeles has systemically suffered from racist policing. Ben Ehrenreich (Guardian, 4/22/20): “The thousands of African Americans who migrated to Los Angeles from the Jim Crow south had found similar cruel realities awaiting them.” In Set the Night on Fire, Mike Davis and Jon Weiner outline the ongoing war against the Black community by LA cops in the 1960s, erupting in the 1965 Watts riots. From the Guardian‘s review (4/22/20): LA's police make dramatic appearances in almost every chapter, clubbing peaceful protesters, brutalizing activists and killing so many Black men, and with such absolute impunity, that Davis and Wiener's claim that “the Manson gang were bit players compared to the forces of law and order” ends up feeling more than fair. In the authors' telling, the wanton violence of the police acted as a consistent if unwitting catalyst to historical change: It was the chaos that followed a ferocious LAPD assault on anti-war protesters that added to Lyndon Johnson's decision not to run for re-election in 1968, and the LAPD's murder of a Black Muslim named Ronald Stokes—seven other Muslims were shot in the same incident—that pushed Malcolm X towards a broader vision of Black liberation. The shared experience of LAPD violence, Davis and Wiener write, forged a “common culture of resistance” among Black and Chicano youth, white hipsters and anti-war activists, and the city's gay community. This situation hardly improved with the economic turmoil of the 1970s, or the reactionary retreat of the 1980s. For many Black Angelenos, the 1992 riots weren't about one videotape, but about this entire history. Cochran had an opportunity to reveal the situation in the early ’90s to America. And with Fuhrman, who was called by the prosecution to bring the bloody glove into evidence, Cochran was able to show a feverishly racist man at the center of this investigation. ‘Kill somebody and go have some chicken’ Sean Hannity (Hannity, 1/10/23) interviewing Pam Bondi (then a former Florida attorney general) and Mark Fuhrman. In the end, Simpson was acquitted, and Fuhrman became a symbol of a divided America. It’s quite telling that the disgraced cop later found a landing place on Fox News. The Murdoch media empire created the news network the year after the Simpson trial as the antithesis to what it claimed was a liberal slant in corporate television news. Bringing on Fuhrman as a recurring guest—and, later, giving him his own show on Fox Nation—didn’t just promote his own public rehabilitation, it foretold a shift in “acceptable” discourse on right-wing TV. Fox‘s Greta van Susteren (5/19/05) defended having him on as a frequent guest: Mark happens to be a very, very, very smart detective—one of the best I have ever worked with and I have worked with many. He really thinks about the investigations we book him on the show to discuss. But Fox was attracted to Fuhrman not by his smarts, but by his hate. The racism that spilled out in the Simpson trial—Fuhrman's animosity toward the people who he was sworn to protect and serve—catered directly to the Fox audience. Another Fox star that routinely showcased Fuhrman was Sean Hannity (Extra!, 9/13). On Hannity & Colmes (11/16/06; cited by Media Matters, 11/20/06), Fuhrman asserted that the the type of “people” he “dealt with … for 20 years” will kill somebody and go have some chicken at KFC. You will catch them eating chicken and drinking a beer after they just murdered three people. He added that “these people are out there. They’re all over the place.” In another appearance, Hannity (Hannity, 7/16/13) brought the ex-cop on to speculate on whether Black people would riot if George Zimmerman were found not guilty of murdering an unarmed Trayvon Martin in Florida. “Mark, it seems to me like it's going to be a dangerous scenario for the cities where this is going to occur,” said Hannity. Fuhrman replied, “I think you're right, Sean,” and proceeded to fantasize about protesters “assaulting people, assaulting officers, so when you cross that line, it's pretty obvious, and, you know, this is completely drawn on racial lines now.” ‘They just take more and more’ “You can always find something that doesn’t look like justice was served one way or another,” Mark Fuhrman tells Megyn Kelly (and right-wing novelist Brad Thor) on Fox‘s Kelly File (7/8/16). Fuhrman had nothing but contempt for the Black Lives Matter movement erupting in Ferguson, Missouri. He told Fox News' Megyn Kelly (8/10/15): Stopping traffic is not a lawful demonstration. Stopping pedestrians is not a lawful demonstration.  Stopping regular traffic on sidewalks in front of buildings. That is not lawful demonstrations. And they should enforce it. And you know, when you allow some kind of, you know, leeway, they just take more and more. And now we have people that are not on the city council and they’re not on the police department, no matter how represented the Black community is. They are not there. You’re dealing with gang members and street drug dealers that are just hanging out. They’re armed and they’re taking advantage of a hesitant police department. How did Fuhrman respond to a video of “a white school police officer in a Columbia [South Carolina] classroom grabbing an African-American student by the neck, flipping her backward as she sat at her desk, then dragging and throwing her across the floor” (New York Times, 10/26/15)? He made the officer a saint on Fox. Media Matters (10/27/15) quoted Fuhrman: He requested her. He verbally did that. The next level is he put a hand on her. She escalated it from there. He used soft control. He threw her on the ground, he handcuffed her. He didn’t use mace. He didn’t use a Taser. He didn’t use a stick. He didn’t kick her. He didn’t hit her. He didn’t choke her. He used a minimal amount of force necessary to effect an arrest. In 2019, he attacked Democratic presidential hopefuls for their police reform rhetoric on the Ingraham Angle (8/2/19), saying those politicians were looking to win “that 18-to-25-year-old base that is involved in all these movements—these anti-government, anti-establishment, anti-republic, anti-Trump” movements. He eventually was given his own show on Fox News spinoff Fox Nation, the Fuhrman Diaries, which ran from 2018 to 2022. (Fox promoted him as “America's most controversial detective”—LA Times, 11/29/18.) ‘Total reputational annihilation’ Just because someone lied under oath about using racial slurs dozens of times doesn’t mean they should be canceled (Wall Street Journal, 5/20/26)—and by “canceled,” we mean given their own TV show. People can and do change over time. Fuhrman gave a somewhat nuanced view on Fox News (Ingraham Angle, 5/29/20) about the police killing of George Floyd, which resulted in widespread political unrest. He called Floyd's killing “a slow-motion homicide,” and said the video footage was “a slow and really painful thing to watch of somebody grinding somebody’s face into the pavement until they’re dead.” At the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal, columnist Matthew Hennessey (5/20/26) christened Fuhrman a victim of cancel culture, admitting that he was a “bad cop,” but that he was among the first to suffer the total reputational annihilation that has become a hallmark of life in the digital era, where everything you say—or have ever said—will one day be used against you in the court of public opinion. It’s a strange sort of “reputational annihilation” that gets you regularly showcased on a national cable TV network, and then gives you your own show. Fuhrman’s afterlife as a commentator foretold a media conservatism that flips the narrative about racist policing on its head, where prejudice becomes a sign of expertise. It’s a legacy we live with today in MAGA America, even with Fuhrman having departed this world. Research assistance: Priyanka Bansal

Welcome to your weekly UAS News Update. We have three stories for you this week; Autel fights back against the FCC's Covered List, the Michigan House passes two drone procurement bills while stalling on airspace restrictions, a drones-for-good story where a thermal drone saves a life in freezing temperatures. Let's get to it.And first up this week, Autel Robotics has filed a reply with the FCC, arguing that their addition to the Covered List is based on secret evidence and allegations that were actually aimed at DJI. Autel claims they were never given a chance to see the classified material used against them, which they argue violates their Fifth Amendment right to due process. What's really interesting here is that Autel is finally putting their technical operations on the public record. They stated under oath that their flight data is stored locally by default and isn't automatically uploaded to company servers. They also specified that their drone communications and stored data use AES-128 or AES-256 encryption, and that no third party has access to their software. We'll be watching this closely. Next up, let's talk about some state-level regulations. The Michigan House just passed two out of the 15 bills in the SHIELD Michigan drone package. House Bills 5329 and 5331 both focus on procurement. They basically stop state agencies from using state funds to buy drones from companies on federal concern lists, like the DOD's 1260H list. But here's the real story for you as a Part 107 or recreational pilot. The other 13 bills didn't pass. Those were the bills that had us really worried about federal preemption. They included things like criminal penalties for flying over critical infrastructure, giving local police the authority to shoot down or disable drones, and even a mandatory state-run geofencing app. Seeing those 13 bills stall in the House is a huge win for our drone industry. And there's still time to fight the other two, as the bills now go to the Senate for consideration. If you're in Michigan, make your voice heard by reaching out to your State Senator! Last up, the Corman Park Police Service in Saskatchewan, Canada, used their DJI Mavic 3 Enterprise to save a man's life in brutal conditions. Officers were looking for an intoxicated man in minus 20 degree Celsius or minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit weather. The officers deployed their Mavic 3T and were able to pick up the man's heat signature inside a roadside dumpster. Officers were able to get to him before hypothermia set in. Great job to Corman Park Police Service!Join us later for Post Flight in the community, and for the Live Q&A! We'll see you then!https://dronexl.co/2026/05/19/autel-fcc-reply-covered-list-secret-evidence-dji/https://dronexl.co/2026/05/21/dji-mavic-3-enterprise-man-dumpster-20/https://dronexl.co/2026/05/14/michigan-house-passes-2-of-15-shield-drone-bills/

The show opens with breaking coverage of a California church and daycare attack involving two teenage suspects, stolen firearms, and extremist markings, with early reports suggesting an armed civilian or security response may have prevented further casualties. That leads into a broader discussion of rising concerns about youth radicalization, violent crime trends, and how major incidents are framed and reported in real time. Attention then shifts to Missouri politics, where election officials face scrutiny over potential resistance to implementing a newly approved 7–1 congressional map, raising questions about compliance with state law and possible legal consequences for defiance of Supreme Court-backed redistricting. Public safety becomes a recurring theme as the show examines a late-night shooting near Keener Plaza in downtown St. Louis involving teenagers, highlighting concerns about curfew enforcement, staffing shortages in city policing, and whether outside assistance may increasingly be required to stabilize urban crime conditions. FBI Deputy Director Andrew Bailey joins the program to outline the administration's crime strategy, emphasizing reductions in violent crime, expanded gang and fentanyl enforcement, and internal FBI restructuring that shifts personnel toward field operations. He also discusses coordination with local and federal partners, preparations for major security events like World Cup matches in U.S. host cities including Kansas City, and broader efforts to modernize federal law enforcement response capabilities. The conversation then turns to national political scrutiny surrounding ActBlue, with reports of upcoming congressional testimony from its leadership amid allegations of foreign donation vetting failures and prior Fifth Amendment invocations by staff, intensifying concerns about transparency in campaign finance and potential foreign influence in U.S. elections. The show also briefly touches on federal appointments and confirmations tied to Missouri, including law enforcement and diplomatic roles, before closing with ongoing concerns about crime, political accountability, and institutional trust across multiple levels of government. Hashtags: #SanDiego #Crime #FBI #AndrewBailey #StLouis #KeenerPlaza #ActBlue #MissouriPolitics #ElectionIntegrity #PublicSafety #LawEnforcement #CampaignFinance #WorldCupSecurity

The segment opens with new reporting that one of the San Diego shooting suspects, identified as Kane Clark, had previously been removed from school for alleged hate speech and was completing classes online, raising new questions about warning signs and institutional awareness prior to the attack. The conversation then shifts into an in-depth interview with Ryan Wiggins, who joins while dealing with serious health challenges related to cystic fibrosis and indicates he may be heading to the hospital for a planned “tune-up” treatment involving intensive IV care. The discussion expands into broader reflections on medical outcomes tied to the opioid epidemic, including observations about changes in lung transplant wait times and shifting overdose death trends in recent years. The tone then turns toward political accountability as Wiggins and the host discuss ActBlue, focusing on upcoming congressional testimony from its CEO, allegations of misleading statements regarding foreign donation vetting, and prior Fifth Amendment invocations by staff, with concerns raised about foreign influence in U.S. elections and potential legal consequences as investigations continue. Hashtags: #RyanWiggins #CysticFibrosis #HealthUpdate #ActBlue #Congress #CampaignFinance #SanDiegoShooting #CrimeNews #OpioidCrisis #ElectionIntegrity

Hour 4 opens with a discussion of violent crime trends in Washington, D.C., framed as improving overall due to stronger federal enforcement and National Guard support, despite isolated recent shootings. That leads into concern over public safety in St. Louis following a late-night shooting at Keener Plaza involving teenagers, raising questions about curfew enforcement, downtown security, and ongoing police staffing shortages. The conversation then shifts to political accountability and campaign finance scrutiny, highlighting upcoming congressional testimony from ActBlue's CEO amid allegations of foreign donation vetting failures and prior Fifth Amendment invocations by staff, intensifying concerns over transparency in political fundraising and potential foreign influence. The hour also briefly touches on developing details from the San Diego Islamic Center attack, including multiple fatalities, teen suspects with extremist markings on weapons, and emerging but unconfirmed reports that an armed civilian may have helped stop further violence. The segment wraps with a lighter closing shift into local political updates, including confirmations for Missouri-linked federal appointments. Hashtags: #Crime #StLouis #WashingtonDC #ActBlue #Congress #CampaignFinance #SanDiego #PublicSafety #BreakingNews #LawEnforcement

This Day in Legal History: Frontiero v. RichardsonOn May 14, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Frontiero v. Richardson, a major case in the development of constitutional protections against sex discrimination. The case began when Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought dependent benefits for her husband. Under federal law at the time, a male service member could automatically claim his wife as a dependent, but a female service member had to prove that her husband depended on her for more than half of his support. Frontiero argued that this rule treated women in the military as less legitimate breadwinners than men. The Supreme Court agreed that the policy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A plurality of the Court reasoned that sex-based legal classifications often reflected outdated assumptions about women's roles in family and public life.The decision came only a year after Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification, giving the case a larger political and constitutional backdrop. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then working with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, filed an amicus brief urging the Court to treat sex discrimination with the same suspicion it applied to race discrimination. The Court did not produce a majority for strict scrutiny in sex-discrimination cases, but Frontiero still marked a sharp move away from judicial tolerance of laws based on gender stereotypes. Justice William Brennan's plurality opinion emphasized that women had long faced legal and social discrimination, including restrictions on property ownership, voting, employment, and civic participation.The ruling helped establish that administrative convenience was not a sufficient reason for the government to impose unequal burdens on women. It also signaled that servicewomen were entitled to equal treatment within institutions, including the military, that had historically been structured around male service members. In later cases, the Court would settle on an intermediate scrutiny standard for sex-based classifications, but Frontiero remains one of the key cases that pushed constitutional law in that direction.The U.S. Department of Justice has settled an investigation into PayPal over a 2020 investment program aimed at supporting Black- and minority-owned businesses. The DOJ said PayPal's Economic Opportunity Fund gave preferences based on race, color, and national origin without being tied to a specific remedy for past discrimination. PayPal did not admit liability, and the settlement says the DOJ did not make a formal finding that the company violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or other federal law. As part of the agreement, PayPal will create a new small business initiative that waives processing fees on $1 billion in transactions.The fee waivers are valued at about $30 million and will apply to small businesses in farming, manufacturing, and technology, as well as businesses certified through the SBA's Veteran Small Business Certification Program. PayPal must also submit plans for the initiative, train employees on ECOA requirements, and report annually to the government. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the settlement as part of the Trump administration's broader effort to challenge corporate DEI programs. PayPal said it was pleased to launch the new initiative and emphasized its long history of helping small businesses use digital financial tools. The settlement follows another recent DOJ resolution with IBM over workforce diversity-related allegations, showing continued federal scrutiny of corporate DEI practices.PayPal Settles Gov't DEI Probe With Small Biz Program - Law360The SEC and Elon Musk are scheduled to appear before a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to defend their proposed $1.5 million settlement over Musk's 2022 purchase of Twitter. The SEC's lawsuit accused Musk of delaying his disclosure that he had acquired a 5% stake in Twitter, allegedly allowing him to save about $150 million before the market reacted. Musk later bought Twitter for $44 billion.U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan has not automatically approved the deal and said she must evaluate whether it is fair, in the public interest, and free from improper collusion or corruption. She ordered both sides to appear in court and be ready to suggest a schedule for briefing in support of the settlement. The SEC filed the case in January 2025, shortly before President Biden left office. Musk has argued the case was politically motivated and has said the late disclosure was accidental.The proposed settlement would not require Musk to admit wrongdoing or surrender the money the SEC claimed he saved. Although the amount is much lower than what the SEC initially sought, a source told Reuters it was still the largest SEC penalty for that type of disclosure violation.US SEC, Musk to argue for Twitter settlement before DC judge | ReutersU.S. law firms saw strong client demand and higher billing rates in the first quarter of 2026, but those gains were limited by rising expenses and lower productivity. According to the Thomson Reuters Institute's latest Law Firm Financial Index, the quarter was healthy overall but not as financially impressive as firms might have expected given the level of demand. The report suggests that 2026 may not match the strong profit growth many firms saw in 2025, though analysts said it is still too early to draw firm conclusions. Average demand rose 2.7% from the same period last year, which the report described as an unusually strong increase. M&A work grew 4.4%, while litigation and overall corporate work each rose 2.9%. Large firms continued to push billing rates sharply higher, with Am Law 100 firms raising rates by 9.8%, while midsized firms increased rates by 5.3%. But expenses climbed almost as quickly, with direct expenses up 8.1% and overhead up 8.3%. A major driver of overhead growth was spending on technology, including artificial intelligence tools.Geopolitical instability, including the war in Iran, has also created uncertainty, with deal activity slowing in March and restructuring work not rising as expected. The report frames the market as still strong, but with enough warning signs that firms may need to watch costs, productivity, and client demand closely in the next quarter.Rising US law firm expenses offset strong demand and rate hikes in first quarter - report | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has temporarily paused a lower court ruling that had favored three challengers to the Trump administration's 10% global tariff. The pause means the tariffs remain in effect for two businesses and Washington state while the appeal continues. The U.S. trade court had ruled against the tariffs last week but did not issue a broad order stopping their collection nationwide. The Trump administration appealed that decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a short-term administrative stay while it considers whether to grant a longer pause. The challengers now have seven days to argue against keeping the lower court ruling on hold. Washington state qualified as an importer in the case because the University of Washington, a public research institution, paid tariffs. The tariff was imposed in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, after the Supreme Court struck down most of Trump's 2025 tariffs. Unless Congress extends it, the 10% global tariff is scheduled to expire in July.US appeals court pauses ruling against Trump's 10% global tariff | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20‑year sentence for sex‑trafficking convictions, signaled willingness to testify before Congress—but only on a strict set of terms. In a letter to House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer, her attorney David Markus spelled out that Maxwell would require formal immunity from prosecution, advance access to all deposition questions, a venue outside of prison, and a delay in testimony until after her appeal, including a potential Supreme Court review, is resolved. Markus even floated the possibility of presidential clemency, stating that under such conditions, Maxwell would be “willing—and eager—to testify openly and honestly, in public, before Congress.” Otherwise, she plans to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to answer questionsHowever, the Oversight Committee promptly rejected her request to be granted immunity. In a response to Maxwell's letter, the committee reaffirmed that it will not consider offering congressional immunity as a precondition for her testimony and has declined to accommodate her other stipulated conditions. With Maxwell's cooperation effectively hinging on assurances that lawmakers have refused to entertain, the invitation to testify remains in a legal and political stalemate.Also:President Trump stated that he severed ties with Jeffrey Epstein after discovering that Epstein had repeatedly “stolen” young women who worked at the spa in Trump's Mar‑a‑Lago resort—referring specifically to employees being “taken out of the spa, hired by him.” Trump said this betrayal prompted him to ban Epstein from the club, and when asked about Virginia Giuffre—one of Epstein's most well-known accusers—he replied that he believed she worked at the spa and was among those “stolen,” despite having “no complaints” about Mar‑a‑Lago herself.     to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell wants immunity or a pardon before congressional deposition - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The segment opens with critical commentary on political rhetoric involving calls for “revolution,” contrasted with warnings about violent language and extremist symbolism in modern politics. The discussion then shifts to an interview with Luis Valdes of Gun Owners of America, who frames the Second Amendment as essential to preventing authoritarian control and compares disarmament efforts to historical regimes in Cuba, Nazi Germany, and communist states. Valdez describes his family's personal experience with Cuba's communist government, including political repression and forced separation, using it as a foundation for his argument that armed citizens are necessary to preserve liberty. The conversation broadens into a philosophical defense of the Second Amendment as interconnected with First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, warning that erosion of one constitutional protection enables broader government overreach. The segment closes with promotion of an upcoming Gun Owners of America leadership summit in Iowa focused on advocacy and constitutional rights. Hashtags: #SecondAmendment #GunRights #GunOwnersOfAmerica #LuisValdez #Constitution #Liberty #PoliticalDebate #Cuba #MorningShow #2ATuesday

Hour 3 opens in Studio C with production updates and platform housekeeping, then quickly pivots into political and cultural firestorms, starting with previewed guests including U.S. Sen. Eric Schmidt and discussion of his recent golf outing with Bryson DeChambeau, alongside broader political analysis of Iran tensions, Middle East strategy debates, and commentary tied to figures like John Fetterman and competing tax policies between Missouri and Illinois, including detailed breakdowns of fuel tax burdens. The hour shifts into a high-energy interview with Todd Piro, who joins while battling a chest cold and reacts to national crime incidents, judicial leniency concerns, and political friction surrounding Trump-related controversies, reflecting broader frustration with the justice system and political polarization. Next, Luis Valdes of Gun Owners of America delivers a strong Second Amendment defense, arguing against disarmament, comparing global authoritarian regimes, and emphasizing constitutional rights across the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments while promoting upcoming advocacy events in Iowa. The hour closes with “Kim on a Whim,” focused on new guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics urging restored daily recess in schools, sparking a broader discussion on student discipline, classroom behavior, and whether removing recess is harming child development more than it helps academic performance. Hashtags: #Iran #GasTax #PoliticalDebate #ToddPiro #GunRights #GOA #LuisValdes #SecondAmendment #EricSchmidt #Fetterman #EducationPolicy #Recess #AmericanAcademyOfPediatrics #SchoolDiscipline #StLouisTalk

Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20‑year sentence for sex‑trafficking convictions, signaled willingness to testify before Congress—but only on a strict set of terms. In a letter to House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer, her attorney David Markus spelled out that Maxwell would require formal immunity from prosecution, advance access to all deposition questions, a venue outside of prison, and a delay in testimony until after her appeal, including a potential Supreme Court review, is resolved. Markus even floated the possibility of presidential clemency, stating that under such conditions, Maxwell would be “willing—and eager—to testify openly and honestly, in public, before Congress.” Otherwise, she plans to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to answer questionsHowever, the Oversight Committee promptly rejected her request to be granted immunity. In a response to Maxwell's letter, the committee reaffirmed that it will not consider offering congressional immunity as a precondition for her testimony and has declined to accommodate her other stipulated conditions. With Maxwell's cooperation effectively hinging on assurances that lawmakers have refused to entertain, the invitation to testify remains in a legal and political stalemate.Also:President Trump stated that he severed ties with Jeffrey Epstein after discovering that Epstein had repeatedly “stolen” young women who worked at the spa in Trump's Mar‑a‑Lago resort—referring specifically to employees being “taken out of the spa, hired by him.” Trump said this betrayal prompted him to ban Epstein from the club, and when asked about Virginia Giuffre—one of Epstein's most well-known accusers—he replied that he believed she worked at the spa and was among those “stolen,” despite having “no complaints” about Mar‑a‑Lago herself.     to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell wants immunity or a pardon before congressional deposition - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Reports surrounding the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein have revealed a quiet but deeply controversial dynamic behind the scenes: some Republican members have been internally discussing the possibility of a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell as a way to secure her cooperation. According to statements from committee leadership and lawmakers, the idea has been floated as a potential “deal” to get Maxwell to testify more fully about Epstein's network, especially after she invoked the Fifth Amendment during her deposition. The committee itself is reportedly split, with some members open to the concept while others strongly oppose it, highlighting a fractured approach to how far they're willing to go to extract information.What makes the situation more notable is that, despite these internal discussions, almost no one on the Republican side has publicly taken ownership of the idea. Key figures have either declined to name who supports a pardon or avoided making definitive public statements altogether, creating a gap between private consideration and public accountability. Even as the possibility of clemency has sparked outrage from Democrats and victims' advocates, the silence from many GOP members has allowed the idea to linger without clear endorsement or rejection, reinforcing the perception that the strategy is being explored cautiously behind closed doors rather than openly defended.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Republicans appear split on idea of clemency for Ghislaine Maxwell | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

Reports surrounding the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein have revealed a quiet but deeply controversial dynamic behind the scenes: some Republican members have been internally discussing the possibility of a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell as a way to secure her cooperation. According to statements from committee leadership and lawmakers, the idea has been floated as a potential “deal” to get Maxwell to testify more fully about Epstein's network, especially after she invoked the Fifth Amendment during her deposition. The committee itself is reportedly split, with some members open to the concept while others strongly oppose it, highlighting a fractured approach to how far they're willing to go to extract information.What makes the situation more notable is that, despite these internal discussions, almost no one on the Republican side has publicly taken ownership of the idea. Key figures have either declined to name who supports a pardon or avoided making definitive public statements altogether, creating a gap between private consideration and public accountability. Even as the possibility of clemency has sparked outrage from Democrats and victims' advocates, the silence from many GOP members has allowed the idea to linger without clear endorsement or rejection, reinforcing the perception that the strategy is being explored cautiously behind closed doors rather than openly defended.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Republicans appear split on idea of clemency for Ghislaine Maxwell | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Reports surrounding the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein have revealed a quiet but deeply controversial dynamic behind the scenes: some Republican members have been internally discussing the possibility of a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell as a way to secure her cooperation. According to statements from committee leadership and lawmakers, the idea has been floated as a potential “deal” to get Maxwell to testify more fully about Epstein's network, especially after she invoked the Fifth Amendment during her deposition. The committee itself is reportedly split, with some members open to the concept while others strongly oppose it, highlighting a fractured approach to how far they're willing to go to extract information.What makes the situation more notable is that, despite these internal discussions, almost no one on the Republican side has publicly taken ownership of the idea. Key figures have either declined to name who supports a pardon or avoided making definitive public statements altogether, creating a gap between private consideration and public accountability. Even as the possibility of clemency has sparked outrage from Democrats and victims' advocates, the silence from many GOP members has allowed the idea to linger without clear endorsement or rejection, reinforcing the perception that the strategy is being explored cautiously behind closed doors rather than openly defended.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Republicans appear split on idea of clemency for Ghislaine Maxwell | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Send us Fan MailCannabis lawyer Tom Howard explains that a new Justice Department final rule moving medical marijuana to Schedule III did not legalize marijuana broadly but created a DEA registration portal that could make state-licensed medical dispensaries more federally compliant than ever, while leaving adult-use sales tied to Schedule I enforcement risks. He outlines the DEA portal structure, $794 per-application fee, and key requirements, including drug codes, listing state licenses, suppliers, and all employees with access to controlled substances. Howard highlights a major liability question that effectively forces operators to disclose prior controlled-substance activity without DEA registration, raising Fifth Amendment and “trap” concerns, and notes the application window closes June 26 with expedited review within six months. He anticipates legal challenges alleging arbitrariness, ultra vires action, and post-Chevron limits, while urging operators to weigh filing now versus waiting.00:00 Hook: DEA portal opportunity or trap00:50 What the final rule changed01:20 Schedule III contradiction02:48 What operators need to know03:47 DEA registration process04:12 Application fee and warning06:02 Sponsor: Collateral Base08:33 Liability questions09:06 Fifth Amendment concern09:53 What happens next12:06 Closing CTASupport the showGet our newsletter: https://bit.ly/3VEn9vu

Episode 288-Elections Have Consequences-Sometimes Good Ones  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 18 Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 288 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun laws, ATF, DOJ, President Trump, Second Amendment, interstate firearm transport, FOPA, administrative code, private sales, bump stocks, youth handgun safety, NFA items, Miranda rights, Fish and Game, hunting violations. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2, Louis Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And also with us today is Louis Nappen. So, we have a very special show, and it’s going to be very interesting in terms of things that you need to know to protect yourself. And some very, very exciting news here out of the ATF, the DOJ, and of course, this is due to President Trump. President Trump, as you may recall, ordered a full review of gun laws. Things that could be done to improve and change the laws, and this includes what are known as final rules and proposed rules. The rules are the Administrative Code. Evan Nappen 01:10 Under federal law, you have statutes that are passed by Congress and signed into law, and then you have what is the federal code. The code is done by administration. Those are the various agencies that propose rules that can and do, in fact, have the force of law, and they are used to interpret the law. These agency rules are very important in how courts and prosecutors will be guided, and the rules are extremely, can be extremely, helpful for individuals that face legal issues in being able to defend themselves. Now, of course, the Biden administration abused these, this rulemaking authority to create anti-Second Amendment gun rights oppression. Rules that he couldn’t get passed legislatively. Well, President Trump, through the DOJ and ATF, has put an amazing package together of 34 new and proposed rules, and I want to talk about a number of them and highlight ones that are particularly important. Evan Nappen 02:43 So, President Trump, remember, signed that Executive Order. It was EO 14206, protecting Second Amendment rights. (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/12/2025-02636/protecting-second-amendment-rights) Now, this review went on for a year, and now we see the fruits of this very Page – 2 – of 18 intensive review. One of the key things that is going to be of major effect to just uncountable numbers of gun owners is the easing of interstate firearm transport. There will be no more “gun free zone” nightmares. That is something he set out to do. I’ve looked at many, many sources, and many different articles, primary sources, and I just want to say that I found a great, great article here called “DOJ and ATF Release Landmark 34-Rule Package Bolstering 2A Rights” by GunStuff TV Reporter. (https://gunstuff.tv/doj-and-atf-release-landmark-34-rule-package-bolstering-2a-rights-easier-interstate-transport-ffl-sales-and-nfa-processes/) Evan Nappen 03:48 I found that this article did an excellent job. I just want to point out that, as this article states, the actual rule itself hasn’t been published, but information has gotten out. Get a load of what the new FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act), the new firearm interstate transport protections that are going to come. It’s going to absolutely make it explicit that FOPA, meaning the Firearm Owners Protection Act, protections for unloaded, locked firearms in vehicles, even with states with draconian assault weapon bans. Hint, hint. Like New Jersey, the DPRNJ, Democratic People’s Republic of New Jersey and other states. A new safe passage presumption for hunters, sport shooters, and travelers with valid permits from their home state. So, this is now laying groundwork here for administrative recognition of carry permits. A continuing step forward, honestly, for gaining full national reciprocity. This is a great step in that direction. Evan Nappen 05:10 Also, streamlining documentation requirements. No more notary-stamped affidavits just to prove you’re not a criminal. Again, with recognition of these documents laying more groundwork for national reciprocity. Enforcing, expanding and clarifying the FOPA for interstate transport. Let me tell you, folks. It’s something that we deal with all the time in the practice. We have folks coming through New Jersey who are getting arrested, getting charged, and we have to fight and assert Title 18-926a. With these Administrative Code changes, just on that alone, it’ll be of tremendous help. There are many other things in this bill. Let me give you some highlights. Not bill, in this Administrative Code. Here are some great highlights. They were going to remove the pistol stabilizing brace, full rescission of that so-called factoring criteria rule, where they turned millions of brace pistols into unregistered SBRs. Even though courts have already put injunctions on it, this rule will make it crystal clear as a Federal Code regulation. Teddy Nappen 06:28 Now the ATF won’t be trying to break down your door for them. Evan Nappen 06:31 Right! And then the “engaged in business” definition, this was a really evil thing that Biden and company did, where they expanded what “engaged in business” meant. So that if you just happen to sell a gun in a lawful private sale, they would claim that you are a dealer. They were trying to just destroy any private sales. Now, of course, in New Jersey, private sales are prohibited by state law, but in real America, they are not. This federal attempt to turn every private seller into a dealer is being removed and taken away so that the statutory standard returns to the standard from the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act deal. There’s also going to be, in machine guns, removal of bump stock Page – 3 – of 18 language to comply with Cargill, the Supreme Court case of Garland v. Cargill. They’re going to remove that language, get rid of it. So that it’s crystal clear about bump stocks, but New Jersey has their state ban. But still again, it’s great news. Evan Nappen 07:49 Federally, they’re ending the ridiculous Youth Handgun Safety Act notices. You don’t have to, you won’t have to have those signs everywhere and giving out pamphlets. That’s always the first thing everybody throws away, right? Just think of how many trees are going to saved by getting rid of that. So, that’s part of it. They’re modernizing paperwork, folks. It’s really amazing. They’re going to do a comprehensive overhaul of the 4473. That’s the paper that you sign federally. And they’re going to make it so that when you have a NICS check, it’s valid for even a longer period of time. They’re going to incorporate electronic forms in the way you can do NFA now electronically, and that’ll be way faster auto population. You’ll be able to go online, auto populate, have it filed, even before you go to a dealer. Evan Nappen 08:49 And even more interesting is that this is going to lay the groundwork for mail-order guns. That’s right, folks. Mail-order guns. How can that be? Well, I’ll tell you. Right now, you can, if you didn’t live in the DPRNJ, of course, you can buy a silencer, and it can be shipped directly to your door. Even when you buy, for example, from Silencer Central (https://www.silencercentral.com/), they have it all set. They have a network of dealers through the states where suppressors are legal. The paperwork is processed electronically, and the silencer gets delivered direct to your door through this network. With the changes happening here, you’ll be able to go online, find a gun that you like from who knows, one of the major distributors or companies that will be out there, online order what you want, and do your 4473 through an auto-fill interface. Making it even easier. The same way they do it now for suppressors. And that firearm will then be shipped to your door. You don’t even have to leave your home. So, that’s where this is going. Evan Nappen 10:08 It’ll expand it and make it so it takes another good slice out of interstate handgun prohibition. You’ll be able to purchase on a countrywide basis, even though there’s a local dealer network that gets incorporated. It will follow, I’m sure, the silencer model that you see operating right now. Allowing for electronic record keeping, getting rid of the infinite record retention. Remember now, they tried to make it so that every 4473, all the records, the A and D have to be kept forever. Nope. That’s going to be limited either to 20 or 30 years instead, and then they get destroyed. Setting up Easy Check, even better for FFLs, and easing same state sales so that you can get over this non over the counter sales issue that requires, again, physical presence, going to the store. All that. This system is going to revolutionize and modernize our ability on purchase of firearms. Evan Nappen 11:25 Of course, the interstate transport is major. Then, if you’re doing anything with NFA, because maybe you have dual residency or you live in a free state, as opposed to, let’s say New Jersey, and you have NFA items, well, some very interesting things here on the NFA side for the National Firearms Act. Right now, the way the law was, if you want to transport, let’s say, your full auto interstate from one gun legal state to another, you have to get permission in advance. They’re getting rid of that. As long as you’re Page – 4 – of 18 not going for more than a year, you won’t have to get advance approval for moving your NFA items. When you register to buy items through NFA, they’re going to allow joint spousal registration. So, you can just jointly own, let’s say a suppressor or full auto, or whatever you’re doing without the need to have a trust. Evan Nappen 12:28 They’re getting rid of, no more CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) notification. So, that is an important start. Way back, we had where whenever you wanted to buy anything NFA, and it’s the old days of paper, of course, with NFA, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer wherever you lived, had to approve your NFA acquisition. Whether it was a suppressor, full auto, DD, SBR, whatever it was, they had to do the CLEO sign off. And if the Chief Law Enforcement Officer just decided, hey, I don’t think anyone should have one of these, and I’m not signing it, even though there’s no reason against you personally, there was nothing you could do about it. Nothing. You were dead in the water and couldn’t make your NFA acquisition. Lo and behold, NFA trusts became the loophole. If you set up an NFA trust, they were not subjected to the CLEO notification. So that’s why most folks went with that, because you avoided it entirely. Hence, ATF ended up with 10,000 trusts that was specifically getting rid of this rule. It led to the loophole. Let’s say we’ll call it that. The loophole creating the freedom, because then ATF said, guess what? We’re not going to require the Chief Law Enforcement Officer to have to approve it anymore. Instead, we just give them notice. They just get notice. Well, now they’re not even going to get notice. They’re out of the picture. There’s no reason for it. What? The federal government can’t handle it themselves? Of course, they can. No more CLEO notification. It’ll speed things up. On the interstate transport issue, just so you know, normal travel stops are going to be specifically acknowledged for what we call in New Jersey, reasonable, reasonable deviation, and I’m sure even more expansive than that. Yeah, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 14:50 Well, one of the things that, the big freak out that people seem to be having is with like, even The Trace. They were so freaking out of the proposal. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/04/atf-gun-rule-changes-cekada/) They put out a whole article today, sorry, April 30, talking about like the they’re removing the modern gun reforms. They always like to play off like that every time. The thing they were pointing at the most is the attack on removing the predominantly earn a profit. The requirement for firearm sellers who predominantly earn a profit to get a license, which that was just a catch all weasel clause that they were going to heavily abuse if it had stayed. So, I just thought. Evan Nappen 15:35 That’s true. Teddy Nappen 15:35 I just thought and. Evan Nappen 15:37 They did, in fact. That’s what led to that individual when they made, I don’t remember his name right off, but he ended up shot and killed. He was a decent, law-abiding guy, where they tried to claim he was Page – 5 – of 18 acting as a private deal under this definition, and he was essentially, you know, killed over that law itself. Teddy Nappen 16:02 So, they’re aim is to close that. Evan Nappen 16:04 Yeah. This is closely get rid of. Teddy Nappen 16:07 The justification they always give is to close the gun show loophole, which is still a hoax. That’s a hoax. It’s already been disproven. I think it goes back to Obama, who said, like, I think it was the Arizona Gun Show for that to get to Illinois, which, that’s total crap. But, again, they never get tired of trotting out the whole false facts. Evan Nappen 16:32 Nope, they don’t. And this is great because it was the gun rights suppressors that are funded by, you know, our billionaire Leftist groups that pushed all this. That infiltrated through the Biden administration. That got federal funding, even to those organizations who, through their think tanks, created all these new ways of oppression. Trump is surgical, not just surgically removing everything that they put in, but expanding into wins for us across the board. It’s very exciting, and it’s great to see. It’s going to help so many people, even many, many of those that have cases pending now. Evan Nappen 17:27 Hey, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood, New Jersey. They have a phenomenal range there. It’s where Teddy and I and Lou, we all shoot there. We all got our certifications there. They have a great pro shop, a great range, and great training. You need to check out WeShoot in Lakewood. You can go to their website, which is, of course, weshootusa.com. They have just wonderful folks. We love it there. I want to mention that on May 21 they’ll be having the Diversity Shoot at WeShoot. That’s with our friend Tony Simon. He’s back at WeShoot. And this is just a great night, an unforgettable night. It’ll be Thursday, May 21 ,and it’s only $20. Seriously, just 20 bucks. And there is free pizza. I think you can probably get your 20 bucks in pizza and drinks alone. So, go there. You’ll be able to talk with Tony. Have a real conversations about your rights and all the good stuff that we all care about. You’ll have hands-on experience, and you’ll get to try some really cool gear. Check out the great handguns and rifles. You’ll be able to shoot and get some training and learning. There’s range time, targets, you name it. It’s all covered, even rental. Everything’s covered. It’s great. They have prizes. This is an awesome event. Put it on your calendar, folks, for me, May 21st at WeShoot. Just check it out right online at weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 19:38 Let me also mention my book. I will shamelessly promote my book at all times. Go to EvanNappen.com and order your copy today. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all in a question and answer format that makes it easy for you to deal with the insane matrix of gun laws that exist in the DPRNJ. Speaking of Page – 6 – of 18 which, we have here today, my brother and ace attorney of the firm, Louis, who is going to be talking to us today about the very important. Wait, wait. Before we what? What, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 20:27 I just wanted to point out something. Again, I wanted it for the article regarding the whole ATF changes. I love how The Trace try to paint this as they’re adding new rules. Part of the package would make it easier for dealers to travel across state lines and stop for hotels, gas stations or food, even in stricter gun laws states. Evan Nappen 20:53 Oh my G-d! Teddy Nappen 20:55 I know. Yeah. Evan Nappen 20:57 It’s almost like freedom or something weird like that. Teddy Nappen 21:02 And almost like there isn’t the federal protection where you’re going from one place to another place, right? Evan Nappen 21:06 Oh, my goodness, The Trace. The Trace should make their logo like somebody just clutching pearls. They’re just pearl clutching all the time. Oh, please spare me. So, normally, you know, at the end of our show, we do the GOFU. But today, with Brother Lou here, we have a very important GOFU, and we’re going to expand and learn about this very serious GOFU that affects our sportsmen, our hunters, and firsthand, I want you to get a more in depth understanding. As you know, GOFUs are Gun Owner Fuck Ups, where gun owners make mistakes. This is a mistake that we’ve seen, and I don’t want you to make. Lou. Louis Nappen 21:57 I’d like to say hello to my brother. You said, I’m your brother. You’re also my brother. Evan Nappen 22:03 No way! When did that happen? Louis Nappen 22:05 Okay. So, what this one is, actually, you could call it a GOFAG GOFU because it’s Fish And Game. It’s a Gun Owner Fish And Game GOFU. Anyway, moving on. This is about. Evan Nappen 22:21 Yes. Please, quickly. Page – 7 – of 18 Louis Nappen 22:22 Ha, ha, ha. This is this about. Teddy Nappen 22:25 We’re talking about cigarettes. Evan Nappen 22:27 Okay, that’s right, and bundles of twigs. Louis Nappen 22:32 The situation here that I actually brought to Evan’s attention, because I currently have there was a big fishing game. When I say Fish and Game, you might know it as fish and wildlife or conservation officers. There was a whole slew that we got hit with to represent on, a whole bunch this year is a nice crop. I have three in particular that I’d like to discuss, and I saw the same pattern of GOFU in three different cases. So, three different hunters did these exact same, not the exact same thing, but they screwed up the same way. And I don’t want other hunters doing this. I want them to learn from others mistakes here. So, first off, in Fish and Game, it’s not about the fines. The fines, if you get charged, some people just mail it in. You know, it’s $50 because of some minor offense. They think that’s all. That it’s like an ordinance, but it’s not. These are civil matters that cannot be expunged, and that’s important. Why is that important? Because if you get a second Fish and Game violation conviction within five years, you lose your hunting privileges in New Jersey. This is New Jersey, how New Jersey operates. Not sure about, and I don’t want to talk about other states, because I’m not an attorney in other states, other than Vermont. But they cannot be expunged. And because of that, if you get another one, there is a chance after that, within five years, you can permanently lose your hunting privileges in New Jersey. That is a serious consequence of not doing something that we should all be doing, which I’m going to get to in a second. Evan Nappen 24:18 And there’s even more consequences. Louis Nappen 24:20 Yes. Evan Nappen 24:21 And that has to do with what? Your Second Amendment rights themselves. Why don’t you tell us? Louis Nappen 24:27 Well, I’d like to, if this is what you’re getting at, the Fish and Game violations when you have that, even the accusation to a point, they can be used in permit hearings, if you apply, because those are summary hearings. Evan Nappen 24:43 That’s right! Page – 8 – of 18 Louis Nappen 24:44 And so, they can say you’re not safe with a firearm. We’re not going to let you have a firearm. Evan Nappen 24:49 Exactly! Louis Nappen 24:50 Or if you get a weapon forfeiture, say you get a restraining order. Even if the restraining order is dismissed, they can then raise anything, anything. It’s summary in nature. It’s a kangaroo court. They can say, look at these Fish and Game violations you have. You don’t get firearms because it’s the same qualifications they’re looking at. Evan Nappen 24:52 More than that. We need the listeners to know that Fish and Game charges can lead to criminal charges as well. We’ve seen that happen. Louis Nappen 25:18 Yes! Evan Nappen 25:18 Keep going. I just wanted to have that. Louis Nappen 25:20 So, keep that in mind. Now, if a fish a Conservation Officer walks up to you. I can use these terms interchangeably. It’s how we talk about them. Sometimes derogatively, they’re called Fish Cops. I’ve heard that, too. But nonetheless, if you’re stopped by one of these, you think they’ll either come out of the tree, or what have you, you do have to show your hunting qualifications, that you are hunting properly. That you have the hunting license. So, you hand them that. It’s very much like being stopped in your car, and you need to show license, registration, and insurance. But that’s basically where that should stop, on your end, of cooperation. Similarly, in a car, of course, you know you should, at least in New Jersey with DUIs, you should also do the blow because you don’t want to have an automatic refusal. So, there’s only a few things under the law where you have to really do something, and this is one of those in that sense. Louis Nappen 26:20 But once you hand them your license and they say these look in order, or something like that, you ask, or you want to, you explain you want to go back to hunting. Am I free to leave? Is the term. And this is true out in the street. If you get stopped by a police officer, am I free to leave? Because that kicks in in your head, or it should. They don’t want me to leave. They’re looking for something else. They want more from me. These often. Evan Nappen 26:50 And if you’re not free to leave, you’re in custody. Page – 9 – of 18 Louis Nappen 26:53 You’re in custody at that point because you’re not free to leave. So, the bottom line is that should click in your head. That your Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights kick in. Evan Nappen 27:06 That’s right. When you look at the those rights in the Constitution, they don’t say, you know, the right against self-incrimination, unless it’s a fish cop talking to you. No. There is no exemption for that. Louis Nappen 27:22 Exactly. They are law enforcement officers. I have to tell you, Evan, that all three officers in these different cases, there’s more than three because many, some of them had more than one there. They are very friendly. They would be very friendly, you know. But they are not hall monitors and crossing guards. That’s not what they are. They are there to enforce the law, and they will get you to talk by being friendly and chatty. You don’t want to fall for that. If they say you are not free to leave, they’re pushing for more than that. The bottom line is that at some point it’s less of an investigate. It’s not just merely investigatory. It’s actually an interrogation designed to elicit self-incrimination out of you. And that is when your Miranda rights should kick in. When they are questioning you, to get you to admit to anything that could be used against you. Louis Nappen 28:27 Now, let’s think about that in terms of what they are. You’ve heard it on every TV show, but what are your rights? Think about what they’re telling you in your Miranda rights. Now, they’re supposed to do that. But they can get more out of you, because they can claim at some in some aspects, that it’s investigatory and it was just a friendly conversation. Some judges buy that. Remember, this is Municipal Court judges. They don’t do a lot of Fish and Game cases, and they don’t think of it in these terms. They will tell you that you have a right to remain silent. Well, if you’re being told that you have a right to remain silent, remain silent! You have that right regardless of whether they read you these Miranda rights. Teddy Nappen 29:06 Out of curiosity, though, when you’re dealing with a Fish and Game officer, is there any other disclosures that you have to make? Or is it just the same standard, like a normal cop? Louis Nappen 29:18 Okay. The same as are you free to leave. It goes with that. They will ask sometimes to please hand over your firearm so they can safely put it to the side. If they take your firearm, you know you’re not free to leave because they have your firearm. You can’t hunt at that point. Evan Nappen 29:33 Also, keep in mind, if you’re lawfully carrying, you still have the Duty to Disclose. Louis Nappen 29:40 Good point. Page – 10 – of 18 Evan Nappen 29:41 Because you’re being detained. Louis Nappen 29:44 Yeah. Although, in New Jersey, typically. Louis Nappen 29:45 You need to immediately say I am carrying. As soon as you are stopped or detained, you have that obligation to tell the officer if you’re carrying, too. Louis Nappen 30:00 So, think about this, though, the next part of that famous paragraph. Anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law. Does it say, anything you say will be exculpatory so we won’t convict you? Evan Nappen 30:16 No. They’re not. Louis Nappen 30:17 They’re not saying that. They’re saying it can and it will. I don’t know of anybody who’s ever talked themselves out of a ticket or out of a citation. At best, it’s neutral. But almost always it’s you’re talking. You don’t even know what you’re saying. You’re saying things that may be used because you don’t know what they’re investigating. And that will be used against you. So, keep that in mind. You don’t want to talk. The next one is you have the right to an attorney. Well, as soon as you. Evan Nappen 30:45 Wait. Let me just. I need to say one other thing on that. You have a right to say nothing except, arguably, pedigree information. You know, who you are. You know, identify yourself. Louis Nappen 30:57 Yeah, you do have to identify yourself. Evan Nappen 30:58 But, short of that, you don’t have to say anything else. You need to keep in mind that police and law enforcement have a license to lie. They’re allowed to lie. You’re not allowed to lie. They are. So, anything they say, you cannot take to the bank because they have a license to lie. And I know of an actual Fish and Game case, not handled by us, where they accused a person of shooting a deer during bow season. Yet, when he checked it in, you know, it had an arrow, but they felt that it was shot. The person who checked it in wasn’t so smart, and the officers went and took a metal detector. They claimed that the metal detector picked up traces of metal, you know, lead or the bullet, even though it would not even have done that, and they convinced the person by gaming them in this way. And that’s perfectly fine. So, you can’t believe it. Page – 11 – of 18 Louis Nappen 32:00 Yeah. You have the right to an attorney. So, one of the things you could say, in addition to, you know, may I leave? Then, of course, what some people do is stick around. No. If they say, you have a right to leave, leave! Go back to doing something. Go to your car. Get the heck out of there. Evan Nappen 32:15 Right! This is like right out of with Clint Eastwood when Tuco, the guy goes in, you know, he starts talking, and Tuco shoots him from the tub. He goes, he goes, if you’re gonna shoot, shoot, don’t talk. Well, the same idea. If you’re gonna leave, leave. Louis Nappen 32:16 Right, right. Like Ron White’s joke. I had the right to remain silent, but I didn’t have the ability. Evan Nappen 32:45 Yeah! Ha, ha. Teddy Nappen 32:48 Uncle Lou, I just had a question regarding the actual bit of when you’re in the court, what is the setting? Is it more like a hearing when you’re dealing with Fish and Game violations? Louis Nappen 32:59 I’m gonna get to that in a little bit. Let me just finish with the Miranda here. So, you have the right to an attorney. So, what you can say is, am I free to leave? If they say, no, you say that I want an attorney. Questioning should stop as soon as you say, I want my attorney. If you can’t afford an attorney, one will be provided to you. That’s a joke, because you’re going to get a public defender who handles, if lucky, one Fish and Game matter a year. They are just going to want to settle something, maybe mitigate down to one or two, you know, whatever it is. You get what you pay for. And if you get a free attorney, you’re getting what you pay for. And then they ask you, do you understand these rights I’ve read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me? So, they’re telling you all of this. And then I’ll tell you, show you one person and one of these three cases, they were read their rights. They make you sign a form that you understand these rights. And then they went and spoke and showed them everything that they did. Why? Teddy Nappen 33:56 Because it’s the training. It comes back to law and order. Anything you show it’s the training of like, Oh, if I’m not a bad person, I’m not gonna lie. Louis Nappen 34:05 No, no. Of course, you’re going to be honest and put yourself honestly into a plea of guilt or finding of guilt. Okay. They don’t show you in the procedurals on TV. Every time they bring the defendant in, he talks. It’s ridiculous, but that’s beside the point. So, or it is the point. They are law enforcement officers, if I’m going to cut to the chase, and you do the minimum amount of interaction with them. If they approach you, then you have to do these things. But bear in mind your rights. Don’t give them away. Page – 12 – of 18 You’re going to do yourself a favor by not giving them away, not speaking, and you’re going to do your attorney a favor by not speaking. You won’t even get charged, most likely, if you don’t speak. Evan Nappen 34:57 Think of all the great men and women who sacrificed for those rights, and you’re just going to waive them? You’re just going to give them up? We have these rights, and we treasure our Second Amendment rights. Treasure all the rights. We have a right against self-incrimination, and you have a right to counsel. You want to take advantage of those rights. Louis Nappen 35:17 That’s right. Now, when you go to court, Teddy was just sort of indicating, I just want you to know one thing. In most municipal courts, you know, it’s the prosecutor who kind of runs the show and who you deal with. But that prosecutor, over the last 20 years that I’ve been an attorney, it’s become more and more and more. What I’m about to tell you. The prosecutor will only, pretty much in New Jersey, I’ve only seen one prosecutor try to stand up to it and got shot down because he had to speak to the upper echelon of Fish and Game personnel. You know, if it’s just a town cop, the prosecutor will sometimes override the town cop and say, look, you really want to push this? They’ll try to convince them to give something different or better and so that they can negotiate. Fish and Game runs the show, even though it’s a front that the prosecutor runs the show. When it comes to what they are allowed to negotiate, they will not. I haven’t seen it at all, much at all. It’s been at least 5 or 10 years since I’ve been able to do, for instance, get an ordinance instead of a fish and game violation. Evan Nappen 36:28 And there’s a reason for that. The money on a Fish and Game violation goes to Fish and Game. So, they’re there with their hand out, and they don’t want that money going anywhere else. They need the records that show convictions to keep notches, to keep promoting their budget and funding. Look what a great job we’re doing enforcing all these minuscule and often contradictory regulations. Louis Nappen 36:59 Yeah, so it’s about the notches on the belt. Teddy Nappen 37:01 For me, personally, I always just from all the stories and horror stories that I was told. I remember, Dad, you’re famous, the famous one. What was it? It’s a moose, get over it. It had to do with the Fish and Game. Evan Nappen 37:13 Yeah. After winning at trial, the Fish and Game officer was crying, literally crying. How do you live with yourself? To me, because I won. Well, I don’t know. How do you live with yourself, enforcing this kind of insanity. Page – 13 – of 18 Teddy Nappen 37:28 It’s the level of the, it’s the guy from The Untouchables. Let’s do some good. It’s that mentality of Fish and Game. It’s still, and there’s such abuse, like, Uncle, have you experienced? What’s your experience? Evan Nappen 37:43 Unfortunately, we see these. Teddy Nappen 37:44 What is your experience, Uncle Lou? Louis Nappen 37:48 First off, I just want to say I don’t even recommend hunting in New Jersey. That’s how bad it is. Because when are you not within 450 feet of a building? I mean, it could be any building. Evan Nappen 38:09 They particularly look for the ones that you can’t see. Louis Nappen 38:13 A word to the wise. I’ve had that case. Evan Nappen 38:15 Walk into that trap. Louis Nappen 38:17 I had a guy who shot for ducks, and there was a bit of a berm, so to say. And he didn’t know that over that berm was a house. He couldn’t see it. There is none. He didn’t. It was not in his line of sight. When he shot, it was fine. It was gonna go in the dirt if he missed the bird. It doesn’t matter. He was within 450 feet, as the crow flies. So, let me just. Now I just want to quickly kind of give with these. Some of these are ongoing cases. Of course, I will not reveal names or anything, but just to show you how this played out in action regarding three individuals within the last year. Louis Nappen 38:55 One person was hunting with his father, and they’re at their truck now. They’re not even still hunting. They were away from their hunting blinds or the places where they were hunting, and a State Police officer comes up and asked, were you hunting recently from this field? Yes, I was. Did you shoot? Yes, I did. That’s like, that’s questionable. Is it investigatory, or they tried to get you to self incriminate on something? It’s hard to tell the difference, isn’t it? And then she calls, I think it was a female officer, Fish and Game. They show up in more than one, and they mirandize these people. At that point, they’re not letting you go. They are telling you your Miranda rights. So, what should you do? You shut up. You don’t tell them anything. Evan Nappen 39:53 No, no no. You shut the f up. Page – 14 – of 18 Louis Nappen 39:53 Yeah, I know. Okay. You don’t. I’m trying it and you’re trying you. Because at that point, they obviously want to get you to admit to doing some things that they already sort of got you to tell a little bit to the first cop. But now these Fish and Game officers, they did what they should. I can’t blame them. They did what they should. Mirandize these people. They didn’t. Listen to everything I just read to you. You have a right to remain silent. They’re signing off on a sheet that states every one of these rights. Evan Nappen 40:20 If you are ever read Miranda, it’s like last gas for 500 miles. Don’t ignore it. Follow what it said. Yeah. Invoke immediately. There is no exception to violating Miranda. That’s it. You’re done. You only talk to your attorney after that, and you do what your attorney says. You make no statements. Louis Nappen 40:52 That’s right. Evan Nappen 40:52 I mean, come on. Louis Nappen 40:53 And if at that point they’re going to send you a citation, they’re going to send it to you because they already have your information from your hunting licenses. So, what happens after that? They proceed to show them where they were hunting, what direction they were pointing when they hunted, all the both, where both blinds were that they were in, what kind of rounds they were using, all the all of this. Teddy Nappen 41:15 This is starting to remind me of Alice’s Restaurant, when the guy litters and they take out all this stuff and equipment. Louis Nappen 41:22 Well, they did measurements and everything else, because you showed them where you stood when you shot. If you don’t show them where you stood when you shot, where you shot, and all that, how they gonna know if they weren’t there? Evan Nappen 41:38 Right! Louis Nappen 41:38 I have nothing to show you. Because, don’t forget, communication is part of that silence. It’s not just talking. If you’re walking them to a place or doing some motion or something, showing them how you held your gun in what direction, up high or low. This is all communication that you don’t have to provide. So there’s that. Page – 15 – of 18 Evan Nappen 41:59 Always abide by the Fifth Amendment. Louis Nappen 42:00 So, there’s one example. He proceeded to show them that. Okay, example number two. These are all actual cases that I’m currently involved in. Number two, a person hunting for deer. He’s up in his stand. It’s not a firearm. It’s crossbow related. Doesn’t matter, I guess. But he comes down, and the officer shows up, He hands him his licensing and everything, all in order, perfectly in order. But that Fish and Game Cop was not there to truly investigate whether or not he’s hunting. But if he could find that he wasn’t, that would be fine. He was there about a totally different kind of situation, about raccoon trapping. He started chatting with the guy. And the person chatted, thinking it’s a friendly conversation, and found out everything about it, about anything about raccoon trapping. Well, you know this and that. There were some traps around there. Have you seen him? And the guy just talked and tried to kind of obfuscate about some things, I think. But nothing. It’s understandable about like that other people are using this property. Teddy Nappen 43:13 I imagine he had like a raccoon skin hat. Evan Nappen 43:18 He didn’t have his 1920s rah, rah, football raccoon coat on either. Louis Nappen 43:28 Yes. So, long story short, they are talking to him for an hour. Evan Nappen 43:35 An hour. Oh, my G-d. Louis Nappen 43:36 And at some point he had to get home, and he said that early on. So, in other words, he was kind of indicating he didn’t want to be sitting there chatting, but he’s being friendly. The bottom line is, he gets charged, and he does, in all everything that’s been said, more or less, it’s a confession, and they used everything against him. Teddy Nappen 43:39 Quick question, do Fish and Game use body cam as well? Louis Nappen 44:00 Yes! Oh yeah. It’s all on body cam. It’s all on body cam almost always. It’s very rare that stop. This is what’s frustrating for me right now. The stop for the first one I mentioned when the State Police, who would normally wear body cam, they’re not yet providing it. I don’t think they have that for that quick, the shorter first interrogation. But all the Fish and Game officers, as they’re getting Mirandized and everything, that is all on video of them continuing and then everywhere he showed them of shooting from where, etc. So, that’s the second one regarding it had nothing to do with him having proper Page – 16 – of 18 licensing, and it was all just a way to get him to self incriminate doing an interrogation. He didn’t realize he was being interrogated. He thought it was a friendly conversation. At what point does your Miranda kick in? Is it just investigatory, or is it that you should have been told up front? Because people forget about that they have these rights not to have to speak. He should have just said, Am I free to leave? Or go back into his hunting stand? Louis Nappen 45:00 Okay, the last one here, but you can see how each person ignored their Miranda rights here, and that’s what got him cited. The last one is. Evan Nappen 45:11 That’s the GOFU! Louis Nappen 45:12 Fish and Game. Evan Nappen 45:12 Pretty simple, yeah. Louis Nappen 45:13 Yeah, right. A Conservation Officer, Fish and Game, comes right near the edge of a field. He comes up in his vehicle and approaches. This is a woman Hunter, which is kind of nice to see that happening more and more. The Conservation Officer immediately starts questioning. Immediately starts questioning. Hi, how are you? Friendly. Were you just shooting? Yes, I was. How were you standing when you shot? What direction did you shoot in? And all this. She proceeds to show him exactly what she did. I don’t know how much more detail I want to get into. Evan Nappen 45:57 No, but because of her statements, she gets charged. Louis Nappen 45:59 All she should have said is, here’s my hunting license. Here’s my license, and just handed it to him. Evan Nappen 46:06 Here’s my license. Louis Nappen 46:08 Like you do when you get pulled over. You just hand them the licenses. Or please take it off my back. Sometimes the hunting license is stuck on. You know, they’re in the plastic thing, whatever it is. Here they are. And if they start questioning you about anything. Evan Nappen 46:10 Just say, look, am I free to go? Page – 17 – of 18 Louis Nappen 46:23 Am I free to leave? I got nothing to talk about. Evan Nappen 46:27 Yeah. Say,well, I’m here to hunt, not to talk. Louis Nappen 46:31 And many of these people had even other excuses that they could have even said to make it seem more friendly. Even I’m leaving now, because my husband’s out there, and he expects me at the car. I’m leaving or anything. You don’t have to have an excuse, but often you have one. I got to go to the bathroom. Teddy Nappen 46:50 The best example to always, and I remember you always brought this up, Dad. Anytime, what was, what did Martha Stewart go to jail for? And I always say was it insider trading? No, it was lying to the police. If she did not talk, she would not have gone to jail. Evan Nappen 47:06 You cannot lie to the police. Right! Teddy Nappen 47:07 If she didn’t say anything, she would have been fine. Evan Nappen 47:10 Yep, yeah. Louis Nappen 47:11 I want to say one thing. This particular officer, in speaking of that, when he approached her after she shot, the very first thing that he said was, I saw you in my rear view, doing what you, shooting. But then he says to her, show me what you did. To get her to admit what he saw, allegedly. Evan Nappen 47:30 If he saw it, why does she need to show him? Louis Nappen 47:32 Exactly. Then you have it. Evan Nappen 47:35 Games, games, games. Teddy Nappen 47:36 I’m gonna say that’s a certain level of entrapment, like you’re telling them to do that. Page – 18 – of 18 Evan Nappen 47:41 Not necessarily entrapment. But that’s legal for cops to interrogate and to make. Maybe he didn’t see a damn thing. He could say anything. Louis Nappen 47:51 That’s right, that’s right. I think it happened on video. Evan Nappen 47:54 When they don’t have it on video, they could say, you know, we just had a witness come out who never did. I mean, it doesn’t matter. Louis Nappen 48:01 I honestly think he heard a shot, looked in his rear view and saw her shooting. But he didn’t see the shot. That’s my thought of, actually, what, what probably occurred. And that’s right. Evan Nappen 48:13 The bottom Line to all this, Lou? Individuals have to stand on their rights. Law enforcement is law enforcement. Fish and Game is law enforcement. Your rights apply there, as well as in a traffic stop and anywhere else. Stand on your rights. Lou, thanks so much for reviewing all that in detail. This is Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen and Louis Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 48:52 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E288_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Maxwell's legal team has signalled that she will invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if she's required to testify before the House Oversight Committee (or other congressional investigators) without pre-conditions being met. Specifically, her attorneys have said she will refuse to answer questions unless immunity from further prosecution is granted, the questions are provided in advance, her pending appeals (including to the Supreme Court) are resolved, and the setting is acceptable (for example, not in her prison facility). Without those safeguards, the firm position is that she will “plead the Fifth” and not participate.Because Congress has so far declined to provide the kind of immunity or guarantees Maxwell's counsel demands, the committee chair (James Comer) has publicly stated that she “won't answer any questions” and will invoke the Fifth. Thus, barring a change in those conditions, her testimony appears to be off the table and the committee may opt not to expend resources if she will simply refuse to engage.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Reference Material: Day 4 Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Miranda DoctrineUnderstanding the Fifth Amendment's Protections in Police InterrogationsThis episode unpacks the complex landscape of the Fifth Amendment, focusing on the psychological battleground of police interrogations. It explores how constitutional protections evolved from physical boundaries to safeguarding the mind during coercive police practices, with case law illuminating critical concepts.Most people believe their Fifth Amendment rights protect their thoughts and words only inside courtroom walls—or in the blatant face of police brutality. But what if the real threat is happening behind the scenes, in the subtle, psychological traps police set during interrogation? This episode reveals how constitutional protections evolved from physical boundaries into a high-stakes mental battleground.We break down how the Fifth Amendment shields your mind—not just your body—by dissecting the origins of the privilege against self-incrimination, from oppressive English courts to modern police tactics. You'll discover why the Supreme Court declared police interrogations inherently coercive, and how that led to the creation of the Miranda warnings as a safeguard against psychological manipulation.We explore crucial questions: When does custody begin? How do courts differentiate between routine questions and genuine interrogation? What exactly constitutes an unambiguous request for a lawyer? You'll learn how nuanced circumstances—like a traffic stop or a secret conversation—can turn a routine encounter into a constitutional minefield. Plus, we analyze key cases like Rhode Island v. Innis and Berghaus v. Tompkins, revealing how the courts interpret seemingly simple actions that can dramatically alter your rights.Avoid costly mistakes—misunderstanding the rules of invocation and waiver can jeopardize your case. We examine the narrow loopholes police use—public safety exceptions, undercover agents, and the timing of rights "re-activation"—that threaten to erode your protections. Most importantly, we clarify the delicate balance courts strike between effective law enforcement and safeguarding human dignity in the face of psychological coercion.Whether you're a law student, legal professional, or just a concerned citizen wanting to understand your rights, this episode guides you through the invisible yet powerful rules governing police interrogations. Equip yourself with the knowledge to see through psychological tactics, recognize constitutional triggers, and understand the true limits of the Fifth Amendment in the modern age. This is essential listening for anyone eager to see beyond the surface and grasp the profound complexity of protecting the human mind from state coercion.In this episode:The origins of the privilege against self-incrimination rooted in English historyHow the modern understanding of custody and interrogation shapes Fifth Amendment protectionsThe significance of the Miranda warnings as a prophylactic safeguardDifferentiating custody from mere seizure using objective tests like Berkemer v. McCartyThe functional equivalent test to determine what constitutes interrogation, referencing Rhode Island v. InnisThe critical distinction between invoking rights and waiver, highlighted through Burghaus v. TompkinsThe importance of unambiguous requests for counsel under Edwards v. Arizona and the exceptionsWhen the protections reset: the Schatzer 14-day rule for returning to normal life after invocationEmergency exceptions, such as New York v. Quarles, and their limitsThe unique status of undercover agents in Illinois v. PerkinsThe fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine's limits as shown in United States v. PataneThe ongoing challenge of balancing police needs with constitutional safeguards

Members of Congress are sharply divided over the idea of a potential pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell, with the debate emerging in the context of ongoing investigations into Jeffrey Epstein's network. Some Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have indicated they would consider supporting a pardon if it meant securing Maxwell's full cooperation and testimony, viewing it as a possible way to extract information about Epstein's associates. However, that position is far from unified—even within the GOP—with key figures, including the committee chair, expressing opposition. Maxwell herself previously refused to answer questions before the committee, invoking the Fifth Amendment, while her legal team has signaled she would be willing to speak more openly if granted clemency.Democrats, meanwhile, are unanimously opposed to any pardon scenario, framing the idea as unacceptable given Maxwell's conviction for her role in facilitating the abuse of minors. They argue that offering clemency in exchange for testimony would undermine accountability and justice for victims. The political split, combined with public backlash and the legal reality that only the president could grant such a pardon, makes any deal unlikely in the near term. Overall, the situation highlights both the high stakes surrounding the Epstein investigation and the deep partisan divide over how far lawmakers should go to obtain new information.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Oversight members split over whether to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell, committee chair says - Live Updates - POLITICO

Members of Congress are sharply divided over the idea of a potential pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell, with the debate emerging in the context of ongoing investigations into Jeffrey Epstein's network. Some Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have indicated they would consider supporting a pardon if it meant securing Maxwell's full cooperation and testimony, viewing it as a possible way to extract information about Epstein's associates. However, that position is far from unified—even within the GOP—with key figures, including the committee chair, expressing opposition. Maxwell herself previously refused to answer questions before the committee, invoking the Fifth Amendment, while her legal team has signaled she would be willing to speak more openly if granted clemency.Democrats, meanwhile, are unanimously opposed to any pardon scenario, framing the idea as unacceptable given Maxwell's conviction for her role in facilitating the abuse of minors. They argue that offering clemency in exchange for testimony would undermine accountability and justice for victims. The political split, combined with public backlash and the legal reality that only the president could grant such a pardon, makes any deal unlikely in the near term. Overall, the situation highlights both the high stakes surrounding the Epstein investigation and the deep partisan divide over how far lawmakers should go to obtain new information.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Oversight members split over whether to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell, committee chair says - Live Updates - POLITICOBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Members of Congress are sharply divided over the idea of a potential pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell, with the debate emerging in the context of ongoing investigations into Jeffrey Epstein's network. Some Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have indicated they would consider supporting a pardon if it meant securing Maxwell's full cooperation and testimony, viewing it as a possible way to extract information about Epstein's associates. However, that position is far from unified—even within the GOP—with key figures, including the committee chair, expressing opposition. Maxwell herself previously refused to answer questions before the committee, invoking the Fifth Amendment, while her legal team has signaled she would be willing to speak more openly if granted clemency.Democrats, meanwhile, are unanimously opposed to any pardon scenario, framing the idea as unacceptable given Maxwell's conviction for her role in facilitating the abuse of minors. They argue that offering clemency in exchange for testimony would undermine accountability and justice for victims. The political split, combined with public backlash and the legal reality that only the president could grant such a pardon, makes any deal unlikely in the near term. Overall, the situation highlights both the high stakes surrounding the Epstein investigation and the deep partisan divide over how far lawmakers should go to obtain new information.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Oversight members split over whether to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell, committee chair says - Live Updates - POLITICOBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the 6 AM Hour: Larry O’Connor and Bethany Mandel discussed: INTERVIEW: John Reid: Former Republican candidate for Virginia Lieutenant Governor on today’s Virginia redistricting referendum election. ActBlue Hearing: ActBlue employees invoked their Fifth Amendment right at least 146 times in depositions with congressional committees investigating alleged donor fraud on the fundraising platform, according to an explosive report released Monday. (New York Post) Gingers on the Rise: A new study reports that humans have been constantly evolving to have flame-colored hair. The finding has challenged previously held ideas about how much natural selection has influenced our DNA over hundreds of thousands of years. (New York Post) Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Audible, and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 / 6 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen this early on a crisp April morning in 2026, but here I am, coffee in hand, scrolling through the latest legal fireworks swirling around President Donald Trump. Just days ago, on April 1st, the Supreme Court chambers in Washington, D.C., echoed with oral arguments in Trump v. United States, a blockbuster case challenging Executive Order 14160. Rutgers Law School professors are calling it one of the most pivotal issues of the year, as it questions whether Trump's order redefining birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act holds water. Picture this: the justices grilling lawyers over who qualifies as a U.S. citizen by birth, with Trump's team arguing it bolsters national security while opponents cry foul on constitutional grounds. Rutgers Law highlights how this could reshape immigration law overnight, sending shockwaves through families across America.But that's not all keeping me up at night. Fast-forward to April 7th, and G37 Chambers' International Legal News roundup drops a bombshell from the White House. They're defending Trump amid Middle East tensions, stating outright that "the US President, Donald Trump was making the entire region safer." It's tied to broader foreign policy moves, like Syria's new Investment Arbitration Centre in Damascus, launched post-Assad to lure investors—moves Trump champions as stabilizing the chaos. Guernica 37's weekly updates from the International Criminal Court and European Court of Human Rights paint a picture of global legal chess, with Trump's administration pushing back hard.Shifting gears to the courts back home, the Southern District of New York is heating up with a wild twist on sanctions. The National Law Review reports that the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control issued then revoked a license for legal fees to defend former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores de Maduro. They're on the SDN List, facing narcotics and firearms charges after a dramatic U.S. Army rendition via Operation Southern Spear. Maduro's lawyers are firing back, claiming it guts their Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Fifth Amendment due process—echoes that make you wonder if similar sanction snags could ever loop in U.S. political heavyweights like Trump.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's fall 2025 arguments in Fernandez v. United States and Rutherford v. United States linger like a storm cloud, potentially curbing judges' power on compassionate releases for prisoners. Rutgers Law notes this could trap countless inmates in "extraordinary and compelling" limbo, a reform battle Trump-era policies have fueled.As the sun rises here on April 15th, these threads weave a tapestry of power, borders, and justice that's anything but sleepy. From the Supreme Court's marble halls to Damascus streets, Trump's legal orbit keeps the world spinning.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen at 6 AM on this crisp April 13th, 2026, watching the legal world swirl around President Donald Trump like a storm over Mar-a-Lago. But here we are, listeners, with the U.S. Supreme Court diving headfirst into his bold Executive Order 14160, challenging the very heart of birthright citizenship. According to Rutgers Law School's analysis of key issues to watch in 2026, this order seeks to redefine who qualifies for U.S. citizenship by birth, potentially clashing with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Oral arguments heated up just days ago on April 1st, as reported in coverage from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court proceedings, where lawyers like Peter J. Brann for the Senate President and David M. Kallin for the League of Women Voters of Maine squared off against Timothy C. Woodcock for the Republican National Committee. The stakes? A doctrinal earthquake that could reshape immigration law for generations.Just last week, on April 7th, G37 Chambers' International Legal News roundup from March 30 to April 3 highlighted the White House defending Trump, stating he was making the entire Middle East region safer amid foreign policy firestorms. But back home, the courts are buzzing. Picture this: the Supreme Court also just rejected Colorado's ban on conversion therapy in a March 31st update noted by Rutgers Law professors, a win for broader civil rights debates that echo Trump's administration priorities on limiting judicial overreach.Meanwhile, in a twist tying sanctions to legal battles, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, issued then revoked a license for paying defense attorneys in the Southern District of New York case against former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores de Maduro, per G37 Chambers. They're on the SDN List, facing narcotics and firearm charges after a dramatic U.S. Army Operation Southern Spear rendition. Their lawyers argue it violates Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and Fifth Amendment due process—echoes of constitutional fights Trump knows all too well from his own past tussles.And don't sleep on Trump v. CASA, Inc., where the Supreme Court in June ruled that universal injunctive relief likely exceeds federal courts' equitable authority, as detailed in Goodwin's emerging issues report for 2026. This curbs sweeping injunctions, handing a victory to executive actions like Trump's. With the D.C. Circuit eyeing CFPB overhauls under acting director Russell Vought, who wants to slash 88% of staff, these rulings signal a federal retrenchment aligning with Trump's deregulatory push.As the sun rises over Washington, D.C., these battles paint Trump as the epicenter of 2026's legal drama—citizenship clashes, sanction skirmishes, and court curbs on power. It's a high-wire act, listeners, blending policy wins with constitutional showdowns.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

You've probably heard of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. But does the Constitution allow a county to take and sell someones land to make a profit? That is the main question in the case Pung v Isabella County.

Tahiyrah Ali Free Chaz BunchI was 16 at the time of the arrest, held on half a million dollar bond, tried, convicted, sentenced and now struggling each day to understand what it is to live a life as a regular human being upon this Earth. There are many reasons that my case has not captured media attention, one being, I am not on “Death Row,” and do not meet the urgency criteria necessary to draw that spark of public attention. However, the sensationalism aspect has always been there, with the right reporting. Due to the fact that my case is only 16 years old, as if that is not long enough time for being in prison for a crime, I'm innocent of. One day is too long, but due to no significant injustice whereby the dramatic effect of our legal system's failure would invoke the participation of those working inside the system to assist in exonerating me I believe with your help I can receive the justice envisioned by the U.S. Constitution.On the day of my arrest, the threatening physical strength of the Mahoning County, Youngstown, Ohio detectives and police department resulted in the actual culprit, who admitted to every element of the crime, thus cutting a deal for partial immunity to implicate me as a co-conspirator and ultimately the principle perpetrator. Coupled with the prosecutorial misconduct of the state's attorney to manipulate witnesses and manufacture testimonies that procured a prejudice, bias, and partial trial that put me at a detrimental disadvantage. This is just a diminutive part perpetrated by the acting dignitaries surrounding my case, court proceedings and trial. During the course of my trial my constitutional rights were clearly violated with no one to fight for me and being illiterate didn't help. I was denied Due Process of the Law, Equal Protection of the Fifth Amendment and Effective Assistance of Counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, which ultimately resulted in the deprivation of my constitutional entitlement to a fair trial. I have been denied justice as it appears in the minds of the average citizen, and I believe that with media exposure and public awareness and support my case can again rise to the level of scrutiny. And that justice can prevail in the grand scheme of justice as is conceived in the minds of most American.https://freechazbunch.wordpress.com/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

The trial is scheduled for July 2026. It is the fourth date that has been set after three prior delays. Her attorney has warned the court she may not survive it. And the legal fights before a single piece of evidence is heard — bifurcation motion, Fifth Amendment arguments, psychiatric evaluation disputes — tell you everything about how complicated this case truly is.Part 5 of the Lindsay Clancy five-part series is Tony Brueski's examination of the justice system and the most fundamental question this case poses: what does criminal responsibility mean when a defendant's own defense doesn't contest the acts — only the mind behind them?This episode covers the pending trial, the constitutional fight at the core of the bifurcation motion, the prosecution's premeditation theory versus the defense's psychosis argument, and the parallel civil malpractice suits filed by Lindsay and Patrick in January 2026 that may prove more consequential than any criminal verdict. Legal experts have called this case a potential precedent-setter for how courts handle postpartum mental illness defenses in America. The outcome will reach far beyond Plymouth County.The verdict is still ahead. The questions are already here.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #TrueCrimeToday #TrueCrime #LindsayClancyTrial #InsanityDefense #PostpartumPsychosis #HiddenKillers #CriminalJustice #MaternalMentalHealth #TrueCrimePodcast

Kevin Reddington told a Plymouth Superior Court judge that his client continues to experience thoughts of self-harm, needs monitoring throughout the day, and that if she dies before or during trial, that is on somebody. And it is not him. That is where we are.The final chapter of our five-part series is Tony Brueski's examination of the courtroom, the constitutional battles, and the question that no verdict in Plymouth will fully resolve: what does criminal responsibility mean when a defendant's own defense doesn't contest the acts — only the mind behind them?This episode covers the bifurcation fight and the Fifth Amendment argument at its core; the prosecution's premeditation theory; the defense's psychosis argument; the psychiatric evaluation ahead of trial; and the parallel civil malpractice suits that may produce more lasting change than any criminal verdict. It closes with the structural reality no verdict will fix: postpartum psychosis still isn't in the DSM, and the system that processed Lindsay Clancy is still running.The verdict is coming. The questions already belong to all of us.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#HiddenKillers #LindsayClancy #TrueCrime #InsanityDefense #PostpartumPsychosis #LindsayClancyTrial #CriminalJustice #MaternalMentalHealth #JusticeSystem #TrueCrimePodcast

1. Trump’s 2006 Call to Police About Epstein According to a 2019 FBI interview with the Palm Beach police chief, Donald Trump called the chief in 2006, saying: Epstein’s behavior with underage girls was widely known. Ghislaine Maxwell was “evil” and should be investigated. Trump said he left an event when he saw teenagers present and later banned Epstein from Mar‑a‑Lago. 2. Contrast With Media Narratives These details contradict media implications that Trump hid involvement with Epstein. It frames Trump as wanting Epstein stopped early in the investigation. 3. Trump Responds to Questions About Epstein Files During a recent Oval Office exchange, CNN’s Caitlin Collins asked about redactions in released Epstein documents. Trump stated: Too much was released, not too little. The country should “move on.” Nothing incriminating about him emerged. 4. Ghislaine Maxwell’s Congressional Deposition Maxwell appeared virtually before the House Oversight Committee. She invoked the Fifth Amendment for every question, including: Whether she was close to Epstein Whether she helped traffic girls Whether she instructed girls to provide sexual favors Whether she surrounded herself and Epstein with influential people Whether she would name other co‑conspirators Her lawyer stated she is protecting her appeal. Lawmakers received no substantive answers. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.