Podcasts about Fifth Amendment

Nadia Marcinkova—often referred to as Epstein's “Global Girl” or “live-in sex slave”—emerged as a central enigma in Epstein's criminal web. Brought to the U.S. at about age 15, she quickly rose to become his trusted aide, frequently traveling with him aboard the infamous "Lolita Express" private jet. Legal filings and flight manifests implicate her in recruitment and involvement in the sexual abuse of minors, with victims asserting that she both facilitated abuse and participated in it . Despite these serious allegations, Marcinkova never faced charges; under Epstein's 2008 Florida non-prosecution agreement, she received immunity and has since remained shielded from criminal accountability.In the years following her legal protection, Marcinkova rebranded herself—completing flight certifications, launching an aviation business, and maintaining a low-profile existence in Manhattan's Upper East Side. Yet her past continues to cast a long shadow: victims've named her in suits, and new court filings have resurrected scrutiny of her role within Epstein's organization . Her consistent silence—invoking the Fifth Amendment, refusing deposition answers—and strategic disappearance following recent document unsealing further amplify suspicions. Though never prosecuted, Marcinkova typifies how Epstein's closest associates slipped through loopholes in an investigation heavy on wealth, power, and protection.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Former model who was Jeffrey Epstein's 'Lolita Express' pilot pleaded the fifth 42 TIMES in deposition including questions about Bill Clinton and whether she witnessed 'improper sexual activity' between pedo and minors in presence of ex-president | Daily Mail Online

Nadia Marcinkova—often referred to as Epstein's “Global Girl” or “live-in sex slave”—emerged as a central enigma in Epstein's criminal web. Brought to the U.S. at about age 15, she quickly rose to become his trusted aide, frequently traveling with him aboard the infamous "Lolita Express" private jet. Legal filings and flight manifests implicate her in recruitment and involvement in the sexual abuse of minors, with victims asserting that she both facilitated abuse and participated in it . Despite these serious allegations, Marcinkova never faced charges; under Epstein's 2008 Florida non-prosecution agreement, she received immunity and has since remained shielded from criminal accountability.In the years following her legal protection, Marcinkova rebranded herself—completing flight certifications, launching an aviation business, and maintaining a low-profile existence in Manhattan's Upper East Side. Yet her past continues to cast a long shadow: victims've named her in suits, and new court filings have resurrected scrutiny of her role within Epstein's organization . Her consistent silence—invoking the Fifth Amendment, refusing deposition answers—and strategic disappearance following recent document unsealing further amplify suspicions. Though never prosecuted, Marcinkova typifies how Epstein's closest associates slipped through loopholes in an investigation heavy on wealth, power, and protection.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Former model who was Jeffrey Epstein's 'Lolita Express' pilot pleaded the fifth 42 TIMES in deposition including questions about Bill Clinton and whether she witnessed 'improper sexual activity' between pedo and minors in presence of ex-president | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Time for another episode of the “DMZ America Podcast,” where editorial cartoonist buddies Ted Rall (Left) and Scott Stantis (Right) go where mainstream media fears to tread in the story that proves that, for four years, a pen wasn't just a pen! President Biden used an auto-pen to sign documents—not just when he was away from Washington, but even when be was at the White House. Why? Was he unable to do his job? Was he even aware of the important documents signed under his name? Who was really running the country? Did his team hide cognitive decline? Former Biden deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini took the Fifth Amendment before the House Oversight Committee, joining other aides like Anthony Bernal and Biden's doctor in refusing to talk about Biden's mental state or auto-pen use, intensifying claims of a cover-up. Plus the White House Counsel's Office has launched a full investigation, pulling over 27,000 documents from the National Archives to examine whether Biden's aides used the auto-pen to sign documents without his full knowledge. Ted and Scott give you the facts, from the legal implications to the political fallout, as this scandal shakes up D.C. Tune in for a clash of perspectives from two sharp minds who don't pull punches!Plus: RussiaGate drags on with new twists in the ongoing investigation.Colbert's firing shocks late-night TV. Was this censorship or just about money?Public Broadcasting faces massive cuts, threatening local stations and emergency alerts.Support the showThe DMZ America Podcast is recorded weekly by political cartoonists Ted Rall and Scott Stantis. Twitter/X: @scottstantis and @tedrallWeb: Rall.com

Time for another episode of the “DMZ America Podcast,” where editorial cartoonist buddies Ted Rall (Left) and Scott Stantis (Right) go where mainstream media fears to tread in the story that proves that, for four years, a pen wasn't just a pen! President Biden used an auto-pen to sign documents—not just when he was away from Washington, but even when be was at the White House. Why? Was he unable to do his job? Was he even aware of the important documents signed under his name? Who was really running the country? Did his team hide cognitive decline? Former Biden deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini took the Fifth Amendment before the House Oversight Committee, joining other aides like Anthony Bernal and Biden's doctor in refusing to talk about Biden's mental state or auto-pen use, intensifying claims of a cover-up. Plus the White House Counsel's Office has launched a full investigation, pulling over 27,000 documents from the National Archives to examine whether Biden's aides used the auto-pen to sign documents without his full knowledge. Ted and Scott give you the facts, from the legal implications to the political fallout, as this scandal shakes up D.C. Tune in for a clash of perspectives from two sharp minds who don't pull punches!Plus: RussiaGate drags on with new twists in the ongoing investigation.Colbert's firing shocks late-night TV. Was this censorship or just about money?Public Broadcasting faces massive cuts, threatening local stations and emergency alerts.Support the showThe DMZ America Podcast is recorded weekly by political cartoonists Ted Rall and Scott Stantis. Twitter/X: @scottstantis and @tedrallWeb: Rall.com

A federal judge in California has ruled that the Trump's law enforcement agents have been violating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in the way they have been conducting mass immigrations sweeps in California. In language as clear as it is compelling, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong said in her ruling and order: "Do all individuals—regardless of immigration status-share in the rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution? Yes, they do.Is it illegal to conduct roving patrols which identify people based upon race alone, aggressively question them, and then detain them without a warrant, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are without status? Yes, it is."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

July 17, 2025Have you had your dose of The Daily MoJo today? Download The Daily MoJo App! "Ep 071725: Has AI Gone Too Far?! - The Daily MoJo"Adjusting one's mindset for adventure is essential, regardless of age. Recent events include a fire at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, prompting evacuations and raising questions about wildfire response accountability. The role of media in reporting such incidents is examined. Discussions also cover artificial intelligence, internet speed in Japan, and a mysterious alien discovery. Political topics, including voting rights and the Fifth Amendment, are explored alongside personal anecdotes and community engagement.Phil Bell's Morning Update The BIG SCAM of Rent-A-Crowds:  HEREJeff Fisher - Host of Chewing The Fat Podcast - Is doing Pat this week.  Jeff Fisher LinktreeBrandon Morse - Redstate Author & host of The Brandon Morse YouTube channel- Is here to get Brad into BIG TROUBLE with a girl who isn't even real!!Brandon's LinktreeOur affiliate partners:Take care of your body - it's the only one you'll get and it's your temple! We've partnered with Sugar Creek Goods to help you care for yourself in an all-natural way. And in this case, "all natural" doesn't mean it doesn't work! Save 15% on your order with promo code "DailyMojo" at SmellMyMoJo.comCBD is almost everywhere you look these days, so the answer isn't so much where can you get it, it's more about - where can you get the CBD products that actually work!? Certainly, NOT at the gas station! Patriots Relief says it all in the name, and you can save an incredible 40% with the promo code "DailyMojo" at GetMoJoCBD.com!Romika Designs is an awesome American small business that specializes in creating laser-engraved gifts and awards for you, your family, and your employees. Want something special for someone special? Find exactly what you want at MoJoLaserPros.com  There have been a lot of imitators, but there's only OG – American Pride Roasters Coffee. It was first and remains the best roaster of fine coffee beans from around the world. You like coffee? You'll love American Pride – from the heart of the heartland – Des Moines, Iowa. AmericanPrideRoasters.com   Find great deals on American-made products at MoJoMyPillow.com. Mike Lindell – a true patriot in our eyes – puts his money where his mouth (and products) is/are. Find tremendous deals at MoJoMyPillow.com – Promo Code: MoJo50  Life gets messy – sometimes really messy. Be ready for the next mess with survival food and tools from My Patriot Supply. A 25 year shelf life and fantastic variety are just the beginning of the long list of reasons to get your emergency rations at PrepareWithMoJo50.comStay ConnectedWATCH The Daily Mojo LIVE 7-9a CT: www.TheDailyMojo.com (RECOMMEDED)Watch:Rumble: HEREFacebook: HEREFreedomsquare: HEREYouTube: HEREListen:LISTEN: HEREBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-daily-mojo-with-brad-staggs--3085897/support

Today's show is sponsored by: Riverbend Ranch Riverbend Ranch has been around for 35 years, selecting cattle that have higher marbling and tenderness than any other beef. You cannot get this beef in your grocery store. Riverbend Ranch ages their beef for 21 days and you'll find it more tender and flavorful than even the finest restaurants. So, if you're ready to have the best steak of your life, head to https://www.riverbendranch.com. Use promo code: SEAN to get $20 of your first order. Concerned Women For America Concerned Women For America focuses on seven core issues: family, sanctity of life, religious liberty, parental choice in education, fighting sexual exploitation, national sovereignty, and support for Israel. CWA knows what a woman is. CWA trains women to become grassroots leaders, speak into the culture, pray, testify, and lobby. If you donate $20 you will get CEO & President Penny Nance's new book  A Woman's Guide, Seven Rules for Success in Business and Life. Head to ⁠https://concernedwomen.org/spicer/⁠to donate today! It's Thursday which means we have a great panel show for you today! We are also on episode 499 which means tomorrow will be our 500th episode. Thank you for all the support, tell your friends and make sure you are signed up for all notifications so you don't miss an episode of The Sean Spicer Show. President Trump called for Pam Bondi to release any credible evidence related to Jeffrey Epstein, the president has repeated this is another Democrat hoax and people are being duped by this ongoing controversy. Alan Dershowitz has said no one in office is in the case file; if President Trump were culpable, Joe Biden probably would have released the files during his presidency. Looks like everyone's lips are sealed when it comes to Joe Biden's competency. Anthony Bernal, Jill Biden's Chief of Staff has now pleaded the Fifth Amendment to prevent self-incrimination. The scandal deepens and points to corruption at the highest level considering this is the office of the presidency. Rep. Byron Donalds is calling for everyone in Biden's administration to be subpoenaed, stating that if Biden was not able to perform his duties, everything he signed is essentially null and void. In the midst of this, President Trump has gotten more wins for the American people including the most secure border in U.S. history, more than 35% of harmful dyes out of our food and a trade deal with Indonesia. Our panel is here to unpack everything, including this week's winners and losers. Featuring: Gabrielle Cuccia Former White House Correspondent https://x.com/gabbycuccia David Avella Chairman | GOPAChttps://www.gopac.org/ Matthew Foldi Editor In Chief | Washington Reporter https://washingtonreporter.news/ ------------------------------------------------------------- 1️⃣ Subscribe and ring the bell for new videos: https://youtube.com/seanmspicer?sub_confirmation=1 2️⃣ Become a part of The Sean Spicer Show community: https://www.seanspicer.com/ 3️⃣ Listen to the full audio show on all platforms: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-sean-spicer-show/id1701280578 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/32od2cKHBAjhMBd9XntcUd iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-sean-spicer-show-120471641/ 4️⃣ Stay in touch with Sean on social media: Facebook: https://facebook.com/seanmspicer Twitter: https://twitter.com/seanspicer Instagram: https://instagram.com/seanmspicer/ 5️⃣ Follow The Sean Spicer Show on social media: Facebook: https://facebook.com/seanspicershow Twitter: https://twitter.com/seanspicershow Instagram: https://instagram.com/seanspicershow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A federal judge in California has ruled that the Trump's law enforcement agents have been violating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in the way they have been conducting mass immigrations sweeps in California. In language as clear as it is compelling, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong said in her ruling and order: "Do all individuals—regardless of immigration status-share in the rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution? Yes, they do.Is it illegal to conduct roving patrols which identify people based upon race alone, aggressively question them, and then detain them without a warrant, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are without status? Yes, it is."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Shannon Bream joins the Marc Cox Morning Show to discuss the ongoing House Oversight investigation into President Joe Biden and his inner circle, including Anthony Bernal's repeated Fifth Amendment refusals amid questions about Hunter Biden pardons and the controversial “auto pen.” Despite limited cooperation, the probe continues to dig for proof of unauthorized presidential actions. Bream also weighs in on the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming the president's broad authority to restructure federal jobs, emphasizing the legal nuance behind the decision. The conversation touches on the Epstein fallout and calls from GOP senators for greater transparency, as well as ongoing political battles over sanctuary cities. The segment captures the growing frustration over stalled investigations and questions about presidential fitness.

In Hour 1 of The Annie Frey Show, the discussion centers on the implications of invoking the Fifth Amendment amid the House Oversight Committee's investigation into President Joe Biden. With figures like James Comer and Anthony Bernal pleading the Fifth, suspicions of involvement are raised. Hans von Spakovsky addresses the deep state, the two-tiered justice system, and the misuse of federal law enforcement tied to the Russia hoax. The segment also discusses trust in Trump-era officials such as Ash Patel and Pam Bondi. Plus, a look at the WNBA's rise in entertainment value, especially through Caitlin Clark's growing impact. The hour wraps with Ethan's America, featuring tips for boosting work performance, avoiding multitasking, and staying focused.

President Donald Trump says it is "highly unlikely" he will fire the Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell after many media outlets reported he signaled he would after meeting privately with some House Republicans; President Trump criticizes Republicans who are calling for release of filing on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, calling the questions surrounding the suicide and a client list a "hoax", labeling the Republican "weaklings" who are doing "Democrats work", and saying he does not want their support anymore; Senate moves into the home stretch on the $9 billion rescissions bill that cuts foreign aid and public broadcasting money with a vote-a-rama, a long series of votes on amendments; President Trump signs a bill to toughen prison sentencing for trafficking the drug fentanyl; NYC Mayor Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani meets with U.S. House Democrats in Washington; former Chief of Staff to former President Jill Biden, Anthony Bernal,  pleads the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination at the U.S. House Oversight Committee's investigation of former President Joe Biden mental fitness while in office and his use of an autopen; Israel launches airstrikes at Syria's capital city Damascus; tonight is the annual Congressional Women's Softball Game for charity, pitting a bipartisan team of Members of Congress against a team of DC reporters. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's show is sponsored by: Concerned Women For America Concerned Women For America focuses on seven core issues: family, sanctity of life, religious liberty, parental choice in education, fighting sexual exploitation, national sovereignty, and support for Israel. CWA knows what a woman is. CWA trains women to become grassroots leaders, speak into the culture, pray, testify, and lobby. If you donate $20 you will get CEO & President Penny Nance's new book  A Woman's Guide, Seven Rules for Success in Business and Life. Head to https://concernedwomen.org/spicer/to donate today! Riverbend Ranch Riverbend Ranch has been around for 35 years, selecting cattle that have higher marbling and tenderness than any other beef. You cannot get this beef in your grocery store. Riverbend Ranch ages their beef for 21 days and you'll find it more tender and flavorful than even the finest restaurants. So, if you're ready to have the best steak of your life, head to https://www.riverbendranch.com. Use promo code: SEAN to get $20 of your first order. The Senate is voting in the $9 billion rescission package created by DOGE. In the package is the revocation of government funding for NPR and PBS, which some Republicans are actually fighting to keep funding the left wing organizations. President Trump displayed another America First winning strategy in the oval office yesterday. American made patriot missiles and ammunition will be bought by NATO allies and sent to Ukraine in the ongoing war with Russia. Congressman Brandon Gil absolutely grilled NPR CEO Katherine Maher when she testified on Capitol Hill. Exposing the left-wing agenda by simply pulling tweets Maher had posted publicly. He is calling for the Senate to approve the recessions package with no excuses. As part of the House Oversight Committee, the Biden autopen scandal continues to erupt. In a New York Times interview, Biden admitted he had categorically approved pardons, he just didn't know the specifics. With Dr. O'Connor invoking the Fifth Amendment when asking if he lied, this onion has many layers to plee back to fully grasp the depth and breadth of this scandal. Emily Jashinsky is the host of the new show After Party with Emily. Even with the support of President Trump, Pam Bondi has created quite a mess with the Epstein files. Benny Johnson's recent talk with Lara Trump revealed that damage control is needed to be done and more will come to light. Zohran Mamdani won over New Yorkers by focusing on affordability issues in his campaign. Emily unpacks his recent victory and the state of the Democratic party as Bernie and AOC head out on tour. Featuring: Rep. Brandon Gil Congressman, Texas District 26 https://gill.house.gov/ Emily Jashinsky Host | After Party with Emily Jashinsky https://x.com/emilyjashinsky Guess what? It's Tuesday, which means NEW, FREE content in my newsletter: https://www.seanspicer.com/p/biden-the-autopen-and-a-congressional ------------------------------------------------------------- 1️⃣ Subscribe and ring the bell for new videos: https://youtube.com/seanmspicer?sub_confirmation=1 2️⃣ Become a part of The Sean Spicer Show community: https://www.seanspicer.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"Take a Fifth and Call Me In the Morning" Hosts: Darren Weeks, Vicky Davis Website for the show: https://governamerica.com Vicky's website: https://thetechnocratictyranny.com COMPLETE SHOW NOTES AND CREDITS AT: https://governamerica.com/radio/radio-archives/22626-govern-america-july-12-2025-take-a-fifth-and-call-me-in-the-morning Listen LIVE every Saturday at 11AM Eastern or 8AM Pacific at http://governamerica.net or on your favorite app. How dare you ask any questions about Epstein! Trump administration now says Epstein killed himself, bribed no one, and there was no client list. Weather modification admittedly used prior to deadly Texas flooding, but you're a conspiracy theorist if you believe it had an impact. Deadline approaches for WHO International Health Regulations withdrawal, and more.

Congressman Andy Biggs, a key figure in unraveling the Russia collusion case and a prominent candidate for governor in Arizona, delves into the implications of the Fifth Amendment rights invoked by Joe Biden's doctor, discuss the potential cover-ups surrounding Biden's health, and explore the allegations against John Brennan regarding the Russian collusion narrative. Biggs shares his insights on the current state of the border crisis, the attacks on law enforcement, and his vision for Arizona's job growth as he campaigns for governor. Congresswoman Marionette Miller Meeks discusses significant policy changes regarding illegal immigration and federal benefits. The Congresswoman also shares her insights on the challenges posed by activist judges and the importance of adhering to constitutional law. Dan Novaes, founder of Mode Mobile, discusses how his company created smartphones and an operating system designed to reward users for engaging with their devices. Discover how this can transform the way we use technology by rewarding users for their attention and data. With the potential to earn money just by engaging in everyday smartphone activities, find out how this could help many Americans struggling to make ends meet.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Dr. Kevin O'Connor, former physician to President Joe Biden, has invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and doctor-patient privilege, refusing to testify before the House Oversight Committee about Biden's health. This occurred during a closed-door session aimed at investigating potential issues concerning Biden's cognitive and physical health during his presidency.▶Sign up to our Free Newsletter, so you never miss out: https://bio.site/professornez▶Original, Made in the USA Neznation Patriot Merch: https://professornez.myspreadshop.com/all

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

Marc welcomes Congressman Bob Onder for a Capitol Beat segment that takes aim at corruption, waste, and media spin. Onder torches President Biden's physician for hiding behind the Fifth Amendment rather than admitting to covering up the president's health issues. He slams a leftist judge's decision to block Congress's “Big Beautiful Bill” that defunded abortion providers like Planned Parenthood—arguing it ignores Supreme Court precedent, state rights, and basic fiscal accountability. Onder breaks down how Democrats are lying about Medicaid cuts, clarifying the bill's real reforms: ending double billing across states, modest work requirements, and removing illegal immigrants from the rolls. Plus, he warns against federal overreach in AI regulation, defends Texas flood response from anti-Trump spin, and demands common sense over political theater.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Walworth, Carl Cannon and National Review contributor Heather Wilhelm discuss whether President Trump should receive The Nobel Peace Prize, and the politics behind the selection process. The they discuss former White House physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor's surprise decision to assert his Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination during an interview with House lawmakers and California Governor Gavin Newsom's tour of South Carolina. Then Andrew Walworth and Carl Cannon talk with Miranda Devine, New York Post columnist and host of the podcast “Pod Force One,” about her recent exclusive interview with White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. Then they speak with RCP National Correspondent Susan Crabtree about the news that the Secret Service has suspended agents involved in the assassination attempt against Donald Trump last year in Butler, Pennsylvania.

On today's Quick Start podcast: NEWS: Biden's former White House doctor refuses to answer lawmakers' questions on mental fitness, citing patient privilege and the Fifth Amendment — fueling fresh cover-up allegations. FOCUS STORY: A Florida pastor is deported after decades in the U.S., leaving a community reeling. MAIN THING: European socialists advance a ban targeting biblical teaching on gender — Billy Hallowell and Raj Nair unpack what Spain's new law means for pastors. LAST THING: James 3:5 — “Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts…" SHOW LINKS Faith in Culture: https://cbn.com/news/faith-culture Heaven Meets Earth PODCAST: https://cbn.com/lp/heaven-meets-earth NEWSMAKERS POD: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/newsmakers/id1724061454 Navigating Trump 2.0: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/navigating-trump-2-0/id1691121630

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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