Podcasts about files

On this  installment of the Gutowski Files we sit down with investigative reporter Stephen Gutowski of thereload.com and discuss a Maryland appeals court case and a Hawaii SCOTUS case both regarding the so-called "Vampire Rule" and a man successfully registered a potato as a silencer with the BATFE. Active Self Protection exists to help good, sane, sober, moral, prudent people in all walks of life to more effectively protect themselves and their loved ones from criminal violence. On the ASP Podcast you will hear the true stories of life or death self defense encounters from the men and women that lived them. If you are interested in the Second Amendment, self defense and defensive firearms use, martial arts or the use of less lethal tools used in the real world to defend life and family, you will find this show riveting.  Join host and career federal agent Mike Willever as he talks to real life survivors and hear their stories in depth. You'll hear about these incidents and the self defenders from well before the encounter occurred on through the legal and emotional aftermath. Music: bensound.com

Lucille Butterworth went missing in Tasmania in 1969, and Australians were shocked to learn decades later that someone confessed to her murder just 7 years after her disappearance. Confirmation bias, tunnel vision, and poor police procedures so damaged this case that even a confession was not enough to close it. This case is *unsolved*If you know anything about the disappearance of Lucille Butterworth, you can contact the Tasmania Police at 131 444 or Crime Stoppers at 1 800 333 000.Support the show!Get the exclusive show Beyond the Files plus Crimelines episodes ad free onSupercast: https://crimelines.supercast.com/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/crimelinesApple Subscriptions: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crimelines-true-crime/id1112004494 For one time support:https://www.basementfortproductions.com/supportLinks to all my socials and more:https://linktr.ee/crimelinesSources:2026 Crimelines Podcast Source ListTranscript: https://app.podscribe.ai/series/3790If an exact transcript is needed, please request at crimelinespodcast@gmail.com Licensing and credits:Theme music by Scott Buckley https://www.scottbuckley.com.au/Cover Art by Lars Hacking from Rusty HingesCrimelines is a registered trademark of Crimelines LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

When a loving businesswoman and grandmother is murdered in a horrific car bomb incident in 1980, the finger is finally pointed in the direction of a serial killing dentist who was motivated by lust, money and the thrill of the kill.Sources:1. Bakos, Susan Crain. Appointment for Murder. Putnam Adult, 1988.2. “Dr Glennon Edward Engleman (1927-1999) - Find a Grave Memorial.” Find a Grave - Millions of Cemetery Records, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/91569328/glennon_edward-engleman#:~:text=Methods used to kill his,of his victims is unknown.&text=According to numerous primary sources,of his victims is unknown.&text=------,According to numerous primary sources%2C his last name was Engleman,The tombstone is misspelled. Accessed 30 Dec. 2025.3. The Associated Press. “Illinois Woman Guilty in Husband's Death out of Prison | News | Columbiamissourian.Com.” Columbia Missourian, https://www.facebook.com/ColumbiaMissourian/, 19 Oct. 2009, https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/illinois-woman-guilty-in-husbands-death-out-of-prison/article_bd493a8c-a9a6-5205-9d33-b78d4903a3c1.html.4. The F.B.I. Files. 1998.5. Saint Louis Post Dispatch, 2 Mar. 1980.6. Fox 2 Now, https://fox2now.com/news/true-crime/st-louis-serial-murderer-used-charm-for-insurance-fraud-over-22-years/. Accessed 31 Dec. 2025.7. Gasconade County Republican, 4 Feb. 1981.8. The Edwardsville Intelligencer, https://www.theintelligencer.com/news/article/Boyle-hopes-to-be-released-from-jail-10553232.php. Accessed 31 Dec. 2025.This Week's Episode Brought To You By:Shopify - $1 per month trial - http://shopify.com/lovemurderProgressive Insurance - Discover better rates at https://www.progressive.com/ IndaCloud - If you're 21 or older, get 25% OFF your first order + free shipping with code lovemurder at https://inda.shop/lovemurder!Mint Mobile - Mobile wireless for just $15/mo - http://mintmobile.com/lovemurderFind LOVE MURDER online:Website: lovemurder.loveInstagram: @lovemurderpodTwitter: @lovemurderpodFacebook: LoveMrdrPodTikTok: @LoveMurderPodPatreon: /LoveMurderPodCredits: Love Murder is hosted by Jessie Pray and Andie Cassette, researched by Sarah Lynn Robinson and researched and written by Jessie Pray, produced by Nathaniel Whittemore and edited by Kyle Barbour-HoffmanSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Asha Rangappa joins Sarah to discuss the ICE raids in Minnesota, a federal court injunction limiting certain actions against protesters, DOJ retaliation, the stalled Epstein files release, and the growing use of law enforcement as a political weapon.Read the Ruling Restricting Federal Agents' Actions in Minnesota: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.229758/gov.uscourts.mnd.229758.85.0_1.pdfIf you're tired of being tired, this is your chance to finally get answers and get your energy back. Go to https://Superpower.com and use code ILLEGALNEWS for $20 off your membership this year.NOBL gives you real travel peace of mind — security, design, and convenience all in one. Head to https://NOBLTravel.com for 46% off your entire order! #NOBL #adGo to https://HelloFresh.com/illegalnews10fm to Get 10 free meals + a FREE Zwilling Knife (a $144.99 value) on your third box.F*%k your khakis and get The Perfect Jean 15% off with the code ILLEGALNEWS15 at https://theperfectjean.nyc/ILLEGALNEWS15  #theperfectjeanpod 

Support the show

In breaking news, a leader of the Epstein survivors movement has filed a new request imploring Federal Judge Engelmeyer to force the immediate production of millions of Epstein documents trapped inside of the Trump Administration, by taking the DOJ out of the process, and by appointing an Independent Monitor to get the documents produced. Michael Popok, who represents Lisa, reports on the new Federal court filing. Check out The Popok Firm at: https://thepopokfirm.com Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! 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 Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan 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 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Melissa, Lyndsay and Brady have a supersized kiki about all things Bravo. First up, the group discusses real housewife's ultimate road trip and Karen Huger's return to the RHOP reunion. The group then discuss the season finale and reunion part 1 of RHOSLC, The Bravo Docket's recent podcast on Britani Bateman (TW: discussion of DV and SA) and Nick Viall and Natalie Joy's lack of response to the backlash about their Austen Kroll Interview (TW: Discussion of sibling loss)We hope you enjoy the episode. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING and for all the support!Please follow YBT podcast and give a 5-star comment & rating (it really helps!)Please follow @yourbishtherapist on Instagram, Patreon, YouTube, FB, and TTFor full video (ad free, bonus content & early releases) visit YBT Patreon, Spreaker Supporters Club or YouTubePatreon: https://patreon.com/YourBishTherapist?utm_medium=unknown&utm_source=join_link&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=copyLinkAPPLE PODCAST https://apple.co/3MfskzeSpreaker Supporters club:  https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/your-bish-therapist--6065109/supportYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu8bmVPTlWANg5v7rGRJjow?subconfirmation=1 To find links to all YBT content: https://linktr.ee/yourbishtherapistBrand Ambassador: www.Iamhumanthebrand.com for clothing with a purpose. Code BISH20 for 20% off purchase Disclaimer: Posts are not intended to diagnose, treat or provide medical advice. Your Bish Therapist (YBT) is for entertainment and informational purposes only. The podcast, my opinions, and posts, are my own and are not associated with past or present employers, any organizations, Bravo TV, Grey Heart productions or any other television network. The information in YBT podcast and on its its social media is provided for general informational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose or treat. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read, see, or hear on YBT, podcast or associated social media. Communicating with YBT via email, and/or social media does not form a therapeutic alliance. Melissa, operator of YBT, is unable to provide any therapeutic advice, treatment or feedback.

Our first caller was pregnant with her third child when her husband cheated. The second caller discovered her partner was having an emotional affair. And our third caller is stuck listening to her mom trash her dad nonstop. "It sounds like he's already given up on this relationship…" Listen to Humble Brag with Cynthia Bailey and Crystal Kung Minkoff every Monday. Available wherever you get your podcasts and YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@humblebragpod  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/humble-brag-with-crystal-and-cynthia/id1774286896 https://open.spotify.com/show/4NWA8LBk15l2u5tNQqDcOO?si=c03a23d537f94735 Start your 7 Day Free Trial of Viall Files + here: https://viallfiles.supportingcast.fm/  Please make sure to subscribe so you don't miss an episode and as always send in your relationship questions to asknick@theviallfiles.com to be a part of our Monday episodes.  To Order Nick's Book Go To: https://www.viallfiles.com  If you would like to get some texting advice, send an email to asknick@theviallfiles.com with "Texting Office Hours" in the subject line!  To advertise on this podcast please email: ad-sales@libsyn.com or go to: https://advertising.libsyn.com/theviallfiles  THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS: IQ Bar - IQBAR is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQBAR products—including the Ultimate sampler pack—plus FREE shipping. To get your 20% off, text FILES to sixty-four thousand. Tonal - Right now, Tonal is offering our listeners $200 off your Tonal purchase with promo code VIALL at https://tonal.com, and use promo code VIALL  The Real Real- The RealReal is the most trusted name in authenticated luxury resale, With over ten thousand new arrivals daily, no one does resale like The RealReal. And now, get TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS OFF off your first purchase when you go to https://therealreal.com/files Neuro - For a limited time, you can get 20% off your first order at https://neurogum.com by using code: VIALL Article - Article is offering our listeners $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more. To claim, visit https://article.com/viall and the discount will be automatically applied at checkout Timestamps: (00:00) - Intro (00:52) - Caller One (29:33) - Caller Two (1:19:14) - Caller Three Episode Socials: @viallfiles @nickviall @justinkaphillips @the_mare_bare @izeweaver

In the first of two new legal developments, a federal judge in New York wants an explanation as to why the Department of Justice has failed - in violation of federal law - to fully disclose the Epstein files.In a second development, disqualified US Attorney Lindsey Halligan has filed what may be the single most inappropriate, disrespectful pleading ever filed by any Department of Justice lawyer.Glenn was joined by Adam Klasfeld of All Rise News to discuss these two important legal developments.Find Adam at: www.allrisenews.comFind Glenn on Substack at: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

- Weekend Updates and Personal Health Routine (0:00) - Vibe Coding and Technical Knowledge (3:59) - Challenges with AI and Robots (12:07) - Gold and Silver Market Analysis (24:13) - Trump's Tariffs and Geopolitical Tensions (33:25) - Domestic Tensions and Military Deployment (1:00:21) - Depopulation Agenda and AI Advancements (1:16:57) - Advancements in Robotics and AI (1:23:36) - Geopolitical Tensions and Nuclear Threats (1:24:42) - Election Integrity and Depopulation Goals (1:26:59) - Historical Precedents and Government Actions (1:30:32) - Deals with Maduro and Russia (1:33:05) - Political Benefits and Economic Impact (1:37:18) - Conclusion and Call to Action (1:41:01) For more updates, visit: http://www.brighteon.com/channel/hrreport NaturalNews videos would not be possible without you, as always we remain passionately dedicated to our mission of educating people all over the world on the subject of natural healing remedies and personal liberty (food freedom, medical freedom, the freedom of speech, etc.). Together, we're helping create a better world, with more honest food labeling, reduced chemical contamination, the avoidance of toxic heavy metals and vastly increased scientific transparency. ▶️ Every dollar you spend at the Health Ranger Store goes toward helping us achieve important science and content goals for humanity: https://www.healthrangerstore.com/ ▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: https://www.naturalnews.com/Readerregistration.html ▶️ Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/hrreport ▶️ Join Our Social Network: https://brighteon.social/@HealthRanger ▶️ Check In Stock Products at: https://PrepWithMike.com

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In the first of two new legal developments, a federal judge in New York wants an explanation as to why the Department of Justice has failed - in violation of federal law - to fully disclose the Epstein files.In a second development, disqualified US Attorney Lindsey Halligan has filed what may be the single most inappropriate, disrespectful pleading ever filed by any Department of Justice lawyer.Glenn was joined by Adam Klasfeld of All Rise News to discuss these two important legal developments.Find Adam at: www.allrisenews.comFind Glenn on Substack at: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

NORD: Get 4 months extra on a 2 year plan here: https://nordvpn.com/attwood It's risk free with Nord's 30 day money-back guarantee! In this livestream, attorney Robert Gouveia, Esq. joins us to break down the unsealed Ghislaine Maxwell indictment and the recently released Epstein-related files now circulating publicly.

Robert Ludlum’s The Bourne Revenge (Jason Bourne) by Brian Freeman https://www.amazon.com/Robert-Ludlums-Bourne-Revenge-Jason/dp/B0F5PLFLJ7 The identity of a deadly Chinese spy lies hidden in Jason Bourne's lost memory in this latest entry in the #1 New York Times bestselling series. Shadow – the head of Treadstone – has found evidence of massive Chinese espionage activity in the U.S. The spy running the operations is a shadowy American known only by the codename Bai Ze. No one knows who he is, but when Shadow consults the Files – the hacked AI database she stole from the Chinese – she discovers that Jason Bourne encountered Bai Ze during an operation eight years earlier. The trouble is, Bourne doesn't remember him. As Bourne hunts for the elusive spy, he meets a reporter named Laney Reese who shares his strange affliction: eight years ago, Laney lost her entire memory, too. For Bourne, that can't be a coincidence. He's convinced that whatever happened to both of them is at the heart of the Chinese espionage operation. With Laney at his side, Bourne follows a zigzagging trail of clues to a quirky billionaire and his ex-wife, both of whom may have ties to Bai Ze. As he gets closer to his shadowy adversary, Bourne begins to suspect that he's walking into a trap. But it's a trap with an almost irresistible bait – the chance to recover his forgotten memories. Now Bourne must decide how far he'll go to get his life back. About the author Brian Freeman is a New York Times and Amazon Charts bestselling author of more than two dozen psychological thrillers, including the Jonathan Stride series and multiple popular stand-alone novels. His books have been sold in 46 countries and 23 languages. He is widely acclaimed for his “you are there” settings and his complex, engaging characters and twist-filled plots. Brian was also selected as the official author to continue Robert Ludlum’s Jason Bourne series. His stand-alone thriller SPILLED BLOOD won the award for Best Hardcover Novel in the annual Thriller Awards given out by the International Thriller Writers organization, and his fifth novel THE BURYING PLACE was a finalist for the same award. His novel THE DEEP, DEEP SNOW was a finalist for the Edgar Award for Best Paperback Original in 2021. Kirkus Reviews named his novels THE BOURNE EVOLUTION and INFINITE among its 12 best mysteries and thrillers in back-to-back years.

In a highly criticized letter to two federal judges overseeing the release of the Justice Department's Jeffrey Epstein files, Attorney General Pam Bondi acknowledged that the ongoing document review process had encountered “glitches” but insisted that the DOJ was making “substantial progress” toward compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Bondi framed the delays and technical issues as inevitable given the “voluminous materials” and the need to protect victim privacy, highlighting a massive review effort involving hundreds of personnel and a centralized platform to process and redact documents. Her letter, however, offered no clear timeline for completing the statutorily required disclosures and emphasized only that the department was working “as expeditiously as possible” without compromising sensitive information.Critically, Bondi's letter has been condemned by survivors, lawmakers, and transparency advocates as a thinly veiled excuse for failing to meet the law's clear deadlines and for mishandling one of the most consequential releases of government documents in recent memory. Observers have pointed out that the “glitches” have ranged from a malfunctioning search function on the public document site to missing files and excessive redactions that render swaths of material nearly useless, raising questions about whether the problems are truly technical or instead reflect evasiveness and lack of urgency. Critics argue that calling these systemic failures mere “glitches” trivializes real legal obligations and victims' demands for accountability, suggesting that Bondi's leadership has been more defensive than transparent and that she has repeatedly failed to provide the court or the public with a credible plan to fulfill the law's requirements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Files Update as Pam Bondi Admits ‘Glitches' - Newsweek

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On this episode, the Epstein Files saga ramps up again as the DOJ confirms more than 500 people are reviewing millions of pages, but even Pam Bondi is admitting there have been “glitches” in the process, keeping the public waiting for the next big release. Meanwhile, actor Timothy Busfield gets dropped by his agency as his legal situation deepens, adding another ugly chapter to the entertainment-world scandal machine. Plus Canada makes a headline-grabbing move that could reshape the EV market in North America by slashing tariffs and cutting a major deal that brings Chinese electric vehicles closer to the U.S. market. Also in the mix: Jennifer Lawrence claims she lost out on Margot Robbie's Sharon Tate role for a ridiculous reason, A$AP Rocky appears to fire lyrical shots at Drake while flexing Rihanna, and a Minneapolis restaurant raising funds for families impacted by increased ICE presence reports federal agents showing up outside their doors.#EpsteinFiles #TimothyBusfield #ChineseEVsGet more AoA and become a member to get exclusive access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOfx0OFE-uMTmJXGPpP7elQ/joinGet Erin C's book here: https://amzn.to/3ITDoO7Get Merch here - https://bit.ly/AnthonyMerchSubscribe to the Anthony On Air Podcast here:Facebook - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirFBYouTube - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirYTApple Podcast - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirAppleSpotify - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirSpotTwitter - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirTwitterInstagram - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirInstaTikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@anthonyonairpodDiscord - https://discord.gg/78V469aV22Get more at https://www.AnthonyOnAir.com

Headlines:  – Welcome To Mo News (02:00) – Trump Threatens Insurrection Act in Minneapolis (05:20) – Iran's Heavy Crackdown Quells Protests For Now (14:15) – Mo News Talks To Former Wash. Post Tehran Bureau Chief For Insight (16:45) – Trump Given Nobel Peace Prize By Venezuelan Opposition Leader Machado (24:00) – Sprawling Gambling Scheme Uncovered Across Professional Basketball Leagues (28:40) – Saks Files For Bankruptcy; Amazon Says Not So Fast (31:00) – Netflix to Stream Sony's Films Globally After Release in Theaters (33:50) – What We're Watching, Reading, Eating (35:40) Thanks To Our Sponsors:  –⁠ Industrious⁠ - Coworking office. 50% off day pass | Promo Code: MONEWS50 – Incogni - 60% off an annual plan| Promo Code: MONEWS – Monarch - 50% off your first year | Promo Code: MONEWS – Leesa - 25% off plus an additional $50 | Promo Code: MONEWS

#1 New York Times bestselling author Dean Koontz spoke with me about his secret desire to run away with the carnival, struggling as a young writer, finding his voice, the evolution of his process, and his latest novel THE FRIEND OF THE FAMILY. International bestselling author Dean Koontz was a senior in college when he won an Atlantic Monthly fiction competition. He has never looked back. Koontz has written over 120 novels, been published in over 38 countries, and sold an incredible 500 million copies to date.   His masterful suspense thrillers, which blend science fiction, horror, crime and comedy, have earned him worldwide acclaim–and 14 hardback #1 NYT bestsellers–making him one of only a dozen writers to achieve that milestone (incl. One Door Away From Heaven, From the Corner of His Eye, Midnight, Cold Fire, The Bad Place, Hideaway, Dragon Tears, Intensity, Sole Survivor, The Husband, Odd Hours, Relentless, What the Night Knows, and 77 Shadow Street). His latest novel, The Friend of the Family, is described as the story of “A girl liberated from a carnival sideshow [who] discovers her mysterious purpose in a moving novel about family, sacrifice, and transcendent love…” Dean Koontz has been hailed by Rolling Stone as “America's most popular suspense novelist,” and The New York Times has called his writing “psychologically complex, masterly and satisfying.” Many of his books have been made into films. [This episode is sponsored by Ulysses. Go to ⁠ulys.app/writeabook⁠ to download Ulysses, and use the code FILES at checkout to get 25% off the first year of your yearly subscription."] [Discover The Writer Files Extra: Get 'The Writer Files' Podcast Delivered Straight to Your Inbox at writerfiles.fm] [If you're a fan of The Writer Files, please click FOLLOW to automatically see new interviews. And drop us a rating or a review wherever you listen] In this file Dean Koontz and I discussed: What to do when you're down and out When he realized he wasn't a true sci-fi writer The author's low threshold for boredom and genre-defying work Why he stays away from in-person events  Writing The Friend of the Family and the inspiration behind it Why writers need to find humor in their mistakes Having a nice red wine with Charles Dickens And a lot more! Show Notes: deankoontz.com The Friend of the Family by Dean Koontz – January 20, 2026 (Amazon) Dean Koontz Amazon Author Page Dean Koontz on Facebook Dean Koontz on Instagram Dean Koontz on Twitter Milena Gonzalez | Writer | Reader | Book Reviewer diary_of_a_book_babe on Instagram Kelton Reid Instagram Kelton Reid on Twitter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

Friendship Files #4 — Different Flavors of FriendshipWhy do some friendships feel easy… and others feel confusing or painful—even when there's real care?In this episode, we unpack the idea that friendship isn't one-size-fits-all. People connect in different “flavors”—and when we turn our personal preference into the standard, difference starts to feel like rejection.We talk about common contrasts like:Frequent texter vs. periodic connectorFast-paced life vs. slow-paced lifeOne-on-one vs. group connectionTalker vs. doerSpontaneous vs. plannedYou'll learn how pain quietly turns into story, and story turns into judgment—and how to separate personality from personal so you don't turn difference into a verdict.This episode will help you:Name your own flavor of friendshipUnderstand others without moralizing styleAdjust expectations without shrinking your needsReceive love in more than one formDifferent doesn't mean distant.Different doesn't mean careless.Sometimes it just means… they're a different flavor than you.Click here to Book a coaching with Jenna --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a highly criticized letter to two federal judges overseeing the release of the Justice Department's Jeffrey Epstein files, Attorney General Pam Bondi acknowledged that the ongoing document review process had encountered “glitches” but insisted that the DOJ was making “substantial progress” toward compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Bondi framed the delays and technical issues as inevitable given the “voluminous materials” and the need to protect victim privacy, highlighting a massive review effort involving hundreds of personnel and a centralized platform to process and redact documents. Her letter, however, offered no clear timeline for completing the statutorily required disclosures and emphasized only that the department was working “as expeditiously as possible” without compromising sensitive information.Critically, Bondi's letter has been condemned by survivors, lawmakers, and transparency advocates as a thinly veiled excuse for failing to meet the law's clear deadlines and for mishandling one of the most consequential releases of government documents in recent memory. Observers have pointed out that the “glitches” have ranged from a malfunctioning search function on the public document site to missing files and excessive redactions that render swaths of material nearly useless, raising questions about whether the problems are truly technical or instead reflect evasiveness and lack of urgency. Critics argue that calling these systemic failures mere “glitches” trivializes real legal obligations and victims' demands for accountability, suggesting that Bondi's leadership has been more defensive than transparent and that she has repeatedly failed to provide the court or the public with a credible plan to fulfill the law's requirements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Files Update as Pam Bondi Admits ‘Glitches' - NewsweekBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Descriptions - EXPAT FILES SHOW #1490, FRI, JAN 16 (01-16-26):    #1- What Latin American Spanish rags are saying about the Maduro capture: Here's what 1st world captured media won't tell you…   #2- The “macho” culture restaurant effect- in reverse: Why does the lone gringo at the table so often get guilted into picking up the check?   #3- Crazy Latin American relationship facts- PART 2: A continued rant on why so many beautiful Latina women have unattractive, low-value husbands, boyfriends and errant kids…   #4- How to kill a formerly nice, popular gringo tourist spot: Might decapitating five or six locals and mounting their heads on poles at the beach do the trick?   #5- Our own Expat Captain Mango has developed a unique one-on-one Crypto consulting and training service (he's been deep into crypto since 2013). To get started, email him at: bewarecaptainmango@gmail.com 

Send us a textRHOSLC- S6 Reunion Part 1-Risky Friends, Sealed Files & Smoky EyesRHOSLC S6 E17 – Reunion Part 1Andy Cohen opens the reunion with compliments, shade, and quick check-ins—DJ Meredith Marks is “on pause” from touring, Whitney's back to blonde, Heather's Surviving Mormonism gets praise, and Mary delivers her signature deadpan energy right out of the gate.❄️ Meredith vs. Whitney: BravoCon FalloutMeredith sets the tone by confronting Whitney about a drunken BravoCon conversation. Whitney insists she was just being kind and trying to mend fences, not retracting anything she's said. Meredith fires back, claiming Whitney was “fall-down drunk” and wanted to keep peace off-camera while filming continued. The argument escalates fast—Lisa jumps in, Whitney tells her to shut up, and Mary calmly reminds Whitney she has the floor. Spoiler: no apology, no resolution, just tension.

Nicolle Wallace on the Justice Department seeking retribution against perceived enemies of President Donald Trump.For more, follow us on Instagram @deadlinewh For more from Nicolle, follow and download her podcast, “The Best People with Nicolle Wallace,” wherever you get your podcasts.To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In Episode 458 of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Patrick Boyle, a former hedge fund manager, finance professor, and the creator and host of one of the most successful business channels on YouTube, with over a million subscribers and nearly 150 million views spread across several hundred videos. Patrick brings a unique combination of domain expertise and media savvy to his analysis of financial markets, economic scandals, and the complex web of power that connects Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Washington. Demetri asked Patrick Boyle to appear on the podcast after discovering that his channel had been demonetized as a result of his exploration of the Jeffrey Epstein story—not the salacious details that have dominated headlines, but the deeper questions about the intersection of power, wealth, regulatory capture, and institutional failure that the story reveals. They explore where Epstein's massive fortune actually came from, why simple explanations accounting for his wealth don't add up, what the heavily redacted release of FBI files tells us about how our two-tiered justice system operates in practice, and what Patrick's personal experience of having his YouTube channel demonetized for covering this story reveals about algorithmic censorship and the incentive structures shaping modern media. The rest of the conversation is devoted to a broader discussion about the transformation of our information ecosystem, the power of platforms like YouTube to amplify or suppress content, what it would take to build a viable media company or platform that prioritizes quality and truth over engagement and controversy, the challenges facing young journalists trying to break into rapidly evolving industry, and why maintaining networks of trustworthy content creators and sources has become more important now than ever. Subscribe to our premium content—including our premium feed, episode transcripts, and Intelligence Reports—by visiting HiddenForces.io/subscribe. If you'd like to join the conversation and become a member of the Hidden Forces Genius community—with benefits like Q&A calls with guests, exclusive research and analysis, in-person events, and dinners—you can also sign up on our subscriber page at HiddenForces.io/subscribe. If you enjoyed today's episode of Hidden Forces, please support the show by: Subscribing on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, Stitcher, SoundCloud, CastBox, or via our RSS Feed Writing us a review on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Joining our mailing list at https://hiddenforces.io/newsletter/ Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou Subscribe and support the podcast at https://hiddenforces.io. Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod Follow Demetri on Twitter at @Kofinas Episode Recorded on 01/12/2025

Throwback Files: Dyatlov Pass Incident | Paranormal Podcast It's time for another throwback Thursday! On this month's Throwback Files, we revisit the very mysterious Dyatlov Pass Incident. About the Dyatlov Pass Incident In February 1959, nine experienced Soviet hikers died under mysterious circumstances in the Ural Mountains after cutting their way out of their tent and fleeing into extreme cold. Six died from hypothermia while three suffered severe traumatic injuries including skull damage and chest fractures, with some bodies found months later showing unusual soft tissue damage. The original Soviet investigation concluded a "compelling natural force" caused the deaths, leading to decades of speculation about causes ranging from avalanches to military tests to paranormal phenomena. Russian authorities reopened the case in 2019 and concluded in 2020 that a slab avalanche likely forced the group to evacuate their tent in panic, leading to their deaths from hypothermia and injuries sustained during their desperate attempt to survive. Recent scientific studies have supported the avalanche theory, though the incident remains one of the most enduring mysteries in mountaineering history.

What was really on Thomas Crooks' phone? Who was he communicating with, and why did the FBI claim there was “nothing there”?

Andrew, Ben, and Tom discuss Saks filing for bankruptcy and bank earnings. Join our live YouTube stream Monday through Friday at 8:30 AM EST:http://www.youtube.com/@TheMorningMarketBriefingPlease see disclosures:https://www.narwhal.com/disclosure

The Epstein story is being slowly smothered not because the facts disappeared, but because attention did. A fresh tragedy dominates the news cycle, soaking up oxygen the way breaking disasters always do, leaving no room for unresolved scandals that demand patience and persistence. Wall-to-wall coverage shifts emotional bandwidth away from accountability and toward shock, grief, and immediacy. The result is predictable: Epstein coverage slips from front-page urgency to background noise. Panels that once debated co-conspirators now debate optics and timing. Editors quietly decide that a dead story with no “new hook” can wait another day, then another week. Public outrage doesn't vanish, it just gets deferred. That delay is fatal to complicated accountability stories that rely on sustained pressure. The files remain sealed not because the public stopped caring, but because caring requires focus. Distraction does the work that censorship never could.That dynamic plays directly into the hands of everyone who benefits from the Epstein story staying buried. Powerful institutions don't need to argue against disclosure when the public is too exhausted to demand it. Silence becomes procedural instead of sinister, framed as backlog, process, or sensitivity. Each new tragedy gives cover to stall, redact, and delay without looking defensive. The longer the pause, the easier it is to claim the moment has passed. Survivors are told, implicitly, to wait their turn while history moves on without them. Accountability is treated as optional, something to revisit once the chaos settles, knowing full well it never really does. This is how uncomfortable truths die in modern America: not with denial, but with neglect. The Epstein files don't stay sealed because they lack importance. They stay sealed because distraction is policy, and it's working.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Episode 111 of The Kershner Files, Dave starts the show by talking through a TON of current event/headlines that directly affects us and our preparedness planning. Iran is on fire, Venezuela is trying to find their bearings, DARPA weapons, and more. From there, he dives into the current spot prices for gold and silver, Survival Realty, gun shows, and conferences/conventions. After all of that, Dave takes a look at the noise emanating from Minneapolis calling for a second civil war. He then closes the show reviewing two articles dealing with low budge projects and quick growing garden items. Two Rivers Outfitter - The Premiere Online Preparedness Store DesignsbyDandTStore - Dave's Etsy Shop for fun clothing options Spot Prices for Gold (Au) and Silver (Ag) - from the davidjkershner.com website Survival Realty - featured properties and new listings State-by-State Gun Shows - from the davidjkershner.com website Conferences and Conventions - from the davidjkershner.com website Support Dave by visiting his new website at Two Rivers Outfitter for all of your preparedness needs and you can also visit his Etsy shop at DesignsbyDandTStore for fun clothing and merchandise options. Two Rivers Outfitter merchandise is available on both the Two Rivers Outfitter and the davidjkershner.com websites. Available for Purchase - Fiction: When Rome Stumbles | Hannibal is at the Gates | By the Dawn's Early Light | Colder Weather | A Time for Reckoning (paperback versions) | Fiction Series (paperback) | Fiction Series (audio) Available for Purchase - Non-Fiction: Preparing to Prepare (electronic/paperback) | Home Remedies (electronic/paperback) | Just a Small Gathering (paperback) | Just a Small Gathering (electronic)

Infant abductions are unlike other kidnappings and the profile of the perpetrator differs greatly, with the vast majority being women whose motivation is to raise the child. With the rise in at-home DNA kits, these cold cases are starting to be solved but there are still some that remain unresolved. These cases are *unsolved*If you know anything, you can call NCMEC at 1-800-THE-LOST orMatthew Crocker: Van Buren Police Department 479-474-1234Emmanuel Birts: Dallas Police Department 214-744-4444David Blockett: Newport News Police Department 757-926-8706Support the show!Get the exclusive show Beyond the Files plus Crimelines episodes ad free onSupercast: https://crimelines.supercast.com/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/crimelinesApple Subscriptions: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crimelines-true-crime/id1112004494 For one time support:https://www.basementfortproductions.com/supportLinks to all my socials and more:https://linktr.ee/crimelinesSources:2026 Crimelines Podcast Source ListTranscript: https://app.podscribe.ai/series/3790If an exact transcript is needed, please request at crimelinespodcast@gmail.com Licensing and credits:Theme music by Scott Buckley https://www.scottbuckley.com.au/Cover Art by Lars Hacking from Rusty HingesCrimelines is a registered trademark of Crimelines LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We are officially living in unprecedented times.

In part one of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sued the Trump administration Monday, seeking to block a massive federal immigration enforcement surge they say has flooded the Twin Cities with armed agents, sparked fear and unrest, and interfered with state and local authorities, according to court filings. The lawsuit names Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, top officials with DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons and Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, along with the federal agencies themselves. Also federal prosecutors open a surprise investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell, audio from CNN on what law enforcement officials knew about the Portland shooting involving TPA gang members, and how the left seems to want violence. For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Monday, January 12th, 2026Today, Minneapolis prosecutors say they will investigate the murder of Renée Good despite the FBI trying to block them; the Trump administration says it's going to deploy more Border Patrol agents to Minneapolis; a day after the shooting Kristi Noem quietly issued a memo limiting Congressional visits to ICE detention centers; the National Portrait Gallery has removed information about Trump's impeachments and replaced it with a giant portrait of him instead; federal judges blocked key parts of Trump's election order, his $10B freeze on childcare, and his move to end family immigration parole status; Virginia Democrats signal a push to redraw maps; and Allison delivers your Good News.Thank You, WildgrainGet $30 off your first box + free Croissants in every box. Go to Wildgrain.com/DAILYBEANS to start your subscription. The Latest:EXCLUSIVE: Whistleblower EXPOSES DOJ ERROR in the FILES!!! | Allison Gill, Katie Phang | MeidasTouchBeans Talk | Ice is Out of ControlStories:Minnesota to review ICE shooting after FBI blocks state agents from case | The Washington PostTrump Administration Deploying More Border Patrol Agents to Minnesota | NYTAfter Minnesota Shooting, ICE Again Limits Congressional Visits | The New York TimesSmithsonian removes Trump impeachment text at National Portrait Gallery | The Washington PostFederal court blocks key parts of Trump's anti-voting order, restores states' control over elections | Democracy DocketJudge blocks Trump's $10B welfare fund freeze | POLITICOJudge signals blocking Trump move to end protections for Latin American migrants | The HillVirginia Democrats signal push for congressional map that leaves just one GOP seat in bid to counter gerrymanders | Democracy Docket Good TroubleCharlotte she/herSomeone has started a GoFundMe for ICE agent Jonathan Ross who murdered Ms Good. This violates GoFundMe terms of service as described in this Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Raids/s/cr3aUMhFNEThey also included information on how to report it.The GoFundMe has unfortunately already raised a lot of money.https://www.gofundme.com/f/ice-offuver-jonathan-ross →Congress: Divest From ICE and CBP | American Civil Liberties Union→2026 Trans Girl Scouts To Order Cookies From!From The Good Newshttps://indivisible.org/statements/ice-out-good-coalition-announces-nationwide-weekend-action-demanding-accountabilityhttps://www.williamsforky.com/→Go To DailyBeansPod.com Click on ‘Contact' → ‘Good News and Good Trouble' to Share YoursSubscribe to the MSW YouTube Channel - MSW Media - YouTubeOur Donation LinksPathways to Citizenship link to MATCH Allison's Donationhttps://crm.bloomerang.co/HostedDonation?ApiKey=pub_86ff5236-dd26-11ec-b5ee-066e3d38bc77&WidgetId=6388736Allison is donating $20K to It Gets Better and inviting you to help match her donations. Your support makes this work possible, Daily Beans fam. Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans FundraiserJoin Dana and The Daily Beans and support on Giving Tuesday with a MATCHED Donation http://onecau.se/_ekes71More Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - Donate

Allison and Katie Phang break down an exclusive story after Allison met with a whistleblower who exposed a DOJ error that leaves survivor information vulnerable. The DOJ confirmed they received notice of the issue on December 21st but still hasn't corrected it. Allison connected the whistleblower with House Oversight, which confirmed the information, said this error was new to them, and is now working on a fix and on improving how whistleblowers can report DOJ failures in the future.Watch the video here:https://www.youtube.com/live/NMHC3MomXzE?si=dVYvHo8V2M7fp_lf Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

"Every day that passes makes it harder to hold him accountable."In the spring of 2008, inside the offices of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, a document was finalized that brought an end to the federal government's investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. The document was a Non-Prosecution Agreement, a type of agreement used to resolve cases without a trial. But this NPA in particular was handled outside of the normal public process. It was not filed in open court, and there was no public acknowledgement that it existed when it was signed.The individuals whose testimony had formed the basis of the federal case were not notified. They were not told that negotiations were underway, and they were not informed when the agreement was finalized. No court hearing accompanied the signing, and no press release announced that the investigation had been resolved.Part 4/7Research & writing by Amelia White and Ira RaiHosting, production, and additional research & writing by Micheal WhelanLearn more about this podcast at http://unresolved.meIf you would like to support this podcast, consider heading to https://www.patreon.com/unresolvedpod to become a Patron or ProducerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/unresolved--3266604/support.