Podcasts about indefensible

Actor and comedian Ben Bailey Smith, sports reporter Katie Smith, GB sprinter and Gladiator Harry Aikines-Aryeetey, and comedian Tom Rosenthal join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

English association football player and Traitors winner Jake Brown, television presenter, producer and novelist Richard Osman, and comedians Bob Mills and Susie McCabe join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

Merry Christmas! We opened up the floor to you the Jammers to let us know what facts we mangled, takes we had that were so egregious you shouted at your phones, and generally how wrong we've been. Thank you to everyone who sent us a voicemail or email. Thanks for a wonderful 2025 and peace out mon freres.(FYI some of us like The Decemberists)If you like what you hear, please rate, review, subscribe, and follow!Connect with us here:Email: contact@churchjamsnow.comSite: https://www.churchjamsnow.com/IG: @churchjamsnowTwitter: @churchjamsnowFB: https://www.facebook.com/churchjamsnowpodcastPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/churchjamsnowpodcast

Former cricketer and BBC commentator Charles Dagnall, former GB badminton player Gail Emms, journalist Jim White, and comedian Alfie Brown join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

We The People must stand strong, stay united, resolute, calm, and focus on the mission. Order Mel's New Book: Americans Anonymous: Restoring Power to the People One Citizen at a Time https://themelkshow.com/book The Show's Partners Page: https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Consider Making A Donation: https://themelkshow.com/donate/ Beverly Hills Precious Metals Exchange - Buy Gold & Silver https://themelkshow.com/gold/ Speak with Gold Expert Andrew Sorchini…Tell Him Mel K Sent You! Dr. Zelenko Immunity Protocols https://zstacklife.com/MelK I trust SatellitePhoneStore when all other networks fail. With their phone, I know I'm always connected, no matter where I am or what happens. https://sat123.com/melk/ I've tried a lot of supplements over the years, but nothing has compared to the purity and results I've experienced with Chemical Free Body. USE CODE MELK Mel K Superfoods Supercharge your wellness with Mel K Superfoods Use Code: MELKWELLNESS and Save Over $100 off retail today! https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Healthy Hydration: https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Patriot Mobile Support your values, your freedom and the Mel K Show. Switch to Patriot Mobile for Free. Use free activation code MELK https://themelkshow.com/partners/ HempWorx The #1 selling CBD brand. Offering cutting edge products that run the gamut from CBD oils and other hemp products to essential oils in our Mantra Brand, MDC Daily Sprays which are Vitamin and Herb combination sprays/ https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Dr. Zelenko Immunity Protocols https://zstacklife.com/MelK Support Patriots With MyPillow Go to https://www.mypillow.com/melk Use offer code “MelK” to support both MyPillow and The Mel K Show The Wellness Company - Emergency Medical Kits: https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Dr. Stella Immanuel, MD. Consult with a renowned healthcare provider! Offering Telehealth Services & Supplements. Use offer code ‘MelK' for 5% Off https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Rumble (Video) - The Mel K Show: https://rumble.com/c/TheMelKShow X: https://twitter.com/MelKShow Twitter (Original): https://twitter.com/originalmelk TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@themelkshow Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/themelkshow/ Podbean: https://themelkshow.podbean.com/ GETTR: https://www.gettr.com/user/themelkshow Locals.com: https://melk.locals.com/ Banned Video: https://banned.video/channel/the-mel-k-show We at www.themelkshow.com want to thank all our amazing patriot pals for joining us on this journey, for your support of our work, and for your faith in this biblical transition to greatness. Together we are unstoppable. We look forward to seeing you. God Wins! https://themelkshow.com/events/ Remember to mention Mel K for great discounts on all these fun and informative events. See you there! Our Website www.TheMelKShow.com We love what we do and are working hard to keep on top of everything to help this transition along peacefully and with love. Please help us amplify our message: Like, Comment & Share!

Don is joined by Michael Cohen to discuss the tragic death of Rob Reiner and his wife and the deeply disturbing response from Donald Trump that followed. In a moment that demanded compassion and basic human decency, Trump chose something else entirely. His words have sparked widespread outrage and disbelief, raising a stark question: how can anyone possibly defend this kind of response? Don and Michael Cohen break down what Trump said, why it crossed a line for so many Americans, and what it reveals about his character, judgment, and capacity for empathy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michael is joined by longtime Trump adviser David Urban for a candid conversation about the president's controversial Truth Social post following the tragic murders of Rob and Michele Reiner. Urban, who ran Trump's 2016 Pennsylvania campaign, publicly called the post “indefensible”—and here he explains why. Together, he and Michael explore the political fallout, the human cost behind the Reiner family tragedy, and what the moment reveals about decision-making inside Trump's orbit. A sobering and insightful discussion on leadership, restraint, and the national mood. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Strategic Failure of Abandoning Bagram for HKIA: Colleagues Jerry Dunleavy and James Hasson discuss the catastrophic decision to shutter Bagram Air Base, forcing an evacuation through an indefensible civilian airport in Kabul, describing the immediate collapse of security, the release of terrorists from prisons, and the desperate measures US troops took to maintain order during the evacuation. 1910 PESHAWAR

Football presenter Natalie Pike, sports journalist Ned Boulting, 5 Live breakfast host Rachel Burden and presenter Joe McGrath join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

If Democrats can find a way to defend criminals, at home or abroad, they will. This time, it's "the process" and stuff they wouldn't care about if it wasn't Donald Trump. Deroy is here to piece it together.

Presenter and former athlete Emma Paton, journalist Luke Moore, journalist and presenter Martin Kelner, and comedian Neil Delamere join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

Former cricketer and BBC commentator Charles Dagnall, former GB athlete Kath Merry, The Big Issue editor Paul McNamee and comedian Ian Smith join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

Broadcaster Kate Mason, DJ and presenter Katie Owen, and comedians Kae Kurd and Tez Ilyas join guest host Martin Bayfield for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

Sports presenter David Alorka, former GB badminton player Gail Emms, sports journalist Thom Gibbs, and comedian Shane Todd join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

Journalist, author and podcaster Adam Hurrey, former netball player Eboni Usoro-Brown and comedians Eddie Kadi and Justin Moorhouse join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

Rapper and author Guvna B, England netball head coach Jess Thirlby, GB sprinter Nethaneel Mitchell-Blake and comedian Gbemi Oladipo join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!

Presenter and former GB athlete Jeanette Kwakye, The Big Issue editor Paul McNamee, and comedians Elliot Steel and Josh James join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

Sports reporter Katie Smith, writer and football pundit Mina Rzouki, and comedians Andrew White and Danny Mcloughlin join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

And they eat their own.

A shocking controversy involving the Young Republicans is leading to widespread debate, and many MAGA star influencers like Tim Pool and Matt Walsh are defending the seemingly indefensible. I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Send me a voice note: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone Check out the merch: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/Support My Show: https://linktr.ee/bradpolumboSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former England and Liverpool footballer David James, broadcaster Dougie Anderson, broadcaster Eleanor Oldroyd, and comedian Ray Bradshaw join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

Chief football writer John Cross, journalist and presenter Martin Kelner, GB sprinter Nethaneel Mitchell-Blake, and comedian Chloe Petts join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

EastEnders actor Jake Wood, football presenter Natalie Pike, author and comedian Ian Moore, and comedian Carl Donnelly join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

British former heptathlete Kelly Sotherton, journalist and presenter Ned Boulting, journalist Thom Gibbs and comedian Bob Mills join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible', where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for 20 seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

Broadcaster Dougie Anderson, journalist Luke Moore, and comedians Neil Delamere and Susie McCabe join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

The international break rumbles on as we revive one of your favourite games!Join us as our panellists defend the indefensible.Make sure to leave a rating and a review, and subscribe wherever you're listening to this show!You can keep up to date with all of the latest City Ramble action by following our social media pages. Follow us:Discord ➡️ https://discord.gg/CvYNABX354X (Twitter) ➡️ https://x.com/thecityrambleInstagram ➡️ https://www.instagram.com/cityramble/?hl=enTikTok ➡️ https://www.tiktok.com/@thecityrambleWebsite ➡️ https://www.thecityramble.co.uk/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sports presenter David Alorka, rapper and author Guvna B, presenter and former athlete Emma Paton, and comedian Danny Mcloughlin join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

Send us a textIn this counseling episode with two different guests, Reese has felt pressure to be perfect all her life. She says, "I don't know who I am." Zura finds herself in a complicated relationship, gets little love in return, and feels selfish about it. Sven dives in, finds the common threads, and helps these very different women face the unvarnished truth about the similar roots of their pain. Explicit content.

England GB badminton player Gail Emms, football manager Phil Brown, and comedians Henning Wehn and Tez Ilyas join Rick Edwards for an hour of sporting punditry, humour and entertainment. Points are awarded for informed comment, wit and passion, but taken away for nonsense and answers lacking in conviction.In the final round, the top two points scorers go head-to-head in 'Defend the Indefensible' where they must both defend a statement however ludicrous or distasteful for twenty seconds. There can only be one winner!Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

Seg 1 - Defending the Indefensible?Seg 2 – Flag Burning and BeyondSeg 3 – Gavin Newsom's DelusionSeg 4 – Cracker Barrel Cracks

The Department of Justice's handling of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement is not a story of legal inevitability but one of institutional protection and betrayal. In 2008, prosecutors secretly struck a deal that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity, hiding it from victims in direct violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. When a federal judge confirmed that violation in 2019, the DOJ had the chance to admit the deal was unlawful and void it. Instead, it doubled down, filing a 35-page defense insisting there was “no legal basis” to undo the sweetheart deal. At the same time, it staged a hollow push to release grand jury records it knew the courts would never unseal—then blamed the judiciary for the failure. This was theater, designed to shift blame while burying what the DOJ actually controls: the rotten deal it authored.The truth is that the DOJ could dismantle the non-prosecution agreement tomorrow. Legal tools exist: declare it void for violating victims' rights, for being unconscionable, or for undermining public policy. But the department refuses because dismantling it would expose its own complicity, the reputations it protected, and the powerful network Epstein served. By clinging to the deal, the DOJ isn't upholding the law—it's shielding itself and the elite beneficiaries of Epstein's world. The result is a department that masquerades as a guardian of justice while acting as caretaker of corruption. The ultimate betrayal is clear: the very institution meant to protect victims instead became a predator's last line of defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Department of Justice's handling of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement is not a story of legal inevitability but one of institutional protection and betrayal. In 2008, prosecutors secretly struck a deal that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity, hiding it from victims in direct violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. When a federal judge confirmed that violation in 2019, the DOJ had the chance to admit the deal was unlawful and void it. Instead, it doubled down, filing a 35-page defense insisting there was “no legal basis” to undo the sweetheart deal. At the same time, it staged a hollow push to release grand jury records it knew the courts would never unseal—then blamed the judiciary for the failure. This was theater, designed to shift blame while burying what the DOJ actually controls: the rotten deal it authored.The truth is that the DOJ could dismantle the non-prosecution agreement tomorrow. Legal tools exist: declare it void for violating victims' rights, for being unconscionable, or for undermining public policy. But the department refuses because dismantling it would expose its own complicity, the reputations it protected, and the powerful network Epstein served. By clinging to the deal, the DOJ isn't upholding the law—it's shielding itself and the elite beneficiaries of Epstein's world. The result is a department that masquerades as a guardian of justice while acting as caretaker of corruption. The ultimate betrayal is clear: the very institution meant to protect victims instead became a predator's last line of defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Department of Justice's handling of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement is not a story of legal inevitability but one of institutional protection and betrayal. In 2008, prosecutors secretly struck a deal that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity, hiding it from victims in direct violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. When a federal judge confirmed that violation in 2019, the DOJ had the chance to admit the deal was unlawful and void it. Instead, it doubled down, filing a 35-page defense insisting there was “no legal basis” to undo the sweetheart deal. At the same time, it staged a hollow push to release grand jury records it knew the courts would never unseal—then blamed the judiciary for the failure. This was theater, designed to shift blame while burying what the DOJ actually controls: the rotten deal it authored.The truth is that the DOJ could dismantle the non-prosecution agreement tomorrow. Legal tools exist: declare it void for violating victims' rights, for being unconscionable, or for undermining public policy. But the department refuses because dismantling it would expose its own complicity, the reputations it protected, and the powerful network Epstein served. By clinging to the deal, the DOJ isn't upholding the law—it's shielding itself and the elite beneficiaries of Epstein's world. The result is a department that masquerades as a guardian of justice while acting as caretaker of corruption. The ultimate betrayal is clear: the very institution meant to protect victims instead became a predator's last line of defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice's handling of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement is not a story of legal inevitability but one of institutional protection and betrayal. In 2008, prosecutors secretly struck a deal that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity, hiding it from victims in direct violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. When a federal judge confirmed that violation in 2019, the DOJ had the chance to admit the deal was unlawful and void it. Instead, it doubled down, filing a 35-page defense insisting there was “no legal basis” to undo the sweetheart deal. At the same time, it staged a hollow push to release grand jury records it knew the courts would never unseal—then blamed the judiciary for the failure. This was theater, designed to shift blame while burying what the DOJ actually controls: the rotten deal it authored.The truth is that the DOJ could dismantle the non-prosecution agreement tomorrow. Legal tools exist: declare it void for violating victims' rights, for being unconscionable, or for undermining public policy. But the department refuses because dismantling it would expose its own complicity, the reputations it protected, and the powerful network Epstein served. By clinging to the deal, the DOJ isn't upholding the law—it's shielding itself and the elite beneficiaries of Epstein's world. The result is a department that masquerades as a guardian of justice while acting as caretaker of corruption. The ultimate betrayal is clear: the very institution meant to protect victims instead became a predator's last line of defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

WHY DO WE KEEP DEFENDING INDEFENSIBLE MEN!? Melanie Hamlett is back to answer that question. Both hosts made the seemingly TERRIBLE mistake of saying we shouldn't romanticize the relationship of a rockstar who literally tried to kill his wife. However, he is just one of many famous men who have committed atrocious acts and still received a pass. Buckle up as we get back to our feminist roots.    MELANIE HAMLETT'S LINKS Melanie's Patreon https://www.melaniehamlett.com/publications Mel's Tiktok Mel's Youtube  

Mike Johnson, Beau Morgan, and Ali Mac continue to give you their takeaways from Atlanta Falcons training camp practice, and the Falcons' scrimmage yesterday, and talk about how Michael Penix Jr. threw some indefensible passes yesterday during the scrimmage.

Today I talk with Rahim Kurwa about a powerful study of housing rights and police repression in Southern California. Tapping into a vast historical archive as well as oral histories with residents of Antelope Valley, California, Rahim traces the complex relationship between this region and the City of Los Angeles.  Using David Harvey's famous notion of a “spatial fix,” Kurwa argues that for decades Antelope Valley acted both as a safety value for LA's over-accumulation of capital, and Black labor. Anti-black racism took the form of powerful collaborations between local police departments, politicians, the courts, the media, and citizens groups that acted as vigilantes. Yet Rahim Kurwa also speaks about organized resistance to these attacks that resulted in significant victories, and of the history of Sun Village, that started on land from a socialist community, and grew into an all-Black town. Given today's brutal ICE assaults on migrants and others in Los Angeles and the policing of public and private space, this episode is of special importance.Rahim Kurwa is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology, Law, and Justice and Faculty Affiliate in the Department of Sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). His work is broadly focused on the policing of housing, and he has published work on this topic in Du Bois Review, Housing Policy Debate, City and Community, and Feminist Formations. His book, Indefensible Spaces: Policing and the Struggle for Housing, traces the past century of Black history in Los Angeles' northernmost outpost, known as the Antelope Valley, showing how pre-1968 methods of racial segregation have been replaced today by policing. At UIC, he is currently studying the eviction crisis in the Chicago Housing Authority while teaching courses on race, class, gender, and the law. He received his PhD from UCLA in 2018.

'Immoral and Indefensible': Study Reveals Deadly Consequences of US Sanctions. Autocratic abortion law in Indiana. TX State Rep. James Talarico slams redistricting, Trump, and calls for unity.Subscribe to our Newsletter:https://politicsdoneright.com/newsletterPurchase our Books: As I See It: https://amzn.to/3XpvW5o How To Make AmericaUtopia: https://amzn.to/3VKVFnG It's Worth It: https://amzn.to/3VFByXP Lose Weight And BeFit Now: https://amzn.to/3xiQK3K Tribulations of anAfro-Latino Caribbean man: https://amzn.to/4c09rbE

This is a catch-up version of James O'Brien's live, daily show on LBC Radio. To join the conversation call: 0345 60 60 973

Indefensible: The Missing Truth about Steven Avery, Teresa Halbach, and Making a Murderer By Michael GriesbachAn insider exposes the shocking facts deliberately left out of the hit Netflix series Making a Murderer—and argues persuasively that Steven Avery was rightfully convicted in the 2005 killing of Teresa Halbach.After serving eighteen years for a crime he didn't commit, Steven Avery was freed—and filed a thirty-six-million-dollar lawsuit against Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. But before the suit could be settled, Avery was arrested again—this time for the brutal murder of Teresa Halbach—and, through the office of a special prosecutor, convicted once more.When the saga exploded onto the public consciousness with the airing of Making a Murderer, Michael Griesbach, a prosecutor and member of Wisconsin's Innocence Project who had been instrumental in Avery's 2003 exoneration, was targeted on social media, threatened—and plagued by doubt. Now, in this suspenseful, thorough narrative, he recounts his own re-examination of the evidence in light of the whirlwind of controversy stirred up by the blockbuster true-crime series.As Griesbach carefully reviews allegations of tampering and planted evidence, the confession by Avery's developmentally disabled nephew, Brendan Dassey, and statements by Avery's former girlfriend Jodi Stachowski, previously sealed documents deemed inadmissible at trial by Judge Patrick L. Willis—and a little-known, plausible alternate suspect—Griesbach shows how the filmmakers' agenda, the accused man's dramatic backstory, and sensational media coverage have clouded the truth about Steven Avery.Now as Avery's defense counsel files an appeal and prepares to do battle in the courtroom once more, Griesbach fights to set the record straight, determined that evidence should be followed where it leads and justice should be served—for as surely as our legal system should not send an innocent man to prison, neither should it let a guilty man walk free.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Former Home Secretary who chose principle over position, Amber Rudd has spent much of her life at the centre of power. From banking to frontbench politics, her career has spanned the high-stakes worlds of business, government and Brexit-era turmoil.In this episode of Full Disclosure, James O'Brien sits down with Amber to reflect on the decisions, mistakes and tensions that shaped her time in office. From her alliance with Theresa May to her public resignation from Boris Johnson's Cabinet, Amber offers an unusually frank look at what it means to hold power- and when to walk away from it.She speaks candidly about the human cost of leadership, the moral complexity of the Home Office, and the fallout of political compromise. And she reflects on what it takes to recover- personally and professionally- from being publicly vilified.Grounded, introspective and refreshingly sincere, Amber revisits the pressure points of her political life, the people who've shaped her, and why disagreement doesn't have to mean disloyalty.She also shares why she's returned to public conversation with The Crisis Room- a new podcast co-hosted with journalist Mark Urban and former CIA officer Marc Polymeropoulos. Each week, the team unpicks the biggest crises shaping the UK and the world. With insider perspectives drawn from the gritty underbelly of investigative reporting, the corridors of Westminster and the shadowy realm of intelligence, they break down what's really happening behind the headlines, and what's at stake for our future.Listen to The Crisis Room here

Imagine promoting a bishop who caused an international firestorm by displaying pagan idols in his cathedral.Sources:https://www.returntotradition.orgContact Me:Email: return2catholictradition@gmail.comSupport My Work:Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/AnthonyStineSubscribeStarhttps://www.subscribestar.net/return-to-traditionBuy Me A Coffeehttps://www.buymeacoffee.com/AnthonyStinePhysical Mail:Anthony StinePO Box 3048Shawnee, OK74802Follow me on the following social media:https://www.facebook.com/ReturnToCatholicTradition/https://twitter.com/pontificatormax+JMJ+

Imagine promoting a bishop who caused an international firestorm by displaying pagan idols in his cathedral.Sources:https://www.returntotradition.orgContact Me:Email: return2catholictradition@gmail.comSupport My Work:Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/AnthonyStineSubscribeStarhttps://www.subscribestar.net/return-to-traditionBuy Me A Coffeehttps://www.buymeacoffee.com/AnthonyStinePhysical Mail:Anthony StinePO Box 3048Shawnee, OK74802Follow me on the following social media:https://www.facebook.com/ReturnToCatholicTradition/https://twitter.com/pontificatormax+JMJ+

Donald Trump makes good on his promise to free the January 6 rioters—including those convicted of savage violence against police officers—calling the attacks "very minor incidents" in a primetime interview with Sean Hannity, and saying it would be too "cumbersome" to review individual defendants' records. Jon and Dan react to the pardons, the expansive list of executive orders that Trump signed this week, the prospects for his cabinet picks, and how Democrats are doing in their efforts to push back. Then, Dan talks to progressive strategist Faiz Shakir about his bid for DNC Chair and where he wants to steer the party.