Podcasts about justices

Federal law prohibits users of illegal drugs from owning guns, but does this violate the Second Amendment? The Justices debate that question, with a focus on how the Founders handled "drunkards." Plus, James Talarico wins the Democratic Senate nod in Texas, as John Cornyn and Ken Paxton head to a GOP runoff. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Greg Bluestein sits down with former state Sen. Jen Jordan and trial attorney Miracle Rankin, two Democratic-leaning attorneys mounting rare challenges to sitting Georgia Supreme Court justices. They argue the court has been shaped by gubernatorial appointments and say voters deserve a clearer choice in low-turnout May elections that have long protected incumbents. Jordan, who is running against Justice Sarah Warren, and Rankin, who is challenging Justice Charlie Bethel, outline a strategy centered on turnout and voter education rather than big-dollar spending. They also make the case for why this election cycle could test a system that has protected incumbents for more than a century. Have a question or comment for the show? Call or text the 24-hour Politically Georgia Podcast Hotline at 770-810-5297. We'll play back your question and answer it during our next Monday Mailbag segment. You can also email your questions at PoliticallyGeorgia@ajc.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. Supreme Court is now weighing a pivotal Second Amendment case involving a Texas man who regularly uses marijuana and was charged under a federal law that bans drug users from possessing firearms. During Monday’s oral arguments, justices pressed government lawyers on whether such a ban is overly broad, especially as marijuana becomes legal in many states. The case could reshape gun rights for millions of cannabis users nationwide, with several justices appearing skeptical of the government’s position. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Broeske & Musson' on all platforms: --- The ‘Broeske & Musson Podcast’ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever else you listen to podcasts. --- ‘Broeske & Musson' Weekdays 9-11 AM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Facebook | Podcast| X | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | InstagramSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Washington Roundtable is joined by Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown Law professor and self-proclaimed “Supreme Court nerd,” to examine President Trump's increasing defiance of the Supreme Court. The panel discusses whether the Court's strong rebuke of the President's tariff policy obscures a broader pattern of expanding executive power through the use of emergency “shadow docket” rulings, a kind of shortcut for dealing with emergency requests. “I think that's where the Justices have shown the most inclination to vote in ways that might be inconsistent as a matter of legal principle, but consistent as a matter of partisan political preference,” Vladeck says. Vladeck is the author of “The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic.” This week's reading: “Donald Trump's State of the Union Was Long and Wrong,” by Susan B. Glasser “The Supreme Court's Complicated Takedown of Trump's Tariffs,” by Amy Davidson Sorkin “The Right-Wing Nonprofit Serving A.I. Slop for America's Birthday,” by Jessica Winter “The Media Merger You Should Actually Care About,” by Jon Allsop “Donald Trump's Pantomime United Nations,” by Ishaan Tharoor  The Political Scene draws on the reporting and analysis found in The New Yorker for lively conversations about the big questions in American politics. Join the magazine's writers and editors as they put into context the latest news—about elections, the economy, the White House, the Supreme Court, and much more. New episodes are available three times a week. Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts.  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

On February 20, the Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA, does not authorize President Trump's sweeping tariffs. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and the consolidated case, the Court held that the statute does not grant the President the power to impose tariffs under a declaration of economic emergency.  In this episode, we explore what the Court held, why the Justices disagreed about the reasoning, and what this decision might tell us about the future of presidential emergency power. To help us explore these questions are two leading Court watchers and constitutional experts, Zachary Shemtob of SCOTUSblog and Ilya Somin of the George Mason University. Julie Silverbrook, vice president of civic education of the National Constitution Center, moderates.  Resources  Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2026)  “Supreme Court strikes down tariffs,” SCOTUSblog (2/20/2026)  Ilya Somin, “How the Supreme Court Spared America,” The Atlantic (2/21/2026)  Ilya Somin, “The Supreme Court Spurns a Presidential Power Grab,” The Dispatch (2/23/2026)  Ilya Somin, “Trump's new tariffs are another dangerous presidential power grab,” Boston Globe (2/24/2026)  Ilya Somin, “Not Everything Is an Emergency,” The Dispatch (1/31/2025)  “Are Trump's Tariffs Lawful?,” We the People (11/06/2025)  Biden v. Nebraska (2023)  Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. (2001)  Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981)  Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1953)  United States v. Yoshida International, Inc. (CCPA, 1975)  United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)  Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr Explore the ⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠live program⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠ Support our important work ⁠⁠Donate

The day the Supreme Court released its tariff ruling, Trump told reporters he “could care less” about whether Supreme Court Justices attended his State of the Union. Well, on Tuesday, that did not appear to be the case. This episode, we dive into highlights from the Court's 170-page ruling, weigh whether Justice Kavanaugh is trying to suck up to Trump for that Chief Justice seat, and get to the bottom of Kash Patel partying with the U.S. men's hockey team. Also, Flavor Flav, if you're looking for a podcaster duo to cover the celebration you're throwing in Vegas for the women's hockey team, let a channel know.

Andrew Walworth, Tom Bevan and Carl Cannon preview tonight's State of the Union address by President Donald Trump and the Democratic response by Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger. Then, attorney and RCP contributor Richard Porter joins them to discuss the Supreme Court's recent decision on tariffs, and the state of relations between the Justices and President Trump. Next, they talk about reactions to California Governor Gavin Newsom's new book which is being released today, and his remarks about dyslexia in Atlanta on Sunday night. And finally, they discuss President Trump ‘s invitation to the US Olympic hockey teams to attend tonight's State of the Union address, and FBI Director Kash Patel's trip to Milan. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In the wake of the Supreme Court verdict striking down Trump's tariffs, Harry breaks down the decision with a trio of top-notch legal analysts: Kyle Cheney, Adam Klasfeld, and Mimi Rocah. The group digs into the court's rare rebuff of the president and the infighting among the conservative Justices. Next, the panel turns to the lower courts' angry rulings against Trump's deportation drive, even including—finally—a contempt finding. To finish, they examine the arrest of ex-Prince Andrew and weigh the chances for similar accountability in the U.S. Mentioned in this episode:  Kyle's reporting: https://www.politico.com/staff/kyle-cheney Adam's Substack:  https://www.allrisenews.com/⁠ 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling:  https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26884355/ca5detention.pdf Judge Provenzino's contempt order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.231253/gov.uscourts.mnd.231253.23.0.pdf Judge Provenzino's follow-up order, noting the purged contempt: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.231253/gov.uscourts.mnd.231253.23.0.pdf SCOTUS tariffs ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf Roger Sollenberger's Epstein-Trump article: https://substack.com/home/post/p-188009135 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kate is joined by Friend of the Pod Steve Vladeck (One First) to break down last week's legal news, including developments around noncompliance in the lower courts and SCOTUS ethics. Then, Leah and Melissa join to preview upcoming arguments before the Court where the Justices will consider important asylum and Second Amendment cases, among others. Finally, Kate speaks with Elliot Williams about his new book, Five Bullets: The Story of Bernie Goetz, New York's Explosive '80s, and the Subway Vigilante Trial That Divided the Nation.Favorite things: KS: Grant, Ron Chernow; The Last Dance LL: A Caribbean Heiress in Paris, Adriana Herrera; Wuthering Heights, Charli xcx Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2026!  3/6/26 – San Francisco 3/7/26 – Los Angeles Learn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPreorder Melissa's book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderBuy Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

On Friday, the Utah Supreme Court declined to reinstate the 2021 congressional map ahead of the election. Justices said the Legislature failed to appeal the August and November decisions in time. Today, news broke that a federal court denied a request to block Utah's newly drawn map. Does this basically ensure the use of the newly drawn map for 2026? Greg and Holly discuss the latest and why these matters matter to voters.

Michael Wolff and Joanna Coles climb back inside Donald Trump's mind at the very moment the Supreme Court humiliates him on tariffs—and he responds not with retreat, but with theatrical fury. From calling his own justices “fools” to turning a legal defeat into prime-time spectacle, they unpack how Trump transforms setbacks into legend, why the State of the Union could become a live-wire showdown with Chief Justice John Roberts, and what those colossal presidential banners draped across Washington really signal about dominance and power. Along the way, they dive into the bro-coded videos of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Pete Hegseth, the strange silence from Kash Patel on Epstein, and the unsettling mystery of a disappearance gripping the country—asking whether Trump governs as a president, a performer, or something closer to a monarch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Supreme Court rules that the President's tariffs are illegal. His response is to sign a ten percent tariff on every country on earth. Former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, retired federal Judge John E. Jones III, and CNN Chief Legal Affairs Paula Reid discuss how that squares with the law. Plus, incredible footage from southern California of surfers and swimmers who often have no idea they're surprisingly close to great white sharks, yet they don't attack.  Researchers are trying to figure out why.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard Alex Murdaugh's double murder appeal today. The justices asked sharp, pointed questions — and nearly all of them were aimed at the prosecution. The hearing covered both tracks of the appeal: Becky Hill's alleged jury tampering and whether the trial court committed reversible evidentiary errors. On both, the state was on its heels. Justice James opened by raising the egg juror affidavit Justice Toal excluded. Chief Justice Kittredge pointed out that Toal's written order never addressed the allegation that Hill instructed jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony. He called the corroboration between juror accounts and independent witnesses "striking." Hill has since been convicted of perjury, obstruction, and misconduct — a development that wasn't part of the record when Toal ruled. Justice Few challenged Waters: how do you characterize someone as "not completely credible" when her own guilty plea proves she's a perjurer? The defense argued Toal used the wrong legal standard entirely. Harpootlian told the court the question isn't whether Hill changed the verdict — it's whether she violated Murdaugh's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. That distinction changes everything about how the court evaluates the evidence. On the trial record, Kittredge told Waters that 404(b) is a rule of exclusion and said the gate was left wide open — he couldn't find a single financial evidence ruling that went the defense's way. He questioned why emotionally charged victim testimony from Murdaugh's financial crimes was admitted in a murder trial. Waters tried a Fargo reference. Justice Few ended it. Jim Griffin argued the state's underlying case has no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, and no biological transfer evidence from a close-range shotgun blast. If the financial testimony is stripped, the case changes shape. Eric Faddis, criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor, dissects the hearing moment by moment — what each justice's questions signal, where the state failed to hold ground, and which of the three possible outcomes the arguments most strongly pointed toward. He also addresses whether a federal Sixth Amendment challenge is viable regardless of how this court rules. Decision expected within sixty days.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #SupremeCourtSC #EricFaddis #CreightonWaters #Rule404b #JuryTampering #TrueCrime #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Trump slams the Supreme Court after conservative justices help put an end to his emergency tariffs. Plus, satellite images show the United States is ramping up its military across the Middle East amid diplomatic negotiations with Iran.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard Alex Murdaugh's double murder appeal today, and the state walked into a courtroom that wasn't friendly. The justices pressed prosecutor Creighton Waters on both tracks of the appeal — Becky Hill's jury tampering and the evidentiary errors at trial — and the exchanges revealed a bench that has serious doubts about what happened below. Justice James opened by asking about the egg juror affidavit that Justice Toal excluded from the evidentiary hearing. Chief Justice Kittredge went further, pointing out that Toal's order never addressed the allegation that Hill told jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony. He described the corroboration between multiple juror accounts and independent witnesses as "striking." Becky Hill is now a convicted perjurer, and that conviction didn't exist when Toal issued her ruling. Justice Few asked Waters directly: how do you call someone "not completely credible" when her guilty plea proves she lied under oath? Dick Harpootlian framed the defense argument around the Sixth Amendment — not whether Hill changed the verdict, but whether she compromised the constitutional right to an impartial jury. That distinction in legal standard may be the most consequential issue the court decides. On evidence, Kittredge told Waters that Rule 404(b) is a rule of exclusion and that he couldn't find a single piece of financial evidence the trial court kept out. He questioned why emotionally charged testimony from victims of Murdaugh's financial crimes was presented in a murder trial. Waters attempted a Fargo analogy. Justice Few cut him off. Jim Griffin argued the core weakness: no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, no biological transfer evidence from a close-range shotgun blast. If the financial testimony is ruled improperly admitted, what's left narrows considerably. Eric Faddis, criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor, analyzes every critical moment from the bench — what the questions reveal about each justice's thinking, where the state's arguments failed to land, and which of the three possible outcomes today's hearing most strongly favored. He also addresses whether a federal Sixth Amendment challenge remains an option regardless of the state court's ruling. Decision expected within sixty days.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #SupremeCourtSC #EricFaddis #CreightonWaters #JuryTampering #Rule404b #TrueCrime #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Today the South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Alex Murdaugh's appeal of his double murder conviction — and the questions from the bench landed almost entirely on the state. The hearing covered jury tampering and evidentiary errors, and on both fronts, prosecutor Creighton Waters faced sustained pressure he struggled to answer. On jury tampering, Justice James immediately asked about the egg juror affidavit that Justice Toal blocked from the evidentiary hearing. Chief Justice Kittredge noted Toal's order never addressed the claim that Becky Hill told jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony and called the corroboration across multiple juror accounts "striking." Hill is now convicted of perjury, obstruction, and misconduct — a conviction that didn't exist when Toal ruled. Justice Few pressed Waters on how you describe someone as "not completely credible" when she's pled guilty to lying under oath. Harpootlian argued the legal standard itself was wrong — that Toal asked whether Hill changed the outcome instead of whether she violated Murdaugh's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. That's the constitutional question the justices will have to resolve. On the evidence, Kittredge told Waters that 404(b) is a rule of exclusion and said he couldn't identify a single piece of financial evidence the trial court excluded. He pressed on why emotional testimony from financial crime victims was put before a murder jury. Waters referenced the movie Fargo. Justice Few shut it down. Griffin reminded the court the state has no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, and no biological transfer evidence from a close-range shotgun blast. Strip the financial testimony, and the evidentiary foundation shrinks fast. Criminal defense attorney Eric Faddis breaks down the hearing exchange by exchange — the tone from the bench, the moments the state lost ground, and what the justices' questions telegraph about the three possible outcomes. He assesses which result today's arguments most clearly favored and whether a federal Sixth Amendment appeal remains viable no matter what the state court decides. The court took the case under advisement. Sixty days.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #CreightonWaters #DickHarpootlian #JuryTampering #EricFaddis #MurdaughTrial #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

The Trump administration is working on Plan B after the Supreme Court struck down Plan A and ruled that his sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal and not an emergency.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Nicolle Wallace covers the stunning ruling from the Supreme Court, where the Justices chose 6-3 to strike down Donald Trump's global tariffs. It is a stark example of the power of the checks and balances system of the United States government, where the Supreme Court has limited the power of the presidency. More importantly, it has limited the power of Donald Trump. Later, Senator Maria Cantwell joins Nicolle to discuss what might happen next now that the Supreme Court has upended a large part of Trump's economic policy. For more, follow us on Instagram @deadlinewh To listen to this show and other MS NOW podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. 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.

The Justices strike down the President's "emergency" tariffs, ruling that a law called IEEPA doesn't give him limitless power to tax imports on a whim. But will Trump try to reimpose his tariff policy using other laws, or is the GOP quietly breathing a sigh of relief, as the 2026 midterms near amid mixed economic signals? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against President Donald Trump's global tariffs. The Justices ruled 6-3 that Trump overstepped his Executive authority and needed approval from Congress. The Sekulow team discusses the Supreme Court decision, the IEEPA, the economic impact of Trump's tariffs being struck down, why three Justices dissented (Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh), presidential powers, the ACLJ's legal work – and much more.

David Brooks of The Atlantic and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW join Geoff Bennett to discuss the week in politics, including the Supreme Court's tariff ruling, President Trump's attacks on the justices, the first meeting of the Board of Peace and reflections on Rev. Jesse Jackson after his passing. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

David Brooks of The Atlantic and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW join Geoff Bennett to discuss the week in politics, including the Supreme Court's tariff ruling, President Trump's attacks on the justices, the first meeting of the Board of Peace and reflections on Rev. Jesse Jackson after his passing. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Simon's live update for Tom Swarbrick's programme on LBC, after President Trump launched a broadside against the US Supreme Court which has struck down the tariffs that lie at the heart of his trade, foreign and national security policies.#Trump #Scotus #Trade #midterms #usnews #politics #lbc #simonmarks

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court today ruled against the Trump administration's use of emergency powers to impose tariffs on U.S. trading partners. The Justices said Congress, not the president, has the constitutional authority to levy tariffs. Following the ruling Trump said he would use a combination of statutes to replicate some of the emergency tariffs. 

Comprehensive coverage of the day's news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice. Photo Joe Ravi CC-BY-SA 3.0 Supreme Court rejects Trump's tariffs as unlawful, Trump claims foreign influence over Court and announces new replacement tariffs; Nevada treasurer requests $2.1 billion from federal government to recoup tariff costs; Illinois Governor Pritzker sends Trump $8.68 billion tariff invoice marked “Past Due—Delinquent”; Activists gather at SF ICE office protesting second detention of Palestinian rights activist Guillermo Reyes; UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) calls for release of children detained during Iran protests; House Speaker Johnson denies request that the late Rev. Jesse Jackson lie in honor in the United States Capitol Rotunda; February 20th is World Day of Social Justice, an observance promoting fairness, equity and inclusion for everyone, everywhere The post Supreme Court rejects Trump's tariffs as unlawful, Trump blasts justices as lapdogs and announces new replacement tariffs – February 20, 2026 appeared first on KPFA.

The U.S. Supreme Court delivers the President a major blow, ruling he overstepped his authority by using emergency presidential powers to impose sweeping tariffs last year. Today, he replied angrily at the court decision taking swipes at Justices, the plaintiffs in the case, and Canada, while announcing a new 10 per cent global tariff using a different piece of legislation.Also: Alberta Premier Danielle Smith lays out plans for a referendum on a series of questions. One is mainly focused on immigration. Smith claims Ottawa's immigration policies are jeopardizing her province's finances.And: Canada's hockey men deliver an Olympic semi-final thriller, setting up a potential gold-medal classic with our American rivals.Plus: What today's SCOTUS ruling means for Canada, India's AI Summit, from catching footballs to pushing bobsleds, and more.

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports President Trump is unloading on conservative Supreme Court justices who voted against his tariffs -- including two of his appointees.

President Trump called Amy Coney Barrett a "disgrace" to her family because she dared to rule in a way that made his life slightly more difficult

David Brooks of The Atlantic and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW join Geoff Bennett to discuss the week in politics, including the Supreme Court's tariff ruling, President Trump's attacks on the justices, the first meeting of the Board of Peace and reflections on Rev. Jesse Jackson after his passing. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Listen to the tariffs argument held by the U.S. Supreme Court in November of 2025 when you have a couple of hours to listen to long form content, such as your favorite podcasts.I am reposting the argument today because of the Breaking News that the Supreme Court has reached a decision. After considering the arguments of counsel and the law, today a majority of the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court reportedly struck down the tariffs in a ruling.The Presidential administration has reportedly responded that it will seek to apply tariffs under other legal authorities, so stay tuned for more news on whether tariffs will continue to be imposed, in light of the ruling.I am not sure when the ruling was handed down. I happened to be on LinkedIn around 11:00 am or so, when the press started reporting that a ruling had been handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.I always find it interesting when an important ruling is handed down on a Friday morning. Often markets are open and trading shifts in real time, in response to the ruling. This is not inevitable.It's possible to release significant rulings, or reports, in a way that doesn't kick off an immediate reaction, like imagine that today's tariff news came out after close of business. On the other hand, with a Friday release of an important ruling there is a chance to triage over the weekend and stabilize markets.I don't know why… I am reminded of the handling of the Mueller report, over a weekend, where there was somewhat of a catch and kill, helpful to the President. I suppose this leads to the observation you really never know how a response to the Supreme Court tariff ruling can play out, much as the tariff ruling seems momentous.Making things more interesting in the current market conditions is that Crypto and other assets trade 24/7, and prices of Bitcoin and other assets that have experienced some volatility of late could respond to the tariff ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court today.—The audio in this post/podcast is the official court audio of the oral argument on tariffs, from the U.S. Supreme Court's website:supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1287

Legal Docket on the justices' clash over retirement-plan calculations, Moneybeat on Trump's move against climate regulation, and History Book on Australia's dramatic first Winter Olympic gold. Plus, the Monday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from Dordt University, where the MSN–Family Nurse Practitioner program prepares nurses for Christ-centered, family-focused care. Dordt.eduFrom Pensacola Christian College. Academic excellence, biblical worldview, affordable cost. go.pcci.edu/worldAnd from Ridge Haven Camp in North Carolina and Iowa. Summer Camp registration open now at ridgehaven.org

OA1236 - Elections grab bag! Election news has been accumulating, so Jenessa helps us get caught up on what's going on. Who's winning elections? What's going on with redistricting? Heard something confusing about the mail? Trump back on his bullshit again? Good news, mixed news, debunking alleged bad news, bad news with plans for how to turn things around; we've got it all. Updates since we recorded: The SAVE America Act passed the House. Also the affidavit for the warrant in Georgia was unsealed. We'll talk about it soon, but the short version is these people really still believe in election conspiracy theories. It's gross. We'll survive. John Hanna & Julie Carr Smyth (Feb. 1, 2026). Texas stunner: Democrat Taylor Rehmet flips Republican state Senate district Trump won by 17 points, Associated Press. Amy Howe (Feb. 4, 2026). Supreme Court allows California to use congressional map benefitting Democrats, SCOTUSBlog. Tangipa v. Newsom (docket and SCOTUSBlog coverage), SCOTUSBlog. Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens (docket and SCOTUSBlog coverage), SCOTUSBlog. H.R.7296 - SAVE America Act, Congress.gov. H.R.7300 - Make Elections Great Again Act. Congress.gov. Domestic Mail Manual 608.11 Domestic Mail Manual amendment explanation (Nov. 24, 2025). Postmarks and Postal Possession, Federal Register. 39 CFR Part 111 Dan Mooney, What Is RTO? Why Do We Have It?, National Association of Postal Supervisors (Aug. 19, 2025)  Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) initiative. (Feb. 2, 2025). Service Standards for Market-Dominant Mail Products, Federal Register. 39 CFR Part 121 Track Your Ballot or Ballot Application, Vote.org. 2 U.S.C. § 7 - Time of election (Dec. 24, 2025). Table 11: Receipt and Postmark Deadlines for Absentee/Mail Ballots, National Conference of State Legislatures. Evan Lee (Jan. 15, 2026) Court holds that all candidates can challenge rules governing vote counting in elections, SCOTUSBlog. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 607 U.S. __ (2026). Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (docket and SCOTUSBlog coverage), SCOTUSBlog. Amy Howe (Nov. 10, 2025). Justices agree to decide major election law case, SCOTUSBlog. Watson v. Republican National Committee (Election Law) (docket and SCOTUSBlog coverage), SCOTUSBlog. Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

The South Carolina Supreme Court just held oral arguments in Alex Murdaugh's appeal—and it did not go well for the prosecution.On February 11, 2026, all five justices heard arguments on whether Murdaugh deserves a new trial for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul. What unfolded was a masterclass in appellate pressure. Chief Justice John Kittredge didn't mince words, calling former Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill a "rogue clerk" and questioning how a court official could attempt to influence a verdict for personal gain. He pressed prosecutor Creighton Waters on why the state allowed "everything under the sun" when it came to financial crimes evidence, calling the scope "arguably problematic."Justice George James admitted he was "struggling with the logical connection" between Murdaugh's financial misdeeds and the murders. Justice Letitia Verdin pushed on the limits of motive evidence. And in one memorable moment, Waters tried to invoke the movie "Fargo" to explain Murdaugh's desperation—only for Justice John Few to cut him off: "I haven't seen 'Fargo'—get to the point."Defense attorneys Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin, and Phillip Barber argued that Hill's comments to jurors—telling them to "watch his body language" and not be "fooled"—violated Murdaugh's constitutional right to a fair trial. They also challenged the admissibility of cell phone data, a blue raincoat with gunshot residue never tied to Murdaugh, and the sheer volume of financial crimes testimony.The prosecution maintained the evidence was "overwhelming" and Hill's remarks were "fleeting." But the justices weren't buying it—at least not easily.There's no timeline for a decision. But after this hearing, the path forward for either side is anything but certain. This episode breaks down everything that happened in that courtroom—and what it means for Murdaugh's future.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughTrial #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #BeckyHill #DickHarpootlian #CreightonWaters #MurdaughAppeal #TrueCrime #JuryTampering #HiddenKillers

The South Carolina Supreme Court just heard Alex Murdaugh's appeal—and the prosecution faced a gauntlet of skeptical questions.February 11, 2026 marked the most significant moment in the Murdaugh case since the 2023 conviction. All five justices convened in Columbia to hear oral arguments on two core issues: whether former Clerk of Court Becky Hill's comments to jurors constituted jury tampering, and whether the trial itself was compromised by improper evidence.Chief Justice John Kittredge didn't hold back. He called Hill a "rogue clerk" and questioned why the trial court allowed such expansive testimony about Murdaugh's financial crimes. "I couldn't find any example of financial crime evidence that was excluded," he said. "The granular detail... is arguably problematic."Prosecutor Creighton Waters defended the state's approach, arguing jurors needed to understand the "slow burn" of Murdaugh's financial collapse to comprehend his motive. He even referenced the movie "Fargo" to illustrate desperation—prompting Justice John Few to cut him off: "I haven't seen 'Fargo'—get to the point."Defense attorneys Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin, and Phillip Barber argued Hill's statements—including telling jurors to "watch his body language" and not be "fooled"—violated Murdaugh's Sixth Amendment rights. They also challenged cell phone trajectory evidence, a blue raincoat with gunshot residue never linked to Murdaugh, and the volume of financial testimony as unfairly prejudicial.Waters maintained the evidence was "overwhelming" and Hill's comments "fleeting." But multiple justices questioned the logical connection between financial crimes and murder.The court will now deliberate privately. There's no deadline for a ruling. If the conviction is upheld, Murdaugh's team has signaled federal appeals are next. This episode breaks down everything from the hearing.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughSupremeCourt #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #DickHarpootlian #JimGriffin #CreightonWaters #MurdaughCase #SouthCarolina #MurdaughTrial

Did the South Carolina Supreme Court just tip its hand in Alex Murdaugh's double murder appeal? During oral arguments, the justices came armed with pointed, highly specific questions — and most of the heat was directed at the prosecution. Criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down what stood out and what it could signal.Justice James immediately focused on the “egg juror” affidavit that Justice Toal excluded from the evidentiary hearing. Chief Justice Kittredge described the corroboration between jurors and independent witnesses regarding Becky Hill's alleged conduct as “striking,” noting that Toal's order never addressed claims Hill told jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh. The defense maintains Toal applied the wrong legal standard — and based on today's exchange, several justices appeared open to that argument.Hill's subsequent perjury conviction, which occurred after Toal's ruling, loomed large over the discussion. Justice Few challenged the state's characterization of Hill as “not completely credible,” pointing out the obvious tension in relying on a convicted perjurer. On evidentiary issues, Kittredge pushed back on the state's use of Rule 404(b), emphasizing that the rule is designed to limit other-acts evidence, not automatically admit it. He suggested the trial court may have allowed sweeping financial crime testimony without meaningful boundaries.Defense attorney Jim Griffin reiterated that the state's case lacked direct evidence — no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, no biological transfer linking Murdaugh to the killings. If the financial evidence is ultimately deemed improperly admitted, the prosecution's case could narrow significantly. Faddis outlines three possible outcomes and explains why, regardless of the state court's decision, a federal appeal may be next. #AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughHearing #SupremeCourt #BeckyHillPerjury #EricFaddis #JusticeKittredge #CreightonWaters #404bEvidence #MurdaughCase #NewTrialMurdaugh Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Today the South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Alex Murdaugh's appeal of his double murder conviction — and the justices came loaded. The very first question from Justice George James cut straight to a wound the defense has been pressing for two years: why wasn't the egg juror allowed to testify at the 2024 evidentiary hearing? From there, the hearing split into two phases that each delivered major moments. On the jury tampering issue, Dick Harpootlian argued that Becky Hill — the former Colleton County Clerk of Court now convicted of perjury, obstruction, and misconduct — had a financial motive to push for a guilty verdict. Chief Justice Kittredge told the state that Toal's ruling didn't even address the allegation that Hill told jurors not to be fooled. Justice Few challenged Creighton Waters on the absurdity of calling Hill not completely credible while ignoring her perjury conviction. On the evidentiary side, Jim Griffin argued this was never an overwhelming evidence case — no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, no biological transfer evidence on Murdaugh. Kittredge hammered Waters on Rule 404(b), saying the gate to financial crimes evidence was left wide open and he couldn't find a single example of anything that was excluded. When Waters tried to reference the movie Fargo, Justice Few told him to get to the point. The court took the case under advisement. No decision today. Three possible outcomes remain: affirm, new trial, or remand. But what unfolded in that courtroom didn't look like a court preparing to uphold the status quo. This episode covers every key exchange and what it means going forward.#MurdaughAppeal #AlexMurdaugh #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #BeckyHill #JuryTampering #404b #CreightonWaters #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #OralArgumentsJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Alex Murdaugh's appeal, and the questions from the bench painted a picture the state should be worried about. Justice George James opened the hearing by asking about the egg juror — the dismissed panelist whose affidavit describes Becky Hill telling jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony, and who Justice Toal refused to let testify at the 2024 evidentiary hearing. From there, the justices spent the morning pressing Creighton Waters on a series of uncomfortable questions. Chief Justice Kittredge noted that Toal's order didn't even address the "don't be fooled" allegation. He called the corroboration between juror accounts and Barnwell Clerk Rhonda McElveen's testimony striking. Justice Few challenged the state's position that Hill was merely not completely credible, pointing to her perjury conviction as proof she's a liar. On the evidentiary side, Kittredge told Waters that the 404(b) gate for financial crimes evidence was left wide open — he couldn't find a single piece the trial court excluded. He pressed Waters on why jurors needed to hear emotionally charged testimony about victims of Murdaugh's financial crimes when the case was about murder. Jim Griffin argued this was a circumstantial case with no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, and no biological evidence on Murdaugh. Phillip Barber argued in rebuttal that the financial evidence was used to brand Murdaugh as a person capable of anything. The court took the case under advisement. A written decision is expected within roughly 60 days. Three outcomes are possible: affirm, new trial, or remand. This episode provides a complete breakdown of today's hearing and analysis of what comes next for Alex Murdaugh.J#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #MurdaughTrial #BeckyHill #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #OralArguments #JuryTampering #CreightonWaters #NewTrial #MurdaughCaseJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Today's oral arguments in Alex Murdaugh's double murder appeal may have revealed more about the outcome than anyone expected. The South Carolina Supreme Court justices came in with sharp, specific questions — and the overwhelming majority of the pressure went to the prosecution. Criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis provides a complete breakdown.Justice James immediately asked about the egg juror affidavit that Justice Toal blocked from the evidentiary hearing. Chief Justice Kittredge called the corroboration between juror accounts and independent witnesses about Becky Hill's conduct "striking" — and noted that Toal's order never even addressed the allegation that Hill told jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh. The defense argues Toal applied the wrong standard. From the bench today, it looked like the justices may agree.Hill's perjury conviction — which didn't exist when Toal ruled — fundamentally changes the landscape. Justice Few pressed Waters on the absurdity of calling a convicted perjurer "not completely credible." On the evidence side, Kittredge told the state that Rule 404(b) is supposed to exclude evidence, not rubber-stamp it, and that the trial court let every piece of financial crime testimony in without apparent limitation.Jim Griffin argued there's no direct evidence — no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, no biological transfer evidence. If the financial testimony is ruled improperly admitted, the state's case shrinks considerably. Faddis assesses the three paths forward and explains why a federal appeal may be coming regardless of the state court's decision.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughHearing #SupremeCourt #BeckyHillPerjury #EricFaddis #JusticeKittredge #CreightonWaters #404bEvidence #MurdaughCase #NewTrialMurdaughJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard Alex Murdaugh's appeal today and the bench came loaded. Most of the hardest questions went straight at prosecutor Creighton Waters. Criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis joins Hidden Killers Live to break down the key exchanges and what they reveal about the court's thinking.The hearing opened with Justice James asking about the egg juror affidavit that Toal refused to admit. Chief Justice Kittredge went after the jury tampering issue, pointing out that Toal's order skipped the allegation that Becky Hill directly told jurors not to believe Murdaugh. With Hill now a convicted perjurer — something that wasn't true when Toal ruled — Justice Few pressed Waters on how the state can defend her credibility at all.On the evidence front, Kittredge told Waters the trial court let every piece of financial crime evidence in and excluded nothing, calling Rule 404(b) a rule of exclusion that wasn't treated as one. Griffin argued there's no direct evidence connecting Murdaugh to the murders — no eyewitnesses, no weapons, no transfer evidence from a close-range shotgun blast.Faddis reads the justices' questions as a roadmap and explains what outcome they're most likely driving toward — and what happens next regardless of which way they rule.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughOralArguments #SCSupremeCourt #BeckyHill #CreightonWaters #EricFaddis #EggJuror #HiddenKillersLive #MurdaughAppeal #JuryTamperingJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

1. The Case at the Supreme Court The case is Trump v. Vos Selections, argued on Nov. 5, 2025. Small businesses are challenging Trump-era tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). 2. Central Legal Questions Does IEEPA’s power to “regulate imports” include authority to impose tariffs? Did Congress delegate too much taxing authority to the President?→ This triggers two major constitutional doctrines: Non‑Delegation Doctrine – Congress cannot hand over core lawmaking powers (like taxation) without clear limits. Major Questions Doctrine – Major economic or political actions require explicit congressional authorization. 3. Constitutional Tension Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to: Lay and collect taxes/tariffs Regulate commerce with foreign nations Tariffs sit at the intersection of foreign policy (executive power) and taxation (legislative power). 4. Oral Argument Themes Justices skeptical of Trump’s argument: Roberts – Concerned tariffs are fundamentally taxes on Americans, which is Congress’s domain. Gorsuch & Barrett – Pressed the need for clear statutory limits; worried about unchecked executive authority. Justices leaning toward upholding the tariffs: Kavanaugh – Emphasized long history of broad presidential discretion in foreign affairs. Thomas – Focused on historical practice of using tariffs as trade tools. Alito – Concerned about practical impacts and the large reliance interests ($133B already collected). 5. Predicted Outcome (from the document’s speaker) Expected ruling: 5–4 in favor of Trump, upholding tariff authority. Predicted majority: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh + either Barrett or Gorsuch. Reasoning: Court is reluctant to disrupt years of foreign policy and economic decisions already relying on the tariffs. Institutional stability concerns—similar to Roberts’ reasoning in the Affordable Care Act case. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode dives headfirst into what may be the most explosive judicial scandal in Colorado history. We break down the verified federal complaint filed by Christopher S.P. Gregory, a former senior leader inside Colorado's judicial discipline system, accusing the Colorado Supreme Court, Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser, and dozens of judges, lawyers, and oversight officials of a years-long conspiracy to conceal corruption, obstruct a federally required audit, and silence whistleblowers. At the center: a $2.66–$2.75 million alleged fraud and bribe scheme tied to former SCAO Chief of Staff Mindy Masias and a cover-up that spans more than six years.We walk through the paper trail: the 2019 anonymous fraud complaint sent directly to the Justices, Polis, and Weiser; the deliberate withholding of the “Masias Memo” from the State Auditor; coordinated damage control after public exposure; admissions of misconduct by a former Chief Justice; expired statutes of limitation due to obstruction; and repeated allegations that judicial oversight bodies were stacked, compromised, and weaponized to protect insiders. This isn't just about one contract it's about systemic abuse of power, suppression of evidence, retaliation against a whistleblower, and alleged violations of federal civil rights law.Finally, we unpack the seven claims at the heart of the case: civil rights conspiracy, obstruction of justice, failure to prevent misconduct, retaliation under the Colorado False Claims Act, demands for extraordinary writs to dismantle conflicted oversight bodies, equitable relief to halt ongoing constitutional violations, and reimbursement of taxpayer-funded legal defenses for officials found personally liable. If these allegations are substantiated, the fallout could shake Colorado's judiciary, trigger federal scrutiny, and force a reckoning over who the rules really apply to.

Corinne covers new updates in the Epstein files, Ryan Routh, Savannah Guthrie's mom's kidnapping, Iran, Colton from Traitors' disturbing past, court opinions on ICE, potential midterms fraud courtesy of Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, and so much more on this episode of Without a Country.Epstein Fileshttps://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/ten-haunting-new-epstein-filesGUY COVERING UP THE EPSTEIN FILES:https://www.justice.gov/oip/staff-profile/director-sean-glendeningOh what's Fox saying about it?https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-say-clintons-agreement-testify-undercuts-subpoena-push-wont-bring-new-epstein-answersRYAN ROUTHhttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/attempted-trump-assassin-ryan-routh-sentenced-life-prison-plus-7-yearsConflict of Interest:https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/02/us/tyler-robinson-charlie-kirk-conflict-of-interestMUNICIPALMira Nair in Epstein files NYChttps://www.infowars.com/posts/socialist-nyc-mayor-mamdani-pays-hospital-visit-to-man-shot-by-police-as-he-charged-officer-with-knifevhttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/nyregion/nypd-shooting-chakraborty-queens.htmlShift in tone: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/new-york-playbook-pm/2026/02/03/mamdani-shifts-tone-on-nypd-shooting-00762992Virginiahttps://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2026/feb/03/free-press-opinion-in-virginia-if-it-moves-tax-it/GUUUURLSAVANNAH GUTHRIE MOM KIDNAPPING https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/experts-savannah-guthrie-mother-chosen-143027239.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEExaI31ikDkznBctqyNtl-xE-as2Ms0WxMcB-Wzofj9EwXowFVgwmZ9DgPQMBr6eoACd-BuymY95xoaDyRWrK_hvOjnHIzV0oR6oME0eRs2pM7Rn3_bbb3XJ0p4j4cJqaRHYgYl3Wf7o8fks4UQdKFV0_1gMq_YRhddAChsNvC0IRANhttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/after-crushing-protests-irans-supreme-leader-now-tries-to-avert-a-u-s-attackACTION DAY 2/14https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-885435Election Nonsense Californiahttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/04/us/politics/supreme-court-california-congressional-map.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20260204&instance_id=170591&nl=breaking-news®i_id=107728112&segment_id=214786&user_id=a266d281cc6f97833a8eaaec22a85914Gavin Newsomehttps://nypost.com/2026/01/27/us-news/governor-gavin-newsoms-236m-program-for-californias-mentally-ill-has-helped-just-22-people-in-four-years-report/ICE Bought A Detention Centerhttps://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/ice-berks-county-warehouse-bern-township-purchase-buy/PATREON/CUTIES CORNERhttps://www.npr.org/2025/12/21/nx-s1-5650781/new-species-deep-pacific-ocean&https://www.worldanimalprotection.org/latest/news/indonesia-bans-elephant-riding-to-protect-welfare/See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

(WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE) Two cases this episode. Case #1: Where do Supreme Court Justices watch dirty movies? Case #2: Rick Springfield's Buttocks of Mass Destruction. Enjoy! >>>Use code REB for 15% at https://www.barebells.com/ ! SUPPORT MINNESOTA ORGANIZATIONS, BUSINESSES, AND MUTUAL AID: Donate to the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota: https://www.ilcm.org/donate/⁠ Donate to Pimento Relief Services or support their work: ⁠https://www.givemn.org/organization/Pimento-Foundation⁠ Donate to Neighborhood House NM or support their work: ⁠https://neighborhoodhousemn.org/community-crisis-response/⁠ Donate a gift card for the MN community via El Burrito Mercado: ⁠https://www.elburritomercado.com⁠ *** MERCH STORE IS LIVE! Shop Reb Masel and Rebuttal Pod merch: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://rebmasel.shop/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠CLICK HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to PREORDER Reb's book: The Book They Throw At You—A Sarcastic Lawyer's Guide* To The Unholy Chaos of Our Legal System, *God No, Not Actual Legal Advice *** Follow @RebuttalPod on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! Follow @Rebmasel on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! *** 00:00 - Intro 00:28 - Case #1 begins 09:18 - Case #2 begins 20:58 - THE CRUCIAL EVIDENCE PHOTO 34:02 - Reb's Rebuttal Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This may sound like a very esoteric subject for our weekly podcast, but did you know this year is the 100th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case of Euclid v. Ambler Realty? No, really—it is! We're not making this up. Okay, we know what you're thinking: what is Euclid v. Ambler Realty and why should I care, especially a hindred years later?The Euclid decision, written by one of the most conservative and principled Justices of the Supreme Court (George Sutherland) declared that land use zoning was constitutional and didn't violate the "takings clause" of the 5th Amendment ("No shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation"). I know: stifle your excitement. But don't zone out on us. John and Steve agree (for once) that Sutherland got this one badly wrong, and trust us, we liven it up in our discussion.Lucretia, hostess for this week's episode, wonders whether there is a "right to protest." Sure the 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech and the right to assemble, but does it actually protect protests—like those we see in Minneapolis right now, where the dividing line between protest and active interference of federal law enforcement is hard to make out (on purpose).Then, finally, Lucretia gets Steve to reflect on the 20th anniversary of Al Gore's horror film about climate change, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore's film was hysterically wrong, but he's still with us somehow.

Judges and lawmakers are clashing in Missouri, and it all has to do with a unanimous ruling delivered last week by the state Supreme Court. On this episode of the Legal Roundtable, our panel of legal experts unpacks the drama over the court's decision to strike down a law that allowed the secretary of state to rewrite ballot summaries. In response, the law's sponsor called the justices “little kings and queens in their black robes.” In addition to that case, our panel also analyzes major developments in the state's ban on trangender healthcare, a trial over abortion restrictions, a developer suing over lost profits, and more.

SHOW SCHEDULE 1-23-261935 BRUSSELSSEGMENT 1: WEST COAST CITIES IN CRISIS Guest: Jeff Bliss (Pacific Watch) Bliss surveys struggling western cities: Las Vegas grapples with $45 martinis reflecting inflation pressures, Seattle deteriorates worse than Portland, while In-N-Out Burger expands eastward seeking better markets. San Francisco's doom loop deepens as LA gangs now control homeless encampments, marking new lows in urban dysfunction.SEGMENT 2: NEWSOM'S 2028 PRESIDENTIAL AMBITIONS Guest: Jeff Bliss (Pacific Watch) Bliss examines Governor Gavin Newsom positioning for a 2028 presidential run through public sparring with Trump. Despite national media attention from these confrontations, Newsom faces weak approval ratings within California where residents experience firsthand the failures his administration struggles to address or explain away.SEGMENT 3: LISA COOK CASE DRAWS FED GIANTS TO SCOTUS Guest: Richard Epstein Epstein analyzes oral arguments in the Lisa Cook case with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and former Chair Ben Bernanke attending the Supreme Court proceedings. Discussion examines the legal questions at stake, implications for Federal Reserve independence and appointments, and why this case attracted such extraordinary central banking attention.SEGMENT 4: GREENLAND TARIFFS LACK LEGAL FOUNDATION Guest: Richard Epstein Epstein argues Trump's tariff threats over Greenland lack constitutional justification, representing neither genuine emergency nor legitimate tool to punish nations disagreeing with American territorial claims. Discussion covers executive overreach on trade policy, legal vulnerabilities of using economic coercion for diplomatic leverage, and likely judicial constraints ahead.SEG 5 BATCHELOR POD 012326.mp3MP3SEG 6 BATCHELOR POD 012326.mp3MP3SEG 7 BATCHELOR POD 012326.mp3MP3SEGMENT 5: ITALY'S WINTER OLYMPICS FACE SNOW CRISIS Guest: Lorenzo Fiori and Jeff Bliss Fiori and Bliss report on Cyclone Harry striking Italy while the eastern Alps suffer inadequate snowfall threatening upcoming Winter Olympics venues. Discussion covers the paradox of extreme weather alongside poor ski conditions, organizers scrambling to prepare bobsled and alpine courses, and climate uncertainties plaguing winter sports planning.SEGMENT 6: LANCASTER COUNTY POST-CHRISTMAS CALM Guest: Jim McTagueMcTague reports from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania experiencing typical post-Christmas slowdown as locals anticipate incoming snowfall with excitement rather than dread. Discussion recalls past snow panic in Alexandria, Virginia and contrasts rural Pennsylvania's practical winter preparedness with urban areas' tendency toward weather-driven hysteria and supply hoarding.SEGMENT 7: BEZOS CHALLENGES MUSK WITH SATELLITE CONSTELLATIONGuest: Bob Zimmerman Zimmerman reports Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin aims to launch a communications satellite constellation rivaling Elon Musk's Starlink dominance. Discussion covers the growing competition among private space ventures, numerous startup companies entering the market, Rocket Lab experiencing launch delays, and the commercial space race intensifying across multiple fronts.SEGMENT 8: SPACE TUG AND OUTER PLANET PROBE DISCOVERIES Guest: Bob Zimmerman Zimmerman discusses a new space tug designed to deorbit Pentagon satellites addressing orbital debris concerns. Discussion turns to Jupiter and Saturn probes returning surprising scientific results, expanding understanding of the outer solar system, and how commercial and government space programs increasingly collaborate on solving both practical and exploratory challenges.SEG 9 BATCHELOR POD 012326.mp3MP3SEG 10 BATCHELOR POD 012326.mp3MP3SEG 11 BATCHELOR POD 012326.mp3MP3SEG 12 BATCHELOR POD 012326.mp3MP3SEGMENT 9: ORIGINS OF THE CHINA LOBBY Guest: Lee Smith, Author of "The China Matrix" Smith traces the China lobby's origins to a pivotal October 1997 White House dinner with the Clintons where VIPs secured immense personal wealth through Beijing connections. Nancy Pelosi and Daniel Moynihan protested these arrangements, but the pact enriching American elites at China's service was firmly established.SEGMENT 10: NIXON, KISSINGER, AND MAO'S MURDEROUS REGIME Guest: Lee Smith Smith examines how Nixon and Kissinger flattered and empowered Mao in 1972 despite his murderous record. Tiananmen Square proved the regime's brutality, yet American leaders ushered China into the WTO anyway, prioritizing riches over human rights and enabling Beijing's rise to global economic dominance.SEGMENT 11: FEINSTEIN AND BLUM'S SHANGHAI CONNECTIONS Guest: Lee Smith Smith details how San Francisco Mayor Diane Feinstein and husband Richard Blum cultivated relationships with Shanghai's mayor and later Tiananmen dictator Deng Xiaoping, becoming apologists for the regime. These connections exemplify how American political figures enriched themselves while providing cover for China's authoritarian government.SEGMENT 12: TRUMP AIMS TO END THE CHINA LOBBY Guest: Lee Smith Smith argues China operates as marauder, thief, and killer, wrecking world trade and undermining American manufacturing while enriching the China lobby Trump calls "globalists." The Trump administration learned not to trust Xi Jinping after COVID lies shattered any remaining confidence, signaling determination to dismantle this corrupt arrangement.LL SEPARATE FILES. GUEST, HEADLINE, 50 WORD SUMMARY FOR EACH.  NUMBER 13-16....13 MIHL TCHAOTH OF CIVITAS INSTITUTE ATTENDING SCOTUS ORAL ARGUMENT OF AN ENERGY VS ENVIRONMENT DISPUTE DATING TO CLAIM BY LOIUISIANA THAT THE OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION DURING SECOND WORLD WAR DANAGED COASTLIBEAND QUALITY OF LIFE.  DEFENDING OIL GAS IS PAUL CLEMENT, FORMER SOLICITIR GENERAL  ARGUES THAT DURING WSRTIME NO LIMITS, EXISTENITSIL8:19 PMI only received information for segment 13. Could you provide the guest and topic details for segments 14, 15, and 16 so I can complete all four summaries?SEGMENT 13: SCOTUS HEARS WARTIME OIL EXTRACTION LIABILITY CASE Guest: Michael Toth (Civitas Institute) Toth reports from Supreme Court oral arguments on Louisiana's claim that World War II oil and gas extraction damaged coastlines and quality of life. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement defends energy companies, arguing wartime production faced no limits given the existential threat requiring maximum resource extraction for national survival.14  MICHAEL TOTH DNDR PF SCOTUS SYMPSATHIRC TO OIL GAS COM[ANIES THAT THEYWERE SUPPLYING HOMEFRONT CASE BELONGS IN FEDERAL COURT, NOT PUNITIVE STATE COURT.8:21 PMSEGMENT 13: SCOTUS HEARS WARTIME OIL EXTRACTION LIABILITY CASE Guest: Michael Toth (Civitas Institute) Toth reports from Supreme Court oral arguments on Louisiana's claim that World War II oil and gas extraction damaged coastlines and quality of life. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement defends energy companies, arguing wartime production faced no limits given the existential threat requiring maximum resource extraction for national survival.SEGMENT 14: SCOTUS SYMPATHETIC TO OIL AND GAS DEFENSE Guest: Michael Toth (Civitas Institute) Toth reports the Supreme Court appears sympathetic to oil and gas companies arguing they supplied the homefront during wartime under government direction. Justices signal the case belongs in federal court rather than punitive state courts where energy companies face hostile juries and politically motivated litigation against essential wartime production.Please provide guest and topic details for segments 15 and 16 to complete the schedule.CLIFF MaY OF FDD ARGUES THST POTUS IS CHASING out the dictators of caracas, havana and tehran cuba regime change i 8:34 PMSEGMENT 15: TRUMP TARGETS DICTATORS IN CARACAS, HAVANA, AND TEHRANGuest: Cliff May (FDD) May argues Trump is aggressively pursuing regime change against the dictatorships in Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran. Discussion examines the administration's maximum pressure campaigns, weakened positions of Maduro, Díaz-Canel, and Iranian leadership, and whether coordinated American pressure can finally topple these longstanding authoritarian regimes in the hemisphere and beyond.Please provide guest and topic details for segment 16 to complete the schedule.16 q6 ucstion ccenter reports on fresh ai generated data that finds geothermal success overlooked by us testing.  s prioe=ritytrmp admin to a tals fest. action..  16 henry sokolski of non proliferstion rpolcy ed8:35 PMSEGMENT 16: NON-NUCLEAR ICBM TO DESTROY UNDERGROUND BUNKERSGuest: Henry Sokolski (Nonproliferation Policy Education Center) Sokolski discusses development of a massive conventional ICBM designed to penetrate hardened underground bunkers without nuclear warheads. Discussion examines strategic rationale for this kinetic weapon against buried Iranian or North Korean facilities, technical challenges of achieving sufficient destructive force, and arms control implications of such capabilities.Please clarify: You mentioned both a geothermal/AI story and Henry Sokolski for segment 16. Should these be two separate segments, or did segment 15 include geothermal content? Let me know and I can adjust accordingly.SEGMENT 9: ORIGINS OF THE CHINA LOBBY Guest: Lee Smith, Author of "The China Matrix" Smith traces the China lobby's origins to a pivotal October 1997 White House dinner with the Clintons where VIPs secured immense personal wealth through Beijing connections. Nancy Pelosi and Daniel Moynihan protested these arrangements, but the pact enriching American elites at China's service was firmly established.SEGMENT 10: NIXON, KISSINGER, AND MAO'S MURDEROUS REGIME Guest: Lee Smith Smith examines how Nixon and Kissinger flattered and empowered Mao in 1972 despite his murderous record. Tiananmen Square proved the regime's brutality, yet American leaders ushered China into the WTO anyway, prioritizing riches over human rights and enabling Beijing's rise to global economic dominance.SEGMENT 11: FEINSTEIN AND BLUM'S SHANGHAI CONNECTIONS Guest: Lee Smith Smith details how San Francisco Mayor Diane Feinstein and husband Richard Blum cultivated relationships with Shanghai's mayor and later Tiananmen dictator Deng Xiaoping, becoming apologists for the regime. These connections exemplify how American political figures enriched themselves while providing cover for China's authoritarian government.SEGMENT 12: TRUMP AIMS TO END THE CHINA LOBBY Guest: Lee Smith Smith argues China operates as marauder, thief, and killer, wrecking world trade and undermining American manufacturing while enriching the China lobby Trump calls "globalists." The Trump administration learned not to trust Xi Jinping after COVID lies shattered any remaining confidence, signaling determination to dismantle this corrupt arrangement.SEGMENT 13: SCOTUS HEARS WARTIME OIL EXTRACTION LIABILITY CASE Guest: Michael Toth (Civitas Institute) Toth reports from Supreme Court oral arguments on Louisiana's claim that World War II oil and gas extraction damaged coastlines and quality of life. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement defends energy companies, arguing wartime production faced no limits given the existential threat requiring maximum resource extraction for national survival.SEGMENT 14: SCOTUS SYMPATHETIC TO OIL AND GAS DEFENSE Guest: Michael Toth (Civitas Institute) Toth reports the Supreme Court appears sympathetic to oil and gas companies arguing they supplied the homefront during wartime under government direction. Justices signal the case belongs in federal court rather than punitive state courts where energy companies face hostile juries and politically motivated litigation against essential wartime production.SEGMENT 15: TRUMP TARGETS DICTATORS IN CARACAS, HAVANA, AND TEHRANGuest: Cliff May (FDD) May argues Trump is aggressively pursuing regime change against the dictatorships in Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran. Discussion examines the administration's maximum pressure campaigns, weakened positions of Maduro, Díaz-Canel, and Iranian leadership, and whether coordinated American pressure can finally topple these longstanding authoritarian regimes in the hemisphere and beyond.SEGMENT 16: NON-NUCLEAR ICBM TO DESTROY UNDERGROUND BUNKERSGuest: Henry Sokolski (Nonproliferation Policy Education Center) Sokolski discusses development of a massive conventional ICBM designed to penetrate hardened underground bunkers without nuclear warheads. Discussion examines strategic rationale for this kinetic weapon against buried Iranian or North Korean facilities, technical challenges of achieving sufficient destructive force, and arms control implications of such capabilities.

SEGMENT 14: SCOTUS SYMPATHETIC TO OIL AND GAS DEFENSE Guest: Michael Toth (Civitas Institute)Toth reports the Supreme Court appears sympathetic to oil and gas companies arguing they supplied the homefront during wartime under government direction. Justices signal the case belongs in federal court rather than punitive state courts where energy companies face hostile juries and politically motivated litigation against essential wartime production.1870 NEW ORLESNS

European leaders meet for an emergency summit as allies weigh a possible deal with the U.S. on Greenland after President Trump walked back threats of military action and tariffs.Trump's clashes with Canada and Europe raise fresh doubts about the stability of U.S. alliances, as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney warns coercion and tariff threats are changing the global order.And Supreme Court justices had tough question for Trump's lawyers as they hear arguments over whether a president can fire a Federal Reserve governor, a case that could redefine the independence of the central bank.Want more analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Today's episode of Up First was edited by Miguel Macias, Andrew Sussman, Rafael Nam, Mohamad ElBardicy, and Alice Woelfle.It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Ben Abrams and Christopher Thomas.We get engineering support from Neisha Heinis. Our technical director is Carleigh Strange.Our deputy Executive Producer is Kelley Dickens.(0:00) Introduction(01:59) Greenland Emergency Summit(05:27) New World Order(09:10) SCOTUS Justices Hear Fed CaseLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Donald Trump's effort to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, citing an alleged mortgage violation, goes before the Justices, who have already signaled they see the Fed as different from other independent agencies. Plus, the Court also hears a challenge to Hawaii's law banning guns by default in many private stores. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Follow Eric on Blue Sky Read Eric on Dorf on Law Listen to Supreme Myths Podcast Eric Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the book Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. He has served on the Executive Committee of the AALS section on federal courts, and has given numerous speeches both inside and outside the academy on constitutional law questions and the Supreme Court. He appears regularly on the national XM Radio show StandUp with Pete Dominick talking about the Supreme Court and constitutional law. Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE  Listen rate and review on Apple Podcasts Listen rate and review on Spotify Pete On Instagram Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on Twitter Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page     Gift a Subscription https://www.patreon.com/PeteDominick/gift Send Pete $ Directly on Venmo All things Jon Carroll  Buy Ava's Art    Subscribe to Piano Tuner Paul Paul Wesley on Substack Listen to Barry and Abigail Hummel Podcast Listen to Matty C Podcast and Substack Follow and Support Pete Coe Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing