Podcasts about manhattan district attorney

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

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

Newly released Department of Justice files and internal emails show that just **five days after Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in July 2019, federal authorities — including the FBI in coordination with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York — ordered the New York Police Department Special Victims Unit (SVU) to “stand down” its own investigations into Epstein and related matters. The directive reportedly came via outreach from the FBI to NYPD leadership, instructing that all Epstein-related investigative work from that point forward was to be handled through federal channels, effectively sidelining the NYPD's specialized child exploitation investigators. At the time, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office also had its own parallel inquiry underway, but the communication suggested that any further NYPD actions should defer to federal leadership.Emails among federal agents indicated that the motivation for the stand-down order was concern about overlapping cases and the perception of “competing investigations,” particularly after the DA's office reached out to a victim for interview amid the unfolding federal prosecution. The directive applied specifically to SVU — the unit trained to handle sex crimes and child abuse cases — and essentially shut out local detectives from pursuing additional leads or interviewing witnesses independently once Epstein was in federal custody. Internal discussions later suggested that NYPD's Epstein inquiry was effectively closed or deferred to the FBI, limiting the department's role despite its expertise in handling such cases. Epstein died in federal custody about a month later, ending the immediate criminal prosecution, though federal and local authorities continued to coordinate on related matters.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Revealed: FBI told NYPD to 'stand down' probe into Jeffrey Epstein - Alternet.orgBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

1. Eric Swalwell Campaign Collapse Eric Swalwell reportedly ended/suspended his campaign for California governor after multiple sexual misconduct allegations. Allegations include sexual assault, rape, unwanted contact, and inappropriate behavior, some allegedly involving intoxicated individuals. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is described as opening a criminal investigation, raising potential legal exposure. Around 50 former staffers publicly condemned Swalwell, suggesting alleged behavior was widely known. Swalwell denies all allegations, calling them false and politically motivated. 2. Democratic Party Hypocrisy and Political Calculations The speaker claims Democrats: Are calling for Swalwell to suspend his campaign, but not resign from Congress, due to narrow House margins. Act only when misconduct threatens electoral chances rather than out of concern for victims. California’s “jungle primary” system is highlighted as a reason Democrats panicked, since two Republicans could theoretically advance to the general election. The segment accuses Democrats of double standards, comparing Swalwell’s situation with other Democratic lawmakers allegedly facing ethics violations. 3. Republican Strategy: Reconciliation and Legislative Urgency A Republican lawmaker argues this is the last realistic window to pass conservative priorities before likely midterm losses. Advocates for a large-scale budget reconciliation bill with “tentpole” items such as: Long-term funding for ICE and CBP Preventing government shutdowns Indexing capital gains taxes to inflation Airport and TSA funding guarantees Election integrity provisions tied to federal funding Criticism of past Republican leadership (including Mitch McConnell) for failing to use reconciliation aggressively. 4. New York City Luxury Property Tax Criticism Focuses on NYC politician (Mamdani) promoting a “pied-à-terre” tax on luxury second homes over $5 million. The tax aims to raise $500 million annually to fund social programs. Commentary portrays the policy as: Anti-wealth, vindictive, and punitive Likely to accelerate wealth and job flight from NYC Examples cited include: Ken Griffin (Citadel) Elon Musk leaving California for Texas Claims that high taxes drive businesses and wealthy individuals to lower-tax states, harming long-term economic health. 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.

1. Core Allegations Against Eric Swalwell Multiple women (at least four) have accused Congressman Eric Swalwell of sexual misconduct, ranging from inappropriate contact and explicit messages to sexual assault and rape. One allegation reportedly involves a 2024 incident in New York, which the document says is under prosecutorial review. Swalwell is described as denying the most serious allegations while admitting to “mistakes in judgment” and resigning from Congress to avoid being a distraction. 2. Alleged Political Cover-Up by Democrats Democratic leadership allegedly knew about Swalwell’s behavior for years or decades and actively protected him. The party only abandoned Swalwell once he became a political liability, particularly due to concerns about California gubernatorial politics. His removal is framed as strategic damage control, not a moral reckoning. 3. Ongoing Investigations House Ethics Committee – Alleged misconduct involving a staffer. Manhattan District Attorney – Review of a 2024 sexual assault allegation. California Local Prosecutors – Reviewing possible criminal conduct. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – Investigating alleged visa violations involving a nanny. 4. Nanny / Campaign Finance Controversy Separate from misconduct allegations, Swalwell is accused of: Employing a nanny after her visa allegedly expired. Paying her improperly or “under the table.” Using campaign funds for personal childcare expenses. These claims originated from a complaint filed by a controversial figure, raising credibility concerns. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The escalating feud between President Trump and Pope Leo XIV intensified after Trump posted an AI-generated image on Truth Social depicting himself as a Jesus-like figure. The post came shortly after Trump blasted Pope Leo XIV, calling him “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” for criticizing U.S. military actions against Iran. Trump later deleted the image, telling reporters, “I thought it was me as a doctor,” and claiming it was meant to depict him as a Red Cross worker. Meanwhile, the U.S. has imposed a military blockade of Iranian ports along the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off Iran's ability to export oil and generate revenue, after weekend peace talks in Pakistan collapsed without a deal. Additionally, Rep. Eric Swalwell is now facing serious legal trouble, the Manhattan District Attorney's office has opened a criminal investigation into sexual assault allegations made by a former staffer, and Swalwell has since announced his resignation from Congress. Mark interviews Steve Forbes, Chairman of Forbes Media. Steve believes the U.S. may need to resume military hostilities against Iran before the conflict can be resolved, even as the Strait of Hormuz blockade puts mounting economic pressure on Tehran. He also touched on elements of the original Iran nuclear framework from the Obama era that may resurface in current negotiations under the Trump administration, although not in their entirety. The guys also turned to NASA's Artemis 2 mission, which pivoted its focus to the moon last week, and what that shift means for the future of the U.S. space program. Hillary Clinton has been making the rounds on numerous media outlets recently, sparking widespread speculation about a potential 2028 presidential run. Kamala Harris, meanwhile, has been weighing a bid for the California governor's seat. Joe Rogan's podcast is being credited by many as a significant factor in President Trump's 2024 election victory, given the wide platform it provided for Trump to reach new audiences. Harvey Weinstein begins his third criminal trial today. Mark interviews streaming host Bill O'Reilly. Bill discusses the challenges of operating as an independent media personality when competing against the resources of major broadcast networks. On the Trump-Pope Leo feud, Bill frames it as a clash of two fundamentally different worldviews, Trump's approach being rooted in solving geopolitical problems by force or leverage, while the Pope's perspective is grounded in religious and moral principles. He also weighed in on the AI-generated image controversy, suggesting that Trump depicting himself in a doctor-like or Christ-like role was not a good look politically. As for Hillary Clinton, Bill believes the odds are strong that she is laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign.

The escalating feud between President Trump and Pope Leo XIV intensified after Trump posted an AI-generated image on Truth Social depicting himself as a Jesus-like figure. The post came shortly after Trump blasted Pope Leo XIV, calling him “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” for criticizing U.S. military actions against Iran. Trump later deleted the image, telling reporters, “I thought it was me as a doctor,” and claiming it was meant to depict him as a Red Cross worker. Meanwhile, the U.S. has imposed a military blockade of Iranian ports along the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off Iran's ability to export oil and generate revenue, after weekend peace talks in Pakistan collapsed without a deal. Additionally, Rep. Eric Swalwell is now facing serious legal trouble, the Manhattan District Attorney's office has opened a criminal investigation into sexual assault allegations made by a former staffer, and Swalwell has since announced his resignation from Congress. Mark takes your calls! Mark interviews Steve Forbes, Chairman of Forbes Media. Steve believes the U.S. may need to resume military hostilities against Iran before the conflict can be resolved, even as the Strait of Hormuz blockade puts mounting economic pressure on Tehran. He also touched on elements of the original Iran nuclear framework from the Obama era that may resurface in current negotiations under the Trump administration, although not in their entirety. The guys also turned to NASA's Artemis 2 mission, which pivoted its focus to the moon last week, and what that shift means for the future of the U.S. space program.

The escalating feud between President Trump and Pope Leo XIV intensified after Trump posted an AI-generated image on Truth Social depicting himself as a Jesus-like figure. The post came shortly after Trump blasted Pope Leo XIV, calling him “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” for criticizing U.S. military actions against Iran. Trump later deleted the image, telling reporters, “I thought it was me as a doctor,” and claiming it was meant to depict him as a Red Cross worker. Meanwhile, the U.S. has imposed a military blockade of Iranian ports along the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off Iran's ability to export oil and generate revenue, after weekend peace talks in Pakistan collapsed without a deal. Additionally, Rep. Eric Swalwell is now facing serious legal trouble, the Manhattan District Attorney's office has opened a criminal investigation into sexual assault allegations made by a former staffer, and Swalwell has since announced his resignation from Congress.

The escalating feud between President Trump and Pope Leo XIV intensified after Trump posted an AI-generated image on Truth Social depicting himself as a Jesus-like figure. The post came shortly after Trump blasted Pope Leo XIV, calling him “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” for criticizing U.S. military actions against Iran. Trump later deleted the image, telling reporters, “I thought it was me as a doctor,” and claiming it was meant to depict him as a Red Cross worker. Meanwhile, the U.S. has imposed a military blockade of Iranian ports along the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off Iran's ability to export oil and generate revenue, after weekend peace talks in Pakistan collapsed without a deal. Additionally, Rep. Eric Swalwell is now facing serious legal trouble, the Manhattan District Attorney's office has opened a criminal investigation into sexual assault allegations made by a former staffer, and Swalwell has since announced his resignation from Congress. Mark interviews Steve Forbes, Chairman of Forbes Media. Steve believes the U.S. may need to resume military hostilities against Iran before the conflict can be resolved, even as the Strait of Hormuz blockade puts mounting economic pressure on Tehran. He also touched on elements of the original Iran nuclear framework from the Obama era that may resurface in current negotiations under the Trump administration, although not in their entirety. The guys also turned to NASA's Artemis 2 mission, which pivoted its focus to the moon last week, and what that shift means for the future of the U.S. space program. Hillary Clinton has been making the rounds on numerous media outlets recently, sparking widespread speculation about a potential 2028 presidential run. Kamala Harris, meanwhile, has been weighing a bid for the California governor's seat. Joe Rogan's podcast is being credited by many as a significant factor in President Trump's 2024 election victory, given the wide platform it provided for Trump to reach new audiences. Harvey Weinstein begins his third criminal trial today. Mark interviews streaming host Bill O'Reilly. Bill discusses the challenges of operating as an independent media personality when competing against the resources of major broadcast networks. On the Trump-Pope Leo feud, Bill frames it as a clash of two fundamentally different worldviews, Trump's approach being rooted in solving geopolitical problems by force or leverage, while the Pope's perspective is grounded in religious and moral principles. He also weighed in on the AI-generated image controversy, suggesting that Trump depicting himself in a doctor-like or Christ-like role was not a good look politically. As for Hillary Clinton, Bill believes the odds are strong that she is laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The escalating feud between President Trump and Pope Leo XIV intensified after Trump posted an AI-generated image on Truth Social depicting himself as a Jesus-like figure. The post came shortly after Trump blasted Pope Leo XIV, calling him “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” for criticizing U.S. military actions against Iran. Trump later deleted the image, telling reporters, “I thought it was me as a doctor,” and claiming it was meant to depict him as a Red Cross worker. Meanwhile, the U.S. has imposed a military blockade of Iranian ports along the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off Iran's ability to export oil and generate revenue, after weekend peace talks in Pakistan collapsed without a deal. Additionally, Rep. Eric Swalwell is now facing serious legal trouble, the Manhattan District Attorney's office has opened a criminal investigation into sexual assault allegations made by a former staffer, and Swalwell has since announced his resignation from Congress. Mark takes your calls! Mark interviews Steve Forbes, Chairman of Forbes Media. Steve believes the U.S. may need to resume military hostilities against Iran before the conflict can be resolved, even as the Strait of Hormuz blockade puts mounting economic pressure on Tehran. He also touched on elements of the original Iran nuclear framework from the Obama era that may resurface in current negotiations under the Trump administration, although not in their entirety. The guys also turned to NASA's Artemis 2 mission, which pivoted its focus to the moon last week, and what that shift means for the future of the U.S. space program.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The escalating feud between President Trump and Pope Leo XIV intensified after Trump posted an AI-generated image on Truth Social depicting himself as a Jesus-like figure. The post came shortly after Trump blasted Pope Leo XIV, calling him “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” for criticizing U.S. military actions against Iran. Trump later deleted the image, telling reporters, “I thought it was me as a doctor,” and claiming it was meant to depict him as a Red Cross worker. Meanwhile, the U.S. has imposed a military blockade of Iranian ports along the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off Iran's ability to export oil and generate revenue, after weekend peace talks in Pakistan collapsed without a deal. Additionally, Rep. Eric Swalwell is now facing serious legal trouble, the Manhattan District Attorney's office has opened a criminal investigation into sexual assault allegations made by a former staffer, and Swalwell has since announced his resignation from Congress.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Manhattan District Attorney has already opened a criminal investigation into Swalwell, and California has no statute of limitations on rape allegations dating to 2018, meaning Swalwell faces potential criminal prosecution on both coasts. Ruben Gallego, described as Swalwell's best friend and a 2028 presidential hopeful, held his own press conference claiming he was manipulated and unaware. But Gallego then admitted he had heard rumors about Swalwell circulating in Washington DC for many years, and that he had asked Swalwell directly about the allegations. Gallego says he will only release his text message communications with Swalwell within the context of a legal proceeding, not in response to public pressure. The House Ethics Committee investigation into Swalwell is closed because he resigned from Congress. Multiple reports indicate Democratic House leadership knew not to allow young staffers near Swalwell. Swalwell has apologized to family, friends, and colleagues but has issued no apology to any of his accusers. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

Hawk, a retired 28-year trial attorney, walks through the CNN article and the New York Times report revealing that the Manhattan District Attorney has opened a criminal investigation into Swalwell, calling on additional victims to come forward. The pattern of conduct alleged, targeting young women who worked for him, volunteered for him, or simply admired him politically, points to a serial abuse of power. Swalwell has denied all allegations, called them false, and has had his attorneys send cease and desist letters threatening defamation suits against two of his accusers. Hawk addresses the legal standard for defamation and why those letters may say more about intimidation than innocence. Also addressed: the troubling response from a vocal segment of liberal women on social media who are publicly refusing to believe the accusers, drawing a direct parallel to the defense of Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. With corroborating evidence, witness testimony, and a Manhattan DA investigation now underway, Hawk argues Swalwell must drop out of the governor's race and resign his House seat. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

# Trump's Federal Election Trial Set to Begin This MonthFormer President Donald Trump is about to face trial in what may be the most significant legal challenge of his career. After months of legal maneuvering and courtroom battles, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has scheduled the federal election interference trial to begin this April in Washington, D.C. This case centers on charges that Trump conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, and it represents a pivotal moment in American legal history.The path to this trial has been anything but straightforward. Trump's legal team, led by attorney John Lauro from the firm Lauro and Singer, fought aggressively to delay the proceedings. They initially requested an April 2026 trial date, arguing that the sheer volume of evidence made an earlier start impossible. According to their filing, the government had turned over more than eleven point six million documents, and Trump's attorneys claimed they would need time equivalent to what the Justice Department's investigation into January sixth took to review everything. Lauro made vivid comparisons, saying that if the documents were physically stacked, they would tower over eight Washington Monuments, and that his team would need to read Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace seventy eight times a day to meet the government's proposed January two thousand twenty four deadline.Special Counsel Jack Smith and his team rejected these arguments as hyperbole. Molly Gaston, a member of Smith's prosecution team, countered that approximately sixty five percent of those millions of documents were either already accessible or duplicates, and that about three million pages came from entities associated with Trump himself. The prosecution had strategically front loaded the discovery process, releasing the most crucial documents first. They included materials from the National Archives, which Trump would have already seen, as well as publicly available sources like his Truth Social posts and failed court challenges following the 2020 election.Judge Chutkan ultimately sided with the government's position that the public has a right to a speedy trial. The charges Trump faces are serious. He stands accused of orchestrating a criminal scheme involving fake electors, attempting to use the Justice Department to conduct what prosecutors call sham election crime investigations, trying to enlist Vice President Mike Pence to alter the election results, and promoting false claims of a stolen election while the January sixth riot unfolded at the Capitol.This trial represents only one piece of Trump's extraordinary legal landscape. The Manhattan District Attorney's office prosecuted Trump on charges of falsifying business records related to hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Additionally, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis brought election interference charges in Georgia. The classified documents case pursued by Special Counsel Smith also remains pending. Never before in American history has a former president faced such comprehensive and simultaneous legal jeopardy.The trial now underway in Washington carries implications far beyond Trump himself. It forces the nation to confront questions about presidential power, accountability, and the durability of democratic institutions during periods of political crisis.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more coverage of these developing stories. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more information, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

JPMorgan Chase & Co. has asked the Manhattan District Attorney's office, led by Alvin Bragg, to turn over certain records and documents as part of the federal lawsuits the bank is facing over its business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The requests came amid litigation by Epstein accusers and the U.S. Virgin Islands that alleges JPMorgan enabled Epstein's sex-trafficking network by maintaining him as a client for years, including after his 2008 conviction. JPMorgan is seeking statements and other materials from Bragg's office that could relate to claims by a woman suing the bank — identified in court filings as “Jane Doe” — about what the bank knew regarding Epstein and his activities, and whether senior executives, such as former JPMorgan banker Jes Staley, had first-hand knowledge of his operations.A federal judge ordered the Manhattan DA's office to provide a privilege log describing the documents JPMorgan wants and later ruled that certain statements made by a plaintiff to one of the DA's prosecutors must be turned over to the bank. The judge's rulings underscore how the evidence held by prosecutors in New York — including victim statements — may play a role in the civil cases against JPMorgan by shedding light on what the bank and its former executives may have known about Epstein's criminal conduct during their interactions with him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. has asked the Manhattan District Attorney's office, led by Alvin Bragg, to turn over certain records and documents as part of the federal lawsuits the bank is facing over its business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The requests came amid litigation by Epstein accusers and the U.S. Virgin Islands that alleges JPMorgan enabled Epstein's sex-trafficking network by maintaining him as a client for years, including after his 2008 conviction. JPMorgan is seeking statements and other materials from Bragg's office that could relate to claims by a woman suing the bank — identified in court filings as “Jane Doe” — about what the bank knew regarding Epstein and his activities, and whether senior executives, such as former JPMorgan banker Jes Staley, had first-hand knowledge of his operations.A federal judge ordered the Manhattan DA's office to provide a privilege log describing the documents JPMorgan wants and later ruled that certain statements made by a plaintiff to one of the DA's prosecutors must be turned over to the bank. The judge's rulings underscore how the evidence held by prosecutors in New York — including victim statements — may play a role in the civil cases against JPMorgan by shedding light on what the bank and its former executives may have known about Epstein's criminal conduct during their interactions with him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

On this episode of The Finest Unfiltered John, Eric & Marlon break down the controversial decision by the Manhattan District Attorney to drop assault charges stemming from the Washington Square Park snowball incident. What was initially described as a “snowball fight” resulted in injuries to NYPD officers and arrests including a suspect previously arrested for attempted robbery in the transit system. Yet now, the Manhattan DA has decided not to pursue assault charges. Was this harmless winter chaos? Or was it a clear violation of NYS Penal Law? We discuss: • The timeline of the Washington Square Park incident • NYPD's response and delayed arrest • The suspect's prior arrest history • Why the assault charge was dropped • The broader message this sends to officers and the public • Political pressure vs prosecutorial discretion In a city like New York, public order and accountability matter. When charges are dropped in high-profile incidents involving injured officers, it raises serious questions about policy, leadership, and consistency in prosecution. This isn't about snow. It's about standards. Drop your thoughts in the comments. #NYPD #ManhattanDA #WashingtonSquarePark #NYCNews #PublicSafety #Police #CrimeNews #TheFinestUnfiltered #NewYorkCity ️ New to streaming or looking to level up? Check out StreamYard and get $10 discount! https://streamyard.com/pal/d/5689366474915840 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. has asked the Manhattan District Attorney's office, led by Alvin Bragg, to turn over certain records and documents as part of the federal lawsuits the bank is facing over its business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The requests came amid litigation by Epstein accusers and the U.S. Virgin Islands that alleges JPMorgan enabled Epstein's sex-trafficking network by maintaining him as a client for years, including after his 2008 conviction. JPMorgan is seeking statements and other materials from Bragg's office that could relate to claims by a woman suing the bank — identified in court filings as “Jane Doe” — about what the bank knew regarding Epstein and his activities, and whether senior executives, such as former JPMorgan banker Jes Staley, had first-hand knowledge of his operations.A federal judge ordered the Manhattan DA's office to provide a privilege log describing the documents JPMorgan wants and later ruled that certain statements made by a plaintiff to one of the DA's prosecutors must be turned over to the bank. The judge's rulings underscore how the evidence held by prosecutors in New York — including victim statements — may play a role in the civil cases against JPMorgan by shedding light on what the bank and its former executives may have known about Epstein's criminal conduct during their interactions with him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Newly released Department of Justice files and internal emails show that just **five days after Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in July 2019, federal authorities — including the FBI in coordination with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York — ordered the New York Police Department Special Victims Unit (SVU) to “stand down” its own investigations into Epstein and related matters. The directive reportedly came via outreach from the FBI to NYPD leadership, instructing that all Epstein-related investigative work from that point forward was to be handled through federal channels, effectively sidelining the NYPD's specialized child exploitation investigators. At the time, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office also had its own parallel inquiry underway, but the communication suggested that any further NYPD actions should defer to federal leadership.Emails among federal agents indicated that the motivation for the stand-down order was concern about overlapping cases and the perception of “competing investigations,” particularly after the DA's office reached out to a victim for interview amid the unfolding federal prosecution. The directive applied specifically to SVU — the unit trained to handle sex crimes and child abuse cases — and essentially shut out local detectives from pursuing additional leads or interviewing witnesses independently once Epstein was in federal custody. Internal discussions later suggested that NYPD's Epstein inquiry was effectively closed or deferred to the FBI, limiting the department's role despite its expertise in handling such cases. Epstein died in federal custody about a month later, ending the immediate criminal prosecution, though federal and local authorities continued to coordinate on related matters.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Revealed: FBI told NYPD to 'stand down' probe into Jeffrey Epstein - Alternet.org

Newly released Department of Justice files and internal emails show that just **five days after Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in July 2019, federal authorities — including the FBI in coordination with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York — ordered the New York Police Department Special Victims Unit (SVU) to “stand down” its own investigations into Epstein and related matters. The directive reportedly came via outreach from the FBI to NYPD leadership, instructing that all Epstein-related investigative work from that point forward was to be handled through federal channels, effectively sidelining the NYPD's specialized child exploitation investigators. At the time, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office also had its own parallel inquiry underway, but the communication suggested that any further NYPD actions should defer to federal leadership.Emails among federal agents indicated that the motivation for the stand-down order was concern about overlapping cases and the perception of “competing investigations,” particularly after the DA's office reached out to a victim for interview amid the unfolding federal prosecution. The directive applied specifically to SVU — the unit trained to handle sex crimes and child abuse cases — and essentially shut out local detectives from pursuing additional leads or interviewing witnesses independently once Epstein was in federal custody. Internal discussions later suggested that NYPD's Epstein inquiry was effectively closed or deferred to the FBI, limiting the department's role despite its expertise in handling such cases. Epstein died in federal custody about a month later, ending the immediate criminal prosecution, though federal and local authorities continued to coordinate on related matters.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Revealed: FBI told NYPD to 'stand down' probe into Jeffrey Epstein - Alternet.orgBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Newly released Department of Justice files and internal emails show that just **five days after Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in July 2019, federal authorities — including the FBI in coordination with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York — ordered the New York Police Department Special Victims Unit (SVU) to “stand down” its own investigations into Epstein and related matters. The directive reportedly came via outreach from the FBI to NYPD leadership, instructing that all Epstein-related investigative work from that point forward was to be handled through federal channels, effectively sidelining the NYPD's specialized child exploitation investigators. At the time, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office also had its own parallel inquiry underway, but the communication suggested that any further NYPD actions should defer to federal leadership.Emails among federal agents indicated that the motivation for the stand-down order was concern about overlapping cases and the perception of “competing investigations,” particularly after the DA's office reached out to a victim for interview amid the unfolding federal prosecution. The directive applied specifically to SVU — the unit trained to handle sex crimes and child abuse cases — and essentially shut out local detectives from pursuing additional leads or interviewing witnesses independently once Epstein was in federal custody. Internal discussions later suggested that NYPD's Epstein inquiry was effectively closed or deferred to the FBI, limiting the department's role despite its expertise in handling such cases. Epstein died in federal custody about a month later, ending the immediate criminal prosecution, though federal and local authorities continued to coordinate on related matters.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Revealed: FBI told NYPD to 'stand down' probe into Jeffrey Epstein - Alternet.orgBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtrooms turn into battlegrounds for America's future, but here we are in the thick of it. Just a few days ago, on February 4, 2026, in a federal courtroom in Manhattan, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein stared down lawyers for President Donald Trump with a look that screamed disbelief. According to Associated Press reporter Michael Sisak, who was right there covering the oral arguments, the judge seemed downright incredulous at the defense's push to yank Trump's infamous hush money conviction out of New York state court and into federal territory, where they hope to torch it on presidential immunity grounds.Picture this: Trump's team, fresh off a nudge from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals back in November, arguing that even though the 2016 hush money payments to Stormy Daniels were mostly about his personal life during the campaign, some trial evidence touched Oval Office chats with future administration folks like Michael Cohen. They say that makes the whole conviction—where Trump got an unconditional discharge just 11 days before his January 2025 inauguration—immune and erasable. Hellerstein wasn't buying it. Sisak reports the judge hammered them for waiting too long to pivot to federal court, calling it like taking two bites at the apple. He's rejected this move twice before, insisting the case is private scandal, not presidential acts. Trump skipped the hearing himself, but his lawyers left with the judge promising a quick ruling after thanking both sides, including the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, for their fierce arguments.And that's not all unfolding in these frantic days. Over at SCOTUSblog, they're tracking how the Supreme Court keeps slapping temporary brakes on Trump's bold plays. On December 23, 2025, the justices, over dissents from Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, refused to pause a Chicago federal judge's order blocking National Guard deployments in Illinois by Judge April Perry. Trump pulled troops from Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland right after. Then there's the mess with Venezuelan TPS holders—Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco ruled against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's termination of their protected status, but the High Court paused it twice, letting deportations roll as appeals drag on in the 9th Circuit.Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker paints an even wilder picture: 298 active cases challenging executive actions on national security, plus suits over the Alien Enemies Act deportations. The Supreme Court's handed down 14 stays favoring the feds, but judges have ruled against them 22 times. Meanwhile, whispers of a massive birthright citizenship fight loom, with U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante blocking Trump's executive order for babies born after February 20, 2025, and the Supreme Court set to hear arguments on April 1.It's a judicial whirlwind, listeners—courts in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and D.C. pushing back as Trump tests every limit. Will Hellerstein kill the hush money bid again? Can the Supreme Court reshape immigration overnight? These past few days feel like the front lines of power itself.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

JPMorgan Chase, which has been sued by women alleging the bank enabled Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking by maintaining him as a client for years, sought to compel the Manhattan District Attorney's office to turn over records as part of that lawsuit. The bank issued subpoenas to District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office for statements made by one of the alleged victims to a prosecutor and other documents that might be relevant to JPMorgan's defense and its own claims against former executive Jes Staley, who had a friendship with Epstein. JPMorgan argued these records were necessary for its case and that the DA's office could not shield them through claims of privilege or grand jury secrecy. A federal judge agreed that certain records must be provided to the bank, ruling that the DA's assertions of privilege did not apply to the specific statements sought.The bank's efforts to obtain these prosecutor records reflected its broader legal strategy to show it lacked liability and to push back against allegations that it turned a blind eye to Epstein's criminal conduct. By insisting on access to the DA's files, JPMorgan aimed to uncover information about what prosecutors knew and when, potentially undermining accusations that the bank failed to act despite warning signs. The ruling that the Manhattan DA's office must hand over some of these documents marked a significant moment in civil litigation tied to Epstein's network, highlighting how transactional discovery in Epstein-related lawsuits can reach into prosecutors' investigatory materials under certain legal conditions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

JPMorgan Chase, which has been sued by women alleging the bank enabled Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking by maintaining him as a client for years, sought to compel the Manhattan District Attorney's office to turn over records as part of that lawsuit. The bank issued subpoenas to District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office for statements made by one of the alleged victims to a prosecutor and other documents that might be relevant to JPMorgan's defense and its own claims against former executive Jes Staley, who had a friendship with Epstein. JPMorgan argued these records were necessary for its case and that the DA's office could not shield them through claims of privilege or grand jury secrecy. A federal judge agreed that certain records must be provided to the bank, ruling that the DA's assertions of privilege did not apply to the specific statements sought.The bank's efforts to obtain these prosecutor records reflected its broader legal strategy to show it lacked liability and to push back against allegations that it turned a blind eye to Epstein's criminal conduct. By insisting on access to the DA's files, JPMorgan aimed to uncover information about what prosecutors knew and when, potentially undermining accusations that the bank failed to act despite warning signs. The ruling that the Manhattan DA's office must hand over some of these documents marked a significant moment in civil litigation tied to Epstein's network, highlighting how transactional discovery in Epstein-related lawsuits can reach into prosecutors' investigatory materials under certain legal conditions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

JPMorgan Chase, which has been sued by women alleging the bank enabled Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking by maintaining him as a client for years, sought to compel the Manhattan District Attorney's office to turn over records as part of that lawsuit. The bank issued subpoenas to District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office for statements made by one of the alleged victims to a prosecutor and other documents that might be relevant to JPMorgan's defense and its own claims against former executive Jes Staley, who had a friendship with Epstein. JPMorgan argued these records were necessary for its case and that the DA's office could not shield them through claims of privilege or grand jury secrecy. A federal judge agreed that certain records must be provided to the bank, ruling that the DA's assertions of privilege did not apply to the specific statements sought.The bank's efforts to obtain these prosecutor records reflected its broader legal strategy to show it lacked liability and to push back against allegations that it turned a blind eye to Epstein's criminal conduct. By insisting on access to the DA's files, JPMorgan aimed to uncover information about what prosecutors knew and when, potentially undermining accusations that the bank failed to act despite warning signs. The ruling that the Manhattan DA's office must hand over some of these documents marked a significant moment in civil litigation tied to Epstein's network, highlighting how transactional discovery in Epstein-related lawsuits can reach into prosecutors' investigatory materials under certain legal conditions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

JPMorgan Chase, which has been sued by women alleging the bank enabled Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking by maintaining him as a client for years, sought to compel the Manhattan District Attorney's office to turn over records as part of that lawsuit. The bank issued subpoenas to District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office for statements made by one of the alleged victims to a prosecutor and other documents that might be relevant to JPMorgan's defense and its own claims against former executive Jes Staley, who had a friendship with Epstein. JPMorgan argued these records were necessary for its case and that the DA's office could not shield them through claims of privilege or grand jury secrecy. A federal judge agreed that certain records must be provided to the bank, ruling that the DA's assertions of privilege did not apply to the specific statements sought.The bank's efforts to obtain these prosecutor records reflected its broader legal strategy to show it lacked liability and to push back against allegations that it turned a blind eye to Epstein's criminal conduct. By insisting on access to the DA's files, JPMorgan aimed to uncover information about what prosecutors knew and when, potentially undermining accusations that the bank failed to act despite warning signs. The ruling that the Manhattan DA's office must hand over some of these documents marked a significant moment in civil litigation tied to Epstein's network, highlighting how transactional discovery in Epstein-related lawsuits can reach into prosecutors' investigatory materials under certain legal conditions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

Diana Florence, running for election for Manhattan District Attorney on an Independent ticket, joins Sid live in-studio to discuss her campaign for District Attorney against incumbent Alvin Bragg. She highlights her dissatisfaction with Bragg's tenure, citing issues such as the drug market in Washington Square Park and his politically driven decisions. Florence emphasizes her experience as a prosecutor and lawyer, calling for voters to choose competence and safety. She talks about her campaign efforts, airing commercials during Knicks games, and engaging with New Yorkers on the streets. The discussion touches on broader political implications, voter turnout, and her advocacy for fair treatment in sports law. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Diana Florence, running for election for Manhattan District Attorney on an Independent ticket, joins Sid live in-studio to discuss her campaign for District Attorney against incumbent Alvin Bragg. She highlights her dissatisfaction with Bragg's tenure, citing issues such as the drug market in Washington Square Park and his politically driven decisions. Florence emphasizes her experience as a prosecutor and lawyer, calling for voters to choose competence and safety. She talks about her campaign efforts, airing commercials during Knicks games, and engaging with New Yorkers on the streets. The discussion touches on broader political implications, voter turnout, and her advocacy for fair treatment in sports law. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Maud Maron, running as a Republican in the 2025 Manhattan District Attorney race against Democrat incumbent Alvin Bragg, joins Sid live in-studio to discuss various subjects including her background, the challenges she faces in her campaign, and her views on the current District Attorney Alvin Bragg. She highlights the struggles of running without significant financial backing, the issues of split votes with fellow candidate Diana Florence, and the need for public safety reforms. She also criticizes the Democratic Party's current state and stresses the importance of investing in strong candidates for future elections. Maron concludes by encouraging listeners to support her campaign and participate in upcoming debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Diana Florence, running for election for Manhattan District Attorney on an Independent ticket, makes her debut on the program with Sid to discuss her motivations for running, specifically criticizing current DA Alvin Bragg for his performance and politicization of the office. Florence emphasizes her commitment to depoliticizing the DA's office and ensuring justice irrespective of political affiliation. She also addresses her career background, her reasons for being a better choice than her opponent, Maude Maron, and her plans for improving the DA's office. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The foundation of our democracy is the Constitution, a system of checks and balances and the rule of law. But today, those cornerstones are being blatantly disrespected by a presidential administration attempting to consolidate power at all costs..In this episode, host Simone Leeper is joined by Campaign Legal Center litigators Anna Baldwin and Brent Ferguson. They examine the most pressing examples of the erosion of the rule of law, from the politicization of the Department of Justice to the stifling of free speech. Along the way, they highlight how Congress and the courts have failed as effective checks — leaving civil society and citizens to defend constitutional principles — and explore the reforms that could restore accountability, protect the rule of law and strengthen democracy against threats. Timestamps:(00:05) — Why is free speech under attack in the U.S.?(03:50) — How is political opposition being falsely linked to political violence?(05:38) — Why is deploying federal troops in U.S. cities a threat to democracy?(09:50) — How are Congress and the courts failing to check presidential abuses of power?(15:09) — How has the DOJ been transformed into a political tool?(20:17) — Why is the Voting Rights Act no longer being enforced?(21:17) — What's at stake with the DOJ's demand for voter data?(27:27) — How is CLC challenging unlawful executive orders?(32:30) — What reforms are needed to restore checks and balances?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Anna Baldwin is a member of Campaign Legal Center's voting rights team working to protect the freedom to vote, litigating cases in state and federal courts, from filing through appeal to the Supreme Court. Prior to joining CLC, Anna spent 14 years in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. In North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, Anna led briefing and appellate argument for the United States to overturn a North Carolina law that purposefully restricted voting and registration opportunities for Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Anna was also a member of the trial team that successfully challenged Texas's racially discriminatory voter ID law. Anna has argued eighteen cases before the federal courts of appeal, including four en banc cases. Previously, Anna was an associate in the Washington D.C. office of Jenner & Block LLP, and clerked for Judge James Robertson on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and for Judge M. Blane Michael on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.Brent Ferguson leads Campaign Legal Center's strategic litigation team, focusing on anti-authoritarianism and litigating in all areas of election law. Brent has worked on protecting and improving our democracy for most of his career. At CLC, he has led litigation teams challenging state and federal laws and policies that seek to unlawfully purge voters, limit voter registration activity and otherwise prevent Americans from exercising their constitutionally protected rights. He has authored academic articles on election law and other constitutional issues in the Washington Law Review, the Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, the Emory Law Journal Online and elsewhere. Before coming to CLC, Brent was senior counsel at the National Redistricting Foundation, where he helped develop strategy for federal and state redistricting litigation. For four years, he served as counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, focusing on campaign finance reform and working on a broad range of other democracy issues. He was also an assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, where he litigated appeals of public corruption convictions. He clerked for Judge Michael Chagares of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Jeffrey Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.Links:Taking Action Against Presidential Abuses of Power | Campaign Legal CenterAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Maud Maron, running as a Republican in the 2025 Manhattan District Attorney race against Democrat incumbent Alvin Bragg, calls into the program to stress that Bragg prioritizes ideology over public safety, acting like a social worker instead of a prosecutor. She criticizes the Democratic Socialists of America's influence on city politics, arguing that their policies—such as defunding the police and closing Rikers—endanger New Yorkers. Maron shares her own political shift away from the Democratic Party, likening it to being “mugged by reality,” and emphasizes the importance of voting in the upcoming November election, especially given low turnout in off-years. She calls for stronger leadership to restore safety in New York, denounces Bragg's prosecution of Donald Trump as political abuse, and urges Manhattan voters to rally behind her campaign for a safer city. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rich starts the show with Jenny Korn, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Faith Office, to shine a light on the rise of Christian murders in Nigeria and the importance of faith and culture as we celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month. Next, Patrick Hedger, Director of Policy at NetChoice, explains what it will take for America to win the global race for artificial intelligence — and how AI is quickly becoming part of everyday life. Finally, Maud Maron, former Democrat now Republican candidate for Manhattan District Attorney, joins Rich to discuss why she left the Left, the dangers of radical candidates like Mamdani, and why she's the right choice to turn Manhattan around. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, Maud Maron, a candidate for Manhattan District Attorney and education advocate, shares her journey into politics, her views on public safety, education, and the current state of New York politics. She discusses the challenges of modern feminism and offers advice for the next generation, emphasizing the importance of real-life connections over digital distractions. The Karol Markowicz Show is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Wednesday & Friday. Learn more about Maud MaronSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

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

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

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

Few lawyers in America have handled more headline-making cases than Marc Agnifilo of Agnifilo Intrater. A former prosecutor in both the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and the U.S. Attorney's Office for New Jersey—where he and I met and became friends, around 20 years ago—Marc has defended a number of famous (some might say infamous) figures. His clients over the years have included so-called “pharma bro” Martin Shkreli, former NXIUM cult leader Keith Raniere, and Luigi Mangione, who faces state and federal charges in connection with the shooting death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.Earlier this month, Marc and his colleagues won acquittals for Sean “Diddy” Combs on federal racketeering and sex-trafficking charges—the most serious charges that Combs faced, which could have landed him in prison for life had he been convicted. Last week, I interviewed Marc about the trial and shared some highlights in these pages; now, I'm pleased to provide the complete podcast.Thanks to Marc for taking the time to speak with me, so thoughtfully and openly, about an interesting and momentous case—as well as his remarkable career as one of the nation's leading trial lawyers.Show Notes:* Marc Agnifilo bio, Agnifilo Intrater* How Diddy's Likable Defense Lawyer Helped Save His Unlikable Client (gift link), by Corinne Ramey and James Fanelli for The Wall Street Journal* The husband-wife legal team working on two of today's biggest criminal cases, by Eric Levenson for CNNPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

The Supreme Court issued a terse 16 word decision that cleared a path for the Manhattan District Attorney to finally receive eight years of Donald Trump's tax records and related documents. In short, it's the beginning of the end for the Donald. I'll take you inside the decision and what happens next. Plus, a hilarious and heart filled conversation with comedian George Wallace. For cool Mea Culpa gear, check out www.meaculpapodcast.com/merch To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices The Supreme Court issued a terse 16 word decision that cleared a path for the Manhattan District Attorney to finally receive eight years of Donald Trump's tax records and related documents. In short, it's the beginning of the end for the Donald. I'll take you inside the decision and what happens next. Plus, a hilarious and heart filled conversation with comedian George Wallace. For cool Mea Culpa gear, check out www.meaculpapodcast.com/merch To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In a follow-up letter to Judge Subramanian, Sean Combs' attorneys strongly urged the court to release him on bail immediately. They criticized the government for portraying Combs as the leader of a decades-long racketeering enterprise and devoting extensive resources to a case that, in their view, ultimately collapsed under scrutiny. The defense emphasized that after nearly a year of pretrial detention, a jury of Combs' peers heard the full scope of the government's evidence—including testimony from former partners—and decisively rejected the core allegations by acquitting him of both racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking.The letter also underscored the relatively minor nature of the two counts on which Combs was convicted—interstate prostitution involving consenting adults. His lawyers noted that similar charges are no longer prosecuted by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, the Los Angeles DA, and many others. They argued that further detention is unnecessary and unjust, especially given Combs' eligibility to serve any remaining sentence at a lower-security facility under the sentencing guidelines. According to the defense, every additional day he remains at the MDC amounts to an undue and disproportionate punishment.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.438.0_1.pdf

In a follow-up letter to Judge Subramanian, Sean Combs' attorneys strongly urged the court to release him on bail immediately. They criticized the government for portraying Combs as the leader of a decades-long racketeering enterprise and devoting extensive resources to a case that, in their view, ultimately collapsed under scrutiny. The defense emphasized that after nearly a year of pretrial detention, a jury of Combs' peers heard the full scope of the government's evidence—including testimony from former partners—and decisively rejected the core allegations by acquitting him of both racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking.The letter also underscored the relatively minor nature of the two counts on which Combs was convicted—interstate prostitution involving consenting adults. His lawyers noted that similar charges are no longer prosecuted by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, the Los Angeles DA, and many others. They argued that further detention is unnecessary and unjust, especially given Combs' eligibility to serve any remaining sentence at a lower-security facility under the sentencing guidelines. According to the defense, every additional day he remains at the MDC amounts to an undue and disproportionate punishment.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.438.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Katie and Steve discuss the recent decision by the New York Supreme Court granting the Manhattan District Attorney request for a turnover order directing the Art Institute of Chicago to return a drawing by Egon Schiele, "Russan War Prisoner," that the museum acquired in 1966. Katie and Steve review the history of the ownership of the drawing by Fritz Grünbaum, a cabaret singer who was killed by the Nazis in 1941, and the legal proceedings involving his art collection leading up to this controversial decision.   Notes for this episode: https://artlawpodcast.com/2025/07/01/an-update-on-the-manhattan-das-turnover-proceeding-against-the-art-institute-of-chicago/   Follow the Art Law Podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/artlawpodcast/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@artlawpodcast Katie and Steve discuss topics based on news and magazine articles and court filings and not based on original research unless specifically noted.

49:28- Col. Jack Jacobs, a retired colonel in the United States Army and a Medal of Honor recipient for his actions during the Vietnam War, joins Joe Piscopo to reminisce about the significance of D-Day and the issue of schools not teaching students about D-Day today. Topic: Remembering D-Day 56:40- Daniel Hoffman, Ret. A CIA Senior Clandestine Services Officer and a Fox News Contributor join Joe Piscopo to discuss the arrogance of Putin and the continuation of issues of the Russia-Ukraine War. Topic: Trump's call with Putin 1:10:05- Steve Forbes, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief at Forbes Media & the co-author of "Inflation: What It Is, Why It's Bad, and How to Fix It" joins Joe Piscopo to discuss Trump's “Big, Beautiful Bill” and the recent social media falling out between Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Topic: Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" 1:35:30- Patrick Timmins, Democratic Candidate for Manhattan District Attorney, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss his current campaign for Manhattan DA and the current safety issues going on in New York City, like subway crimes and theft. Topic: His campaign for Manhattan DA 1:45:24- Hans von Spakovsky, Manager of the Heritage Foundation's Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss the latest in the SCOTUS decisions. Topic: Latest SCOTUS decisions 1:59:40- Corey Lewandowski, Trump 2024 Senior Official, joins Joe Piscopo to discuss Trump and Elon’s falling out and all the successes of Trump’s current presidency so far. Topic: Trump and Elon's falling out, Trump's meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich MerzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Twenty-One producer Dan Enright takes drastic action to keep the rigging scandal under wraps by discrediting his accuser, Herbert Stempel. But investigators with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office uncover undeniable proof that soon sparks a Congressional hearing, and puts celebrity champion Charles Van Doren in the hot seat.Be the first to know about Wondery's newest podcasts, curated recommendations, and more! Sign up now at https://wondery.fm/wonderynewsletter Listen to American Scandal on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Experience all episodes ad-free and be the first to binge the newest season. Unlock exclusive early access by joining Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Start your free trial today by visiting wondery.com/links/american-scandal/ now.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Trump and Musk are on a self-declared mission to destroy the bureaucracy and the “deep state" — and they're taking aim at the government's independent agencies. CAFE Contributor and administrative law expert Rachel Barkow breaks down why an almost 100-year-old Supreme Court precedent is at risk of being overturned and the danger for the rule of law. Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Wednesday, December 18th, 2024Today, Judge Juan Merchan rules that Trump evidence in the 34 felony count conviction is not subject to immunity; AOC loses her bid to chair the oversight committee to Jerry Connolly; Trump is suing the Des Moines Register for brazen election interference over the Kamala Harris poll; top editors withdraw from contention at the Washington Post over the paper's strategy; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You to Beam DreamThere's never been a better time to finally try Dream! Shop their New Years sale and get up to 40% off when you go to ShopBeam.com/DAILYBEANS and use the code DAILYBEANS at checkout!Stories:Judge rules Trump does not have presidential immunity protections in hush money conviction (Kara Scannell, Jeremy Herb and Lauren del Valle | CNN)DEMS CHOOSE 74-YEAR-OLD GERRY CONNOLLY OVER AOC FOR KEY COMMITTEE ROLE (CHARISMA MADARANG | Rolling Stone)Scoop: Top editors stiff the Washington Post (Mike Allen , Sara Fischer | Axios)Trump sues Des Moines Register, pollster for ‘election interference' after pre-election poll (David Bauder | AP News) From The Good NewsConnecticut Paid Leave (ctpaidleave.org)Instagram - @boswell_the_cow Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts