Podcasts about observers

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Molly Roberts, Michael Feinberg, and Troy Edwards to talk through the week's big warrant-related national security news, including:“Tulsi Went Down to Georgia, She Was Looking for a Vote to Steal.” This past week, the FBI executed a warrant to search Fulton County's election center for ballots and equipment related to the 2020 election, with the help of an unlikely senior administration official: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who was reportedly there in-person at the order of President Trump. Observers are concerned that the search is the beginning of a broader effort to relitigate the 2020 election—especially as Trump calls for Republicans in Congress to “nationalize elections” in advance of the November mid-terms. What do we know about the legal basis for this search? And what does it tell us about what the Trump administration has planned for November?“I Hear the Jury's Still Out on the Fourth Amendment.” Over the past week, whistleblowers have revealed that ICE has issued a series of internal memos to agents advising that they do not need judicial warrants to detain or search the homes of people suspected of being undocumented immigrants. Instead, ICE has attempted to side-step the regular judicial process by suggesting that agents only need an administrative warrant, a controversial move that will almost certainly be challenged in court. What do we think of ICE's decision to shift to such a legally dubious policy, and where do we expect it to go from here?“Ex Post Justification.” Last month, the FBI conducted a search on the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson as part of an investigation into alleged leaks by a Defense Department contractor. During the search, agents seized Natanson's personal and professional devices, which drew concern from media outlets and civil liberty groups over potential First Amendment and privacy violations. A magistrate judge has now ordered that the FBI cannot access Natanson's materials at least for now, while some of these issues are litigated. How should federal law enforcement balance the need to conduct leak investigations with press freedoms? And is this case on the right side of the line?In object lessons, sometimes all you can do is cry: Molly is remembering better days for the Washington Post and mourning the fall of a once-great paper. Sometimes all you can do is get lost in the music: Mike is celebrating the still-great Miles Davis with the long-awaited release of The Complete Miles Davis Live at the Plugged Nickel 1965 on vinyl. Sometimes all you can do is laugh: Scott is delighting in his former State Department colleague's new Substack, Ridiculocracy. And sometimes, all you can do is wear something fabulous: Troy is modeling the new wardrobe must-have for the “Government in Exile.”To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Molly Roberts, Michael Feinberg, and Troy Edwards to talk through the week's big warrant-related national security news, including:“Tulsi Went Down to Georgia, She Was Looking for a Vote to Steal.” This past week, the FBI executed a warrant to search Fulton County's election center for ballots and equipment related to the 2020 election, with the help of an unlikely senior administration official: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who was reportedly there in-person at the order of President Trump. Observers are concerned that the search is the beginning of a broader effort to relitigate the 2020 election—especially as Trump calls for Republicans in Congress to “nationalize elections” in advance of the November mid-terms. What do we know about the legal basis for this search? And what does it tell us about what the Trump administration has planned for November?“I Hear the Jury's Still Out on the Fourth Amendment.” Over the past week, whistleblowers have revealed that ICE has issued a series of internal memos to agents advising that they do not need judicial warrants to detain or search the homes of people suspected of being undocumented immigrants. Instead, ICE has attempted to side-step the regular judicial process by suggesting that agents only need an administrative warrant, a controversial move that will almost certainly be challenged in court. What do we think of ICE's decision to shift to such a legally dubious policy, and where do we expect it to go from here?“Ex Post Justification.” Last month, the FBI conducted a search on the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson as part of an investigation into alleged leaks by a Defense Department contractor. During the search, agents seized Natanson's personal and professional devices, which drew concern from media outlets and civil liberty groups over potential First Amendment and privacy violations. A magistrate judge has now ordered that the FBI cannot access Natanson's materials at least for now, while some of these issues are litigated. How should federal law enforcement balance the need to conduct leak investigations with press freedoms? And is this case on the right side of the line?In object lessons, sometimes all you can do is cry: Molly is remembering better days for the Washington Post and mourning the fall of a once-great paper. Sometimes all you can do is get lost in the music: Mike is celebrating the still-great Miles Davis with the long-awaited release of The Complete Miles Davis Live at the Plugged Nickel 1965 on vinyl. Sometimes all you can do is laugh: Scott is delighting in his former State Department colleague's new Substack, Ridiculocracy. And sometimes, all you can do is wear something fabulous: Troy is modeling the new wardrobe must-have for the “Government in Exile.”To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's been two months since the federal government began what it calls “Operation Metro Surge” in Minnesota. Besides spreading fear amongst immigrants and many documented instances of violence and racial profiling, the surge has led many Minnesotans to jump into a remarkably large network of advocates, lawyers, constitutional observers and mutual aid providers. While these helpers have made headlines worldwide, many are getting tired. The Immigrant Defense Network has been operating beyond its capacity for weeks, and there's not yet an end in sight.The Immigrant Defense Network helped band together more than 100 organizations to assist struggling families and defend immigrants' constitutional rights. In January, the network registered an average of 2,000 volunteers per week to deliver food, give at-risk families rides, go to court hearings, and translate documents.“The scale is unimaginable,” Edwin Torres Desantiago, Immigrant Defense Network manager, said. “We have rapid response around the clock, seven days a week. We are actively responding to a case every six minutes across the state of Minnesota.”Torres Desantiago said that to many staff and volunteers, their work feels like a nonstop sprint. “A lot of us are tired, but we know that in this moment we need to keep defending and protecting our neighbors.”“We are living with the reality that this is no longer a couple-week operation like it was in other cities,” Torres Desantiago said. “We are now expecting and creating the infrastructure that this is something we have to sustain for an unforeseeable future.”Torres Desantiago said that even if the there was a sudden decrease in ICE agents in the state, his organization would still work around the clock for months to help with the ripple effect the operation has had on tens of thousands of Minnesotans.

Representative Anna Paulina Luna publicly accused Judge Paul Engelmayer of obstructing transparency in the Epstein files by denying requests for a special master and refusing to intervene in what she characterized as the Justice Department's slow-walking of disclosures, framing the ruling as evidence of judicial complicity in protecting powerful interests. Luna claimed the court's refusal to step in effectively gave the DOJ cover to continue delaying and heavily redacting materials required to be released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and she suggested that the judiciary was now part of a broader institutional effort to suppress damaging information. In public statements and on social media, she portrayed Engelmayer's order as proof that “the system protects itself,” positioning herself as one of the few lawmakers willing to confront both the courts and the Justice Department. Her rhetoric cast the ruling not as a jurisdictional decision, but as an intentional act to shield elites connected to Epstein. By personalizing the dispute around Engelmayer, Luna attempted to transform a procedural setback into a political confrontation. The tone was accusatory and absolutist, presenting the judge's refusal as moral failure rather than legal limitation.Critics of Luna argue that her attack on Engelmayer was misleading, legally simplistic, and politically opportunistic, because the judge's ruling rested on well-established jurisdictional boundaries rather than any endorsement of secrecy. Engelmayer explicitly acknowledged the importance of transparency and congressional oversight but stated that he lacked authority to enforce a civil disclosure statute within a criminal case — a limitation Luna largely ignored in favor of incendiary framing. By depicting a procedural ruling as evidence of corruption, Luna blurred the line between oversight advocacy and populist grandstanding, feeding public distrust in the judiciary without offering a realistic legal path forward. Observers note that her comments substituted accusation for substance, inflating her role as a crusader while sidestepping the reality that enforcement power rests primarily with Congress itself, not the courts. Instead of advancing a workable strategy to compel compliance, Luna's rhetoric focused on spectacle and outrage. In doing so, she risked weakening legitimate oversight efforts by turning a technical legal dispute into a personal attack on a judge whose ruling, however frustrating, reflected structural limits rather than institutional malice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Rep. Luna to Newsmax: Impeach Judge Impeding Epstein Files | Newsmax.com

During Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, a curious and controversial detail surfaced when testimony referenced an alleged photograph showing Maxwell appearing pregnant during the period when she was accused of actively recruiting and abusing minors. The mention was brief but striking, because it directly contradicted the image Maxwell and her defense had long cultivated of her whereabouts, activities, and physical condition during key years of Epstein's operation. The implication was not merely gossip, but a challenge to timelines and narratives Maxwell had relied on to distance herself from day-to-day involvement. If authentic, the image suggested she was present, socially active, and physically visible in Epstein's world at a time when she later claimed to be elsewhere or disengaged. The prosecution did not present the photo as definitive proof of pregnancy, but its mention underscored how much of Maxwell's personal history during those years remains obscured or contested. It raised questions about what else may have been concealed or minimized.The defense quickly downplayed the significance of the alleged image, framing it as irrelevant, speculative, or misinterpreted, and the court did not allow it to become a focal point of the case. Still, its appearance during trial highlighted the broader pattern of incomplete transparency surrounding Maxwell's life during the height of Epstein's trafficking network. Observers noted that even small inconsistencies took on outsized importance because Maxwell's credibility was already under intense scrutiny. The alleged photograph became another example of how fragments of information, when introduced under oath, chipped away at carefully constructed narratives. While the jury was instructed to focus on the charged conduct rather than personal rumors, the reference lingered as a reminder that Maxwell's public story and private reality often failed to align. In a case defined by secrecy and manipulation, even an unresolved image carried weight.to  contract me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Despite the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) requiring the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release all unclassified investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein by the legal deadline of 19 December 2025, only a tiny portion has been made public, triggering frustration among victims' advocates and lawmakers. Legal experts told the Guardian that efforts to compel full disclosure have been stymied; an attempt to appoint an independent monitor (a special master) to oversee the release failed, and the DOJ has shown little willingness to comply voluntarily. Attorneys representing survivors argued that transparency is essential for healing, accountability, and justice, and urged continued legal pressure through litigation, congressional oversight, Freedom of Information Act enforcement and sustained public scrutiny to force compliance.Experts also highlighted structural weaknesses in the current law — particularly that it lacks clear enforcement mechanisms or judicial oversight — which have allowed the DOJ to delay and limit disclosures with few consequences. Congressional leaders like Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, who co-sponsored the EFTA, said they will pursue every available legal avenue to ensure the files are released, including potential lawsuits or legislative fixes. Observers warned that without stronger enforcement tools, truth and closure for Epstein's survivors may remain elusive, as the agency charged with upholding the law is perceived to be flouting it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What else can be done to force Trump's DoJ to release all the Epstein files? Legal experts weigh in | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

Inside the Front‑Line of Resistance: Photojournalist Stephanie Keith on Visual Anthropology, ICE Protests & the Power of Community Observers

Despite the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) requiring the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release all unclassified investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein by the legal deadline of 19 December 2025, only a tiny portion has been made public, triggering frustration among victims' advocates and lawmakers. Legal experts told the Guardian that efforts to compel full disclosure have been stymied; an attempt to appoint an independent monitor (a special master) to oversee the release failed, and the DOJ has shown little willingness to comply voluntarily. Attorneys representing survivors argued that transparency is essential for healing, accountability, and justice, and urged continued legal pressure through litigation, congressional oversight, Freedom of Information Act enforcement and sustained public scrutiny to force compliance.Experts also highlighted structural weaknesses in the current law — particularly that it lacks clear enforcement mechanisms or judicial oversight — which have allowed the DOJ to delay and limit disclosures with few consequences. Congressional leaders like Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, who co-sponsored the EFTA, said they will pursue every available legal avenue to ensure the files are released, including potential lawsuits or legislative fixes. Observers warned that without stronger enforcement tools, truth and closure for Epstein's survivors may remain elusive, as the agency charged with upholding the law is perceived to be flouting it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What else can be done to force Trump's DoJ to release all the Epstein files? Legal experts weigh in | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Representative Anna Paulina Luna publicly accused Judge Paul Engelmayer of obstructing transparency in the Epstein files by denying requests for a special master and refusing to intervene in what she characterized as the Justice Department's slow-walking of disclosures, framing the ruling as evidence of judicial complicity in protecting powerful interests. Luna claimed the court's refusal to step in effectively gave the DOJ cover to continue delaying and heavily redacting materials required to be released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and she suggested that the judiciary was now part of a broader institutional effort to suppress damaging information. In public statements and on social media, she portrayed Engelmayer's order as proof that “the system protects itself,” positioning herself as one of the few lawmakers willing to confront both the courts and the Justice Department. Her rhetoric cast the ruling not as a jurisdictional decision, but as an intentional act to shield elites connected to Epstein. By personalizing the dispute around Engelmayer, Luna attempted to transform a procedural setback into a political confrontation. The tone was accusatory and absolutist, presenting the judge's refusal as moral failure rather than legal limitation.Critics of Luna argue that her attack on Engelmayer was misleading, legally simplistic, and politically opportunistic, because the judge's ruling rested on well-established jurisdictional boundaries rather than any endorsement of secrecy. Engelmayer explicitly acknowledged the importance of transparency and congressional oversight but stated that he lacked authority to enforce a civil disclosure statute within a criminal case — a limitation Luna largely ignored in favor of incendiary framing. By depicting a procedural ruling as evidence of corruption, Luna blurred the line between oversight advocacy and populist grandstanding, feeding public distrust in the judiciary without offering a realistic legal path forward. Observers note that her comments substituted accusation for substance, inflating her role as a crusader while sidestepping the reality that enforcement power rests primarily with Congress itself, not the courts. Instead of advancing a workable strategy to compel compliance, Luna's rhetoric focused on spectacle and outrage. In doing so, she risked weakening legitimate oversight efforts by turning a technical legal dispute into a personal attack on a judge whose ruling, however frustrating, reflected structural limits rather than institutional malice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Rep. Luna to Newsmax: Impeach Judge Impeding Epstein Files | Newsmax.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew's latest attempt at image rehabilitation was widely seen as one of his most brazen moves yet: quietly positioning his daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, as emotional intermediaries to plead his case to King Charles III. Rather than confront the consequences of his own conduct directly, Andrew reportedly leaned on familial sympathy, allowing his daughters to emphasize his supposed remorse, isolation, and mistreatment behind palace doors. The maneuver was viewed by many as a calculated effort to soften the King's resolve by reframing Andrew not as a disgraced royal linked to Jeffrey Epstein, but as a wounded father figure deserving of compassion. Critics argue this was not an act of humility, but a tactical deflection that shifted the emotional burden onto two women who had no role in their father's scandals.The move was especially galling because it placed Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie in the uncomfortable position of advocating for a man whose reputation has severely damaged the monarchy itself. Observers saw it as another example of Andrew's refusal to accept accountability, choosing instead to hide behind his children while attempting to claw back relevance, security, and royal privilege. To critics, it underscored a pattern that has followed Andrew for years: when faced with consequences, he seeks protection through proximity to power and emotional leverage rather than genuine responsibility. The episode only reinforced the perception that Andrew remains more concerned with salvaging his status than acknowledging the harm his actions and associations have caused.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

During Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, a curious and controversial detail surfaced when testimony referenced an alleged photograph showing Maxwell appearing pregnant during the period when she was accused of actively recruiting and abusing minors. The mention was brief but striking, because it directly contradicted the image Maxwell and her defense had long cultivated of her whereabouts, activities, and physical condition during key years of Epstein's operation. The implication was not merely gossip, but a challenge to timelines and narratives Maxwell had relied on to distance herself from day-to-day involvement. If authentic, the image suggested she was present, socially active, and physically visible in Epstein's world at a time when she later claimed to be elsewhere or disengaged. The prosecution did not present the photo as definitive proof of pregnancy, but its mention underscored how much of Maxwell's personal history during those years remains obscured or contested. It raised questions about what else may have been concealed or minimized.The defense quickly downplayed the significance of the alleged image, framing it as irrelevant, speculative, or misinterpreted, and the court did not allow it to become a focal point of the case. Still, its appearance during trial highlighted the broader pattern of incomplete transparency surrounding Maxwell's life during the height of Epstein's trafficking network. Observers noted that even small inconsistencies took on outsized importance because Maxwell's credibility was already under intense scrutiny. The alleged photograph became another example of how fragments of information, when introduced under oath, chipped away at carefully constructed narratives. While the jury was instructed to focus on the charged conduct rather than personal rumors, the reference lingered as a reminder that Maxwell's public story and private reality often failed to align. In a case defined by secrecy and manipulation, even an unresolved image carried weight.to  contract me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed notice that it's appealing a judge's order setting limits on federal agents' actions against protesters in Minnesota. U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez late last week ordered agents involved in the immigration crackdown in Minnesota to not detain or arrest protesters or observers, unless there's reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime. The order also bars agents from using nonlethal munitions on peaceful protesters and bars them from stopping drivers who follow ICE to monitor operations.State Sen. John Hoffman is preparing for Minnesota's next legislative session and running for a new term. Hoffman was shot in a June attack on him and his wife at their home. Authorities say the same gunman killed Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband. But Hoffman won't retreat from public life. He has reemerged for speaking engagements. He will soon preside over Senate committee hearings.

PREVIEW THE FOLKLORE OF THE ONLY A MAN STORY Colleague Nathaniel Philbrick. Nathaniel Philbrickdiscusses a recurring oral tradition where Washington, touring the country, tells awestruck observers that despite his title, he is "only a man." Philbrick argues these stories, though absent from contemporary newspapers, likely reflect Washington's genuine efforts to humanize the presidency and acknowledge his own flaws.1787 ASHINGTON DEPARTS NEW YORK.

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

Something is watching from the trees, and the people who notice it will never be the same. Across rural America, Australia, and deep forest regions, witnesses describe the same chilling realization that something unseen had already been observing them long before they ever looked back.In this episode, Phantoms and Monsters Radio presents a chilling collection of true first-person encounters with cloaked figures, tree line watchers, and silent forest entities that remain just beyond clear visibility.• Nine immersive firsthand accounts of forest and treeline observers• Cloaked humanoids, pale beings, and shadow figures• The moment witnesses realize they are no longer aloneIf you have experienced something similar, visit Phantoms and Monsters https://phantomsandmonsters.com and share your story.

Something is watching from the trees, and the people who notice it will never be the same. Across rural America, Australia, and deep forest regions, witnesses describe the same chilling realization that something unseen had already been observing them long before they ever looked back.In this episode, Phantoms and Monsters Radio presents a chilling collection of true first-person encounters with cloaked figures, tree line watchers, and silent forest entities that remain just beyond clear visibility.• Nine immersive firsthand accounts of forest and treeline observers• Cloaked humanoids, pale beings, and shadow figures• The moment witnesses realize they are no longer aloneIf you have experienced something similar, visit Phantoms and Monsters https://phantomsandmonsters.com and share your story.

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

In the latest episode of Unqualified Observers, Kelham and Thomas sit down to discuss the Steve Martin, Diane Keaton, and Martin Short classic film, "Father of the Bride." What makes this family friendly comedy still work so many years later, and why is this story so good it gets remade often? The moments and feelings of this film feel timeless and it is about time for us to tackle it. But don't worry, there is still plenty of time for the tangents we all know you love.As always, please rate, review, subscribe, and share this podcast to help it continue to grow and find new audiences.Contact Us:Email - unqualifiedobservers@gmail.comSocials - @observecast @unqualifiedobserversKelham - @coolgollumThomas - @stimpyisking

Dr. Michael McKee appeared in an Illinois courtroom and waived extradition back to Ohio, where he faces two counts of aggravated murder for the deaths of Spencer and Monique Tepe. Observers described him as arrogant, calm, and confident — walking in with his chin up like he was entering an operating room.The charges have been upgraded from murder to aggravated murder with prior calculation and design, indicating prosecutors believe this was premeditated. In Ohio, that's death penalty eligible.Today we examine what experts are saying about McKee's psychology. Retired FBI agent Maureen O'Connell calls him a "grievance collector" who blamed Monique for ruining his life. Therapist Darby Fox believes he's had this in mind since she filed for divorce in 2017. Retired LAPD Lieutenant Jeff Weninger says McKee likely sees himself as the victim — justified in his actions.We also break down the critical June 2025 court activity that may have triggered the violence. After eight years of no documented contact, something brought McKee and Monique back into the legal system six months before she was killed. Retired Columbus PD detective Jay Fulton theorizes it may have been legal stalking — a way to force her to respond.McKee maintains his innocence. He plans to plead not guilty.Spencer and Monique leave behind two young children who were in the home during the murders.#TrueCrimeToday #MichaelMcKee #TeepeMurders #SpencerTepe #MoniqueTepe #AggravatedMurder #OhioMurder #Extradition #TrueCrimeNews #BreakingNewsJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISDOES & 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/tonybpodListen 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.

Episode 227 In this episode of the Observers Notebook podcast, host Tim Robertson talks to Pranvera Hyseni — founder of Astronomy Outreach of Kosovo, driving force behind Kosovo's first National Observatory and Planetarium, and one of the most influential young voices in global astronomy education. Pranvera shares her remarkable journey from discovering the night sky in post-war Kosovo to becoming a worldwide leader in science outreach, earning international recognition and even having asteroid 45687 Pranverahyseni named in her honor. We explore how she built Astronomy Outreach of Kosovo (AOK) from a one-person dream into a national movement reaching tens of thousands of students, teachers, and families each year. She discusses the challenges of grassroots outreach, the role of female leadership in STEM, building a planetarium from the ground up, and how amateur astronomers everywhere can empower their own communities. Whether you're an educator, an amateur astronomer, a student, or simply someone who loves the night sky, Pranvera's story is a masterclass in what passion, persistence, and creativity can accomplish. You can contact Pranvera at: lelahyseni@hotmail.com For more information you can visit the ALPO web site at: www.alpo-astronomy.org/ You can also support this podcast at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ObserversNotebook Listen to the podcast on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/observersnotebook Subscribe on our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/AssociationofLunarandPlanetaryObservers Subscribe on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/observers-notebook-the-alpo-podcast/id1199301885?mt=2 I want to thank the Producers of this podcast, Steve Siedentop and Michael Moyer for their generous support of the Observers Notebook. Our Patreons: Jerry White Jason Inman Bob Lunsford Steve Seidentop Stephen Bennett Michael Moyer Shawn Dilles Damian Allis Carl Hergenrother Michael McShan Michael Blake Nick Evetts Stan Sienkiewicz Carl Hergenrother Stan Sienkiewicz John Rogers Jim McCarthy Stanley McMahan

Tensions rise after second ICE shooting in Minneapolis. Observers in Iran's capital report no new protests after days of violent government response. Astronauts return home early after NASA's first ever medical evacuation. CBS News Correspondent Steve Kathan has these stories and more on the World News Roundup. 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

During the Vietnam War, all too often the chaos of battle found Allied forces trapped and facing annihilation. The situation called for courageous men to carry out some of the deadliest missions in the history of warfare. Forward Observers, often alone, moved behind enemy lines to serve as the eyes of the artillery gunner in delivering rounds on vital targets. In this episode, Medal of Honor recipients Barney Barnum and Brian Thacker tell their dramatic stories, In Their Own Words. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tate Brown @realTateBrown (everywhere) Guest: Amber Duke @ambermarieduke (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL

This Day in Legal History: George Washington Delivers First State of the Union AddressOn January 8, 1790, President George Washington delivered the first State of the Union address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress in New York City, the temporary capital of the United States. This moment marked the formal inauguration of a constitutional duty outlined in Article II, Section 3, which requires the president to periodically give Congress information on the “State of the Union.” Washington's address was brief—just over 1,000 words—but carried significant weight, as it was the first time a sitting president had spoken to the legislature under the newly ratified Constitution.In his remarks, Washington emphasized the need to build public credit, maintain national defense, and promote science and literature. He called on Congress to consider a system of uniform weights and measures and to establish a national post office. Notably, he stressed the importance of establishing laws that would encourage “a due respect for property” and “the security of liberty.” His recommendations helped shape the early legislative agenda and solidify the constitutional structure of government roles.The address was delivered in person, following British parliamentary tradition, but Thomas Jefferson would later abandon this practice in favor of written messages, considering in-person speeches too monarchical in tone. Washington's speech helped define the president's role not merely as an executive but as a constitutional communicator, responsible for setting national priorities in collaboration with Congress.The legal legacy of this event lies in the precedent it established: that the president would serve not only as head of state and government, but also as an active participant in shaping legislative goals through regular, formal communication. Over time, this annual message evolved into a major political and legal event, shaping policy narratives and underscoring the balance of powers between the branches of government.Tysen Duva, a long-serving federal prosecutor from Florida, was recently sworn in as head of the U.S. Justice Department's Criminal Division, a powerful role now seen as vulnerable to political pressure under President Trump's second term. Duva replaces acting chief Matthew Galeotti, who, despite not being a permanent appointee, had earned respect for shielding the division from direct political interference and maintaining operational independence, particularly in white-collar and public corruption cases. Duva, who has no prior managerial experience at this scale, will now oversee over 1,000 prosecutors amid ongoing departmental turmoil, internal resignations, and controversial Trump-driven interventions.His appointment follows internal conflict, including a recent case where Duva clashed with a Trump-aligned U.S. attorney who tried to fast-track charges against a Democratic congresswoman. While the charges ultimately proceeded, the case highlights the complex political dynamics Duva must now navigate. Though Duva has pledged impartiality and praised Galeotti's example, his lack of a close working relationship with Deputy AG Todd Blanche—unlike Galeotti—may limit his autonomy.Observers note that the Criminal Division has largely avoided the most contentious political directives of the Trump administration so far, including investigations into Trump's critics and cultural flashpoints like gender-affirming care. However, experts warn that Duva may face tighter constraints going forward, with limits placed on certain enforcement areas like overseas bribery and tariff violations. DOJ veterans emphasize that how Duva manages pressure from Attorney General Pam Bondi, Blanche, and the White House will determine the future direction of the department's criminal enforcement strategy.Political Tension Awaits DOJ's Unproven Criminal Division ChiefThe UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has contacted Elon Musk's platform X and his AI company xAI, seeking clarification on how they are complying with UK data protection laws. The inquiry follows reports raising concerns about Grok, X's built-in AI chatbot, and its ability to generate images that may involve the use of personal data. The ICO emphasized that individuals have the right to expect lawful and respectful handling of their personal information on social media platforms. The regulator is requesting details on the safeguards X and xAI have in place to protect user privacy and uphold legal standards under UK data law.Reports have intensified regulatory concern by alleging that Grok has generated explicit images involving underage individuals. The claims raise serious legal and ethical questions under UK data protection and child‑safety laws. Such allegations heighten scrutiny of how training data is sourced, what safeguards are in place to prevent harmful outputs, and how quickly platforms respond when prohibited content is identified. The ICO's outreach suggests regulators are assessing whether existing controls are adequate to prevent the creation or dissemination (clearly not) of unlawful material and to protect minors' rights.UK data watchdog contacts Musk's X over Grok AI images | ReutersFord Motor Company has refiled a lawsuit accusing three California attorneys of orchestrating a fraudulent overbilling scheme to collect more than $100 million in legal fees under the state's Lemon Law. The amended complaint, allowed after a judge dismissed the original case in November, drops law firms as defendants and instead targets individual lawyers Steve Mikhov, Roger Kirnos, and Amy Morse, formerly of Knight Law Group. Ford alleges the attorneys operated a “Fee Motion Department” that submitted fake time entries, including implausible claims such as multiple 24-hour workdays and even a single day billed at 57.5 hours.The lawsuit claims these practices defrauded courts and automakers by inflating legal fees in warranty cases involving defective vehicles. California's Lemon Law allows recovery of attorney fees for reasonable legal work, but Ford argues the defendants manipulated this provision for profit. Ford's legal team says the amended filing includes new details drawn from testimony, reinforcing their claim that the lawyers exploited the court system. The accused attorneys have denied wrongdoing and previously argued the case is a retaliatory move by Ford meant to intimidate lawyers representing consumers. The case continues in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.Ford takes fresh aim at lawyers in lawsuit claiming overbilling scheme | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Speculation has long circulated that Ghislaine Maxwell quietly explored the possibility of cutting a cooperation deal with federal prosecutors in the window between her conviction and her initial appeal in 2022. Observers pointed to unusual signals: sealed filings, delayed sentencing timelines, and reports of meetings between Maxwell's legal team and the Department of Justice that appeared to go beyond routine post-trial procedure. The theory held that Maxwell, facing decades in prison, may have tested whether prosecutors were interested in information about Epstein's broader network in exchange for sentencing consideration or post-conviction relief. Her defense posture during this period—careful, restrained, and notably selective in public statements—only fueled suspicions that back-channel discussions were at least contemplated.What intensified that speculation was the ultimate outcome: no cooperation agreement emerged, no sweeping revelations followed, and Maxwell proceeded with a narrow, tightly constructed appeal that conspicuously avoided challenging the broader architecture of Epstein's operation. Critics argue this suggests that if discussions occurred, they either stalled or were deliberately constrained, possibly because prosecutors were unwilling to open cases that could implicate powerful institutions or individuals beyond the scope of her trial. Others believe Maxwell may have overestimated her leverage, discovering too late that the government was only interested in a conviction that sealed the case rather than one that expanded it. In the absence of transparency, the period before her 2022 appeal has come to symbolize a missed—or intentionally closed—door to exposing the full Epstein network.to  contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Not quite ready to let the holiday spirit go? Come join the Unqualified Observers, Kelham and Thomas, as they are joined by frequent guest Collin Miller. In the latest episode we sit down to discuss the Millennial holiday classic, "I'll Be Home For Christmas". Does this Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Jessica Biel film hold up all these years later, and how old are these "college" kids supposed to be? Only one way to find out and that is by listening to this fun episode. Don't worry, there are still plenty of the tangents that we know you love.As always, please rate, review, subscribe, and share this podcast to help it continue to grow and find new audiences.Contact Us: Email - unqualifiedobservers@gmail.comSocials - @observecast @unqualifiedobserversKelham - @coolgollumThomas - @stimpyisking

Episode 226 In this episode, we're turning our eyes toward some of the most dynamic travelers in our solar system — comets — and looking ahead to what promises to be an exciting year in the night sky: 2026. Each year brings a new lineup of these icy visitors, and with them, the chance for both amateur and professional observers to witness spectacular changes as they approach the Sun and develop tails of gas and dust. But which comets will stand out in 2026? Which ones might become visible to the naked eye — and which could surprise us? To help answer those questions, I'm joined by Carl Hergenrother, Coordinator of the ALPO Comets Section and a veteran comet discoverer himself — yes, he even has one named after him, Comet 168P/Hergenrother. Carl has spent decades studying, imaging, and analyzing comets from both professional observatories and backyard telescopes. Together, we'll explore which comets are expected to light up the sky in 2026, how to observe them, and what role amateur astronomers can play in monitoring these fascinating objects. So grab your star charts, check your observing gear, and get ready — we're about to dive into “Comets of 2026” with Carl Hergenrother. You can contact Carl at: carlhergenrother@gmail.com ALPO Comets Section https://www.alpo-astronomy.org/Comets For more information you can visit the ALPO web site at: www.alpo-astronomy.org/ You can also support this podcast at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ObserversNotebook Listen to the podcast on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/observersnotebook Subscribe on our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/AssociationofLunarandPlanetaryObservers Subscribe on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/observers-notebook-the-alpo-podcast/id1199301885?mt=2 I want to thank the Producers of this podcast, Steve Siedentop and Michael Moyer for their generous support of the Observers Notebook. Our Patreons: Jerry White Jason Inman Bob Lunsford Steve Seidentop Stephen Bennett Michael Moyer Shawn Dilles Damian Allis Carl Hergenrother Michael McShan Michael Blake Nick Evetts Stan Sienkiewicz Carl Hergenrother Stan Sienkiewicz John Rogers Jim McCarthy Stanley McMahan

Speculation has long circulated that Ghislaine Maxwell quietly explored the possibility of cutting a cooperation deal with federal prosecutors in the window between her conviction and her initial appeal in 2022. Observers pointed to unusual signals: sealed filings, delayed sentencing timelines, and reports of meetings between Maxwell's legal team and the Department of Justice that appeared to go beyond routine post-trial procedure. The theory held that Maxwell, facing decades in prison, may have tested whether prosecutors were interested in information about Epstein's broader network in exchange for sentencing consideration or post-conviction relief. Her defense posture during this period—careful, restrained, and notably selective in public statements—only fueled suspicions that back-channel discussions were at least contemplated.What intensified that speculation was the ultimate outcome: no cooperation agreement emerged, no sweeping revelations followed, and Maxwell proceeded with a narrow, tightly constructed appeal that conspicuously avoided challenging the broader architecture of Epstein's operation. Critics argue this suggests that if discussions occurred, they either stalled or were deliberately constrained, possibly because prosecutors were unwilling to open cases that could implicate powerful institutions or individuals beyond the scope of her trial. Others believe Maxwell may have overestimated her leverage, discovering too late that the government was only interested in a conviction that sealed the case rather than one that expanded it. In the absence of transparency, the period before her 2022 appeal has come to symbolize a missed—or intentionally closed—door to exposing the full Epstein network.to  contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Geoffrey Berman's exit as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in June 2020 unfolded amid unusual public tension with the Justice Department and immediately raised red flags. Attorney General William Barr first announced that Berman was stepping down, only for Berman to respond that he had not resigned and intended to remain in office until a Senate-confirmed successor was appointed. The standoff drew national attention because of how rare it is for a sitting U.S. attorney to openly challenge an attorney general's authority. After several days of public back-and-forth, Berman ultimately agreed to leave once assurances were made that his deputy would assume the role, preserving continuity within the office. The episode was widely viewed as extraordinary and politically fraught. It underscored the sensitivity surrounding the Southern District of New York, long known for its independence and willingness to pursue powerful figures. Berman's departure immediately prompted questions about what pressures may have been at play behind the scenes.Those questions intensified because Berman's office had overseen the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, one of the most explosive criminal cases in decades. Although no definitive evidence has emerged showing that the Epstein case directly caused Berman's removal, the timing and context fueled speculation that ongoing or potential investigations connected to Epstein may have made the SDNY leadership inconvenient. Observers noted that Epstein's death in federal custody, unresolved questions about co-conspirators, and the political sensitivity of the case all loomed over the office at the time. Lawmakers and legal analysts questioned whether the attempt to remove Berman was part of a broader effort to exert control over an office handling politically dangerous matters. The Justice Department denied any improper motive, insisting the move was administrative. Still, the circumstances left lingering doubts. For many critics, Berman's exit became another chapter in the broader controversy surrounding Epstein and the institutions tasked with delivering accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Geoffrey Berman's exit as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in June 2020 unfolded amid unusual public tension with the Justice Department and immediately raised red flags. Attorney General William Barr first announced that Berman was stepping down, only for Berman to respond that he had not resigned and intended to remain in office until a Senate-confirmed successor was appointed. The standoff drew national attention because of how rare it is for a sitting U.S. attorney to openly challenge an attorney general's authority. After several days of public back-and-forth, Berman ultimately agreed to leave once assurances were made that his deputy would assume the role, preserving continuity within the office. The episode was widely viewed as extraordinary and politically fraught. It underscored the sensitivity surrounding the Southern District of New York, long known for its independence and willingness to pursue powerful figures. Berman's departure immediately prompted questions about what pressures may have been at play behind the scenes.Those questions intensified because Berman's office had overseen the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, one of the most explosive criminal cases in decades. Although no definitive evidence has emerged showing that the Epstein case directly caused Berman's removal, the timing and context fueled speculation that ongoing or potential investigations connected to Epstein may have made the SDNY leadership inconvenient. Observers noted that Epstein's death in federal custody, unresolved questions about co-conspirators, and the political sensitivity of the case all loomed over the office at the time. Lawmakers and legal analysts questioned whether the attempt to remove Berman was part of a broader effort to exert control over an office handling politically dangerous matters. The Justice Department denied any improper motive, insisting the move was administrative. Still, the circumstances left lingering doubts. For many critics, Berman's exit became another chapter in the broader controversy surrounding Epstein and the institutions tasked with delivering accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Geoffrey Berman's exit as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in June 2020 unfolded amid unusual public tension with the Justice Department and immediately raised red flags. Attorney General William Barr first announced that Berman was stepping down, only for Berman to respond that he had not resigned and intended to remain in office until a Senate-confirmed successor was appointed. The standoff drew national attention because of how rare it is for a sitting U.S. attorney to openly challenge an attorney general's authority. After several days of public back-and-forth, Berman ultimately agreed to leave once assurances were made that his deputy would assume the role, preserving continuity within the office. The episode was widely viewed as extraordinary and politically fraught. It underscored the sensitivity surrounding the Southern District of New York, long known for its independence and willingness to pursue powerful figures. Berman's departure immediately prompted questions about what pressures may have been at play behind the scenes.Those questions intensified because Berman's office had overseen the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, one of the most explosive criminal cases in decades. Although no definitive evidence has emerged showing that the Epstein case directly caused Berman's removal, the timing and context fueled speculation that ongoing or potential investigations connected to Epstein may have made the SDNY leadership inconvenient. Observers noted that Epstein's death in federal custody, unresolved questions about co-conspirators, and the political sensitivity of the case all loomed over the office at the time. Lawmakers and legal analysts questioned whether the attempt to remove Berman was part of a broader effort to exert control over an office handling politically dangerous matters. The Justice Department denied any improper motive, insisting the move was administrative. Still, the circumstances left lingering doubts. For many critics, Berman's exit became another chapter in the broader controversy surrounding Epstein and the institutions tasked with delivering accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

From detaining student protesters to threatening to deport rival politicians, President Trump has weaponized the immigration system to suppress dissent. Professor Alina Das and advocate Ramya Krishnan join Taonga Leslie to discuss how these attacks chill speech across the board, examine the unique challenges of defending free speech in the immigration context, and describe how lawyers can resist efforts to silence non-citizens and citizens alike.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Taonga Leslie, Director of Policy and Program for Racial JusticeGuest: Alina Das, James Weldon Johnson Professor & Co-Director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic, NYU LawGuest: Ramya Krishnan, Senior Staff Attorney, Knight First Amendment Institute; Lecturer in Law, Columbia Law SchoolLink:  Opinion, AAUP v. Rubio (Judge Young)Link: The First Amendment in Flux, ACS Program GuideLink: Rights Under Attack: DHS Violence Against Journalists, Observers, and ProtestorsVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube -----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

Todd Blanche has come under sharp criticism for his public defense of the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files release and the recent transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell. In multiple media appearances, Blanche asserted that the file release represented “full transparency,” despite extensive redactions that critics argue obscure key details and protect institutions rather than victims. Observers note that many of the released materials were already publicly accessible, fueling accusations that the disclosure was more performative than substantive. Blanche's explanations have been described as dismissive, relying on broad assurances rather than specific justifications, which has further eroded public confidence in the DOJ's narrative.Blanche has also defended Maxwell's transfer within the federal prison system by citing unspecified “security concerns,” a rationale that has drawn skepticism due to the lack of accompanying detail or independent verification. Critics argue that the vagueness surrounding the move mirrors a broader pattern of opacity in the government's handling of the Epstein case. Legal analysts warn that Blanche's repeated public statements may ultimately create a documented record that could be scrutinized in future investigations or proceedings. As pressure mounts from victims' advocates and transparency groups, questions continue to grow about whether the DOJ's approach reflects legitimate security considerations or an ongoing effort to manage political and institutional fallout rather than fully confront the scope of the scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Observers may have noticed parts of Rotorua looking a little sharper with berms trimmed, rubbish cleared, and lawns neatly edged. That tidy-up was driven by local rangatahi (youth) who have stepped forward to give their streets a festive spruce-up. A crew of about a dozen young people, led by Waiariki Whanau Mentoring youth mentor Thomas Peato, has gathered once a week through December for a full day of maintenance mahi (work). He joins Bryan for a chat.

Todd Blanche has come under sharp criticism for his public defense of the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files release and the recent transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell. In multiple media appearances, Blanche asserted that the file release represented “full transparency,” despite extensive redactions that critics argue obscure key details and protect institutions rather than victims. Observers note that many of the released materials were already publicly accessible, fueling accusations that the disclosure was more performative than substantive. Blanche's explanations have been described as dismissive, relying on broad assurances rather than specific justifications, which has further eroded public confidence in the DOJ's narrative.Blanche has also defended Maxwell's transfer within the federal prison system by citing unspecified “security concerns,” a rationale that has drawn skepticism due to the lack of accompanying detail or independent verification. Critics argue that the vagueness surrounding the move mirrors a broader pattern of opacity in the government's handling of the Epstein case. Legal analysts warn that Blanche's repeated public statements may ultimately create a documented record that could be scrutinized in future investigations or proceedings. As pressure mounts from victims' advocates and transparency groups, questions continue to grow about whether the DOJ's approach reflects legitimate security considerations or an ongoing effort to manage political and institutional fallout rather than fully confront the scope of the scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Todd Blanche has come under sharp criticism for his public defense of the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files release and the recent transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell. In multiple media appearances, Blanche asserted that the file release represented “full transparency,” despite extensive redactions that critics argue obscure key details and protect institutions rather than victims. Observers note that many of the released materials were already publicly accessible, fueling accusations that the disclosure was more performative than substantive. Blanche's explanations have been described as dismissive, relying on broad assurances rather than specific justifications, which has further eroded public confidence in the DOJ's narrative.Blanche has also defended Maxwell's transfer within the federal prison system by citing unspecified “security concerns,” a rationale that has drawn skepticism due to the lack of accompanying detail or independent verification. Critics argue that the vagueness surrounding the move mirrors a broader pattern of opacity in the government's handling of the Epstein case. Legal analysts warn that Blanche's repeated public statements may ultimately create a documented record that could be scrutinized in future investigations or proceedings. As pressure mounts from victims' advocates and transparency groups, questions continue to grow about whether the DOJ's approach reflects legitimate security considerations or an ongoing effort to manage political and institutional fallout rather than fully confront the scope of the scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Geoffrey Berman's exit as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in June 2020 unfolded amid unusual public tension with the Justice Department and immediately raised red flags. Attorney General William Barr first announced that Berman was stepping down, only for Berman to respond that he had not resigned and intended to remain in office until a Senate-confirmed successor was appointed. The standoff drew national attention because of how rare it is for a sitting U.S. attorney to openly challenge an attorney general's authority. After several days of public back-and-forth, Berman ultimately agreed to leave once assurances were made that his deputy would assume the role, preserving continuity within the office. The episode was widely viewed as extraordinary and politically fraught. It underscored the sensitivity surrounding the Southern District of New York, long known for its independence and willingness to pursue powerful figures. Berman's departure immediately prompted questions about what pressures may have been at play behind the scenes.Those questions intensified because Berman's office had overseen the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, one of the most explosive criminal cases in decades. Although no definitive evidence has emerged showing that the Epstein case directly caused Berman's removal, the timing and context fueled speculation that ongoing or potential investigations connected to Epstein may have made the SDNY leadership inconvenient. Observers noted that Epstein's death in federal custody, unresolved questions about co-conspirators, and the political sensitivity of the case all loomed over the office at the time. Lawmakers and legal analysts questioned whether the attempt to remove Berman was part of a broader effort to exert control over an office handling politically dangerous matters. The Justice Department denied any improper motive, insisting the move was administrative. Still, the circumstances left lingering doubts. For many critics, Berman's exit became another chapter in the broader controversy surrounding Epstein and the institutions tasked with delivering accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Geoffrey Berman's exit as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in June 2020 unfolded amid unusual public tension with the Justice Department and immediately raised red flags. Attorney General William Barr first announced that Berman was stepping down, only for Berman to respond that he had not resigned and intended to remain in office until a Senate-confirmed successor was appointed. The standoff drew national attention because of how rare it is for a sitting U.S. attorney to openly challenge an attorney general's authority. After several days of public back-and-forth, Berman ultimately agreed to leave once assurances were made that his deputy would assume the role, preserving continuity within the office. The episode was widely viewed as extraordinary and politically fraught. It underscored the sensitivity surrounding the Southern District of New York, long known for its independence and willingness to pursue powerful figures. Berman's departure immediately prompted questions about what pressures may have been at play behind the scenes.Those questions intensified because Berman's office had overseen the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, one of the most explosive criminal cases in decades. Although no definitive evidence has emerged showing that the Epstein case directly caused Berman's removal, the timing and context fueled speculation that ongoing or potential investigations connected to Epstein may have made the SDNY leadership inconvenient. Observers noted that Epstein's death in federal custody, unresolved questions about co-conspirators, and the political sensitivity of the case all loomed over the office at the time. Lawmakers and legal analysts questioned whether the attempt to remove Berman was part of a broader effort to exert control over an office handling politically dangerous matters. The Justice Department denied any improper motive, insisting the move was administrative. Still, the circumstances left lingering doubts. For many critics, Berman's exit became another chapter in the broader controversy surrounding Epstein and the institutions tasked with delivering accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Today we'll be talking about a deadly bridge collapse, ASEAN observers heading to the Thai-Cambodian border, and a little later we'll make sure to send you off with some feel Good Friday news before you get to your weekend.

In this episode of Unqualified Observers, Kelham and Thomas, sit down to discuss a fan favorite from 2011, "You're Next." What happens when the rich all get together for a good time at their vacation home? Who knows, but in this film a bunch of killers show up and crash the party. Join us in this fun discussion of a unique film and see if it holds up over a decade after it's release. Don't worry, there is still plenty of time for the tangents we all know you love.As always, please rate, review, subscribe, and share this podcast to help it continue to grow and find new audiences.Contact Us:Email - unqualifiedobservers@gmail.comSocials - @observecast @unqualifiedobserversKelham - @coolgollumThomas - @stimpyisking

//The Wire//2300Z December 16, 2025////ROUTINE////BLUF: STABBING ATTACK STRIKES MOSCOW SCHOOL. TURKEY DOWNS UNIDENTIFIED DRONE OVER BLACK SEA. AMERICAN FORCES CONTINUE STAGING IN THE CARIBBEAN. WHITE HOUSE EXPANDS IMMIGRATION VISA RESTRICTIONS.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE----- -International Events-Russia: This morning a mass stabbing was reported at the Gorki-2 school just outside Moscow. The suspect has been identified as a 15-year-old by the name of Timofey K. (full last name unknown). One student was killed during the attack, and many others wounded.Turkey: Yesterday Turkish defense forces shot down an unidentified drone that was on a course to violate their airspace. F-16's were scrambled to intercept the drone over the Black Sea, and the decision was made to down the drone before it entered Turkish airspace, so that the debris would land in the Sea and not injure anyone on the ground. Analyst Comment: Turkey has not commented on which nation the drone was from, however the most likely culprit is probably Russia, as reports of rogue drones flying off course have been common lately. It's certainly possible it was an errant Ukrainian drone, however Russia is really the one who is famous for industrializing the use of long range drones during the war.Caribbean: Strikes have continued as American force posturing remains elevated throughout the region. Observers have noted the presence of 10x KC-135 tanker aircraft forward deployed to the Dominican Republic, adding to the growing list of forces being staged in the region. Analyst Comment: This afternoon President Trump announced on social media the formal implementation of a total blockade of sanctioned oil tankers within Venezuelan waters. This is a major escalation that will very likely result in the situation becoming more tense over the next few days.-HomeFront- Massachusetts: This afternoon a suspicious death was reported at the home of a high-ranking MIT professor. Nuno Loureiro, the director of the Plasma Science and Fusion Center at MIT was found dead in his home in Brookline. He was found deceased, with several gunshot wounds being the preliminary cause of death.Analyst Comment: Due to the Brown University shooting, it's likely that increased scrutiny will be placed on crimes that occur at universities or within the sphere of higher education in general. So far, not enough information is known on this murder case to discern what happened here. This could be a more routine murder, or it could be something else entirely, there's no way to know at the moment.Washington D.C. - This afternoon the White House announced a revision to the previously-implemented travel restrictions from High-Risk nations. The update now includes a total travel ban on Palestinians entering the US, along with adding partial restrictions to most of the continent of Africa. Laos and Sierra Leone have also moved up from partial restrictions to full restrictions.-----END TEARLINE-----Analyst Comments: Mass stabbing attacks are rare in Russia, and this one was very disturbing even by western standards. The attacker recorded the attack by mounting his phone to his helmet, and took selfies with the victims after he stabbed them. Regarding motive for the attack, so far this looks like a classic 764/O9A situation. Going by the textbook, the US might classify this individual under the new category of terrorist, the "NVE" or Nihilistic Violent Extremist. This is a comparatively new class of terrorist which often displays strange and contradictory ideology.In this case, the main clue that this was a 764/O9A-style attack is the firearm that was recovered from the suspect's home after the attack. Phrases written in white paint pen on an all-black weapon are the calling card of both the 764 Network and the Order of Nine Angles. Both of these groups are infamous for

Episode 225 In this episode of the Observers Notebook Podcast, host Tim Robertson talks with Roger Venable, the ALPO Mars Coordinator and President of the International Occultation and Timing Association (IOTA). They discuss the mission of IOTA, the important work the organization does in observing and timing occultations, and how listeners can get involved in this fascinating field of astronomical research. You can contact Roger at: rjvmd@progressivetel.com IOTA Website https://occultations.org/ IOTA Group https://groups.io/g/IOTAoccultations For more information you can visit the ALPO web site at: www.alpo-astronomy.org/ You can also support this podcast at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ObserversNotebook Listen to the podcast on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/observersnotebook Subscribe on our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/AssociationofLunarandPlanetaryObservers Subscribe on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/observers-notebook-the-alpo-podcast/id1199301885?mt=2 I want to thank the Producers of this podcast, Steve Siedentop and Michael Moyer for their generous support of the Observers Notebook. Our Patreons: Jerry White Jason Inman Bob Lunsford Steve Seidentop Stephen Bennett Michael Moyer Shawn Dilles Damian Allis Carl Hergenrother Michael McShan Michael Blake Nick Evetts Stan Sienkiewicz Carl Hergenrother Stan Sienkiewicz John Rogers Jim McCarthy Stanley McMahan

As the true crime world turns its attention to the latest developments in the Ana murder trial, a growing sense of urgency is building inside the courtroom and among legal analysts watching from the sidelines. In this breaking news recap, the conversation centers on a crucial problem emerging in the prosecution's presentation: the jury still hasn't been given enough of Ana, the victim at the heart of this case.  While the evidence has been technical, graphic, and methodical—blood analysis, chain-of-custody testimony, scientific explanations, and long interview recordings—experts warn that the emotional core of the story is missing. With true crime cases, especially high-profile murder trials, jurors often need to connect with the victim's humanity before they can fully grasp the gravity of the loss. Yet in this proceeding, the courtroom has been dominated by clinical descriptions and procedural testimony, leaving little room for the kind of humanizing details that impact jurors deeply. Analysts point out that the defense is leaning heavily on raising reasonable doubt by suggesting cross-contamination of key DNA evidence, making the emotional narrative even more essential.  One witness expected to shift the tone is a close friend who was with the couple during Anna's final evening. His testimony may offer the first vivid glimpse into her last moments, providing a powerful counterbalance to the sterile forensic evidence that has consumed the trial so far. Observers also note that the most emotional testimony to date came from Ana's lover, who appeared visibly devastated on the stand, offering rare insight into her private life and the complicated relationships surrounding the case. As the prosecution nears the end of its presentation, true crime followers are watching closely to see whether upcoming witnesses—including friends and DNA experts—can bring the heart of this story back into focus. This case continues to unfold with a mix of legal strategy, human tragedy, and unanswered questions, making it one of the most compelling ongoing trials in the true crime and justice community. #AnaTrial #TrueCrimeNews #CourtroomUpdates #DNAEvidence #JusticeForAnna #BreakingCrimeStory #MurderTrialCoverage #LegalAnalysis #CrimeAndJustice #TrialUpdates Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Jeffrey Epstein's ascent into elite financial and social circles was not accidental, according to sustained criticism aimed at retail magnate Les Wexner, who is widely regarded as a central early enabler of Epstein's power and legitimacy. Epstein, despite lacking conventional financial credentials, was granted extraordinary authority over Wexner's assets, including sweeping power of attorney, access to properties, and control of finances. Critics argue this patronage gave Epstein the money, credibility, and institutional cover that allowed him to embed himself among political, academic, and royal elites for decades. Wexner, they contend, was not a passive bystander but a key architect in Epstein's rise, with his financial backing serving as the foundation upon which Epstein built his broader influence and protection.The criticism extends beyond Wexner himself to the institutions that continued to honor him while avoiding scrutiny of his ties to Epstein. Universities, particularly Ohio State University, are accused of prioritizing donor relationships and endowments over accountability, despite past failures to address sexual abuse allegations in other contexts. Observers argue that Wexner's philanthropy and political donations helped deflect investigation and shield him from serious congressional inquiry, even as Epstein's crimes became undeniable. Calls have grown for Congress to compel Wexner to testify under oath, framing his continued avoidance of direct questioning as emblematic of how wealth and institutional power have delayed accountability in the Epstein case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:OSU alumni hold photos of billionaire Les Wexner with Jeffrey Epstein while demanding testimonyBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Epstein maintained a public account on Spotify, and his playlists — created between roughly 2011 and 2015 — show a strikingly broad and eclectic taste in music. His selections ranged from classical (including Ludwig van Beethoven) to jazz (notably Oscar Peterson), Broadway show tunes, gospel, pop, rock, and even contemporary club-style hits. His playlists featured songs by major artists such as Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Doors, Elton John, Céline Dion, Billy Joel, Bob Dylan, The Beach Boys, and Pitbull. Beyond music, the account also contained a comedy-album by Louis C.K. — illustrating that Epstein's public streaming activity extended beyond just songs.However, analysts and reporters have pointed out that some songs on Epstein's playlists carry lyrics or themes that — in the context of what's later known about him — read as disturbing or even alarmingly suggestive. For example, his playlists included tracks like Hot for Teacher by Van Halen (a song that has been criticized for its sexualized and somewhat predatory undertones), and My Heart Belongs to Daddy an older jazz number by Oscar Peterson that many interpret as featuring a troubling adult-child dynamic. Observers contend that while a playlist alone doesn't prove intent or wrongdoing, those particular song choices — when viewed with the rest of the evidence in Epstein's history — add a deeply unsettling and ironic dimension to how he publicly presented himself.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

James Comer, chair of the House Oversight Committee, is facing sharp criticism over his response to the release of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents. Critics argue that Comer has publicly complained about the timing and scope of disclosures rather than welcoming transparency, despite his committee's stated mission. They say his rhetoric and actions suggest an effort to downplay or slow the release of information that could implicate powerful political figures, particularly within his own party, and that this stance undermines public trust in congressional oversight.The broader critique centers on the belief that the Epstein case represents a rare bipartisan demand for full transparency, driven by years of documented failures, sealed records, and alleged institutional protection. Observers contend that attempts by some Republicans to delay, minimize, or control disclosures risk permanently damaging their political legacies, especially if perceived as shielding former President Donald Trump or contributing to a wider cover-up. As additional records emerge and public pressure continues to mount, the argument holds that efforts to manage or contain the scandal are likely to fail, leaving lasting reputational consequences for those seen as obstructing accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell's latest habeas corpus petition appears less a genuine attempt to overturn her conviction than a strategic maneuver aimed at slowing the release of potentially damaging records tied to the broader Epstein network. Legal experts note that Maxwell, who has long understood the improbability of securing her freedom, stands to benefit not from exoneration but from procedural delays that could obstruct transparency efforts. By filing an appeal that is unlikely to succeed, Maxwell triggers a pause in disclosures and creates additional hurdles for investigators, effectively buying time for the political figures and institutions whose interests intersect with her own. The move aligns with a longstanding pattern in which Maxwell leverages the legal system not to challenge evidence, but to strategically obscure it.Observers argue that these delays also serve the Trump administration, which has faced scrutiny over its handling of issues related to Epstein and Maxwell. By benefiting from slowed document releases and postponed court actions, the administration avoids renewed public attention on past associations, photos, and communications that have fueled political controversy. While officials publicly distance themselves from Maxwell, the timing of her legal filings has repeatedly coincided with periods in which transparency efforts intensified, prompting accusations that her appeals function as informal buffers for those who stand to be implicated by unsealed records. Together, Maxwell's procedural maneuvers and the administration's apparent reliance on these delays have raised concerns of a broader effort to manage fallout rather than confront the full extent of the Epstein-Maxwell network's influence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

4/8. The Dodo and the Legacy of Extinction — Steven Moss — Moss examines the Dodo as the iconic symbol of species extinction, despite extinction being conceptually incomprehensible to contemporary observers when the species disappeared from Mauritius. Moss explains that the Dodo, having evolved flightless on a predator-free island, was exterminated within 80 years by introduced species including cats, rats, and dogs transported by Dutch sailors. Mossdocuments that early museum Dodo specimens were frequently fabricated because scientists fundamentally disbelieved that an entire species could vanish. Moss notes that the Dodo's tragic extinction subsequently inspired modern conservationists, including Professor Carl Jones, who successfully rescued the Mauritius Kestrel employing innovative techniques including forced double clutching reproduction protocols. 1800

China has been on a giant global shopping spree. Since 2000, Chinese state banks have fuelled investments and acquisitions at a surprisingly rate - some four times what was previously thought. Brand new data, shared exclusively with the BBC, reveals that many of Beijing's state-backed spending has targeted rich countries. Such deals are strictly legal, though not always easy to trace. Observers in the United States, Europe and elsewhere are alarmed at the potential for Beijing to dominate key technologies and turbo charge its technological might. Celia Hatton investigates the sometimes murky ways in which Chinese state money can be traced to sensitive industrial sectors. But she also discovers that shutting out Chinese influence is not easy or desirable.

         Honduras is holding a high-stakes, single-round election where the outcome could determine if the country returns to alignment with Taiwan or shifts to China. Election observers noted improper pressure and concerns about meddling by the ruling Libre Party. Separately, Argentina's economy under Milei is strengthening, backed by a significant US currency swap and political support. Guest: Evan Ellis. 3/4