Podcasts about on january

Recent years have seen a dramatic shift in the way in which American consumers use and shop for financial products and make payments, especially the rapid growth of electronic payments and electronic disclosures. These developments have raised both new opportunities for consumer choice and benefits but also potential new consumer protection threats. At the same time, repeated economic and financial crises, such as the 2020 global COVID pandemic, have illuminated the tensions in the existing institutional framework and suggested a need for modernization to respond to these challenges.To address these challenges, in 2020 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Kathleen Kraninger formed the CFPB Taskforce on Federal Consumer Financial Law to review the existing consumer financial protection framework and to recommend reforms. On January 5, 2021, the Taskforce published its two-volume report (available here). In this live podcast, Taskforce Chair Todd Zywicki joins us for an overview of the Report, its findings, and recommendations. He is accompanied by David Silberman, former Deputy Director (acting) of the CFPB and moderator Brian Johnson, also former Deputy Director of the CFPB.Featuring:- David Silberman, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School- Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School- [Moderator] Brian Johnson, Partner, Alston & Bird LLPVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

March 4, 2021 — Former Ukiah Police Sergeant Kevin Murray is scheduled to appear in Mendocino County Superior Court today, to be arraigned on information. On January 26, District Attorney David Eyster filed a complaint against Murray, charging him with four felonies for crimes alleged to have occurred on November 25 of last year. The complaint says he entered an occupied motel room on South Orchard Avenue in Ukiah and violated the civil rights of a woman by intimidating her “under color of law.” Murray is also facing two charges of burglary for entering the room twice, and one of sexual battery for forcing the woman to touch his genitals. The DA’s complaint also includes a misdemeanor charge of possession of methamphetamine on December 1. Murray posted $200,000 bail on the conditions that he wear an ankle monitor, surrender all firearms, and be subject to search and seizure of firearms and drug testing. Murray, who lives in Lakeport, surrendered four handguns and a rifle with a scope to the Lake County Sheriff’s Office on February 3. Later that month, Eyster filed another complaint against Murray, saying that in June or July of 2014, Murray raped someone identified only as Jane Doe, while armed with a gun. Murray faces a second count of forcible oral copulation against Jane Doe a few months later, in April. Murray was arrested again last week on those charges, and is being held on $500,000 bail. Eyster requested that his previous bail be recalled and increased because he had hidden an assault rifle at his father-in-law’s house. According to the complaint, Murray had carried the rifle as a duty weapon while he was a police officer, and it is illegal for non-peace officers to possess this particular kind of weapon. The DA believes that Murray committed contempt of court and fraud on the court by submitting a false firearm statement. Ukiah Police Chief Justin Wyatt released a statement in a Facebook video on January 29, saying the internal investigation of Murray had concluded and that he was no longer employed with the Ukiah Police Department. He said the UPD is cooperating with the DA’s office in its investigation, which is ongoing. Murray and the City of Ukiah are being sued on separate claims in the United States District Court of California in San Francisco by a man named Christopher Rasku, who says that on October 13 of 2018, Murray broke into his home and brutalized him. Rasku was later charged with the felony of resisting arrest. According to a complaint signed in May of last year, Rasku was in his home behind a partly closed doorway when Murray responded to a call by a neighbor about an argument between two other neighbors. Rasku claims Murray charged his door, knocking him unconscious, and proceeded to beat him so severely that one of his lungs collapsed. The statement says Murray had not turned on his body camera, but that a neighbor filmed Murray’s forcible entrance, which allegedly contradicted Murray’s account. The Willits Police Department has also had some personnel changes in the last few months. Alexis Blaylock, the city’s first Black female police chief, arrived on August 26 of last year and departed abruptly on October 8. In December, a Southern California law firm sent the Willits City Council a letter, saying it was representing Blaylock. It said Blaylock would sign a release of claims agains the city, or agree not to sue, for a payment of $500,000 from “the City and applicable individuals...and a commitment on behalf of the City to provide workplace discrimination and retaliation training to certain City employees and officials for the purpose of making the City and Police Department more tolerant, effective and honest institutions.” The letter then goes on to detail the hostility that Blaylock allegedly encountered from a subordinate and the City Manager at the time, Stephanie Garrabrant-Sierra. The claims range from difficulties securing keys to the evidence room to being undermined when she fact-checked a workers’ compensation claim based on an undocumented use of force. The letter claims that “The City undermined Chief Blaylock’s authority and credited baseless allegations against her while ignoring her own credible claims of misconduct. Yet non-black male employees committed serious misconduct that was ignored.” The letter claims that the City Manager told Blaylock she could not write anyone up for any reason or take disciplinary actions without her permission, and that Blaylock was told to meet with her and a white male subordinate three times a week to assess her performance. The letter claims that Blaylock has lost income and suffered mental and emotional distress, humiliation and reputational harm and that she is prepared to sue the City if her demands for compensation and training are not met. Brian Bender was hired as the new Willits City Manager on January fourth of this year. Fabian Lizzarago, who retired as the Fort Bragg police chief last year, has been serving as the interim police chief in Willits since early November. In a lengthy Facebook post this week, he referred to “possible litigation pending regarding interactions between my predecessor and members of the Department and City staff.” He added that no lawsuit has been filed against the City or the Department, and that policies continue to be reviewed. He said his department is young in terms of experience, and that “any mistakes made are of the mind and not of the heart.” In November, voters in Willits passed Measure K, a three-quarter cent sales tax, to prevent the elimination of police services and other vital city functions.

On August 9th, 2015, Erin made a list of everything she wanted in a man.  She listed out each characteristic, attribute, and trait she felt would make her a perfect match.  Then she swiped aimlessly, said yes to almost every man who asked her out, ignored red flags, and tried to mold the men who appeared at first glance to mirror that list into the man she envisioned.  Erin listened to the advice of relationship experts and coaches.  She shared her journey openly on this podcast.  She was willing to do anything and everything to crack the code, to find the special sauce, not just for herself but for all the other singles out there in the same boat.All the while, Erin was working on herself, her confidence, and finding happiness within.On January 13th, 2021, Erin received an email with a four-minute voice note from a man who found her on Hinge.  He couldn't match with her because he didn't have any roses but say she had a podcast and used that as a means to find her.  He wanted to stick out from a crowd, so he used his gift of voice to pursue her with intent.  Meet JaMarr, the unicorn Erin manifested.  Tune in to hear their modern-day digital romance story.JaMarr John Johnson @jamarrjYou're Such A Catch is an independent podcast funded by the host, Erin Ramsey.  YSC Unfiltered is a Members Only site with access to bonus episodes, videos, blog posts, and more.  A pledge of as little as $5/month can help offset the costs associated with producing this podcast.  To make your pledge today, visit www.youresuchacatch.com/unfiltered.This episode is sponsored by Club NirvanaReceive a $25 Credit for Opening a FREE Account | Spend $100, Get an Extra $50 | Spend $200, Get an Extra $100. 

GeneralSubscribe to Fully Vested at FullyVested.co or through your podcast app of choice.Topic: Valuations of Public Markets and the Recent Short Squeeze of Gamestop and OthersA note from your hostsNeither of us are registered financial professionals and all information discussed on Fully Vested is the personal opinions and interpretations of the hosts, and should not be taken as financial advice.We as hosts are speaking from the perspective gained from information that is publicly available at the time of recording.What is going on with GameStop?TLDR:WallStreetBets (WSB) is a group on community platform site Reddit. WSB is an irreverent, often profane community of folks sharing stock tips, self-styled due diligence analysis, and screenshots of their brokerage accounts.Users of WSB noticed that shares in GameStop – a brick-and-mortar video game retailer which found itself on the wrong end of several trends (digitization of game purchasing, decline of physical retail, pandemic stress, etc.) – were sold short at a ratio of 140% of the float.Users started buying up positions in GameStop, driving up the price over 8,100 percent over a 1-year period (based on the closing price of $325.00 on January 29, 2020), causing a partial short squeeze.Meanwhile, several online brokerages – most notably Robinhood – limited trading activity on GameStop and several other stocks which the WSB community have been buying. Some assert a conspiracy between Robinhood and its order clearinghouse/counterparties drove the limits (which included temporarily blocking buy orders while allowing sell orders to go through, before simply placing limits on the number of shares which can be purchased). Robinhood asserts that it was simply trying to met requirements set by its clearinghouse and financial regulators.The fallout so far:On February 1, Robinhood announced it had raised an additional $3.4B in capital led by late-stage finch firm Ribbit Capital, with participation from existing investors including ICONIQ Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia, Index Ventures, and NEA. That figure includes $1B in equity financing announced on January 29th. On January 28th, Bloomberg reported that Robinhood had drawn down "at least several hundred million dollars" from credit lines to meet liquidity requirements.Melvin Capital, one of the largest short sellers in GameStop, lost 53% in January, and took in additional capital from Citadel and other investors.Some good links:GameStop Short Squeeze (Wikipedia)Game. Stop. (Ranjan Roy in The Margins)Reddit, the Elites and the Dream of GameStop ‘To the Moon’ (Noah Kulwin in the Opinion section of the New York Times on Jan. 28, 2021)Bots hyped up GameStop on major social media platforms, analysis finds(Michelle Price covering a report from PiiQ Media for Reuters on February 26, 2020)GameStop’s New Mission: Level Up to Its Lofty Share Price (Sarah E. Needleman and Nina Trentmann for the Wall Street Journal)About The Co-HostsJason D. Rowley is a researcher and writer at Golden.com. He volunteers with startup outreach for the open-source community and sends occasional newsletters from Rowley.Report.Graham C. Peck is a Venture Partner with Cultivation Capital and additionally helps companies build technology development teams in partnership with Brightgrove and other technology development organizations.

On January 25, 1972, an explosion ripped through the baggage compartment of JAT Flight 367. The plane tore apart at 33,000 feet. Metal, luggage and people fell to the earth. When the fuselage was found moments later, people were stunned to hear a scream coming from inside. They found flight attendant Vesna Vulovic, broken and battered, but still alive. She has the distinction of surviving a fall from the highest recorded height. She’s not the only one, however, to have fallen thousands of feet and survived. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The political hot potato continues. On January 20, 2021 President Biden promised 100 million vaccine doses delivered in his first 100 days which is much better plan than President Donald Trump had on January 19, 2021 which was only 1 million doses delivered per day. Andrew II under formal investigation, but the media finds a way to get the heat on another story. Polls are consistently apposed to the progressive agenda, but it keeps getting pushed anyway. All this and more on tonight’s show. Join us.

In this episode of the Crack House Chronicles, we discuss Brenda Ann Spencer who is America's first female school shooter. On January 29, 1979, 16-year-old Brenda killed two people and wounded nine students when she fired on San Diego's Grover Cleveland Elementary School with a . 22-caliber rifle from her family's house across the street. https://crackhousechronicles.com/ Check out our MERCH! https://www.teepublic.com/user/crackhousechronicles Sponsors: https://betterhelp.com/chc If you use this link or or Promo Code CHC, BetterHELP will give you 10% off your first months bill. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(San_Diego) https://murderpedia.org/female.S/s/spencer-brenda.htm https://soapboxie.com/government/I-Dont-Like-Mondays-Tell-Me-Why-The-Story-of-a-School-Shooting  

On January 28, 2021, the Honorable Jon B. Morgan passed away leaving behind a lasting legacy of fairness and respect. To honor his memory, Chief Judge Don Myers sat down with retired judge Heather O’Brien to reflect on Judge Morgan’s influence in their lives, and his impact on the courts and community. Listen to their conversation at OpenNinth.fm.  

This week on the Gooder Podcast I had the pleasure of talking with Emel Shaikh, a PR and communications strategist with more than 10 years of experience leading publicity efforts, both in-house at the renowned Sundance Institute and as well as boutique agencies across multiple disciplines. Join us as we discuss how growing up as an immigrant and a woman of color, Emel is particularly interested in amplifying the untold stories of fellow BIPAC and other minority groups. In this episode we learn: - How the pandemic has affected PR, what brands are doing differently that they weren’t doing before and how they are planning for the change.  - About what it means to be an outsider and especially in the lines of her work and if it has benefits. - What made Emel decide to start her own firm on her own and work with minority owned brands rather than bigger ones and the challenges that these brands are facing.  - About cancel culture and explains why she is not a fan and why she thinks it doesn’t hold people accountable. - Which women leaders she has her eyes on that she’d like to elevate or want people to see. About Emel Shaikh: Prior to starting her freelance journey, Emel worked in various PR roles, developing campaigns for Better-for-You food and beverage, wellness and lifestyle startups and CPG brands. The experience gave her a firsthand look into what it takes to launch and grow an innovative product and ignited a passion for mission driven brands. Emel did four years in-house, where she led the charge on publicity efforts around the annual Sundance Film Festival in Utah, built awareness of Sundance NEXT FEST, a new film and music festival in Los Angeles to reach a new demographic, and introduce tastemakers to the Sundance brand and pitched stories surrounding the institute's year round artists support labs and programs. Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/emelshaikh/  Website: http://www.sundance.org/  Personal website: http://littlecakeshop.tumblr.com/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/emelshaikh/  Twitter: https://twitter.com/emelshaikh  Show Resources: Sundance Institute is a non-profit organization founded by Robert Redford committed to the growth of independent artists. The institute is driven by its programs that discover and support independent filmmakers, theatre artists and composers from all over the world.    BIPAC is a bi-partisan, membership-supported, mission-driven, organization working to improve the political climate in America for the business community and help employers and employees play a more active role in public policy and the political process. Fast-moving consumer goods, also known as consumer packaged goods, are products that are sold quickly and at a relatively low cost.  Clubhouse is an invitation-only audio-chat social networking app launched in April 2020 by Paul Davison and Rohan Seth of Alpha Exploration Co. In May 2020, it was valued at nearly $100 million. On January 21, 2021, the valuation reached $1 billion.  Tik Tok, known in China as Douyin, is a video-sharing social networking service owned by Chinese company ByteDance. The social media platform is used to make a variety of short-form videos, from genres like dance, comedy, and education, that have a duration from fifteen seconds to one minute. One Stripe Chai: Hand-crafted chai that actually tastes like chai. Black tea brewed with organic spices and made with love in Portland. Wayne Enterprises, Inc., also known as WayneCorp, is a fictional company appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics, commonly in association with the superhero Batman.  Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company based in Seattle, Washington, which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.

In the latest installment of the War of Independence series we look at the famous 1918 election from the perspective of a forgotten Sligo woman Sarah Garvey who started a riot on election day! The results of this election lead to the historic meeting of the first independent Irish parliament - the Dáil. Then to conclude the episode we travel to rural Tipperary, and a place called Soloheadbeg. On January 21st 1919 members of the Irish Volunteers ambush by a convoy of explosives - an action widely considered to be the opening shots of the war. You can find the posters mentioned at irishhistorypodcast.ie/shopAdditional research was by the archivist and historian Sam McGrath, sound was by Jason Looney, additional narrations are by Aidan Crowe and Therese Murray and the artwork for the series is by Keith Hynes. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

January 1st, 2008. Irving, Texas. Sarah and Amina Said were two normal, happy teenage girls trying their best to live a regular life. Unfortunately, they lived with an angry, abusive father, a mother too afraid to protect her children, and a brother who provided support to their father. On January 1st, 2008 Yaser Said murdered his two daughters, abandoning their bodies in his taxi and going into hiding. In an image that is now a representative for this case, just a few days before her death, Amina posted an picture of herself online with the caption, “I don’t want to become a memory.” Amina and Sarah knew how dangerous their situation was, but they had no one to protect them. Join us as we discuss a heartbreaking case that should never have happened.Sponsors:Care/Of: Care/of is a wellness brand that makes it easy to maintain your wellness goals. Get 50% off your first Care/Of order by visiting TakeCareOf.com and enter code genwhy50Babbel: Learn a new language on the go. Right now, when you purchase of a 3-month Babbel subscription, you’ll get an additional 3 months for FREE. That’s 6 months, for the price of 3! Just go to Babbel.com and use promo code GENWHY. Babbel - Language for lfe.

Disa Lee Choun, head of Global clinical sciences and operations innovation at UCB, a Belgium-based multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical company. Disa is also co-leading the first PHUSE blockchain working group (non-profit) and was named Top 100 tech women, advisor entrepreneur by the Financial times 100 most influential BAME leader. Disa has years of experience working on technology and innovation especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Her passion is working on closing the gap for patients with unmet needs and exploring/implementing the right technologies (Blockchain, IoT, AI/machine learning, robotics, data discovery tools, and others) to accelerate the implementation of End to End patient solution. Prior to joining the pharmaceutical industry, Disa was a co-founder of an IT company. She has an EMBA and B.S. in Pharmaceutical Chemistry. Guest LI: https://www.linkedin.com/in/disa-l-95bb981/ Company website: https://www.ucb.com/ PHUSE website: https://phuse.global/ Show Notes •Introduction to Disa's background •Why did you get into chemistry and pharma? •How does your experience in pharma shape your understanding of clinical research innovation? •Role as Head of Global Clinical Sciences and Operations at UCB •Smart Contracts for clinical trials •Wearables, IOT, and sensors to improve clinical trials •Incentive mechanisms for better clinical trials •How important is community development for the new "blockchain-enabled" business models. •Favorite scientist of all time •Favorite Book – 7 Seven Habits of Highly Efficient People by Stephen Covey and The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell •Final takeaways News Corner https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/02/19/business/cape-cod-healthcare-receives-bitcoin-donations-totaling-800k/ An anonymous donor donated bitcoin to Cape Cod Healthcare, a hospital system in my state of Massachusetts. On January 28th and on February 19, the donor, (who has previously donated USD to the hospital), sent about $400k in bitcoin to Cape Cod Healthcare. That’s a total of about $800k in bitcoin which the hospital immediately converted to USD. Health Unchained Links Website: https://healthunchained.org Telegram: t.me/healthunchained Twitter: twitter.com/Healthunchaind

Donald Trump was acquitted of "Incitement of Insurrection" at the end of his second impeachment trial. Many seem to think this result was inevitable, but that wasn't the case. In this episode, by examining the evidence and how it was presented by the House Impeachment Managers, learn how the trial could have been structured to provide the possibility of a different outcome. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes CD226: The 116th Lame Duck CD206: Impeachment: The Evidence Articles/Documents Article: Georgia Prosecutor Investigating Trump Call Urges Patience, By Associated Press, US News, February 26, 2021 Article: "A Date Which Will Live In Infamy": The Other Scandal From The Capitol Riot, By Jonathan Turley, February 22, 2021 Article: The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot, By Glenn Greenwald, February 16, 2021 Article: A Step-by-Step Guide to the Second Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, By Weiyi Cai, The New York Times, February 13, 2021 Article: VERIFY: Yes, Donald Trump can be subpoenaed to testify at his impeachment trial, By Katrina Neeper, WUSA, February 12, 2021 Article: Trump's Lawyers Repeated Inaccurate Claims in Impeachment Trial, By Linda Qiu, The New York Times, February 12, 2021 Article: "Much To Do About Nothing": The Withdrawal Of The Lee Claim Has "Much To Do" With A Glaring Flaw In The House Case, By Jonathan Turley, February 11, 2021 Article: Georgia Prosecutors Open Criminal Inquiry Into Trump’s Efforts to Subvert Election, By Richard Fausset and Danny Hakim, The New York Times, February 10, 2021 Article: Senate votes Trump impeachment trial is constitutional, By Marisa Schultz, Fox News, February 9, 2021 Article: “THE PRESIDENT THREW US UNDER THE BUS”: EMBEDDING WITH PENTAGON LEADERSHIP IN TRUMP’S CHAOTIC LAST WEEK, By Adam Ciralsky, Vanity Fair, January 22, 2021 Article: Yes, It Was a Coup Attempt. Here’s Why., By Fiona Hill, Politico, January 11, 2021 Document: House Resolution, Article of Impeachment, U.S. House of Representatives 2021 Article: Fact check: Georgia rejected ballots did not go from 4% to “almost zero” in 2020, By Reuters Staff, Reuters, November 23, 2020 Article: Trump Misinformation on Georgia Ballot Rejections, By Robert Farley, FactCheck.org, November 20, 2020 Insurrection Law and Legal Definition, USLegal Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Senate Impeachment Trial Day 1 - Impeachment Managers, U.S. Senate, February 9, 2021 Defense Congressional Record Transcript: Impeachment Day 1 Transcript: David Shoen: A review of the house record reveals that the speaker streamlined the impeachment process. House Resolution 24 to go straight to the floor for two hour debate and a vote without the ability for amendments. The house record reflects no committee hearing no witnesses, no presentation or cross examination of evidence, and no opportunity for the accused to respond or even have counsel present to object. House managers claim the need for impeachment was so urgent that they had to rush the proceedings, with no time to spare for a more thorough investigation, or really any investigation at all. But that claim is belied by what happened or didn't happen next. The House leadership unilaterally and by choice waited another 12 days to deliver the article to this Senate to begin the trial process. In other words, the House leadership spent more time holding the adopted article than it did on the whole process leading up to the adoption of the article. We say respectfully, that this intentional delay by Speaker Pelosi such that in the intervening period, President Trump became private citizen Mr. Trump constitutes a lapse or waiver of jurisdiction here for Mr. Trump no longer is the president described as subject to impeachment in Article One, Section three, clause six, and in Article two, Section four, and this body therefore has no jurisdiction as a function of that additional due process violation by Speaker Pelosi. Moreover, with all due respect, then President Trump suffered a tangible detriment from Speaker Pelosi has actions which violates not only his rights to due process of law, but also his expressed constitutional right to have the Chief Justice preside. The impeachment articles should be treated as a nullity and dismissed based on the total lack of due process in the house. David Shoen: For example, they contend, citing various law professors that quote any official who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate's final conviction vote. This argument is a complete canard. The Constitution expressly provides in Article One, section three clause seven, that a convicted party following impeachment shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law after removal. Clearly, a former civil officer who's not impeached is subject to the same. We have a judicial process in this country we have exactly an investigative process in this country, to which no former office holder is immune. That's the process that should be running its course. Bruce Castor: I mean, let's let's understand why we are really here. We are really here, because the majority in the House of Representatives does not want to face Donald Trump as a political rival in the future. That's the real reason we're here. David Shoen: Presidents are impeachable because presidents are removable. Former presidents are not because they cannot be removed. The Constitution is clear, trial by the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment is reserved for the President of the United States, not a private citizen, or used to be President the United States. Just as clear, the judgment required upon conviction is removed from office and a former president can no longer be removed from office. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Indeed, the most famous of these impeachments occurred, while the famed framers gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution. It was the impeachment of Warren Hastings, the former Governor General of the British colony of Bengal, and a corrupt guy. The framers knew all about it, and they strongly supported the impeachment. In fact, the Hastings case was invoked by name at the convention. It was the only specific impeachment case that they discussed at the convention. It played a key role in their adoption of the high crimes and misdemeanors standard. And even though everyone there surely knew that Hastings had left the office, two years before his impeachment trial began, not a single framer, not one raised a concern, when Virginia and George Mason held up the Hastings impeachment as a model for us in the writing of our Constitution. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Senators, Mr. President, to close, I want to say something personal about the stakes of this decision whether President Trump can stand trial and be held to account for inciting insurrection against us. This trial is personal Indeed, for every senator, for remember the house, every manager, all of our staff, the Capitol Police, the Washington DC, Metropolitan Police, the National Guard, maintenance and custodial crews, the print journalists and TV people who were here, and all of our families and friends. I hope this trial reminds America how personal democracy is. And how personal is the loss of democracy to distinguished members of the Senate. My youngest daughter Tabitha, was there with me on Wednesday, January 6. It was the day after we buried her brother, our son Tommy, the saddest day of our lives. Also, there was my son in law, Hank, who's married to our oldest daughter, Hannah, and I consider him a son too, even though he eloped with my daughter and didn't tell us what they were gonna do. But it was in the middle of COVID-19. But the reason they came with me that Wednesday, January sixth, was because they wanted to be together with me in the middle of a devastating week for our family. And I told them, I had to go back to work, because we were counting electoral votes. That day, on January 6, it was our constitutional duty. And I invited them instead to come with me to witness this historic event, the peaceful transfer of power in America. And they said they heard that President Trump was calling on his followers to come to Washington to protest and they asked me directly, would it be safe? Would it be safe? And I told them, of course, it should be safe. This is the Capitol. Steny Hoyer, our majority leader had kindly offered me the use of his office on the House floor, because I was one of the managers that day and we were going through our grief. So Tabitha, and Hank were with me and Stephanie's office, as colleagues dropped by to console us about the loss of our middle child, Tommy, our beloved Tommy, Mr. Newsome, Mr. Cicilline, actually came to see me that day, dozens of members, lots of Republicans, lots of Democrats came to see me. And I felt a sense of being lifted up from the agony and I won't forget their tenderness. And through the tears, I was working on a speech for the floor, when we would all be together in joint session, and I wanted to focus on unity. When we met in the house, I quoted Abraham Lincoln's famous 1838 Lyceum speech, where he said that if division and destruction ever come to America, it won't come from abroad. It'll come from within, said Lincoln. And in that same speech, Lincoln passionately deplored mob violence. Right after the murder of Elijah Lovejoy, the abolitionist newspaper editor, and he did Lincoln deplored mob violence. And he deplored mob rule. And he said it would lead to tyranny and despotism in America. That was the speech I gave that day, after the house, very graciously and warmly welcomed me back. And Tabitha and Hank came with me to the floor, and they watched it from the gallery. And when it was over, they went back to that office, Steny's office, off of the House floor. They didn't know that the house had been breached yet, and that an insurrection or riot, or a coup had come to Congress. And by the time we learned about it, about what was going on, it was too late. I couldn't get out there to be with them in that office. And all around me, people were calling their wives and their husbands their loved ones to say goodbye. Members of Congress in the house anyway, we're removing their congressional pins, so they wouldn't be identified by the mob as they tried to escape the violence. Our new chaplain got up and said a prayer for us and we were told to put our gas masks on. And then there was a sound I will never forget the sound of pounding on the door like a battering ram, to most haunting sound I ever heard and I will never forget it. My Chief of Staff truly taken was with Tabitha and Hank locked and barricaded in that office. The kids hiding under the desk, placing what they thought were their final texts, and whispered phone calls to say their goodbyes, they thought they were gonna die. My son in law have never even been to the Capitol before. And when they were finally rescued over an hour later by Capitol officers, and we were together, I hugged them. And I apologized. And I told my daughter Tabitha, who's 24 and a brilliant algebra teacher in Teach for America. Now, I told her how sorry I was. And I promised her that it would not be like this again. The next time she came back to the Capitol with me. And you know what she said? She said, Dad, I don't want to come back to the Capitol. Of all the terrible brutal things I saw and I heard on that day. And since then, that one hit me the hardest. That and watching someone use an American flag pole. The flag still on it, to spear and pummel one of our police officers ruthlessly mercilessly tortured by a pole with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life. People died that day. Officers ended up with head damage and brain damage, people's eyes were gouged. Officer a heart attack. Officer lost three fingers that day. Two officers have taken their own lives. Senators, this cannot be our future. This cannot be the future of America. We cannot have presidents inciting and mobilizing mob violence against our government and our institutions, because they refuse to accept the will of the people under the Constitution of the United States. Much less can we create a new January exception in our precious beloved constitution that prior generations have died for and fought for, so the corrupt presidents have several weeks to get away with whatever it is they want to do. History does not support a January exception in any way. So why would we invent one for the future? Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): And there can be no doubt that the Senate has the power to try this impeachment. We know this because Article One, Section Three gives the senate the sole power to try all impeachments the Senate has the power, the sole power to try all impeachments all means all and they're no exceptions to the rule because the Senate has jurisdiction to try all impeachments It most certainly has jurisdiction to try this one. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): The first point comes from English history, which matters because in Hamilton road, England provided the model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, and it would have been immediately obvious to anyone familiar with that history that former officials could be held accountable for their abuses while in office. Every single impeachment of a government official that occurred during the framers lifetime concerned a former official. Rep. Joe Neguse (CO): Let's start with the precedent with what has happened in this very chamber. I'd like to focus on just two cases. I'll go through them quickly. One of them is the nation's very first impeachment case, which actually was of a former official. In 1797, about a decade after our country had ratified our Constitution, there was a senator from Tennessee by the name of William blunt, who was caught conspiring with the British to try to sell Florida and Louisiana. Ultimately, President Adams caught him. He turned over the evidence to Congress. Four days later, the House of Representatives impeached him. A day after that, this body the United States Senate, expelled him from office. So he was very much a former official. Despite that, the house went forward with its impeachment proceeding in order to disqualify him from ever again, holding federal office. And so the senate proceeded with the trial with none other than Thomas Jefferson presiding. Now, blood argue that the Senate couldn't proceed because he had already been expelled. But here's the interesting thing. He expressly disavowed any claim that former officials can't ever be impeached. I mean, unlike President Trump, he was very clear that he respected and understood that he could not even try to argue that ridiculous position. Even impeached, Senator Blunt, recognized the inherent absurdity of that view. Here's what he said. 'I certainly never shall contend that an officer may 1 commit an offense and afterwards avoid by resigning his office.' That's the point. And there was no doubt because the founders were around to confirm that that was their intent and the obvious meaning of what is in the Constitution. Rep. Joe Neguse (CO): William Belknap I'm not going to go into all the details, but just in short in 1876, the House discovered that he was involved in a massive kickback scheme. hours before the House committee that discovered this conduct released its report documenting the scheme. Belknap literally rushed to the White House to resign tender his resignation to President Ulysses Grant to avoid any further inquiry into his misconduct, and of course, to avoid being disqualified from holding federal office in the future. Well, later that day, aware of the resignation, what did the house do? The House move forward and unanimously impeached him, making clear its power to impeach a former official and when his case reached the Senate, this body Belknap made the exact same argument that President Trump is making today. That you all lacked jurisdiction any power to try him because he's a former official. Now many senators. At that time when they heard that argument. Literally, they were sitting in the same chairs you all are sitting in today, they were outraged by that argument. outraged. You can read their comments in the record. They knew it was a dangerous, dangerous argument with dangerous implications. It would literally mean that a president could betray their country, leave office and avoid impeachment and disqualification entirely. And that's why, in the end, the United States Senate decisively voted that the constitution required them to proceed with the trial. Rep. Joe Neguse (CO): And just imagine the consequences of such an absurd interpretation of the Constitution. I mean, if, if President Trump were right about that language, then officials could commit the most extraordinary destructive offenses against the American people high crimes and misdemeanors, and they'd have total control over whether they can ever be impeached. And if they are, whether the Senate can try the case, if they want to escape any public inquiry into their misconduct, or the risk of disqualification from future office, and it's pretty simple, they just could just resign one minute before the house impeaches or even one minute before the Senate trial or they could resign during the senate trial. It's not looking so well. That would effectively erase disqualification from the Constitution. It would put wrongdoers in charge of whether the senate can try them. Bruce Castor: The argument about the 14th amendment is absolutely ridiculous. The house managers tell you that the president should be impeached because he violated the 14th amendment. And here's what the 14th Amendment says. no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military under the United States, or any other state, who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial Officer of any state to support the Constitution, and shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may vote by two thirds of each house to remove such disability. Now, it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to recognize that that's written for people who fought for the Confederacy, or previous military officers who were in the government and not the Confederacy. And it does take a constitutional scholar to require that they be convicted first. In a court with due process of law. So that question can never be right until those things have happened. Bruce Castor: If my colleagues on this side of the chamber actually think that President Trump committed a criminal offense, and let's understand a high crime is a felony, and a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor, the words haven't changed that much over the time. After he's out of office, you go and arrest him. So there is no opportunity where the President of the United States can run rampant in January the end of his term and just go away scot free. The Department of Justice does know what to do with such people. And so far, I haven't seen any activity in that direction. And not only that, the people who stormed this building and breached it. We're not accused of conspiring with the President. Hearing: Senate Impeachment Trial Day 2 - Part 1, U.S. Senate, February 10, 2021 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Congressional Record Transcript: Impeachment Day 2 Transcript: Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): He then contacted Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate, Mike Shirkey, and the Speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield to lobby them to overturn Michigan's results. Trump invited Mr. Chatfield and Mr. Shirkey to Washington to meet with him at the White House, where the President lobbied them further. Let's be clear, Donald Trump was calling officials, hosting them at the White House, urging them to defy the voters in their state and instead award votes to Trump. The officials held strong and so Trump moved on to a different state, my home state of Pennsylvania. I am certain my Senators, Casey and Senator Toomey remember what happened there in early December as he did in Michigan. He began calling election officials, including my former colleagues in the Pennsylvania legislature, Republicans, Majority Leader Kim Ward, and Speaker of the House, Brian Cutler. Majority Leader Ward said the president called her to, "declare there was a fraud in the voting," then on November 25, President Trump phoned into a Republican state senate policy hearing, trying to convince the Republican legislators, Senators and House members, there had been a fraud in the vote. He even had his lawyer hold a phone up to the microphone in that hearing room. So the committee could hear him. Here is what he said.Donald Trump: We can't let that happen. We can't let it happen for our country. And this election has to be turned around because we won Pennsylvania by a lot. And we won all of these swing states by a lot. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): This was a gathering. I've attended many I have to tell you, as a former state legislator, a lot of policy hearings, I have to say with some confidence that was likely the first time a President of the United States of America called into a state legislative policy hearing. And remember, here is the President saying he won Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania had been certified for that Biden had won by more than 80,000 votes. Less than a week after calling into that meeting, he invited multiple Republican members of the Pennsylvania legislature to the White House, the same scheme he had used on the Michigan legislators. It didn't work with those public servants either. Think about it. The President of the United States was calling public officials from the White House, inviting them into the Oval Office, telling them to disenfranchise voters of their state, telling them to overturn the will of the American people. All so he could take the election for himself. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): And then in Georgia, a state Trump had counted on for victory, his conduct was perhaps the most egregious. On November 11, Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger confirmed that he believed ballots were accurately counted for Biden. Trump went on a relentless attack. Here are just a few examples. In all Trump tweeted at Raffensperger 17 times in the coming week. Show us just a few calling him "a disaster, obstinate, not having a clue, being played for a fool" and being a "so-called Republican" all because Raffensperger was doing his job ensuring the integrity of our elections. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): In early December, Trump called Brian Kemp, the Governor of Georgia and pressured him to hold a special session of the state legislature to overturn the election results and to appoint electors who would vote for Trump. A few weeks later on December 23, Trump called the Chief Investigator for the Georgia Bureau of Investigations, who was conducting an audit. An audit of the signature matching procedures for absentee ballots. Trump urged him, "find the fraud" and claimed the official would be a national hero if he did. Let's call this what it is. He was asking the official to say there was evidence of fraud when there wasn't any. The official refused and the investigation was completed. And on December 29, Raffensperger announced that the audit found, quote, no fraudulent absentee ballots with a 99% confidence level. On January 3rd, Trump tweeted about a call he had with Georgia election officials the day before. He said, "I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling or unable to answer questions such as the ballots under the table scan, ballot destruction, out of state voters, dead voters and more. He has no clue." On January the fifth, The Washington Post released a recording of that call, which had occurred on January 2nd, remember, just four days before the attack on the Capitol. Here is what President Trump said: Donald Trump: It's more illegal for you than it is for them. Because you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's it. You know, that's a criminal offense. And as you know, you can't let that happen. That's that's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyers. That's a big risk. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): Let's be clear. This is the President of the United States telling a secretary of state that if he does not find votes, he will face criminal penalties. And not just any number of votes. Donald Trump was asking the Secretary of State to somehow find the exact number of votes Donald Trump lost the state by. Remember, President Biden won Georgia by 11,779 votes. In his own words, Trump said 'All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes.' He wanted the Secretary of State to somehow find the precise number plus one so that he could win. Here's what he said Donald Trump: Well, look, I want to do is this I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): He says it right there. The President of the United States, telling a public official to manufacture the exact votes needed so he can win. Rep. Ted Lieu (CA): But when Rosen took over, President Trump put the same pressure on him that he had done with state officials, members of Congress, US senators and his former Attorney General. President Trump reportedly summoned acting Attorney General Rosen to the oval office the next day, and pressured Rosen to appoint special counsels to keep investigating their election, including unfounded accusations of widespread voter fraud, and also to investigate Dominion, the voting machines firm. According to reports, Mr. Rosen refused. To maintain that he will make decisions based on the facts in the law and reminded President Trump what he had already been told by Attorney General bill Barr, that the department had already investigated and quote found no evidence of widespread fraud. But President Trump refused to follow the facts in the law. So the President turned to someone he knew would do his bidding. He turned to Jeffrey Clark, another Justice Department lawyer, who had allegedly expressed support for using the Department of Justice to investigate the election results. Shortly after acting Attorney General Rosen followed his duty and the law to refuse to reopen investigations. President Trump intended to replace Mr. Rosen with Mr. Clark, who could then try to stop Congress from certifying the electoral college results. According to reports, White House Counsel Pat Cippollone advised President Trump, not to fire acting Attorney General Rosen. Department officials had also threatened to resign en mass if he had fired Rosen. Rep. Ted Lieu (CA): Trump reportedly told almost anyone who called him to also call the Vice President. According to reports, when Mike Pence was in the Oval Office, President Trump would call people to try to get them to convince the Vice President to help him. Rep. Ted Lieu (CA): You can either go down in history as a patriot, Mr. Trump told him, according to people briefed on the conversation or you can go down in history as a pussy. Del. Stacey Plaskett (VI): Pezzola has since been charged with eight federal crimes for his conduct related to January sixth. According to an FBI agents affidavit submitted to the court, the group that was with him during the sack of the capital confirm that they were out to murder 'anyone they got their hands on.' Here's what the FBI said. And I quote, 'other members of the group talked about things they had done that day. And they said that anyone they got their hands on, they would have killed, including Nancy Pelosi,' and that, 'they would have killed Vice President Mike Pence. If given the chance.' Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Those around Donald Trump, as was later reported, were disgusted. His close aides, his advisors, those working for him former officials, even his family were begging him to do something. Kelly Anne Conway, the President's close advisor call to quote, add her name to the chorus of aides urging Donald Trump to take action. Ivanka Trump, the President's own daughter went to the Oval Office as soon as the writing escalated and was as confirmed by Senator Graham "trying to get Trump to speak out to tell everyone to leave." Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called Jared Kushner pleading with him to persuade Trump to issue a statement or to do something. And Kushner too, went down to the White House after that call. And it wasn't just the people at the White House. Members of Congress from both parties who were trapped here, calling the White House to ask for help. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): The President, as reported by sources, at the time was delighted to see watch the violence unfold on television. President Trump was reportedly and I quote 'borderline enthusiastic, because it meant the certification was being derailed.' Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Senator Ben Sasse related conversation with senior White House officials that President Trump was "walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren't as excited as he was." Rep. David Cicilline (RI): He attempted to call Senator Tuberville, dialed Senator Lee by accident. Senator Lee describes it, he had just ended a prayer with his colleagues here in the Senate chamber and phone rang. It was Donald Trump. And now Senator Lee explains that the phone call goes something like this. Hey Tommy, Trump asks, and Senator Lee says this isn't Tommy and he hands the phone to Senator Tuberville. Certainly then confirm that he's stood by as Senator Tuberville and President Trump spoke on the phone. And on that call, Donald Trump reportedly asked Senator Tuberville to make additional objections to the certification process. That's why he called. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): An aide to Mark Meadows, the President's Chief of Staff, urged his boss to go see the president saying, "they are going to kill people." Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): On January 6th, President Trump left everyone in this capital for dead. Hearing: Senate Impeachment Trial Day 3 - Part 1, U.S. Senate, February 11, 2021 Part 2 Congressional Record Transcript: Impeachment Day 3 Transcript: Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Senators, simply put, this mob was trying to overthrow our government. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): According to charging documents, Riley Williams allegedly helped steal a laptop from Speaker Pelosi his office to, 'send the computer device to a friend in Russia, who then plan to sell the device to SVR Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service.' While we can't be certain if or how many foreign spies infiltrated the crowd, or at least coordinated with those who did, we can be sure that any enemy who wanted access to our secrets would have wanted to be part of that mob inside these holes. Hearing: Senate Impeachment Trial Day 4, U.S. Senate, February 12, 2021 Part 1 Part 2 Congressional Record Transcript: Impeachment Day 4 Transcript: Michael Van Der Veen: According to publicly available reporting, it is apparent that extremists of various different stripes and political persuasions, preplanned and premeditated an attack on the Capitol. One of the first people arrested was a leader of Antifa. Sadly, he was also among the first to be released. From the beginning, the President has been clear. The criminals who infiltrated the Capitol must be punished to the fullest extent of the law. They should be in prison for as long as the law allows. The fact that the attacks were apparently premeditated, as alleged by the house managers, demonstrates the ludicrousness of the incitement allegation against the President. You can't incite what was already going to happen. Michael Van Der Veen: Law enforcement officers at the scene conducted themselves heroically and courageously and our country owes them an eternal debt. But there must be a discussion of the decision by political leadership regarding force posture and security in advance of the event. Michael Van Der Veen: Consider the language that the house impeachment article alleges to constitute incitement. If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. This is ordinary political rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the language that has been used by people across the political spectrum for hundreds of years. David Schoen: Speaker Pelosi herself on February 2nd, called for a 9-11 style commission to investigate the events of January 6th. Speaker Pelosi says that the Commission is needed to determine the causes of the events she says it herself. If an inquiry of that magnitude is needed to determine the causes of the riot, and it may very well be, then how can these same Democrats have the certainty needed to bring articles of impeachment and blame the riots on President Trump? They don't. David Schoen: As any trial lawyer will tell you reportedly is a euphemism for I have no real evidence. Michael Van Der Veen: Brandenburg versus Ohio is really the landmark case on the issue of incitement speech. After the case was mentioned yesterday, in the Brandenburg v. Ohio case, another landmark, the court held that the government may only suppress speech for advocating the use of force or a violation of law. If such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action. The Brandenburg holding has been interpreted as having three basic prongs to determine if speech meets the definition of incitement. The Brandenburg test precludes speech from being sanctioned as incitement to a riot, unless, this: one, the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged use of violence or lawless action. Two, the speaker intends that his speech will result in use of violence or lawless action. And three, the imminent use of violence or lawless action is likely is the likely result of the speech. The house managers cannot get past the first prong of the Brandenburg test. They have not and cannot prove Mr. Trump explicitly or implicitly encouraged use of violence or lawless action period. Bruce Castor: Did the 45th President engage in incitement? They continue to say insurrection? Clearly, there was no insurrection. Insurrection is a term defined in the law and involves taking over a country, a shadow government, taking the TV stations over and having some plan on what you're going to do when you finally take power. Clearly, this is not that. What our colleagues here across the aisle meant is incitement to violence. To riot. Bruce Castor: Several of my colleagues and the house managers got up and spoke about the proceeding in the House being like a Grand Jury proceeding. Well, I've been in Grand Jury proceedings. I have run grand juries, in Grand Jury proceedings you call witnesses. You hear evidence. You make transcripts. You take affidavits, you develop physical evidence. You hear reports from police officers, you hear forensic analysis from scientists. In fact, you invite the target of the grand jury to come in and testify if he or she pleases to be heard by the grand jury. Which one of those things happened in the house prior to the impeachment article? Bruce Castor: The House managers told you that the President demanded that the Georgia Secretary of State, "find just over 11,000 votes." The word find like so many others, the house managers highlighted is taken completely out of context. And the word "find" did not come out of thin air. Based on an analysis of publicly available voter data, that the ballot rejection rate in Georgia in 2016, was approximately 6.42%. And even though a tremendous amount of new first time mail in ballots were included in the 2020 count, the Georgia rejection rate in 2020, was a mere four tenths of 1%. A drop off from 6.42% to 0.04%. Bruce Castor: With that background, it is clear that President Trump's comments and the use of the word "find" were solely related to his concerns with the inexplicable dramatic drop in Georgia's ballot rejection rates. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): The problem was when the President went from his judicial combat, which was fine to intimidating and bullying, state election officials and state legislators. And then finally, as Representative Cheney said, summoning a mob, assembling a mob and then lighting the match for an insurrection against the union. When he crossed over from non violent means, no matter how ridiculous or absurd, that's fine, he's exercising his rights, to inciting violence. That's what this trial is about. Speaker: Exactly when did President Trump learn of the breach of the Capitol? What specific actions did he take to bring the writing to an end? And when did he take them? Please be as detailed as possible. Speaker: Exactly when did the President learn of the breach at the Capitol? And what steps did he take to address the violence? Please be as detailed as possible. Del. Stacey Plaskett: Mr. President, Senators, This attack was on live TV on all major networks in real time. The President as President has access to intelligence information, including reports from inside the Capitol. He knew the violence that was underway. He knew the severity of the threats. And most importantly, he knew the Capitol Police were overwhelmingly outnumbered in a fight for their lives against 1000s of insurgents with weapons. We know he knew that. We know that he did not send any individuals. We did not hear any tweets. We did not hear him tell those individuals stop. This is wrong. You must go back. We did not hear that. So what else do the president do? We are unclear. But we believe it was a dereliction of his duty. And that was because he was the one who had caused them to come to the Capitol. And they were doing what he asked them to do. So there was no need for him, to stop them from what they were engaged in. Michael Van Der Veen: This is an article of impeachment for incitement. This is not an article of impeachment for anything else. So one count, they could have charged anything they wanted. They chose to charge incitement. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): Senators, Donald Trump spent months inciting his base to believe that their election was stolen. And that was the point. That was the thing that would get people so angry. Think about that. What it would take to get a large group of 1000s of Americans so angry to storm the Capitol. That was the purpose behind Donald Trump saying that the election had been rigged, and that the election had been stolen. And to be clear, when he says the election is stolen, what he's saying is that the victory and he even says one time the election victory is being stolen from them. Think about how significant that is to Americans. Again, you're right over 70 million, I think 74 million people voted for Donald Trump. And this wasn't a one off comment. It wasn't one time it was over and over and over and over and over again with a purpose. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): We let the people decide the elections, except President Trump. He directed all of that rage that he had incited to January 6. The last chance. Again, this was his last chance this was certifying the election results. He needed to whip up that mob. Amp them up enough to get out there and try to stop the election results. The certification of the election. Sen. Ron Johnson: House managers assert that the January 6th attack was predictable and it was foreseeable. If so, why did it appear that law enforcement at the Capitol were caught off guard and unable to prevent the breach? Why did the house Sergeant at Arms reportedly turned down a request to activate the National Guard stating that he was not comfortable with the optics? Michael Van Der Veen: Holy cow. That is a really good question. And had the House Managers done their investigation, maybe somebody would have an answer to that. But they didn't. They did zero investigation. They did nothing. They looked into nothing. They read newspaper articles, they talked to their friends who know a TV reporter or something or someone or another. But Jimmy Crickets, there is no due process in this proceeding at all. And that question highlights the problem. When you have no due process. You have no clear cut answers. Del. Stacey Plaskett: He put together the group that would do what he wanted. And that was to stop the certification of the election so that he could retain power to be President of the United States, in contravention of an American election. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): He intended, wanted to, and tried to overturn the election by any means necessary. He tried everything else that he could to do to win. He started inciting the crowd, issuing tweet after tweet, issuing commands to stop the count, stop the steal, worked up the crowd, sent a save the date. So it wasn't just one speech or one thing he was trying everything. He was pressuring elected officials, he was riling up his base telling him the election had been stolen from them, that it had been stolen from him. It was a combination of things that only Donald Trump could have done. Hearing: Senate Impeachment Trial Day 5, Vote on Calling Witnesses, U.S. Senate, February 13, 2021 Additional Session Video Closing Arguements Congressional Record Transcript: Impeachment Day 5 Transcript: Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): But last night, Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Butler of Washington State issued a statement confirming that in the middle of the insurrection, when House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called the president to beg for help, President Trump responded and I quote, 'Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.' Needless to say this is an additional critical piece of corroborating evidence further confirming the charges before you, as well as the President's willful dereliction of duty and desertion of duty as Commander in Chief of the United States, his state of mind, and his further incitement of the insurrection on January 6th, for that reason, and because this is the proper time to do so under the resolution that the Senate adopted to set the rules for the trial. We would like the opportunity to subpoena Congresswoman Herrera regarding her communications with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and to subpoena her contemporaneous notes that she made regarding what President Trump told Kevin McCarthy in the middle of the insurrection, we would be prepared to proceed by zoom deposition of an hour or less, just as soon as Congresswoman Herrera Butler is available, and to then proceed to the next phase of the trial, including the introduction of that testimony shortly thereafter, Congresswoman Butler further stated that she hopes other witnesses to this part of the story, other patriots as she put it, would come forward and if that happens, we would seek the opportunity to take their depositions via Zoom also for less than an hour, or to subpoena other relevant documents as well. Michael Van Der Veen: What you all need to know and the American people need to know is as of late yesterday afternoon, there was a stipulation going around that there weren't going to be any witnesses. But after what happened here in this chamber yesterday, the house managers realize they did not investigate this case before bringing the impeachment. They did not give the proper consideration and work they didn't put the work in, that was necessary to impeach the former president. But if they want to have witnesses, I'm going to need at least over 100 depositions, not just one, the real issue is incitement. They put into their case, over 100 witnesses, people who have been charged with crimes by the federal government. And each one of those they said that Mr. Trump was a co-conspirator with. That's not true. But I have the right to defend that. The only thing that I ask if you vote for witnesses, do not handcuff me by limiting the number of witnesses that I can have. I need to do a thorough investigation that they did not do. Michael Van Der Veen: We should close this case out today. Michael Van Der Veen: It's about the incitement. It's not about what happened afterwards. That's actually the irrelevant stuff. That's the irrelevant stuff. It's not the things that were said from the election to January 6th. It's not relevant to the legal analysis of the issues that are before this body. It doesn't matter what happened after the insurgence into the Capitol Building, because that doesn't have to do with incitement. Incitement, it's a point in time, folks. It's a point in time when the words are spoken, and the words say, implicitly say, explicitly, say, commit acts of violence, or lawlessness. And we don't have that here. So for the house managers to say we need depositions about things that happened after it's just not true. Michael Van Der Veen: Nancy Pelosi's deposition needs to be taken comm Vice President Harris's deposition absolutely needs to be taken and not by zoom. None of these depositions should be done by Zoom. We didn't do this hearing by Zoom. These depositions should be done in person in my office in Philadelphia. That's where they should be done. Bruce Castor: Donald John Trump, by his counsel, is prepared to stipulate that if the if representative Herrera Butler were to testify under oath as part of these proceedings, her testimony would be consistent with the statement she issued on February 12 2021. And the former President's Council is agreeable to the admission of that public statement into evidence at this time. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): I will now read this statement. This is the statement Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Butler February 12 2021. In my January 12 statement in support of the Article of Impeachment, I referenced a conversation House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy relayed to me that he'd had with President Trump, while the January 6th attack was ongoing. Here the details. When McCarthy finally reached the President on January 6, and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot. The President initially repeated the falsehood that it was Antifa that had breached the Capitol. McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That's when according to McCarthy, the President said, 'Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.' Rep. David Cicilline (RI): There was a lot of discussion yesterday about what the President knew. And when he knew it. There are certain things that we do not know about what the President did that day. Because the President, that is former President Trump has remained silent. But what he was doing during one of the bloodiest attacks on our capital since 1812. Despite a full and fair opportunity to come forward, he's refused to come and tell his story. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): There can be no doubt. At the moment we most needed a president to preserve, protect and defend us, President Trump instead willfully betrayed us. He violated his oath. He left all of us in offices like Eugene Goodman, to our own devices against an attack he had incited and he alone could stop. Interviewer: Can you give a direct answer you will accept the election to see Donald Trump: I have to see, oh, I'm not going to just say yes. And this election will be the most rigged election in history, this is going to be the greatest election disaster in history. And the only way they can take this election away from us, is if this is a rigged election, we're gonna win this election, which a rigged election, the only way we're gonna lose, do you commit to making sure that there's a nice little word for all of we want to have get rid of the ballots, and you'll have a very transfer will have a very peaceful, they won't be a transfer, frankly, there'll be a continuation, it's the only way we're gonna that's the only way we're gonna lose is if there's mischief, mischief, and it'll have to be on a big scale. So be careful. But this will be one of the greatest fraudulent and most fraudulent elections ever. We're not going to let this election be taken away from us. That's the only way they're gonna win. This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. We were winning in all the key locations by a lot, actually. And then our numbers started miraculously getting whittled away in secret. And this is a case where they're trying to steal an election. They're trying to rig an election. And we can't let that happen. You can't let another person steal that election from you. all over the country. People are together, in holding up signs stop this deal. If we don't root out the fraud, the tremendous and horrible fraud that's taken place in our 2020 election. We don't have a country anymore. We cannot allow a completely fraudulent election to stand. We're gonna fight like hell, I'll tell you, right. If you don't fight to save your country with everything you have, you're not gonna have a country left. We will not bend we will not break we will not yield. We will never give in. We will never give up we will never back down. We will never ever surrender. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen. We will never give up. We will never concede it doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's steps. And you use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with. We will stop the steel. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. Make no mistake, this election was stolen from you from me and from the country. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not gonna have a country anymore. Michael Van Der Veen: Because their case is so weak that house managers have taken a kitchen sink approach to the supposedly single article of impeachment. They allege that Mr. Trump incited the January 6th violence. They alleged that he abused power by attempting to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Raffensburger to undermine the results of the 2020 election and they allege that he gravely and endangered the democratic system by interfering with a peaceful transition of power. At least three things there. Under the Senate rules, each of these allegations must have been alleged in a separate article of impeachment. Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said Donald John Trump is hereby acquitted the charge in said article. Sen. Mitch McConnell: Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were, and this is extremely important, still liable to be tried and punished and the ordinary tribunals of justice. Put another way, in the language of today, President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office. As an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did, while he's in office. Didn't get away with anything. Yet. Yet. Sen. Mitch McConnell: January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They use terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of domestic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they'd been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth. Because he was angry he lost an election. Former President Trump's actions preceded the riot or a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty. The house accused the former president of "incitement." That is a specific term from the criminal law. Let me just put that aside for a moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago. There's no question, none. That President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on January 6, it is not just his endorsement of remarks, in which an associate urged "trial by combat." It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe. The increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was somehow being stolen. Some secret coup by our now president. Now I defended the President's right to bring any complaints to our legal system. The legal system spoke the electoral college vote. As I stood up and said clearly at that time, the election was settled, over. That just really opened a new chapter of even wilder, wilder and more unfounded claims. The leader the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feigned surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors, we saw that, that unhinge listeners might take literally. But that was different. That's different from what we saw. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters decision or else torch our institutions on the way out. The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence actually began. Whatever our ex president claims he thought might happen that day whatever right reaction he says he meant to produce by that afternoon. We know he was watching the same live television as the rest of us. A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him. It was obvious that only President Trump could end this. He was the only one who could. Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the administration did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn't take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored. No. Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily. Happily, as the chaos unfolded, pressing his scheme to overturn the election. Now, even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in serious danger, even as the mob carrying Trump banners, beating cops and breaching parameters. Their president sent a further tweet attacking his own vice president. Now predictably and foreseeably. Under the circumstances, members of the mob seem to interpret this as a further inspiration, lawlessness and violence, not surprisingly, later, even when the President did half heartedly began calling for peace. He didn't call right away for the right, good and who did not tell the mob to depart until even later. And even then, with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering Capitol floors, he kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals. In recent weeks, our ex presidents associates have tried to use the 74 million Americans who voted to reelect him as a kind of human shield against criticism. Using the 74 million who voted for him is kind of a human shield against criticism. Anyone who describes his awful behavior is accused of insulting millions of voters. That's an absurd deflection. 74 million Americans did not invade the capital. Hundreds of rioters did. 74 million Americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage that provoked it. One person did. Just one. I've made my view of this episode very plain. But our system of government gave the Senate a specific task. The Constitution gives us a particular role. This body is not invited to act as the nation's overarching moral tribunal. We're not free to work backward from whether the accused party might personally deserve some kind of punishment. Justice Joseph Story, our notions first great constitutional scholar. As he explained nearly 200 years ago, the process of impeachment and conviction is a narrow tool. A narrow tool for a narrow purpose. Story explained this limited tool exists to, "secure the state against gross official misdemeanors," That is to protect the country from government officers. If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the house managers prove their specific charge. By the strict criminal standard, the President's speech probably was not incitement. However, however, in the context of impeachment, the Senate might have decided this was acceptable shorthand for the reckless actions that preceded the ride. But in this case, the question is moot because former President Trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction. Now, this is a closed question. No doubt. Donald Trump was the president when the House voted, though not when the House chose to deliver the papers. Brilliant scholars argue both sides of this jurisdictional question. The text is legitimately ambiguous. I respect my colleagues who've reached either conclusion. But after intense reflection, I believe the best constitutional reading shows that article two, Section Four exhausts the set of persons who can legitimately be impeached tried or convicted. It's the president. It's the Vice President and civil officers. We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

On January 4th, 2021, Utah celebrated its 125th anniversary of statehood with a special televised program supporting Utah's cultural and arts community. The special event was created by the Utah Department of Heritage and Arts, in partnership with Utah's Governor's Office and more events are planned that focus on our state's history, arts, and culture. In this episode of Utah Weekly Forum, senior state historian and Utah Historical Quarterly Co-editor Jedediah Rogers joins FM100.3 Host Rebecca Cressman to explain how the history, meaning, and struggle for statehood can influence Utah's future. More details on Thrive125 events are at www.Thrive125.Utah.gov. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As Black History Month ends and Women’s History Month begins, we wanted to honor a pioneer in the struggle for equal rights for both movements.Shirley Anita Chisholm was a politician, educator, activist, community organizer and author.Born in Brooklyn, New York in 1924, as a child during the Great Depression - while her parents struggled to make ends meet - young Shirley and her two sisters were sent to Barbados to live with their Grandmother. Long before the Civil Rights movement in the United States, youngShirley watched as her community advocated for their rights as she witnessed the Barbados workers' and anti-colonial independence movements. Chisholm would later say about her time on Barbados with her Grandmother: “Granny gave me strength, dignity, and love. I learned from an early age that I was somebody. I didn't need the Black Revolution to tell me that."In 1964, after nearly two decades as an educator and community activist, Chisholm ran for and was elected to the New York State Assembly.Even within the New York Democratic Party, Shirley Chisholm had faced resistance to candidacy based on her sex - so she took hercampaign directly to women, using her role as Brooklyn branch president of Key Women of America to mobilize female voters.Four years later - in 1968, Shirley Chisholm became the first Black woman elected to the United States Congress, representing New York's 12th congressional district for seven terms from 1969 to 1983. Her 1968 congressional campaign slogan was "Unbought and Unbossed" - which later became the title of her memoir and adocumentary film on her amazing life. On January 25, 1972, in a Baptist church in her district in Brooklyn - Shirley Chisholm became the first African-American candidate for a major party's nomination for President of the United States, and the first woman to run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.In her presidential announcement - she called for a "bloodless revolution" at the forthcoming Democratic nominating convention and described herself as representative of the people offering a new articulation of American identity: "I am not the candidate of Black America, although I am black and proud. I am not the candidate of the women's movement of this country, although I am a woman and equally proud of that. I am the candidate of the people and my presence before you, symbolizes a new era in American political history."Let’s listen to Civil Rights and Women’s Rights Pioneer Shirley Chisholm announce her candidacy for President of the United States. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/words-matter. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On January 30, 2021, we had the time of our lives with the '80s Radical Sabbatical virtual festival! Once again, Paul and Del welcome Claire Young and Caroline Connelly, founders of this incredible event, and recap that day. This is a great episode whether you attended the festival or not. We talk about each segment, from '80s aerobics to Sebastian Bach to the incredible Grandmaster Flash segment to the cover bands that blew us away to Jim Peterik (along with Cathy Richardson) who absolutely blew everybody away to the legendary Bret Michaels, and much, much more, and many more '80s legends. This episode is a blast, and it will make you look forward to another '80s festival! You can connect with the ’80s Radical Sabbatical at https://80sradsab.ticketspice.com/80sradsab to get more information, and to check out some merch. You can also follow ’80s Radical Sabbatical on the following social media accounts: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/80sRadSab Twitter: @80sRadSab Instagram: @80sRadSab   Del can be found on the show 80s at 8 on 91.1 WEDM FM as well the 80s at 8 Facebook page where he posts 80s news. And you can follow Return to the 80s at: rtt80s.com Find Return to the ’80s on Facebook In the episode we mentioned how the Return to the '80s Twitter account was hacked, so we renamed it to @rtt80s. However, the original account is back up and running again at  @returntothe80s Email: returntothe80s@gmail.com Also, you can subscribe to the Return to the ’80s podcast on Apple Podcasts Stitcher Spotify iHeartRadio Podbean PlayerFM

On January 1, Portugal took over from Germany at the helm of the Council of the EU’s rotating presidency and the government set out three priorities for this presidency captured in its slogan “Time to deliver: a fair, green and digital recovery”. What is needed for a fair and inclusive climate and digital transition? What will the biggest short-term challenges be? And how can the Portuguese presidency strengthen European strategic autonomy? Mark Leonard is joined by Claudia Azevedo, CEO, Sonae, Teresa Gouveia, ECFR Board Member and former Portuguese Minister of Environment and of Foreign Affairs, and finally, Carlos Moedas, former European Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation, to discuss the prospects of the ongoing Portuguese Council presidency. This podcast was recorded on 24 February 2021. Further reading: "Crisis presidency: How Portuguese leadership can guide the EU into the post-covid era" by Susi Dennison & Lívia Franco: https://buff.ly/3mxp7cl - “Where Portugal can lead Europe in 2021” by Teresa Gouveia: https://buff.ly/2LHuuca - “Out of the south: Why Italy and Portugal should lead on climate change, health security, and multilateralism” by Teresa Coratella: https://buff.ly/2WC02BX - “Edge of the Atlantic: Portugal’s presidency of the EU Council” by Lívia Franco: https://buff.ly/3r3wY44 Bookshelf: - “A Superpower, Like It or Not: Why Americans Must Accept Their Global Role” in Foreign Affairs by Robert Kagan - “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need” by Bill Gates - “The world faces a pandemic of human rights abuses in the wake of Covid-19” by António Guterres - “Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism” by Mariana Mazzucato - “Think Again” by Adam Grant

On January 19th, the Anchorage School District brought its first wave of students back into the classroom. Katherine Porter was one of the first teachers back with them. She teaches special education study skills at East Anchorage High School. ATMI youth health reporter Annika Wolfe spoke with Ms. Porter about what it was like returning to in-person classes, the difficulties teaching remotely, and how she and other teachers are working to keep students safe. They spoke on February 10th, 2021. Hosted by Jania Tumey. Music by Devin Shreckengost and Kendrick Whiteman. Alaska Teen Media Institute is based in Anchorage, Alaska. We would like to acknowledge the Dena’ina people, whose land we work on. Many thanks to supporters of our podcast including the Alaska Press Club, John O'Hara, and James McCoy. The views expressed in this program do not necessarily represent the views of our sponsors. RESOURCES FOR YOUTH DURING QUARANTINE Center for Disease Control and Prevention: cdc.gov/coronavirus carelinealaska.com: Alaska Suicide Prevention and someone to talk to line: 1-877-266-4357 suicidepreventionlifeline.org: 1-800-273-8255 National Domestic Violence Hotline www.thehotline.org: 1-800-799-7233 and TTY 1-800-787-3224 or text LOVEIS to 22522 alaska211.org or Help Me Grow Alaska 1-833-464-2527 for help connecting to resources and services or for help knowing where to start. These resources provided in collaboration with the State of Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Behavioral Health.

On January 19-20, 1990, The Federalist Society hosted a conference at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "The Presidency & Congress: Constitutionally Separated and Shared Powers." The conference concluded with an address by Judge Robert Bork.Featuring:Judge Robert H. Bork, American Enterprise InstituteIntroduction: Erwin Glikes, The Free Press*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On January 30, 2021, The Federalist Society's Florida lawyers chapters hosted their annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Ashley Moody, the Attorney General for Florida, offered a keynote address at the conference.Featuring: Attorney General Ashley Moody, State of FloridaIntroduction: Charbel J. Barakat, Chief Counsel, Florida/Mid-Atlantic Region, D.R. Horton, Inc.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On January 30, 2021, The Federalist Society's Florida lawyers chapters hosted their annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The topic for the second panel was "SCOTUS after the Barrett Confirmation."How will the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett affect the Supreme Court's docket? This panel considered her confirmation, discussing how cases involving religious liberties, the Second Amendment, health care, administrative law, immigration, election issues and other pressing hot legal topics could be affected by the new balance on the Court.Featuring:Christopher Mills, Constitutional Law Fellow, Becket FundProf. Phillip Munoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion and Public Life, Department of Political Science, Concurrent Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre DameAmy Swearer, Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage FoundationJames Percival, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, FloridaModerator: Hon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Middle District of FloridaIntroduction: Eliot Peace, President, Tampa Bay Federalist Society Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On January 30, 2021, The Federalist Society's Florida lawyers chapters hosted their annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The first panel of the conference discussed "Covid and Separation of Powers."The last year has seen the virtually unprecedented use of government powers at the state and local level in order to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. On what legal authority have these government actors premised their actions, and what can we expect from the federal government should conditions become more volatile and perhaps invite a federal response? What is the proper role for a government of limited powers when facing a once-in-a-century emergency?Featuring:Joseph Jacquot, Shareholder, Gunster, and former General Counsel to Governor Ron DeSantisHon. Simone Marstiller, Secretary, Florida Department of Juvenile JusticeChad Mizelle, Former Acting General Counsel, United States Department of Homeland SecurityHon. Paul Renner, Member, Florida House of RepresentativesModerator: James Uthmeier, Acting General Counsel to Governor Ron DeSantisIntroduction: Lisa Ezell, Vice President & Director, Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On January 8, 2021, two days after rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, Twitter permanently suspended President Donald Trump’s account on the platform. Though responses to the ban split along partisan lines, Trump’s suspension from Twitter has deep roots in a piece of legislation that draws criticism from across the political aisle: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which grants tech platforms immunity from liability for the speech of their users. In this episode of Deciding Factors, Matthew Perault, Director of the Center of Science & Technology Policy at Duke University and former Director of Public Policy at Facebook, discusses Section 230’s legal context, wide-ranging impact, and political stakes. He explores why, 25 years after Section 230’s passage, the provision is in the spotlight – and how it can be made to better reflect today’s online world.

On January 16, 2021, the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Dustin Higgs became the 13th and final person executed by the Trump administration—just days before Inauguration Day for President Joe Biden, the first sitting president to openly oppose the death penalty. President Trump’s spate of executions began six months before Biden's inauguration, with six executions occurring in the period after he lost the election. Overall, the former president oversaw “the most consecutive civilian executions by the federal government or any state in the 244-year history of the United States” and “ended a 17-year bipartisan federal moratorium” on executions, according to this week’s guest Stephen Rohde. What purpose does the death penalty serve? How have race and racism marked the implementation of the death penalty? Is there ever a humane way to kill another person? With public support for the death penalty waning in the U.S. and across the world, how can the U.S. continue to justify it, both federally and in individual states? Helping us to sort out these questions and more is a very special guest: Stephen Rohde, a constitutional scholar, lecturer, writer, political activist and retired civil rights lawyer who serves on the board of Death Penalty Focus. Rohde has represented two inmates on California’s death row. He is a founder and chair of Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace, past president of the ACLU of Southern California, and past chair of Bend the Arc: a Jewish Partnership for Justice. Rohde is the author of two books and has written for Ms., the Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, Truthout and American Prospect and is a regular contributor to the Los Angeles Review of Books. Rate and review “On the Issues with Michele Goodwin" to let us know what you think of the show! Let’s show the power of independent feminist media.Check out this episode’s landing page at MsMagazine.com for a full transcript, links to articles referenced in this episode, further reading and ways to take action.Tips, suggestions, pitches? Get in touch with us at ontheissues@msmagazine.com. Support the show (http://msmagazine.com)

On January 14th, 1963, Raymond Mercer waited for his girlfriend, Daisy Zick, to show up at the factory where they both worked. She never arrived.

On January 6th, 2021, when right wing supporters of Donald Trump staged an insurrection at the US Capitol building, they were participating in a long tradition of conservative rebellion with its roots in the West. Dr. James Skillen, associate professor of environmental studies at Calvin University, traces those roots in his new book, This Land is My Land: Rebellion in the West (Oxford University Press, 2020).  By the late 20th century, the Bureau of Land Management owned and managed huge swaths of some western states. Skillen argues that change in the regulatory environment, with a new emphasis on ecosystem and wildlife management beginning in the 1970s, combined with a groundswell of conservative support to foment armed rebellion against perceived government overreach among ranchers, small-time miners, and other western resource users.  When Ammon Bundy and his family staged a takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon in 2014, it was just the latest episode in a series of rebellions across the West, some involving the Bundys themselves, in which federal officials exchanged gunfire with armed Western rebels. In many ways, argues Skillen, Trump’s election in 2016, built on votes in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania, was the culmination of a story that begins in the American West. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm

On January 6th, 2021, when right wing supporters of Donald Trump staged an insurrection at the US Capitol building, they were participating in a long tradition of conservative rebellion with its roots in the West. Dr. James Skillen, associate professor of environmental studies at Calvin University, traces those roots in his new book, This Land is My Land: Rebellion in the West (Oxford University Press, 2020).  By the late 20th century, the Bureau of Land Management owned and managed huge swaths of some western states. Skillen argues that change in the regulatory environment, with a new emphasis on ecosystem and wildlife management beginning in the 1970s, combined with a groundswell of conservative support to foment armed rebellion against perceived government overreach among ranchers, small-time miners, and other western resource users.  When Ammon Bundy and his family staged a takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon in 2014, it was just the latest episode in a series of rebellions across the West, some involving the Bundys themselves, in which federal officials exchanged gunfire with armed Western rebels. In many ways, argues Skillen, Trump’s election in 2016, built on votes in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania, was the culmination of a story that begins in the American West. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm

On January 6th, 2021, when right wing supporters of Donald Trump staged an insurrection at the US Capitol building, they were participating in a long tradition of conservative rebellion with its roots in the West. Dr. James Skillen, associate professor of environmental studies at Calvin University, traces those roots in his new book, This Land is My Land: Rebellion in the West (Oxford University Press, 2020).  By the late 20th century, the Bureau of Land Management owned and managed huge swaths of some western states. Skillen argues that change in the regulatory environment, with a new emphasis on ecosystem and wildlife management beginning in the 1970s, combined with a groundswell of conservative support to foment armed rebellion against perceived government overreach among ranchers, small-time miners, and other western resource users.  When Ammon Bundy and his family staged a takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon in 2014, it was just the latest episode in a series of rebellions across the West, some involving the Bundys themselves, in which federal officials exchanged gunfire with armed Western rebels. In many ways, argues Skillen, Trump’s election in 2016, built on votes in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania, was the culmination of a story that begins in the American West. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On January 6th, 2021, when right wing supporters of Donald Trump staged an insurrection at the US Capitol building, they were participating in a long tradition of conservative rebellion with its roots in the West. Dr. James Skillen, associate professor of environmental studies at Calvin University, traces those roots in his new book, This Land is My Land: Rebellion in the West (Oxford University Press, 2020).  By the late 20th century, the Bureau of Land Management owned and managed huge swaths of some western states. Skillen argues that change in the regulatory environment, with a new emphasis on ecosystem and wildlife management beginning in the 1970s, combined with a groundswell of conservative support to foment armed rebellion against perceived government overreach among ranchers, small-time miners, and other western resource users.  When Ammon Bundy and his family staged a takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon in 2014, it was just the latest episode in a series of rebellions across the West, some involving the Bundys themselves, in which federal officials exchanged gunfire with armed Western rebels. In many ways, argues Skillen, Trump’s election in 2016, built on votes in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania, was the culmination of a story that begins in the American West. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm

On January 1st 2021, new amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA 1967) came into force. They affect unfair dismissal cases, direct appeals against Industrial Court awards and harsher penalties for non-compliance of awards, among others. These amendments have not been well received by some parties, as they may put employers at a disadvantage. Leonard Yeoh, Partner and Head of Dispute Resolution and Employment & Industrial Relations Practice Groups at Tay & Partners breaks down these amendments for us, and how they will affect corporations and SMEs moving forward.

Find the Good News, Episode 108, “The Prisoners” A Beacon Series conversation featuring Venerable De Hong, Co-Founder of the Engaged Buddhist Alliance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - My father was a United States Marine that served as a combat engineer in the Vietnam war. On January 21, 1968, he was on the Marine base at Khe Sahn getting a short reprieve from the horrors of war. It was the Lunar New Year and the beginning of the Tet holiday. A cease-fire was about to begin, or at least that's what he thought. Instead, it was the beginning of a massive attack on United States forces by the communist forces of North Vietnam. He spoke of it often and as a young boy, I could barely enlarge my imagination enough to encompass what he shared.   The siege finally ended in July the same year. The miseries of the Vietnam war would leave a lasting impact on my daddy, the United States, and citizens of Vietnam who were soon to live under the iron boot of a North Vietnamese communist regime.   My guest and I did not speak about this during our visit. Instead, what I heard was his account of being a 5-year-old boy living in the shadow of the Vietnam war. During the holiday of Tet, while my father was fighting in a foxhole at Khe Sanh, my guest—only 5 years old—was being rushed from his bed in the middle of the night by his mother and father, pillow in hand, the evening sky illuminated by thunderous munitions, the sharp cracks of gunfire, and the circadian hum of helicopters flying overhead. These sounds would leave trauma in the minds of both him and my father, and it would lead them both down completely different paths.   In this episode, I am honored to share my conversation with Venerable De Hong, the co-founder of the Engaged Buddhist Alliance, a Buddhist organization that works with individuals in the California prison system, helping them to cultivate mindfulness and meditation practices.   De Hong's journey from Vietnam to California is difficult to fathom as I was born with some degree of privilege. At the age of 18, escaping communist Vietnam with his younger brother, De Hong became a refugee. At the mercy of strangers, he navigated the difficulties of immigrating to the United States. With no working knowledge of English and only $10 to his name, he eventually graduated college, became a U.S. citizen, and acclimated to American life, and it is there that it seems his Dharma path began. Like many of us in the United States, he became overworked and overwhelmed, eventually finding refuge in Buddhism, the religion of this homeland, taking the ordination vows and training of a Buddhist monk.   Informed by the teachings of the Buddha, Venerable De Hong was drawn to enter the prison systems and serve those that society has deemed irredeemable. His tools are direct and simple but have had a profound impact on the lives of those he serves. De Hong feels strongly that the Dharma—the teachings of the Buddha—is a bell of mindfulness that reminds us to look directly into the suffering of the world and offer a way out of the suffering, to apply the great medicine of compassion.   With letters, books, meditation training, and the gift of presence, De Hong and the Engaged Buddhist Alliance helps turn the wheel away from unspeakable trauma, helping prisoners find their original good nature, and allowing them to begin the process of touching the world with more loving hands, hearts, and minds. One day at a time, one being at a time, the Venerable De Hong transmutes and transforms the old migratory trauma of war-torn landscapes into pure lands of joy.   Connected across space and time by war and religion, I am happy to call him my friend, and my true brother.   Now, it's time to learn how trauma passes through cultures, across borders, into bloodlines, over oceans, and takes root in prisons, understanding that no matter what pain we've experienced, there is always hope for change, then tune your attention to this Good News Beacon, and press play on a little good news. ========== SUPPORT FIND THE GOOD NEWS >> https://www.findthegood.news/donate/  ========== LEARN MORE ABOUT THE ENGAGED BUDDHIST ALLIANCE >> https://engagedbuddhistalliance.org/  ========== FIND THE GOOD NEWS IS PRODUCED BY PARKER BRAND CREATIVE SERVICES >> www.ParkerBrandUp.com   ==========

Radio Public|LibSyn|YouTube|Patreon|Square Cash (Share code: Send $5, get $5!) It’s Monday on KITM. Time for David Waldman and Greg Dworkin to cooperatively overlap us into a new week. No dead air between those two! The Boy Scouts celebrate their first group of female Eagle Scouts! 16 year old Isabella Tunney needed 21 merit badges to qualify, but earned all 137. The US can make vaccine access more equitable, but the prime challenge will be in building trust with vulnerable people through mutual respect... unless, of course, they’re morons.  America’s largest gathering of the biggest idiots is the Conservative Political Action Conference, or “CPAC”. Donald Trump is CPAC, and will attempt to become “the GOP” there, on his way to return to the presidency the following week. Who will stop him? There is no room for anti-Trumpers in the Republican party. There is no room for somewhat-Trumpers in the Republican party. Most Republicans don’t even want themselves in the Republican party. There certainly is no room for reality left in the Trump party, which poses quandaries for fact-based journalists. It will be a bonanza for lawsuits, though. The Supreme Court declined to halt the turnover of Donald Trump’s tax records to New York state prosecutors. Trump will never turn them over, no matter how many of his chumps and lackeys go to prison. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, can’t even buy a friend right now. Texans hate how much they like AOC, presently, because of Ted. Ron Desantis can’t pay off his supporters with vaccines either. Compared with those guys, Trump gets away with murder. On January 6, what did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it? The same as Mitch McConnell, it turns out. An Oath Keeper leader that broke into the Capitol wonders if maybe Antifa secretly sent her there. It has been revealed that Donald Trump tried to lure Kim Jong-un on to Air Force One. Kim just refused to take their relationship there.

On January 22, 2021 in partnership with The Trinity Center, The Institute for Human Ecology, and the Harvard Christian Alumni Society, we were delighted to welcome author and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. In Douthat’s book, The Decadent Society, he provides an enlightening diagnosis of our modern condition which, he says, has been characterized by decadence. Douthat argues that many of today’s discontents and derangements reflect a sense of futility and disappointment—a feeling that the future is not what was promised. Almost a year after its original publication, Ross reflected on what the events of the past year have revealed about our condition and how we might serve as agents of renewal in a divisive and decadent time.

On January 25, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.. The question presented was whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. This case arose out of a dispute between two dental equipment sales companies. In 2019, the 5th Circuit decided two questions. First, it concluded that the companies’ contract called for arbitration of the “gateway question” of whether a dispute is arbitrable. Second, it concluded that a court (rather than an arbitrator) should determine whether this particular dispute fell within an exception from the contract’s arbitration clause. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Erika Birg, Partner at Nelson Mullins, and Richard Faulkner, Of Counsel at Bennett Injury Law, join us today to discuss this ruling and its implications.

What is the Dyatlov Pass incident? Well, as we’ll find out, it was when nine Russian hikers died in the northern Ural Mountains between February 1st & 2nd in 1959, under supposed uncertain circumstances. The experienced trekking group, who were all from the Ural Polytechnical Institute, had established a camp on the slopes of Kholat Syakhl, in an area now named in honour of the group's leader, Igor Dyatlov. During the night, something caused them to cut their way out of their tent and attempt to flee the campsite while not being dressed for the heavy ass snowfall and subzero temperatures. Subzero was one of my favorite Mortal Kombat characters… god I loved that game. After the group's bodies were grusomly discovered, an investigation by Soviet authorities determined that six of them had died from hypothermia while the other three had been killed by physical trauma. One victim actually had major skull damage, two had severe chest trauma, and another had a small crack in the skull. Was all of this caused by an avalanche or from something nefarious? Four of the bodies were found lying in running water in a creek, and three of these had soft tissue damage of the head and face – two of the bodies were missing their eyes, one was missing its tongue, and one was missing its eyebrows. It’s eyebrows! The Soviet investigation concluded that a "compelling natural force" had caused the untimely deaths. Numerous theories have been brought forward to account for the unexplained deaths, including animal attacks, hypothermia, avalanche, katabatic winds, infrasound-induced panic, military involvement, or some combination of these. We’ll discuss all these in further detail later on. Recently, Russia has opened a new investigation into the Dyatlov incident in 2019, and its conclusions were presented in July 2020: Simply put, they believe  that an avalanche had led to the deaths of the hikers. Survivors of the avalanche had been forced to suddenly leave their camp in low visibility conditions with inadequate clothing, and had died of hypothermia. Andrey Kuryakov, deputy head of the regional prosecutor's office, said: "It was a heroic struggle. There was no panic. But they had no chance to save themselves under the circumstances." A study published in 2021 suggested that a type of avalanche known as a slab avalanche could explain some of the injuries. However, we’ll run through everything and you can come to your own conclusion.   Ok, let’s dive into the details of the event. In 1959, the group was formed for a skiing expedition across the northern Urals in Sverdlovsk Oblast, Soviet Union. According to Prosecutor Tempalov, documents that were found in the tent of the expedition suggest that the expedition was named for the 21st Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and was possibly dispatched by the local Komsomol organisation.Which was a political youth organization in the Soviet Union, which was sometimes described as the youth division of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Igor Dyatlov, a 23-year-old radio engineering student at the Ural Polytechnical Institute; now Ural Federal University, was the leader who assembled a group of nine others for the trip, most of whom were fellow students and peers at the university.Ok, so they were mostly students. Each member of the group, which consisted of eight men and two women, was an experienced Grade II-hiker with ski tour experience, and would be receiving Grade III certification upon their return. So, this trekk was like a test. I hated tests. Especially ones that could KILL YOU! At the time, this was the highest certification available in the Soviet Union, and required candidates to traverse 190 mi. The route was designed by Igor Dyatlov's group in order to reach the far northern regions of Sverdlovsk Oblast and the upper-streams of the Lozva river. The route was approved by the Sverdlovsk city route commission, which was a division of the Sverdlovsk Committee of Physical Culture and Sport. They approved of and confirmed the group of 10 people on January 8th, 1959. The goal of the expedition was to reach Otorten, a mountain(6.2 mi north of the site where the incident took place. This path, taken  in February, was estimated as a Category III, the most difficult time to traverse.   On January 23rd, 1959 the Dyatlov group was issued their route book which listed their course as following the No.5 trail. At that time, the Sverdlovsk City Committee of Physical Culture and Sport listed approval for 11 people. The 11th person was listed as Semyon Zolotaryov who was previously certified to go with another expedition of similar difficulty (that was the Sogrin expedition group). The Dyatlov group left the Sverdlovsk city (today called Yekaterinburg) on the same day they received the route book.   The members of the group were Igor Alekseyevich Dyatlov, Yuri Nikolayevich Doroshenko, Lyudmila Alexandrovna Dubinina, Georgiy (Yuri) Alexeyevich Krivonischenko, Alexander Sergeyevich Kolevatov, Zinaida Alekseevna Kolmogorova, Rustem Vladimirovich Slobodin, Nikolai Vladimirovich Thibeaux-Brignolles, Semyon (Alexander) Alekseevich Zolotaryov, and Yuri Yefimovich Yudin   The group arrived by train at Ivdel, a town at the centre of the northern province of Sverdlovsk Oblast in the early morning hours of January 25, 1959. They took a truck to Vizhai, a little village that is the last inhabited settlement to the north. As of 2010, only 207 really, really fucking cold people lived there. While spending the night in Vizhai, and probably freezing their baguettes off, the skiers purchased and ate loaves of bread to keep their energy levels up for the following day's hike. On January 27, they began their trek toward Gora Otorten. On January 28, one member, Yuri Yudin, who suffered from several health ailments (including rheumatism and a congenital heart defect) turned back due to knee and joint pain that made him unable to continue the hike. The remaining nine hikers continued the trek. Ok, my first question with this is, why in the fuck was that guy there, to begin with??  Diaries and cameras found around their last campsite made it possible to track the group's route up to the day before the incident. On January 31st, the group arrived at the edge of a highland area and began to prepare for climbing. In a wooded valley, they rounded up surplus food and equipment that they would use for the trip back. The next day, the hikers started to move through the pass. It seems they planned to get over the pass and make camp for the next night on the opposite side, but because of worsening weather conditions—like snowstorms,  decreasing visibility... large piles of yeti shit—they lost their direction and headed west, toward the top of Kholat Syakhl. When they realised their mistake, the group decided to set up camp there on the slope of the mountain, rather than move almost a mile downhill to a forested area that would have offered some shelter from the weather. Yudin, the debilitated goofball that shouldn’t have even been there speculated, "Dyatlov probably did not want to lose the altitude they had gained, or he decided to practice camping on the mountain slope."   Before leaving, Captain Dyatlov had agreed he would send a telegram to their sports club as soon as the group returned to teeny, tiny Vizhai. It was expected that this would happen no later than February 12th, but Dyatlov had told Yudin, before he departed from the group, that he expected it to actually be longer. When the 12th passed and no messages had been received, there was no immediate reaction because, ya know… fuck it. Just kidding, these types of delays were actually common with such expeditions. On February 20th, the travellers' worried relatives demanded a rescue operation and the head of the institute sent the first rescue groups, consisting of volunteer students and teachers. Later, the army and militsiya forces (aka the Soviet police) became involved, with planes and helicopters ordered to join in on the search party. On February 26th, the searchers found the group's abandoned and super fucked up tent on Kholat Syakhl. The campsite undoubtedly baffled the search party. Mikhail Sharavin, the student who found the tent, said “HOLY SHIT! THIS PLACE IS FUCKED UP!”... No, that’s not true. He actually said, "the tent was half torn down and covered with snow. It was empty, and all the group's belongings and shoes had been left behind." Investigators said the tent had been cut open from inside. Which seems like a serious and quick  escape route was needed. Nine sets of footprints, left by people wearing only socks or a single shoe or even barefoot, could actually be followed, leading down to the edge of a nearby wood, on the opposite side of the pass, about a mile to the north-east. After approximately 1,600 ft, these tracks were covered with snow. At the forest's edge, under a large Siberian pine, the searchers found the visible remains of a small fire. There were the first two bodies, those of Krivonischenko and Doroshenko, shoeless and dressed only in their tighty whiteys. The branches on the tree were broken up to five meters high, suggesting that one of the skiers had climbed up to look for something, maybe the camp. Between the pine and the camp, the searchers found three more corpses: Dyatlov, Kolmogorova, and Slobodin, who died in poses suggesting that they were attempting to return to the tent. They were found at distances of 980, 1,570, and 2,070 ft from the tree. Finding the remaining four travellers took more than two frigging months. They were finally found on May 4th under 13 ft of snow in a ravine 246 ft further into the woods from the pine tree. Three of the four were better dressed than the others, and there were signs that some clothing of those who had died first had been taken off of their corpses for use by the others. Dubinina was wearing Krivonishenko's burned, torn trousers, and her left foot and shin were wrapped in a torn jacket.   Let’s get into the investigation. A legal inquest started immediately after the first five bodies were found. A medical examination found no injuries that might have led to their deaths, and it was concluded that they had all died of hypothermia.Which would make sense because it was colder than a polar bear’s butthole. Slobodin had a small crack in his skull, but it was not thought to be a fatal wound. An examination of the four bodies found in May shifted the overall narrative of what they initially believed transpired. Three of the hikers had fatal injuries: Thibeaux-Brignolles had major skull damage, and Dubinina and Zolotaryov had major chest fractures. According to Boris Vozrozhdenny, the force required to cause such damage would have been extremely high, comparable to that of a car crash.Also, the bodies had no external wounds associated with the bone fractures, as if they had been subjected to a high level of pressure. All four bodies found at the bottom of the creek in a running stream of water had soft tissue damage to their head and face. For example, Dubinina was missing her tongue, eyes, part of the lips, as well as facial tissue and a fragment of her skullbone, while Zolotaryov was missing his friggin eyeballs, and Aleksander Kolevatov his eyebrows. V. A. Vozrozhdenny, the forensic expert performing the post-mortem examination, judged that these injuries happened after they had died, due to the location of the bodies in a stream. At first, there was speculation that the indigenous Mansi people, who were just simple reindeer herders local to the area, had attacked and murdered the group for making fun of Rudolph. Several Mansi were interrogated, but the investigation indicated that the nature of the deaths did not support this hypothesis: only the hikers' footprints were visible, and they showed no sign of hand-to-hand struggle. Oh, I was kidding about the Rudolph thing. They thought they attacked the hikers for being on their land.  Although the temperature was very low, around −13 to −22 °F with a storm blowing, the dead were only partially dressed, as I mentioned.  Journalists reporting on the available parts of the inquest files claim that it states: Six of the group members died of hypothermia and three of fatal injuries. There were no indications of other people nearby on Kholat Syakhl apart from the nine travellers. The tent had been ripped open from within. The victims had died six to eight hours after their last meal. Traces from the camp showed that all group members left the campsite of their own accord, on foot. Some levels of radiation were found on one victim's clothing. To dispel the theory of an attack by the indigenous Mansi people, Vozrozhdenny stated that the fatal injuries of the three bodies could not have been caused by human beings, "because the force of the blows had been too strong and no soft tissue had been damaged". Released documents contained no information about the condition of the skiers' internal organs. And most obviously, There were no survivors. At the time, the official conclusion was that the group members had died because of a compelling natural force.The inquest officially ceased in May 1959 as a result of the absence of a guilty party. The files were sent to a secret archive. In 1997, it was revealed that the negatives from Krivonischenko's camera were kept in the private archive of one of the investigators, Lev Ivanov. The film material was donated by Ivanov's daughter to the Dyatlov Foundation. The diaries of the hiking party fell into Russia's public domain in 2009. On April 12th, 2018, Zolotarev's remains were exhumed on the initiative of journalists of the Russian tabloid newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda. Contradictory results were obtained: one of the experts said that the character of the injuries resembled a person knocked down by a car, and the DNA analysis did not reveal any similarity to the DNA of living relatives. In addition, it turned out that Zolotarev's name was not on the list of those buried at the Ivanovskoye cemetery. Nevertheless, the reconstruction of the face from the exhumed skull matched postwar photographs of Zolotarev, although journalists expressed suspicions that another person was hiding under Zolotarev's name after World War II. In February 2019, Russian authorities reopened the investigation into the incident, yet again,  although only three possible explanations were being considered: an avalanche, a slab avalanche, or a hurricane. The possibility of a crime had been discounted.   Other reports brought about a whole bunch of additional speculation. Twelve-year-old Yury Kuntsevich, who later became the head of the Yekaterinburg-based Dyatlov Foundation, attended five of the hikers' funerals. He recalled that their skin had a "deep brown tan". Another group of hikers 31 mi south of the incident reported that they saw strange orange spheres in the sky to the north on the night of the incident.Similar spheres were observed in Ivdel and other areas continually during the period from February to March of 1959, by various independent witnesses (including the meteorology service and the military). These sightings were not noted in the 1959 investigation, and the various witnesses came forward years later. After the initial investigation, Anatoly Gushchin summarized his research in the book The Price of State Secrets Is Nine Lives. Some researchers criticised the work for its concentration on the speculative theory of a Soviet secret weapon experiment, but its publication led to public discussion, stimulated by interest in the paranormal.It is true that many of those who had remained silent for thirty years reported new facts about the accident. One of them was the former police officer, Lev Ivanov, who led the official inquest in 1959. In 1990, he published an article that included his admission that the investigation team had no rational explanation for the incident. He also stated that, after his team reported that they had seen flying spheres, he then received direct orders from high-ranking regional officials to dismiss this claim. In 2000, a regional television company produced the documentary film The Mystery of Dyatlov Pass. With the help of the film crew, a Yekaterinburg writer, Anna Matveyeva, published a docudrama of the same name. A large part of the book includes broad quotations from the official case, diaries of victims, interviews with searchers and other documentaries collected by the film-makers. The narrative line of the book details the everyday life and thoughts of a modern woman (an alter ego of the author herself, which is super weird) who attempts to resolve the case. Despite its fictional narrative, Matveyeva's book remains the largest source of documentary materials ever made available to the public regarding the incident. Also, the pages of the case files and other documentaries (in photocopies and transcripts) are gradually being published on a web forum for nerds just like you and i!. The Dyatlov Foundation was founded in 1999 at Yekaterinburg, with the help of Ural State Technical University, led by Yuri Kuntsevitch. The foundation's stated aim is to continue investigation of the case and to maintain the Dyatlov Museum to preserve the memory of the dead hikers. On July 1st 2016, a memorial plaque was inaugurated in Solikamsk in Ural's Perm Region, dedicated to Yuri Yudin (the dude who pussed out and is the sole survivor of the expedition group), who died in 2013.   Now, let’s go over some of the theories of what actually took place at the pass. Avalanche On July 11 2020, Andrey Kuryakov, deputy head of the Urals Federal District directorate of the Prosecutor-General's Office, announced an avalanche to be the "official cause of death" for the Dyatlov group in 1959. Later independent computer simulation and analysis by Swiss researchers also suggest avalanche as the cause.   Reviewing the sensationalist "Yeti" hypothesis , American skeptic author Benjamin Radford suggests an avalanche as more plausible: “that the group woke up in a panic (...) and cut their way out the tent either because an avalanche had covered the entrance to their tent or because they were scared that an avalanche was imminent (...) (better to have a potentially repairable slit in a tent than risk being buried alive in it under tons of snow). They were poorly clothed because they had been sleeping, and ran to the safety of the nearby woods where trees would help slow oncoming snow. In the darkness of night, they got separated into two or three groups; one group made a fire (hence the burned hands) while the others tried to return to the tent to recover their clothing since the danger had passed. But it was too cold, and they all froze to death before they could locate their tent in the darkness. At some point, some of the clothes may have been recovered or swapped from the dead, but at any rate, the group of four whose bodies was most severely damaged were caught in an avalanche and buried under 4 meters (13 ft) of snow (more than enough to account for the 'compelling natural force' the medical examiner described). Dubinina's tongue was likely removed by scavengers and ordinary predation.” Evidence contradicting the avalanche theory includes: The location of the incident did not have any obvious signs of an avalanche having taken place. An avalanche would have left certain patterns and debris distributed over a wide area. The bodies found within a month of the event were covered with a very shallow layer of snow and, had there been an avalanche of sufficient strength to sweep away the second party, these bodies would have been swept away as well; this would have caused more serious and different injuries in the process and would have damaged the tree line. Over 100 expeditions to the region had been held since the incident, and none of them ever reported conditions that might create an avalanche. A study of the area using up-to-date terrain-related physics revealed that the location was entirely unlikely for such an avalanche to have occurred. The "dangerous conditions" found in another nearby area (which had significantly steeper slopes and cornices) were observed in April and May when the snowfalls of winter were melting. During February, when the incident occurred, there were no such conditions. An analysis of the terrain and the slope showed that even if there could have been a very specific avalanche that found its way into the area, its path would have gone past the tent. The tent had collapsed from the side but not in a horizontal direction. Dyatlov was an experienced skier and the much older Zolotaryov was studying for his Masters Certificate in ski instruction and mountain hiking. Neither of these two men would have been likely to camp anywhere in the path of a potential avalanche. Footprint patterns leading away from the tent were inconsistent with someone, let alone a group of nine people, running in panic from either real or imagined danger. All the footprints leading away from the tent and towards the woods were consistent with individuals who were walking at a normal pace. Repeated 2015 investigation[edit] A review of the 1959 investigation's evidence completed in 2015–2019 by experienced investigators from the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (ICRF) on request of the families confirmed the avalanche with several important details added. First of all, the ICRF investigators (one of them an experienced alpinist) confirmed that the weather on the night of the tragedy was very harsh, with wind speeds up to hurricane force,(45–67 mph, a snowstorm and temperatures reaching −40 °C. These factors weren't considered by the 1959 investigators who arrived at the scene of the accident three weeks later when the weather had much improved and any remains of the snow slide had settled and been covered with fresh snowfall. The harsh weather at the same time played a critical role in the events of the tragic night, which have been reconstructed as follows: On 1 February the group arrives at the Kholat Syakhl mountain and erects a large, 9-person tent on an open slope, without any natural barriers such as forests. On the day and a few preceding days, a heavy snowfall continued, with strong wind and frost. The group traversing the slope and digging a tent site into the snow weakens the snow base. During the night the snowfield above the tent starts to slide down slowly under the weight of the new snow, gradually pushing on the tent fabric, starting from the entrance. The group wakes up and starts evacuation in panic, with only some able to put on warm clothes. With the entrance blocked, the group escapes through a hole cut in the tent fabric and descends the slope to find a place perceived as safe from the avalanche only 1500 m down, at the forest border. Because some of the members have only incomplete clothing, the group splits. Two of the group, only in their underwear and pajamas, were found at the Siberian pine tree, near a fire pit. Their bodies were found first and confirmed to have died from hypothermia. Three hikers, including Dyatlov, attempted to climb back to the tent, possibly to get sleeping bags. They had better clothes than those at the fire pit, but still quite light and with inadequate footwear. Their bodies were found at various distances 300–600 m from the campfire, in poses suggesting that they had fallen exhausted while trying to climb in deep snow in extremely cold weather. The remaining four, equipped with warm clothing and footwear, were trying to find or build a better camping place in the forest further down the slope. Their bodies were found 70 m from the fireplace, under several meters of snow and with traumas indicating that they had fallen into a snow hole formed above a stream. These bodies were found only after two months. According to the ICRF investigators, the factors contributing to the tragedy were extremely bad weather and lack of experience of the group leader in such conditions, which led to the selection of a dangerous camping place. After the snow slide, another mistake of the group was to split up, rather than building a temporary camp down in the forest and trying to survive through the night. Negligence of the 1959 investigators contributed to their report creating more questions than answers and inspiring numerous conspiracy theories. In 2021 a team of physicists and engineers led by Alexander Puzrin published a new model that demonstrated how even a relatively small slide of snow slab on the Kholat Syakhl slope could cause tent damage and injuries consistent with those suffered by Dyatlov team. Ok, what about the Katabatic wind that I mentioned earlier? In 2019, a Swedish-Russian expedition was made to the site, and after investigations, they proposed that a violent katabatic wind was a plausible explanation for the incident. Katabatic winds are a drainage wind, a wind that carries high-density air from a higher elevation down a slope under the force of gravity. They are somewhat rare events and can be extremely violent. They were implicated in a 1978 case at Anaris Mountain in Sweden, where eight hikers were killed and one was severely injured in the aftermath of katabatic wind. The topography of these locations were noted to be very similar according to the expedition. A sudden katabatic wind would have made it impossible to remain in the tent, and the most rational course of action would have been for the hikers to cover the tent with snow and seek shelter behind the treeline. On top of the tent, there was also a torch left turned on, possibly left there intentionally so that the hikers could find their way back to the tent once the winds subsided. The expedition proposed that the group of hikers constructed two bivouac shelters, or just makeshift shelters, one of which collapsed, leaving four of the hikers buried with the severe injuries observed. Infrasound Another hypothesis popularised by Donnie Eichar's 2013 book Dead Mountain is that wind going around Kholat Syakal created a Kármán vortex street, a repeating pattern of swirling vortices, caused by a process known as vortex shedding, which is responsible for the unsteady separation of flow of a fluid around blunt bodies. which can produce infrasound capable of inducing panic attacks in humans. According to Eichar's theory, the infrasound generated by the wind as it passed over the top of the Holatchahl mountain was responsible for causing physical discomfort and mental distress in the hikers. Eichar claims that, because of their panic, the hikers were driven to leave the tent by whatever means necessary, and fled down the slope. By the time they were further down the hill, they would have been out of the infrasound's path and would have regained their composure, but in the darkness would have been unable to return to their shelter. The traumatic injuries suffered by three of the victims were the result of their stumbling over the edge of a ravine in the darkness and landing on the rocks at the bottom. Hmmm...plausible. Military tests In another theory, the campsite fell within the path of a Soviet parachute mine exercise. This theory alleges that the hikers, woken up by loud explosions, fled the tent in a shoeless panic and found themselves unable to return for their shit. After some members froze to death attempting to endure the bombardment, others commandeered their clothing only to be fatally injured by subsequent parachute mine concussions. There are in fact records of parachute mines being tested by the Soviet military in the area around the time the hikers were out there, fuckin’ around. Parachute mines detonate while still in the air rather than upon striking the Earth's surface and produce signature injuries similar to those experienced by the hikers: heavy internal damage with relatively little external trauma. The theory coincides with reported sightings of glowing, orange orbs floating or falling in the sky within the general vicinity of the hikers and allegedly photographed by them, potentially military aircraft or descending parachute mines. (remember the camera they found? HUH? Yeah?)  This theory (among others) uses scavenging animals to explain Dubinina's injuries. Some speculate that the bodies were unnaturally manipulated, on the basis of characteristic livor mortis markings discovered during an autopsy, as well as burns to hair and skin. Photographs of the tent allegedly show that it was erected incorrectly, something the experienced hikers were unlikely to have done. A similar theory alleges the testing of radiological weapons and is based partly on the discovery of radioactivity on some of the clothing as well as the descriptions of the bodies by relatives as having orange skin and grey hair. However, radioactive dispersal would have affected all, not just some, of the hikers and equipment, and the skin and hair discoloration can be explained by a natural process of mummification after three months of exposure to the cold and wind. The initial suppression by Soviet authorities of files describing the group's disappearance is sometimes mentioned as evidence of a cover-up, but the concealment of information about domestic incidents was standard procedure in the USSR and thus nothing strange.. And by the late 1980s, all Dyatlov files had been released in some manner. Let’s talk about Paradoxical undressing International Science Times proposed that the hikers' deaths were caused by hypothermia, which can induce a behavior known as paradoxical undressing in which hypothermic subjects remove their clothes in response to perceived feelings of burning warmth. It is undisputed that six of the nine hikers died of hypothermia. However, others in the group appear to have acquired additional clothing (from those who had already died), which suggests that they were of a sound enough mind to try to add layers.   Keith McCloskey, who has researched the incident for many years and has appeared in several TV documentaries on the subject, traveled to the Dyatlov Pass in 2015 with Yury Kuntsevich of the Dyatlov Foundation and a group. At the Dyatlov Pass he noted: There were wide discrepancies in distances quoted between the two possible locations of the snow shelter where Dubinina, Kolevatov, Zolotarev, and Thibault-Brignolles were found. One location was approximately 80 to 100 meters from the pine tree where the bodies of Doroshenko and Krivonischenko were found and the other suggested location was so close to the tree that anyone in the snow shelter could have spoken to those at the tree without raising their voices to be heard. This second location also has a rock in the stream where Dubinina's body was found and is the more likely location of the two. However, the second suggested location of the two has a topography that is closer to the photos taken at the time of the search in 1959. The location of the tent near the ridge was found to be too close to the spur of the ridge for any significant build-up of snow to cause an avalanche. Furthermore, the prevailing wind blowing over the ridge had the effect of blowing snow away from the edge of the ridge on the side where the tent was. This further reduced any build-up of snow to cause an avalanche. This aspect of the lack of snow on the top and near the top of the ridge was pointed out by Sergey Sogrin in 2010. McCloskey also noted: Lev Ivanov's boss, Evgeny Okishev (Deputy Head of the Investigative Department of the Sverdlovsk Oblast Prosecution Office), was still alive in 2015 and had given an interview to former Kemerovo prosecutor Leonid Proshkin in which Okishev stated that he was arranging another trip to the Pass to fully investigate the strange deaths of the last four bodies when Deputy Prosecutor General Urakov arrived from Moscow and ordered the case shut down. Evgeny Okishev also stated in his interview with Leonid Proshkin that Klinov, head of the Sverdlovsk Prosecutor's Office, was present at the first post mortems in the morgue and spent three days there, something Okishev regarded as highly unusual and the only time, in his experience, it had happened. Donnie Eichar, who investigated and made a documentary about the incident, evaluated several other theories that are deemed unlikely or have been discredited: They were attacked by Mansi or other local tribesmen. The local tribesmen were known to be peaceful and there was no track evidence of anyone approaching the tent. They were attacked and chased by animal wildlife. There were no animal tracks and the group would not have abandoned the relative security of the tent. High winds blew one member away, and the others attempted to rescue the person. A large experienced group would not have behaved like that, and winds strong enough to blow away people with such force would have also blown away the tent. An argument, possibly related to a romantic encounter that left some of them only partially clothed, led to a violent dispute. About this, Eichar states that it is "highly implausible. By all indications, the group was largely harmonious, and sexual tension was confined to platonic flirtation and crushes. There were no drugs present and the only alcohol was a small flask of medicinal alcohol, found intact at the scene. The group had even sworn off cigarettes for the expedition." Furthermore, a fight could not have left the massive injuries that one body had suffered.   Ace’s Depot http://www.aces-depot.com   BECOME A PRODUCER! http://www.patreon.com/themidnighttrainpodcast   Find The Midnight Train Podcast: www.themidnighttrainpodcast.com www.facebook.com/themidnighttrainpodcast www.twitter.com/themidnighttrainpc www.instagram.com/themidnighttrainpodcast www.discord.com/themidnighttrainpodcast www.tiktok.com/themidnighttrainp   And wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.   Subscribe to our official YouTube channel: OUR YOUTUBE

On January 8th, Edgewater Castle Soccer Club launched the Solidarity Kit, a jersey designed in collaboration with the Black Fires supporters group and photographer Mel D Cole, with 80% of all proceeds going to My Block, My Hood, My City. Alex is joined by several of the voices who had input on the project to discuss how it came about, what it says about the priorities of ECFC, and the roll of soccer in helping to shape the communities it takes root in. Panel: - Andrew Swanson, co-founder and general manager of Edgewater Castle FC - Nabila Ahmed, marketing director for Edgewater Castle FC - JP Calubaquib, freelance photographer - Ernesto Gonzalez, My Block My Hood My City - Adam La Vitola, founder of Clubhouse Athletic You can follow both Edgewater Castle FC and My Block, My Hood, My City on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook Video of the kit launch, produced by JP: https://twitter.com/EdgewaterCastle/status/1336385056596766723?s=20 Follow the show on Twitter @soccer_cast Follow Alex on Twitter @alex_s_campbell Subscribe, Rate and Review wherever you get your podcasts! Music by HookSounds --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

On January 11th, 1977 in Fairfax, California the police received an anonymous phone call: a body had been found, dumped near the side of the road. The woman had been buried, face down, underneath desert brush. She had pantyhose wrapped around her neck and stuffed down her throat and her feet were bound. Police determined she had only been there for maybe less than a day. This is the story of serial killer and rapist Joseph Naso.

On January 1, 1987, a paper was published in the journal Nature which rocked the world of anthropology.  Researchers Allan Wilson, Mark Stoneking, and Rebecca Cann used the then-new science of genetic analysis to analyze the DNA in human mitochondria.  What they found was evidence that humans on Earth can trace their ancestry back to a single woman who lived approximately 180,000 years ago. Learn more about Mitochondrial Eve, the mother of everyone, on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. http://www.audibletrial.com/EverythingEverywhere -------------------------------- Executive Producer James Makkyla Associate Producer Thor Thomsen   Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere   Discord Server: https://discord.gg/UkRUJFh   Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/EEDailyPodcast/ Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/everything-everywhere-daily-podcast/

On January 21, 1998, 12-year-old Stephanie Crowe was found dead in her bedroom. She had been fatally stabbed multiple times while her family slept. Multiple people would eventually be charged with her murder, including members of Stephanie's own family. Join Mike and Morf as they discuss the mysterious murder of Stephanie Crowe. Police initially suspected Stephanie's brother and some of his friends. The tactics used by investigators against these young boys were ruthless and caused them to say what they had to after hours of food and sleep deprivation. They should have been looking at a 28-year-old man named Richard Tuite who was in the Crowe neighborhood that night. Blood evidence would later send Tuite to trial for Stephanie's murder. But, could prosecutors make a case against Richard Tuite stick? You can help support the show at patreon.com/criminology   An Emash Digital Production See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I had a great conversation on the Podcast with Ryan an amazing patriot, legit bad ass & a man who walks his talk... Ryan’s personal story is like no other artist in country music today. Growing up with a family of eleven in a small town in Floral City, Florida, he joined the Army right after high school. After several years of working as a Military Intelligence Analyst, Ryan followed in the footsteps of his two older brothers, Steve and Aaron, by attending Warrant Officer Candidate School and flight school. He graduated top of his class in flight school, becoming a Black Hawk Aviator.  In April 2003, he deployed to Baghdad International Airport in Iraq. Shortly after, one of his brothers, Aaron, was deployed just west of him in Fallujah. On January 8, 2004, Aaron was killed in action when the Medivac helicopter he was a passenger in was shot down by enemy fire. Ryan certainly understood mortality and the risks of combat…  After all, Aaron had survived the bloody 1993 battle in Mogadishu, Somalia – the same battle that became the basis for the movie, Black Hawk Down. When Aaron died, however, something changed for Ryan. He returned from combat, taking a new position training the next generation of Army aviators and officers at Fort Rucker, Alabama and has not piloted a Black Hawk since that fateful day.  On December 17, 2013 Ryan’s brother-in-law, Chief Warrant Officer 2 Randy Billings, was killed in action in Afghanistan when the Black Hawk helicopter he was piloting was shot down by an enemy ground-detonated explosive device.  This second heartbreaking loss made the Weaver family a two-time Gold Star family. Both of his brothers’ ultimate sacrifices continue to fuel Ryan’s fire to accomplish his dreams in music. In late 2016, Ryan released the music video for his single “Burn,”featuring Kris “Tanto” Paranto and John “Tig” Tiegen from the movie 13 Hours: Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. “Burn” aired nationwide on The Country Network and Heartland, and internationally at over 5,000 retailers, restaurants, and entertainment venues throughout the end of 2016 and beginning of 2017. Ryan’s first music video “Crank It”played nationally on ZUUS Country TVand TNN/Heartland Networkand spent 8 weeks on their Top 10 Video Countdown – a network record. In 2017, Ryan was named the Patriotic Voice of the PBR(Professional Bull Riders) for theirCelebrate AmericaCampaign.  The World Finals is the biggest global stage in professional bull riding – a booming sport now seen in more than 400 million homes worldwide. The Celebrate AmericaCampaignis a season-long initiative that honors America’s heroes, inspires youth, and brings communities together. Weaver made his debut in the primetime performance slot, which was previously held by Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler in 2016. At that time, the PBR officially launched Ryan as a PBR artist and debuted his new EP entitled Celebrate America.  Ryan worked closely with hit songwriter Wynn Varble on the Celebrate AmericaEP, co-writing three of the four songs. He has toured the U.S. and internationally to Australia with the PBR in 2018 and 2019, performing his songs and singing the “National Anthem” at US events. He has several performances scheduled in Australia this year. Ryan performed on the first single from the West Point Military Academy’s Benny Havens Band’s  debut album Songs That Save Our Lives. The song was short-listed for GRAMMY Award consideration in the American Roots category. The album also featured Charlie Daniels.  Ryan released two singles in 2019 titled “ARRIVAL” and “Time Like This.” He is currently working on a human trafficking awareness short film and collateral music video for ARRIVAL, set to release in the fall of 2020.  He is also conducting multiple motivational speaking engagements while promoting his...

On January 21, 1998, 12-year-old Stephanie Crowe was found dead in her bedroom. She had been fatally stabbed multiple times while her family slept. Multiple people would eventually be charged with her murder, including members of Stephanie's own family. Join Mike and Morf as they discuss the mysterious murder of Stephanie Crowe. Police initially suspected Stephanie's brother and some of his friends. The tactics used by investigators against these young boys were ruthless and caused them to say what they had to after hours of food and sleep deprivation. They should have been looking at a 28-year-old man named Richard Tuite who was in the Crowe neighborhood that night. Blood evidence would later send Tuite to trial for Stephanie's murder. But, could prosecutors make a case against Richard Tuite stick? You can help support the show at patreon.com/criminology   An Emash Digital Production Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On January 20 2021, President Biden signed the “Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.” Biden’s order chooses to interpret sex broadly as “sexual orientation and gender identity” but does not make any provisions for the physical category of sex, meaning that women and girls may…

On today's program, we talked about the decades-long debate over whether Washington, D.C. should be granted statehood and the new energy behind that push. We also revisited a moment that reflects a bit of the character of the city of Washington, D.C. On January 6th, as pro-Trump extremists headed toward the Capitol, they were met by D.C. resident Peter Tracey, who told them exactly what he thought of them. His neighbor, Shawntia Humphries responded from her car. The video of Peter and Sean went viral. And it sparked a friendship between the two residents of D.C. In this radio diary, Peter and Shawntia describe what they saw that day. "I hope in my lifetime I never see anything like that again, because D.C. is a welcoming, diverse place. We have our problems. ... But we respect each other."

On January 28, at a meeting of leading members of the International Marxist Tendency, Alan Woods provided an overview of the dramatic events unfolding at the start of 2021. The crisis of world capitalism is causing ruptions, dislocation, and class polarization in one country after another. Alan explains that, in this context, the task of Marxists is to present a revolutionary socialist program to the millions of radicalizing workers and youth. Video and Transcript: https://bit.ly/2Z0Hixf

On January 1, 2016 I launched the Dreams In Drive podcast. Prior to that, I had no clue about the industry of podcasting. I had an idea and a dream and was determined to show up for myself and see what would happen. Fast forward 5+ years and I've had over 250+ episodes, 220 + guests, 1 million + downloads, 40+ press features...and more... I've been putting that dream into drive and haven't stopped yet. Listen in to this week's episode to hear me reflect on the journey to now and all that I've learned along the way. *SHOP DREAMS IN DRIVE MERCHANDISE: http://www.dreamsindrive.com/shop *SUBSCRIBE TO "THE KEYS" NEWSLETTER: http://www.dreamsindrive.com/join *DONATE TO DREAMS IN DRIVE: http://www.dreamsindrive.com/donate *SHOP THE DREAMS IN DRIVE BOOKSTORE: http://www.dreamsindrive.com/bookstore *SHOW NOTES: http://www.dreamsindrive.com/5-years *JOIN THE FACEBOOK GROUP: http://www.dreamsindrive.com/facebook *Follow Dreams In Drive on Social: *http://twitter.com/dreamsindrive *http://instagram.com/dreamsindrive *Follow Rana on Social: *http://instagram.com/rainshineluv *http://twitter.com/rainshineluv *http://www.ranacampbell.com

This week on The Changelog we’re talking about the recent falling out between Elastic and AWS around the relicensing of Elasticsearch and Kibana. Like many in the community, we have been watching this very closely. Here’s the tldr for context. On January 21st, Elastic posted a blog post sharing their concerns with Amazon/AWS misleading and confusing the community, saying “They have been doing things that we think are just NOT OK since 2015 and it has only gotten worse.” This lead them to relicense Elasticsearch and Kibana with a dual license, a proprietary license and the Sever Side Public License (SSPL). AWS responded two days later stating that they are “stepping up for a truly open source Elasticsearch,” and shared their plans to create and maintain forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana based on the latest ALv2-licensed codebases. There’s a ton of detail and nuance beneath the surface, so we invited a handful of folks on the show to share their perspective. On today’s show you’ll hear from: Adam Jacob (co-founder and board member of Chef), Heather Meeker (open-source lawyer and the author of the SSPL license), Manish Jain (founder and CTO at Dgraph Labs), Paul Dix (co-founder and CTO at InfluxDB), VM (Vicky) Brasseur (open source & free software business strategist), and Markus Stenqvist (everyday web dev from Sweden).

This week on The Changelog we’re talking about the recent falling out between Elastic and AWS around the relicensing of Elasticsearch and Kibana. Like many in the community, we have been watching this very closely. Here’s the tldr for context. On January 21st, Elastic posted a blog post sharing their concerns with Amazon/AWS misleading and confusing the community, saying “They have been doing things that we think are just NOT OK since 2015 and it has only gotten worse.” This lead them to relicense Elasticsearch and Kibana with a dual license, a proprietary license and the Sever Side Public License (SSPL). AWS responded two days later stating that they are “stepping up for a truly open source Elasticsearch,” and shared their plans to create and maintain forks of Elasticsearch and Kibana based on the latest ALv2-licensed codebases. There’s a ton of detail and nuance beneath the surface, so we invited a handful of folks on the show to share their perspective. On today’s show you’ll hear from: Adam Jacob (co-founder and board member of Chef), Heather Meeker (open-source lawyer and the author of the SSPL license), Manish Jain (founder and CTO at Dgraph Labs), Paul Dix (co-founder and CTO at InfluxDB), VM (Vicky) Brasseur (open source & free software business strategist), and Markus Stenqvist (everyday web dev from Sweden).

Disney fans rejoice! On January 4, 2021, Joe Rohde retired from a forty-year long career at Walt Disney Imagineering. He became well known to Disney fans when he was named lead Imagineer for Disney's Animal Kingdom, but Joe accomplished so much more throughout his tenure. Listen as Len Testa from Touring Plans joins host Jeff DePaoli as they discuss the works of this irreplaceable Imagineer. That and so much more on this episode. Find links and info related to this episode in the show notes. Join the DCTC Community to gain early access to episodes and bonuses! Support the show at no additional cost to you. Get yourself a FREE audiobook by visiting Audible, shop at Amazon and shopDisney with our special links or save 15% at Whosits & Whatsits with code "DCTC." Gain access to exclusive episodes you won’t find in your podcast feed. Find us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @DizneyCTC. Get FREE Disney gifts from DCTC. Visit the show at DizneyCoastToCoast.com. Write us at Contact@DePodcastNetwork.com. Leave a voicemail at 818-860-2569 "Dizney Coast to Coast" is part of the DePodcast Network. Love the show? Leave a tip.

Joshua Jay (born October 30, 1981) is a magician, author, and lecturer. He has performed in over 100 countries, and he was awarded the top prize at the World Magic Seminar in 1998. He fooled Penn and Teller on their hit show, Fool Us[1], and he holds a Guinness World Record for card tricks. Jay has done magic on numerous television shows, most recently Good Morning America and The Today Show[2]. Most recently, in January 2018, Joshua was recognized by the Society of American Magicians with their highest proclamation, for his contribution to the art of magic. Joshua attended Ohio State University and currently resides in New York City.Joshua has designed illusions for stage and screen, including a recent collaboration with HBO for Game of Thrones. Joshua consulted with the United States Postal Service on the design of their postage stamp series, Magic.On January 30, 2016, at the Columbus Magi-Fest, Joshua set the Guinness World Record for Most Selected Cards Found from a Shuffled Deck in One Minute. He found 21 cards, a record that still stands.Joshua has done innovative research into what he has classified as "Tragic Magic," tricks that have proved fatal to magicians, assistants, and even spectators. Joshua has delivered keynote addresses on the history of magic at museums across the country, and written an academic article on the subject for Gibiciere.Joshua appeared at the 2008 Inaugural Ball for President Barack Obama, and has also delivered private performances for former President Clinton.In 2008, Joshua and best-friend Andi Gladwin founded Vanishing Inc. Magic,[3] a retail magic outlet that manufactures and distributes props to magicians. Vanishing Inc. is currently one of the largest magic shops in the world, with warehouse and shipping operations in the US and Europe.I sat down for a GREAT chat with Josh. I hope you enjoy it. 

On January 27th, 2011, Yemen's people followed the example set by Tunisia and Egypt and flooded the streets, demonstrating against the incumbent regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh. Much like the other countries experiencing revolutions, Yemenis were tired of endemic unemployment, mass immiseration, and no prospects of improvements. After months of protests and, in some cases, armed encounters between revolutionaries and the government, the people finally felled Saleh on November 23, 2011. An election was organized for February 2012, and Vice President Abrabbuh Mansur Hadi took power as interim president. What appeared to be a spring was a false dawn, however, as the post-Saleh era deteriorated rapidly into a brutal civil war. But how did we get to the current crisis in Yemen? Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/DasCriminal Sources: https://bit.ly/3bhoMVw

MARY CROSS. Classic Soul. A highly sought-after independent artist with a unique, instantly identifiable contralto vocal instrument described by some as ‘the Mother of Cool Smoke’. Mary’s musical influence began when introduced to the music of Phyllis Linda Hyman and Nancy Wilson. The impression was not only the iconic voices but the elegant attire, and audience engagement and response. These women of song solidified Mary’s commitment to creating INSPIRING music and memorable moments through engagement with audience members and the hats and gowns worn.This songstress is back to CELEBRATE Love with her Second release. ‘Promise’ does not fail 2INSPIRE and bring JOY to listeners. On January 1, 2021, this highly anticipated single will debut worldwide. Fresh off of her debut single, In Love, There's A Risk, Mary Cross, the 'Mother of Cool Smoke' is back with her highly anticipated single entitled 'Promise'. Captivating from the moment that you press play, it starts off with a lovely piano-led melody, Carl Cox on alto sax, and lush strings.Promise is reminiscent of timeless classic soul music that takes it time to deliver and leaves you yearning for more. Vocals performed and written by Singer-Songwriter & Stylista Mary Cross.Produced and co-written by Grammy-nominated producer Donald Robinson. "This song celebrates everyone who made the PROMISE. Song was written with love & commitment in mind."There are only a few artists who are the very definition of a generational talent. Mary Cross's tonalities often remind one of Phyllis Hyman.Support the show (https://www.gofundme.com/lets-jazz-it-up-ladydiva-live-radio&rcid=r01-155237937664-a0ba938ee6e24441&pc=ot_co_campmgmt_w)