Podcasts about prosecution

Use code LAWNERD at https://jonesroadbeauty.com to get a Free Cool Gloss with your first purchase! These sell out fast so get them while they last! #JonesRoadBeauty #ad Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D. Baker YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/Xr89f0Q35EE Day 3 of the Brian Walshe Trial happened on December 3, 2025. The court was presented with "chilling" photos of evidence recovered from a dumpster at Brian Walshe's mother's apartment complex, including a hacksaw, hatchet, snips, and hammer. We discuss the defense's attempt to challenge the chain of custody and potential contamination of these items. Thomas Mennio, a witness from JetBlue, confirms Ana Walshe took her last flight on December 30th, 2022, and that multiple subsequent flight reservations in January were all "no-shows." Life insurance testimony reveals Anna Walshe was rated "Select Preferred"—the highest health rating possible—undermining the defense's opening statement that she may have spontaneously passed away in her sleep. We cover the judge's discussion with attorneys regarding whether the jury can hear that Brian Walshe has already pled guilty to improper disposal of a body and lying to police, and why the court is inclined to keep that information out. A look ahead at upcoming testimony concerning text messages between Ana Walshe and her "paramour," and how the prosecution and defense plan to use this to address a potential motive. RESOURCES Brian Walshe Case Overview - https://youtu.be/VbbXdPf4aXY  MA v Brian Walshe Trial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gK0wNHtj-4Xm0KF84vD6VIW  Brian Walshe Trial Daily Case Brief Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFdNnRZUqH63SQSsTnj7ofHMBjdhgSEfK Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Israel's political earthquake is shaking the very foundations of its democracy. President Herzog is weighing a potential pardon for Prime Minister Netanyahu just as President Trump dramatically invites Bibi to the White House. Is this a presidential favor or a veiled ultimatum? Ruthie Blum and Mark Regev expose the legal chess match, deep-state power grabs and the media circus surrounding the most polarizing figure in Israeli politics. Will Netanyahu beat the system...or is the system too broken to fix? This episode of "Israel Undiplomatic" pulls no punches.

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D. Baker YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/Clb86O_E0P8  Day 1 of the Brian Walshe Trial happened on December 1, 2025. The opening statements presented two starkly contrasting narratives to the jury. The Prosecution laid out a chilling timeline of digital and physical evidence, revealing sinister Google searches, a Dexter shopping list and Ana's DNA evidence on a hatchet, hacksaw and her personal items. The Defense admitted that Brian Walshe lied to police and disposed of his wife's body, but adamantly denies he murdered her. They claim Anna Walshe died spontaneously in bed on New Year's Day. The ensuing Google searches and disposal efforts were the result of Brian's "frantic and panic reaction" driven by fear that no one would believe him and a desire to protect his three young sons. The defense argues that earlier searches for divorce were solely to protect the family's assets from a pending $400,000 restitution bill from his federal fraud case. Tune in for the full analysis of the opening arguments, the key witnesses (including the reappearance of troopers from the Karen Read case), and the legal strategies that will determine if Brian Walshe is found guilty of first-degree murder. RESOURCES Brian Walshe Case Overview - https://youtu.be/VbbXdPf4aXY  MA v Brian Walshe Trial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gK0wNHtj-4Xm0KF84vD6VIW  Brian Walshe Trial Daily Case Brief Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFdNnRZUqH63SQSsTnj7ofHMBjdhgSEfK Karen Read 2024 Trial - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTS Trooper Proctor Discovery Hearing - https://youtu.be/k0O8rA6Km94 Sandra Birchmore Case - https://youtu.be/sF3VD5cfKnE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Send us a textFairfax, Virginia, criminal lawyer Jonathan Katz first met international relations expert and five-book author Abiodun Williams when they were university students. When Jon Katz at that first sit down mentioned all the very important things left to learn on his path, Abi summed up the right approach perfectly: "Information overload." Abi clearly has dealt with his share of expansive data and other information and writings, having tackled demanding obligations starting in his student years, followed by overseas peacemaking and conflict resolution missions, working with United Nations secretaries general, serving at a high level at the United States Institute for Peace, and now back as a professor of international relations.By now, Jon Katz has learned the persuasive, self development, internal health, and time management benefits of paring down the data bombarding our heads, by focusing on and working in the present moment; quieting the mind through mindfulness, taijiquan martial arts practice, and full attention and focus; and recognizing that trials are not about chasing the strength and preparedness of opponents, rather than to go to the courtroom battlefield fully prepared for the expected and unknown, fully focused on persuading the judge and jury, and not getting sucked into any sideshows presented by prosecutors and opposing witnesses.This entire conversation lends itself well to criminal defense work, where even a usually more desirable judge and more desirable prosecutor can seriously disappoint the criminal defense lawyer, if for no other reason than that their oaths, agendas and obligations are not the same as that of the criminal defense lawyer, and their personalities, tendencies and own frustrations are completely human.This conversation includes discussing Roger Fisher's and William Ury's essential getting to yes approach to negotiations and conflicts, where the focus is on discovering and overlapping the parties' goals and interests rather than digging into postilions and getting stuck over personalities (and, I add, transcending words that reach even the level of coming across as insults) of the negotiating parties. William Ury aptly talks about the importance of developing our own selves in the process of negotiating, including finding a pause to move in the right direction at a challenging crossroads, Fisher & Ury also address the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA), where Jon Katz's BATNA usually is proceeding to trial.Abi Williams well exemplifies the spirit of mining and pursuing the possibilities in the midst of conflict, rather than getting sucked into any boobytraps or black holes along the way.____This episode is also available on YouTube at https://youtu.be/GfNV6Dp1YrM.This podcast with Fairfax, Virginia criminal / DUI lawyer Jon Katz is playable on all devices at podcast.BeatTheProsecution.com. For more information, visit https://KatzJustice.com or contact us at info@KatzJustice.com, 703-383-1100 (calling), or 571-406-7268 (text). If you like what you hear on our Beat the Prosecution podcast, please take a moment to post a review at our Apple podcasts page (with stars only, or else also with a comment) at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beat-the-prosecution/id1721413675

Donate (no account necessary) | Subscribe (account required) Join Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Operations Officer, as he dives into today's top stories shaping America and the world. In this Monday Headline Brief of The Wright Report, Bryan covers the nation's grief and anger after the Washington terror attack, the deepening crisis within America's immigration system, and President Trump's most sweeping border actions yet. He also examines the political backlash, the debate over assimilation, and the global pressures shaping events from Europe to Venezuela. America Mourns and Demands Answers: Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe remains in critical condition while Specialist Sarah Beckstrom is laid to rest after last week's terror attack in Washington. DHS confirmed the attacker, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, was a former CIA-backed Afghan Zero Unit fighter who was radicalized after arrival in the United States. Investigators say he drifted between Washington State, Arizona, and the East Coast with little oversight, revealing systemic vetting failures across multiple administrations.   Vetting Breakdown Exposed: Inspector General reports show that over two hundred thousand Afghans brought into the country during the 2021 evacuation were admitted with almost no reliable databases, poor ID verification, and limited interagency cooperation. None received continual vetting after entry. Bryan explains why "strict vetting" is a political myth and why U.S. systems remain unable to verify criminal history, ideology, or cultural fit for many migrants.   Trump Orders the Most Sweeping Immigration Freeze in Decades: The President has paused all asylum applications, halted Afghan visa processing, and instructed his team to permanently pause migration from Third World nations to reset the system. Green card and citizenship requests from nineteen countries are suspended. Trump is also considering the denaturalization of foreign-born citizens who fail loyalty or cultural compatibility standards. Legal scholars note that Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act grants the President broad authority to take such steps.   Political Firestorm and Cultural Divide: Republicans and most Independents support a historic crackdown, while Democrats accuse Trump of racism and xenophobia. Some leaders, including Representative Jasmin Crockett and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, blamed the National Guard deployments for the attack. Bryan argues that many progressive lawmakers reject assimilation because they reject the idea of American culture itself, pointing to recent examples in education, media, and politics.   College Degrees Lose Appeal: New polling shows only 33 percent of Americans believe a four-year degree is worth the cost. Interest in vocational training and maritime careers is rising as tuition increases outpace wages. Maritime academies report that graduates earn more than $200,000 a year after six months of work.   The Autopen Controversy: President Trump announced he is canceling all executive actions signed by Joe Biden through the autopen, citing concerns that Biden did not authorize their use. The Justice Department may soon bring cases that will force the Supreme Court to clarify the legality of autopen approvals.   Debate Over Unlawful Orders Heats Up: Reports claim Secretary of War Pete Hegseth ordered a second strike on a cartel boat. Hegseth denies it. Senator Mark Kelly suggested troops should rely on intuition when evaluating orders, which critics warn could lead to chaos and politicized discipline. The issue may shape U.S. operations in the Caribbean.   Global Flashpoints: Venezuela and Europe: Trump rejected demands from Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro for guaranteed amnesty and military control as part of an exit deal. Maduro may attempt a guerrilla resistance if forced out. In Europe, Islamist protests are disrupting Christmas markets in Belgium and Germany, where security costs have surged. France's populist movement is surging in polls as crime tied to migrants fuels public frustration. Portugal's populist party Chega is also now tied for first place in national polling.   Medical News: A major UK study finds that weight loss drugs like Mounjaro and Zepbound must be taken long-term to maintain results, with many patients regaining most of the weight after stopping treatment.   "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32     Keywords: Washington DC terror attack Afghan Zero Unit, Rahmanullah Lakanwal vetting failure, Trump asylum freeze Section 212f, de-naturalization debate immigration reform, Jasmin Crockett Guard criticism, Debbie Wasserman Schultz Trump blame, college degree value drop vocational training, autopen Biden executive actions, Hegseth double tap allegation, Venezuela Maduro exit talks, Belgium Germany Christmas market threats, France National Rally Bardella, Portugal Chega Ventura, GLP-1 weight loss drug study UK

Mark and Gary break down the dramatic collapse of the Georgia RICO case tied to Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, a prosecution they have followed from the start. They revisit the courtroom moments that foreshadowed the ruling, reflect on Ashleigh Merchant's pivotal role in exposing misconduct, and discuss why the judge's dismissal may mark an important course correction for the justice system.Watch Beyond A Reasonable Doubt and all Reasonable Doubt video content on YouTube exclusively at YouTube.com/ReasonableDoubtPodcast and subscribe while you're thereSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In response to the government's declarations submitted on January 17, 2025 (Dkt. 131), Sean Combs' legal team reiterates their arguments in favor of his Motion for a Hearing, Suppression, and Other Relief (Dkt. 97). The defense asserts that the government's submission fails to address critical procedural and substantive issues related to the evidence in question. Specifically, they highlight inconsistencies and potential constitutional violations in the methods used to obtain evidence against Mr. Combs, calling into question its admissibility. The defense maintains that these deficiencies warrant a full evidentiary hearing to safeguard Mr. Combs' rights under due process.Additionally, the defense emphasizes that suppression of certain evidence is not only appropriate but necessary to ensure a fair trial. They argue that the government's declarations lack sufficient justification to refute claims of improper conduct and overreach by law enforcement. By filing this response, Mr. Combs' counsel seeks to underscore the importance of addressing these legal flaws promptly and thoroughly, urging the court to grant the requested relief to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.135.0.pdf

In a filing to Judge Subramanian in United States v. Combs, S3 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the Government requests permission to admit limited additional testimony from expert witness Dr. Dawn Hughes. This request comes in response to what prosecutors describe as "forceful and repeated" arguments made by the defense during their cross-examination of the witness known as Mia. The defense, the Government argues, presented misleading implications about Mia's behavior and credibility—specifically regarding how victims of abuse are expected to act. Prosecutors contend that this line of questioning has "opened the door" for rebuttal testimony addressing misconceptions about trauma responses.The Government seeks to have Dr. Hughes offer expert insight drawn from her original notice, focused solely on clarifying how victims of abuse often exhibit behaviors that may seem counterintuitive to jurors unfamiliar with trauma psychology—such as delayed reporting, continued contact with abusers, or minimized disclosure. This testimony, they assert, is necessary to correct the jury's potential misinterpretation created by the defense's narrative. The request is framed as narrow in scope and designed not to go beyond the boundaries previously set by the Court, but rather to preserve the integrity of the witness's testimony in light of the defense's strategy.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.376.0_1.pdf

In ep 149 of “How Do You Say That?!” sponsored by britishvoiceover.co.uk, Carla Terry joins Sam and Mark to talk about singing confessions, pop star neighbours and a mathematical conundrum. We take on a courtroom drama - but which side are we on? Prosecution or Defence? And can you tell from our vocal delivery? We also merge Judie Dench, Miss Trunchbull and Anne Robinson for a TV gameshow announcer with real flair... it's a lesson in how to be mean but not too mean! Plus if you've ever wanted to play disappointed rather than angry - we have the tips and tricks.Our VO question this week is all about the best kind of live Voice of God gigs out there!Get involved! Have you got a Wildcard suggestion that we should try or an idea for the show? Send it to us via Mark or Sam's social media or email it directly to podcast@britishvoiceover.co.ukScript 1Members of the jury…You sit here not as spectators, but as the conscience of this room.Every look, every silence, every question that flickers across your mind — matters.Before you sits a man: Mr Jones. He stands accused of taking a life.A life that can never be returned.Now, Mr Jones tells us this was an accident.A misunderstanding.A tragic alignment of circumstance and coincidence.Script 2Welcome contestants. Hanging above you are a number of balls. When they drop to the floor, you just need to find one and sit on it. However, there are one hundred of you and only ninety-nine balls. The last contestant to sit on a ball will be eliminated… and you'll be blindfolded. Good luck, and remember, don't come last.We'd love your feedback - and if you listen on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, hit the follow button today!**Listen to all of our podcasts here - you can also watch on YouTube, or say to your smart speaker "Play How Do You Say That?!"About our guest: Carla Terry lives in the woods in Hertfordshire with her partner and two kids. She loves exercise - the tougher, the better, and right now, hyrox is her thing! Life's a mix of voicing, muddy walks to pubs, sport, and family chaos. She once trained with some of the toughest military in the world on a reality TV show, but these days, you'll catch her behind a mic at all sorts of events from sports and charity gigs to big corporate conferences around the world. Earlier this year, she was the live announcer for the family TV show 99 to Beat. Carla's Website @voicebycarla on Instagram Carla's Facebook page Resources: Click here for the Wildcard Generator and don't forget to think of an action your character can be doing!About your hosts:With over 40 years representing major international clients such as Google, Emirates and HSBC; Mark Ryes has been...

Investigation of Senator Mark Kelly The Department of War is investigating Senator Mark Kelly for allegedly making a seditious video urging military personnel to refuse illegal orders from President Donald Trump. The video featured Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers encouraging military and intelligence officials to uphold the Constitution and reject unlawful commands. Trump responded by calling the act sedition, demanding punishment. The Department of War reminded retirees they remain subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Possible outcomes: court martial proceedings, recall to active duty, or administrative measures. Kelly defended his actions, citing his military and NASA service record, and accused Trump of intimidation. Other Democrats publicly supported Kelly, with some using harsh language against the investigation. Dismissal of Indictment Against James Comey A Clinton-appointed judge dismissed the DOJ’s indictment against former FBI Director James Comey. Reason: The prosecutor presenting the case was unlawfully appointed, violating federal code and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The indictment accused Comey of making false statements and obstructing Congress. DOJ plans to appeal the ruling, arguing the dismissal was incorrect and justice will proceed. Commentary frames the judge as activist and warns against media narratives suggesting Comey is “off the hook.” Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A judge rules ‘defective' indictments are the reason behind throwing out prosecution of a former FBI director and NY prosecutor. What's next for the DOJ, in holding corrupt officials accountable for weaponization of the judicial system against Pres. Trump. The latest developments, and perspective on all of Tuesday's biggest stories, on the Bob Rose Show for 11-25-25

Hour 4: Homicide prosecution delays and Tommy's Weekend Winners full 2022 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 16:06:21 +0000 w2mO2igrEU3Un307fgjwTXgCaPkLillq news WWL First News with Tommy Tucker news Hour 4: Homicide prosecution delays and Tommy's Weekend Winners Tommy Tucker takes on the days' breaking headlines, plus weather, sports, traffic and more   2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News False https://player.amperwavepodca

The American occupation began amidst vast ruins; Japanese officials burned evidence regarding atrocities like Nanjing. Class A crimes focused on aggressive war, targeting senior leaders like Tojo Hideki. Crucial prosecution evidence was found in the detailed diary of the emperor's advisor, Kido Koichi. The US Supreme Court ruled against jurisdiction over earlier military commissions. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East was subsequently established.

Romans Vol. 1 - Coming Under GraceWe tend to assume we're innocent before God, confident that our good works or moral efforts will tip the scales in our favor, but Paul shows that the law only exposes our failure to meet God's perfect standard. When every excuse is stripped away and every mouth is stopped, the only hope we have is not our own righteousness but the righteousness of Christ.Sermon Preached by Chris Lewis on November 23, 2025Foothill Church exists to glorify God by living as disciples of Jesus who make disciples of Jesus.https://foothill.churchLearn about our For the Sake of His Name 2-Year Discipleship Journey:https://foothill.church/FTSOHN

From August 16, 2023: On July 18, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel unveiled criminal charges against 16 people—the “fake electors” from that state who featured in Trump's effort to hold onto power in 2020. Just a few weeks later, a special counsel in Michigan announced additional charges related to the 2020 election, this time against three people who allegedly accessed voting machines in the state without authorization. So if you've been tracking developments when it comes to accountability for misconduct surrounding the 2020 election, it's best not to take your eye off Michigan.To discuss, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic sat down with Clara Hendrickson, a politics reporter at the Detroit Free Press. They talked through the backstory behind these prosecutions and why Michigan became such a hotbed of conspiracy theories and alleged crimes in 2020.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Elie Honig is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted more than 100 mobsters, including members of La Cosa Nostra, and the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He went on to serve as Director of the Department of Law and Public Safety at New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. He is currently Special Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler and a CNN legal analyst. For a transcript of Elie's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Former FBI director James Comey's prosecution hits a major snag after prosecutors admit the grand jury never reviewed his full indictment, raising questions about whether the case can even proceed.Thousands of already released Epstein documents shed new light on the powerful figures who stayed close to Jeffrey Epstein even after his conviction.And Nvidia's staggering earnings and $5 trillion valuation fuel both optimism and warnings about whether the AI boom is entering bubble territory.Want more comprehensive analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Today's episode of Up First was edited by Anna Yukhananov, Megan Pratz, Julia Redpath, Mohamad ElBardicy, and Alice Woelfle.It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Nia Dumas and Christopher Thomas.We get engineering support from Stacey Abbott. And our technical director is Carleigh Strange.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

At 4pm ET on Nov. 19, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Molly Roberts, Anna Bower, and Roger Parloff to discuss two court hearings that occurred that day. First they discussed the hearing in the prosecution of James Comey. Then they briefly discussed the hearing in J.G.G. v. Trump, over potential contempt proceedings against the government concerning actions taken surrounding the deportation of some El Salvador immigrants to CECOT.This episode is a part of Lawfare's new livestream series, Lawfare Live: The Now. Subscribe to Lawfare on Substack or YouTube to receive an alert for future livestreams. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us a textThis week's podcast guest is Joseph Margulies, an accomplished civil rights litigator, author of three books and many online articles, and Cornell University professor. Joe was counsel of record in Supreme Court litigation that established the right of Guantanamo inmates and Americans detained abroad by American forces to challenge their detentions. He describes one of his current clients as having been “imprisoned and tortured in CIA black sites.”Joe and Fairfax criminal lawyer Jonathan Katz graduated from their respective law schools a year apart. Joe's father, Irv, was a great lawyer who was a key mentor to Jon when the litigation partner at Jon's first law firm. Detours about Irv in this interview include his sharp mind, and Joe's and Irv's commonality about the importance of strong persuasive writing skills for litigators. Jon witnessed Irv's taking even complex issues and getting right to the heart of the persuasive matter, with appropriate word imagery and emphasis. Irv's persona shines through in his combat veteran oral history.Starting with doing indigent criminal defense, Joe eventually shifted from mainly wanting to fight in court, to adopting a more client-focused approach that seeks to know his clients as people, as well as what happened in their life path that preceded their arrest and prosecution. That approach develops trust between a lawyer and client that cannot be substituted any other way, and enables the lawyer to persuasively advocate for their clients all the better.  Joe aptly says on his main professional webpage: “If history and science teach us anything, it is that any of us can do monstrous things, and if all of us can be monstrous, then none of us are monsters, which is why I do not believe in the Other, that mythical creature we are so quick to find and eager to cast out.”Asked about approaches to beating the prosecution, Joe admits that he has suffered defeats (as do all criminal defense lawyers), and focuses on the importance for a criminal defense lawyer to sharpen their writing skills, process, and re-writing. For writing excellence, Joe especially likes George Orwell, and addresses his essays, including “Politics and the English Language”.This episode is also available on YouTube and Apple podcasts. This podcast with Fairfax, Virginia criminal / DUI lawyer Jon Katz is playable on all devices at podcast.BeatTheProsecution.com. For more information, visit https://KatzJustice.com or contact us at info@KatzJustice.com, 703-383-1100 (calling), or 571-406-7268 (text). If you like what you hear on our Beat the Prosecution podcast, please take a moment to post a review at our Apple podcasts page (with stars only, or else also with a comment) at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beat-the-prosecution/id1721413675

AP correspondent Haya Panjwani reports on the former director of the FBI attempting once again to have his case thrown out.

In this episode, Wade and Tain discuss unit of prosecution. The written outline, with citations, can be found at goodjudgepod.com.

The report from the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility found that no prosecutors committed formal misconduct in approving Epstein's 2008 non-prosecution agreement, but condemned Alexander Acosta (then U.S. Attorney in Miami) for “poor judgment” in allowing the deal to proceed without full federal investigation, excluding key evidence, and failing to notify victims before the plea. It noted a troubling 11-month gap in Acosta's emailed records during the critical period when the federal indictment was being drafted and abandoned. The deal also included sweeping immunity for potential co-conspirators, negotiated with minimal transparency, while Epstein was allowed to escape what many considered imminent federal charges.Critically, the report drew fire for virtually ignoring the survivors themselves: meetings with victims, their input, and their statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act were treated superficially or bypassed entirely. One alleged victim called the report “another slap in the face,” arguing that it served more as a self-protective cover-up than a genuine reckoning of how power, money and institutional apathy let Epstein continue abusing minors. In failing to hold anyone accountable—despite what the survivors and victim-rights advocates say was extensive prosecutorial and institutional failure—the review leaves the deeper questions of enablement, institutional bias and justice for victims unanswered.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for November 14, 2025. 0:30 We dig into a surprising new analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco that challenges decades of economic dogma. For nearly a century, experts have insisted that tariffs raise prices and cripple economies—but a 150-year review of data from the U.S., UK, and France shows the opposite. We break down how tariffs can lower prices, strengthen domestic manufacturing, reduce foreign dependency, and expose the myths that fueled the rise of global competitors like China. And we look at how new trade deals and shifting economic power are reshaping American industry in real time. 9:30 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. The Prosecution against President Trump from Georgia will move forward with Peter Skandalakis as the prosecutor. California Congressman Eric Swalwell, who previously was accused of having an affair with a Chinese spy, is now accused of falsifying loans. Democrat Jared Golden of Maine announced this week he won't be seeking reelection to Congress. 12:30 Get Performlyte from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:30 We break down the debate over H-1B visas, fraud in the system, and the growing rift inside the Republican Party over immigration and specialized labor. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s proposal to cap visas and crack down on abuse faces pushback after President Trump argues that certain specialized skills simply don’t exist in sufficient numbers here at home. We explore why most H-1B visas aren’t going to top-tier engineers, how major tech and outsourcing firms have become the biggest beneficiaries, and why national security concerns are now shaping the conversation about who should—or shouldn’t—be filling America’s most sensitive industrial and defense roles. 16:00 American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson react to the backlash surrounding Sydney Sweeney’s latest film, Christie—a biopic about 1990s boxer Christy Martin—and why the movie world has turned on one of its brightest young stars. Despite keeping her politics private, Sweeney has been labeled “problematic” after reports surfaced that she’s a registered Republican. Now, after the film’s disappointing box office debut, some in the industry are blaming her for its performance.We explore the double standard in Hollywood—how major flops from firmly left-leaning stars barely make a ripple, while Sweeney’s misstep draws vitriol from actors like Ruby Rose. We also highlight Christy Martin’s heartfelt defense of Sweeney, pushing back against claims that she “ruined” the film. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 22:00 We break down the economic pressures shaping young voters—and how those frustrations helped propel Zoran Mamdani to victory in New York City. We examine the growing resentment around rent, wages, and soaring personal debt, including the staggering $1.2 trillion in U.S. credit card balances. 24:30 We Dig Deep into a new Gallup report showing one of the sharpest drops in religiosity anywhere in the world—and what that means for America’s future.We break down the 17-point decline in Americans who say faith is an important part of daily life, and why the Founders believed a moral and religious people were essential to preserving freedom. We look at how this vacuum of belief is being filled—not by God, but by government. From New York City’s Zoran Mamdani declaring that no problem is too big for government to solve, to the rise of political and ideological substitutes for religion, misplaced faith in bureaucracy threatens liberty itself. 31:30 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 32:00 We break down a sprawling, mob-linked sports betting ring that stretched across college campuses and pulled in student-athletes. We discuss how the explosion of legalized sports gambling, combined with the massive money flowing through today’s NIL era, has created fertile ground for corruption and chaos. From point-shaving schemes to young athletes being pressured by organized crime, we look at how institutions once built on discipline and merit have drifted into moral relativism and cash-driven incentives. And as New Jersey authorities uncover a multi-million-dollar criminal pipeline tied to college programs, the warning signs are getting harder to ignore. 35:00 Plus, it's Fake News Friday! We're putting you to the test with our weekly game of headlines—are they real news, fake news, or really fake news? From TSA bonuses and collapsing bridges, to chart-topping AI-generated music, Tiktok scandals, and even Tucker Carlson's interview with Bigfoot, can you spot the fake news? Play along, keep score, and share your results with us on Facebook page: facebook.com/AmericanGroundRadio. 39:00 We take a look at the Democratic National Committee’s latest internal drama: staffers being ordered back to the office after years of remote work. Long-distance governing may have contributed to the party’s recent missteps, but they aren't too happy about returning to the office and we're saying, "Whoa." 41: And we finish off with a young man with integrity. After turning in some lost cash, he was rewarded with a job. Follow us: americangroundradio.com Facebook: facebook.com / AmericanGroundRadio Instagram: instagram.com/americangroundradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The original prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in Florida wasn't just mishandled — it was corrupted from within. Three prosecutors from the same U.S. Attorney's Office—Bruce Reinhardt, Lilly Sanchez, and Matt Menchel—quit during or immediately after the Epstein investigation and went to work for him or his associates. That isn't coincidence; that's the anatomy of a fix. Each of them had access to confidential case information and leveraged that insider knowledge to cash in, turning justice into a commodity. Then, when the Office of the Inspector General reviewed it, the watchdog that should have barked called it merely “bad judgment,” effectively normalizing what was blatant ethical rot. In any other case, this would have been criminal, but in Epstein's world, betrayal was just another business decision—and the DOJ let it slide.The result was a system that protected predators and punished truth. Epstein's freedom wasn't an accident; it was a purchase, bought through a revolving door of prosecutors-turned-defenders, cushioned by bureaucrats too cowardly to act. The OIG's weak response proved that institutional loyalty outweighed moral duty, and that's why none of these people have faced consequences. If three prosecutors can defect to a child trafficker's payroll without consequence, then the justice system is broken by design. Congress should have dragged them in years ago, put them under oath, and made them answer for it. Until that happens, every promise of accountability is hollow, every “lesson learned” meaningless, and the fix remains exactly where Epstein left it — alive, protected, and thriving inside the walls of justice itself.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Glenn Wiggle, Mike Hoeflich, and Mike Sperrazza dive into the real fallout of Washington's latest government shutdown—and the hypocrisy behind politicians still cashing paychecks while everyday Americans go without. From bloated regulations driving up healthcare costs to the failures of Obamacare, the hosts call out both parties for their inaction and lack of leadership. They break down how excessive government control has crippled competition, inflated costs, and hurt working Americans, arguing for a return to smaller government, personal responsibility, and common sense. Plus, a no-holds-barred discussion on welfare reform, accountability in Congress, and why the GOP must finally deliver.(00:02:15) Impact of Government Shutdown on Individuals and Politicians(00:11:58) Impact of Regulations on Healthcare Accessibility and Costs(00:14:22) Healthcare Overhaul: Promoting Competition and Efficiency(00:24:28) Effective Legislators: Leading for Progress(00:26:37) Republican Party's Lack of Initiative and Action(00:30:24) Republican Party's Urgency for Accountability and Prosecution(00:34:29) State-Level Enforcement of Welfare to Work

The original prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in Florida wasn't just mishandled — it was corrupted from within. Three prosecutors from the same U.S. Attorney's Office—Bruce Reinhardt, Lilly Sanchez, and Matt Menchel—quit during or immediately after the Epstein investigation and went to work for him or his associates. That isn't coincidence; that's the anatomy of a fix. Each of them had access to confidential case information and leveraged that insider knowledge to cash in, turning justice into a commodity. Then, when the Office of the Inspector General reviewed it, the watchdog that should have barked called it merely “bad judgment,” effectively normalizing what was blatant ethical rot. In any other case, this would have been criminal, but in Epstein's world, betrayal was just another business decision—and the DOJ let it slide.The result was a system that protected predators and punished truth. Epstein's freedom wasn't an accident; it was a purchase, bought through a revolving door of prosecutors-turned-defenders, cushioned by bureaucrats too cowardly to act. The OIG's weak response proved that institutional loyalty outweighed moral duty, and that's why none of these people have faced consequences. If three prosecutors can defect to a child trafficker's payroll without consequence, then the justice system is broken by design. Congress should have dragged them in years ago, put them under oath, and made them answer for it. Until that happens, every promise of accountability is hollow, every “lesson learned” meaningless, and the fix remains exactly where Epstein left it — alive, protected, and thriving inside the walls of justice itself.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The original prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in Florida wasn't just mishandled — it was corrupted from within. Three prosecutors from the same U.S. Attorney's Office—Bruce Reinhardt, Lilly Sanchez, and Matt Menchel—quit during or immediately after the Epstein investigation and went to work for him or his associates. That isn't coincidence; that's the anatomy of a fix. Each of them had access to confidential case information and leveraged that insider knowledge to cash in, turning justice into a commodity. Then, when the Office of the Inspector General reviewed it, the watchdog that should have barked called it merely “bad judgment,” effectively normalizing what was blatant ethical rot. In any other case, this would have been criminal, but in Epstein's world, betrayal was just another business decision—and the DOJ let it slide.The result was a system that protected predators and punished truth. Epstein's freedom wasn't an accident; it was a purchase, bought through a revolving door of prosecutors-turned-defenders, cushioned by bureaucrats too cowardly to act. The OIG's weak response proved that institutional loyalty outweighed moral duty, and that's why none of these people have faced consequences. If three prosecutors can defect to a child trafficker's payroll without consequence, then the justice system is broken by design. Congress should have dragged them in years ago, put them under oath, and made them answer for it. Until that happens, every promise of accountability is hollow, every “lesson learned” meaningless, and the fix remains exactly where Epstein left it — alive, protected, and thriving inside the walls of justice itself.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Send us a textStorytelling is a key part of persuading in court. In this Beat the Prosecution episode, Fairfax criminal lawyer Jonathan Katz interviews one of his favorite storytellers, Danny Schnitzlein,  who penned The Monster Who Ate My Peas, which was the centerpiece of hundreds of bedtime stories told to Jon's son. Danny gives a fascinating look at his storytelling process, the key elements to a great story, and his continued connection with his inner child that enables his addressing fear and humor. Jon Katz  includes addressing the feeling aspect of stories, the healing potential in stories, and the benefit of storytelling for transporting the audience into the circle of the story in the present moment. Check out Danny's books The Monster Who Ate My Peas, Gnu and Shrew, The Monster Who Did My Math, and Monster Street. This episode also is available on YouTube and Apple podcasts. This podcast with Fairfax, Virginia criminal / DUI lawyer Jon Katz is playable on all devices at podcast.BeatTheProsecution.com. For more information, visit https://KatzJustice.com or contact us at info@KatzJustice.com, 703-383-1100 (calling), or 571-406-7268 (text). If you like what you hear on our Beat the Prosecution podcast, please take a moment to post a review at our Apple podcasts page (with stars only, or else also with a comment) at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beat-the-prosecution/id1721413675

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on  ⁨@TheEmilyDBaker⁩  YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/Gi3OiGX-PBs In this Case Brief update on the Kouri Richins case, we delve into the latest motions filed by the defense, including their attempt to subpoena Kouri Richins' sister-in-law, Katie Richins-Benson, the executive of the estate. The defense is seeking financial activities of the Eric Richins' living trust from March 3rd, 2022, to the present, as well as copies of checks drawn from the sister-in-law's personal or business accounts made payable to individuals connected to the investigation. Katie's attorney responds to the subpoena, calling the requests vague, ambiguous, and an "undue burden" and "blind fishing expedition" aimed at harassment. The attorney clarifies that individuals the defense insinuated were "paid witnesses" are actually retained expert witnesses in the civil case regarding the estate. The defense claims a witness, Robert Crozier, recanted his statement about selling fentanyl, now stating he only sold Oxy or Roxy's. The prosecution argues there's no undisclosed exculpatory evidence and that Crozier's recent assertion is not credible. The defense's motion to reconsider bail and conditions of release is discussed, with the prosecution asserting that Crozier's changed statement does not amount to a material change in circumstance. Kouri Richins' attorneys request a hearing in the civil case regarding the estate to compel production of trust report information and enforce an order requiring trust accounting, believing this information will impact the criminal trial. Stay tuned for more updates on the Kouri Richins case as motions ramp up and court dates are set. RESOURCES Kouri Richins Playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gJYyEMQDM_Cn4icqWBV20fW Kouri Richins New Motions - https://youtu.be/FGOrXwYIQA4 STAY IN THE LOOP WITH EMILY D. BAKER Download Our FREE App: https://lawnerdapp.com Get the Free Email Alert: https://www.LawNerdAlert.com Case Requests & Business Inquiries: TeamEmilyDBaker@wmeagency.com Help with the shop: https://www.lawnerdshop.com/pages/contact Mailing Address: Emily D. Baker 2000 Mallory Ln. St. 130-185, Franklin TN 37067 LAW NERD MERCH! https://www.LawNerdShop.com LONG FORM CONTENT https://www.youtube.com/@TheEmilyDBaker The Emily Show Podcast on YouTube: https://emilydbaker.com/TheEmilyShowPlaylist Apple Podcasts: https://emilydbaker.com/AppleTheEmilyShow Spotify Podcasts: https://emilydbaker.com/SpofityTheEmilyShow On your favorite podcast player Mondays EMILY ON SOCIAL @TheEmilyDBaker Instagram: https://www.Instagram.com/TheEmilyDBaker Twitter: https://www.Twitter.com/TheEmilyDBaker Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheEmilyDBaker MY YOUTUBE TOOLS **My Favorite YOUTUBE TOOL VidIQ https://vidiq.com/LawNerd Follow My Cats on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fredandgeorge_cat Emily's glasses lenses are Irlen tint https://www.irlen.com *This video is not legal advice; it is commentary for educational and entertainment purposes. Some links shared are affiliate links, all sponsorships are stated in video. Videos are based on publicly available information unless otherwise stated. Sharing a resource is not an endorsement; it is a resource. Copyright 2020-2025 Baker Media, LLC* Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

New York Attorney General Letitia James was arraigned in her bank fraud case. Donald Trump had directed his unqualified US Attorney, Lindsey Halligan, to bring those charges against James. Glenn attended the hearing in federal court in Norfolk, Virginia. He gives 2 reports from the courthouse - one before and also one after the arraignment hearing.For Glenn's Substack: hhtps://glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Donald Trump had his unqualified US Attorney - Lindsey Halligan vindictively indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on what appears to be trumped-up back fraud charges. In a bizarre new development, Halligan reached out to reported Anna Bowen on a disappearing Signal chat app and discussed aspects of the James matter. In a recurring series called The Prosecutors' Verdict, Glenn sits down with former career prosecutor Kevin Flynn to discuss this strange development, and preview James' first court appearance - the arraignment.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

President Trump seeks roughly $230 million from the Justice Department for what he calls malicious prosecutions, a move raising unprecedented conflict-of-interest concerns inside his own administration. Construction begins on a privately-funded 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom, triggering outrage from critics. Journalist Nick Sortor films inside a suspected Antifa hideout near Portland's ICE facility and is met with threats and slurs as police face questions over alleged stand-down orders. The Louvre reopens after Sunday's $100 million jewel heist as prosecutors arrest a suspect in a separate Paris museum robbery.  All Family Pharmacy: Order now at https://allfamilypharmacy.com/MEGYN and save 10% with code MEGYN10 Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.