Podcasts about recusal

Today, Thursday, May 29 on Urban Forum Northwest:*Congressman Adam Smith (D) 9th CD, Ranking Member House Armed Services Committee is dedicated to building an inclusive community, which means creating jobs and making our communities affordable and safe for all. Ensuring access to quality education and healthcare.* Attorney Lem Howell, Civil Rights Attorney, Emeritus comments on the state of political affairs in the USA today and elaborates on the "Constitutional Crisis" that he has analyzed. He will comment on the court actions repealing the desires of President Donald Trump.*Washington State Senator Bob Hasegawa (D) 11th-LD was responsible for advancing funding for the Charles Mitchell Reparations Study by placing the $300,000.00 in the senate budget that passed unanimously in the senate. Former Representative Attorney Jesse Wineberry, Sr Co- Founder, Washington Equity Now Alliance (WENA) played a key role in Senator Hasegawa's funding request.*Congressman Hank Johnson (D) GA-04 ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet along with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Re-Introduced Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act. As a part of Congressman Johnson's ongoing effort to protect and bolster the U.S. Supreme Court's independence, impartiality and accountability.Urban Forum Northwest streams live at www.1150kknw.com. Visit us at www.urbanforumnw.com for archived programs and relevant information. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

More from Rightside Media: https://www.rightsidemedia.org Our other shows: https://www.rightsidemedia.org/podcasts

This Day in Legal History: Warsaw Pact States Join NATOOn March 12, 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland became the first former Warsaw Pact countries to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This historic moment marked a significant shift in the post-Cold War security landscape, as these nations formally aligned with the Western military alliance nearly a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their accession symbolized a decisive break from their communist past and reinforced their commitment to democratic governance, rule of law, and collective defense.The expansion was not without controversy. Russia viewed NATO's eastward growth as a threat to its sphere of influence, deepening tensions that would continue into the 21st century. However, for the newly admitted countries, NATO membership provided critical security assurances against potential aggression, particularly given their historical experiences with Soviet domination. The accession process required extensive military and political reforms, ensuring that these nations met NATO's standards for democracy, civilian control of the military, and defense readiness.The inclusion of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland set the stage for further NATO enlargement, with additional Eastern European countries joining in subsequent years. It also reinforced NATO's role as a stabilizing force in Europe during a period of geopolitical uncertainty. The decision underscored the alliance's post-Cold War mission of promoting security and democracy beyond its original Western European membership. Today, this expansion remains a key milestone in the ongoing debate over NATO's role in global security and its relationship with Russia.The removal of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger has raised concerns about the politicization of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent agency that protects federal whistleblowers. Dellinger, who was dismissed by President Trump without explanation, initially challenged his firing but later withdrew his case after a federal appellate court sided with the administration. His removal highlights the administration's broader efforts to exert control over independent agencies, a move that legal experts warn could undermine their impartiality.During his tenure, Dellinger was an advocate for federal workers, helping reinstate over 5,000 Department of Agriculture employees who were improperly fired. His dismissal is expected to weaken the OSC's role in protecting workers from political retaliation. Legal scholars suggest that unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the precedent set by his firing could give future presidents greater authority over independent agencies.The case also ties into a broader legal battle over presidential power, as courts are reviewing Trump's terminations of other agency officials, including members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While Dellinger had legal grounds to challenge his firing, he strategically chose not to pursue the case, allowing stronger challenges—such as that of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox—to take precedence.The legal debate is moving toward a potential Supreme Court review of Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision that limits the president's power to remove independent agency officials. If overturned, the ruling could significantly expand presidential authority over such agencies.Dellinger Exit Deepens OSC Politicization as Workers Lose AllyA U.S. judge will hold a hearing on Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil's challenge to his arrest by immigration authorities, a case that has sparked protests and political debate. Khalil, a Palestinian student and U.S. permanent resident, was arrested outside his university residence by Homeland Security agents. The Trump administration has accused him—without providing any evidence—of supporting Hamas, though Khalil has not been charged with any crime.Judge Jesse Furman has temporarily blocked Khalil's deportation and may order his release if his rights were violated. However, an immigration court—not Furman—would ultimately decide whether Khalil can be deported, a process that could take years. Khalil's lawyers argue that his arrest is political retaliation for his pro-Palestinian activism and violates his First Amendment rights. His detention in Louisiana has limited his legal access, and his wife, who is eight months pregnant, has spoken out against his treatment.The case raises broader legal questions about the intersection of free speech and immigration law, particularly as Trump has vowed to deport foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian protests. Khalil's arrest has triggered demonstrations and condemnation from Democratic lawmakers, who view it as political repression.Judge to hold hearing over Columbia student protester's challenge to arrest | ReutersA major real estate brokerage, Howard Hanna Real Estate Services, has asked a U.S. judge in Missouri to recuse himself from an antitrust lawsuit due to political donations made to his wife's campaign by the plaintiffs' lawyers. The lawsuit accuses brokerages of conspiring to inflate real estate commissions, and plaintiffs have already won significant settlements in related cases.Howard Hanna argues that the donations create an appearance of impropriety, requiring Judge Stephen Bough's recusal under ethics rules. Bough had previously disclosed the donations and offered to step down in an earlier case, but no party requested his removal at the time. Plaintiffs' lawyer Michael Ketchmark dismissed the recusal request as meritless and a delay tactic after Howard Hanna had lost key motions.Bough's courtroom previously hosted a landmark jury verdict in a related antitrust case, leading to over a billion dollars in settlements with brokerages and the National Association of Realtors. The judge's decision on whether to step aside could impact the trajectory of ongoing real estate antitrust litigation.US judge in brokerage antitrust case faces recusal bid over political donations | ReutersNew Jersey is poised to increase its angel investor tax credit (AITC) from 20% to 35% of investment costs, with a $35 million annual cap. Given the limited funds, ensuring the credit is effectively allocated is essential. However, the proposed bill includes “carbon footprint reduction technology” as an eligible category, which could allow carbon capture projects to qualify. Critics argue that carbon capture is neither emerging nor effective—it is costly, inefficient, and largely benefits fossil fuel companies by prolonging their operations rather than reducing emissions.Instead of funding speculative or ineffective technologies, the state should prioritize investments in proven decarbonization strategies like renewable energy, battery storage, and energy efficiency improvements. These sectors have demonstrated cost savings, emissions reductions, and job creation without the need for indefinite subsidies. Tightening the AITC eligibility criteria would prevent resources from being diverted to projects with questionable climate benefits.By refining its definition of eligible technologies, New Jersey can maximize the impact of its tax credit, ensuring funds support tangible climate and economic progress. States that design smart, targeted incentives will attract startups and clean energy investments, while those that fund vague or ineffective projects risk falling behind. As federal climate incentives remain uncertain, state policies will play a crucial role in shaping the future of clean energy investment.New Jersey Should Tighten Its Angel Investor Credit Eligibility This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

For Chris Dove, it started when he came upon articles in Above the Law about the saga of then-95-year-old federal Judge Pauline Newman. A giant in IP law, Judge Newman faced allegations of poor health and declining cognitive abilities in 2023. Those allegations led to a council's recommendation that the judge be suspended and a flurry of litigation. “When I started reading for myself,” Chris recalls to hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders, “I realized there is a whole system that goes on for policing and managing federal judges that I was unaware of.” Chris' investigation into the little-known system eventually led to his paper, “Who Judges The Judges? Judicial Qualification and Recusal,” and CLEs. With Todd and Jody, he discusses broader implications around the independence and accountability of federal judges. Connect and Learn More☑️ Chris Dove ☑️ Troutman Pepper Locke on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC | LinkedIn ☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts |

The I Love CVille Show headlines: Manifest Destiny & Living In Today's World Upzoning Lawsuit Seeks Judge Worrell's Recusal Will A $646K PPP Loan Doom Lake Monticello HOA My 2025 AlbCo Real Estate Assessment Jumped 23.5%+ Name Any Bills That Leap 23.5%+ Year Over Year Charlottesville-Waynesboro Trail In Planning Stage Ralph Sampson's Take On Next BBall Coach Will UVA Qualify For The ACC Tournament Read Viewer & Listener Comments Live On-Air The I Love CVille Show airs live Monday – Friday from 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm on The I Love CVille Network. Watch and listen to The I Love CVille Show on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, iTunes, Apple Podcast, YouTube, Spotify, Fountain, Amazon Music, Audible, Rumble and iLoveCVille.com.

In this refresher episode, Wade and Tain provide an updated discussion on recusal motions - a topic that they originally addressed in a 2019 episode. The written outline, with citations, can be found at goodjudgepod.com.

This week on the Kokomo Press Podcast, Court is in Session and in light of new Discovery, we have a very Special Panel Arraigned for you this week.Host Jordan Danger Grainger is joined this week by Co-Host and Producer Extraordinaire, Hypocrisy Jones with the Cause of Action being... A Retrial!!!Panelist and longtime Kokomo Press Collaborator and Friend, Scrap Lotto is in Studio to talk all things Music, Movies, Drama, and Culture and he's doing so without Acquittal or Recusal.Rounding out our Panel and making his return for Restitution is Hip-Hop Artist and Local Legend, Jarrett Michael whose last appearance was marred by technical difficulties that Warranted a complete Appeal.With a panel of entertainers, we of course got into the nitty gritty of all things pop-culture including Franchise Remakes, the Worst and Underrated Batman, the Drake and Kendrick Beef & now Trial, a recap of our charity comedy show, and of course we had to discuss "I Prayed for This" the 2023 Album available everywhere by Jarrett Michael himself.We Redirected the Conversation into a Plethora of fun topics and for this Monday morning back after Thanksgiving Weekend, we Sentence you to an Entertaining Conversation here once again, on the Kokomo Press Podcast!     @thekokomopress on YouTube, Facebook, and instagram.Jordan Grainger is @ultrajoyed on twitter, facebook, and tiktok.Jordan Bell is @hypocrisy_jones on all major platforms.Cortni Richardson is @cortni88 on instagram and @cortni_lean on twitter.Brian West is @veinypeckerpete on twitter and @westjr.brian on instagram.

The Judge who was overseeing the Richard Allen arrest and prosecution has now recused himself after blasting the public for being blood thirsty and going so far as to say that he and his family feels threatened. A new judge has been appointed already and Richard Allen has been moved to a more secure location. (commercial at 11:02)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/delphi-murders-richard-allen-judge-recused-b2217342.html

Attorney Mark Tinsley represents the family of Mallory Beach who was killed in a boat crash in which the alleged driver was Paul Murdaugh. The Beach family is involved in an outage lawsuit with Parker's Convenience Store. Tinsley is asking that the Judge in the step down from the case. We discuss that with Seton's father and attorney Matt Siembieda. Matt Siembieda is an attorney and law professor at Temple Law School. Seton Tucker and Matt Harris began the Impact of Influence podcast shortly after the murders of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. Now they cover true crime past and present fro the southeast region of the U.S. Impact of Influence is part of the Evergreen Podcast Company. Look for Impact of Influence on Facebook and Youtube. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE) In 500 BC, corrupt judges were treated a little differently than the ones we have today. The punishments have changed, but one question remains the same: What do we do when judges can't stop taking bribes? Hold onto your birthday suit, Reb is slicing open The Judgment of Cambyses (~530 BC). (Side note: A 30-MINUTE EPISODE CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?!) Follow @RebuttalPod on Instagram and Twitter! Follow @Rebmasel on TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter! *** 00:00 - Intro 00:50 - The Cursed Envelope Case 02:38 - Judge Sisamnes gets flayed 11:22 - Impartiality is important... 12:37 - ...but Supreme Court Justices play dirty (gasp) 15:58 - Justice Thomas 18:29 - Justice Gorsuch 19:35 - Recusal reform please 21:31 - Justice Alito 22:28 - Don't get it twisted 23:43 - Justice Alito 25:02 - Justice Sotomayor 26:12 - A CODE OF CONDUCT THAT WORKS WOULD BE COOL 29:53 - Reb's Rebuttal  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week in Manhattan: Alvin Bragg is urging Judge Engoron to keep most of the gag order in place and Trump has moved, again, to have Judge Engoron recuse himself from the civil fraud case.We have updates in Nevada and Arizona fraudulent electors cases.Plus, more bad news for Bannon and the Pillow Man. Thanks to ExpressVPN for supporting our show!Get an extra 3 months free. Expressvpn.com/cleanup. Allison Gillhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com/https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotePete Strzokhttps://twitter.com/petestrzokThe Podcasthttps://twitter.com/aisle45podWant to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early?Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45podTell us about yourself and what you like about the show - http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short

It has come to light that two “more experienced” judges urged Cannon to recuse herself from the Mar-a-Lago documents case. One of them was Chief Judge Altonaga. Nevertheless, Cannon stayed on the case and has turned it into a complete mess.America First Legal– a Stephen Miller joint– has been allowed to participate as amici.We are still waiting on SCOTUS to drop their Presidential Immunity opinion so the DC case can proceed.Plus, listener questions. Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ Brian Greer's Quick Guide to CIPAhttps://www.justsecurity.org/87134/the-quick-guide-to-cipa-classified-information-procedures-act/ AMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfGood to know:Rule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady MaterialBrady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJenksJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Gigliohttps://definitions.uslegal.com/g/giglio-information/Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C. § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AGFollow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

Today we're talking about former President Trump being convicted and what that means, Supreme Court Justice Alito declining to recuse himself from upcoming cases, OpenAI making deals with media companies, and other top news for Friday, May, 31st. Stay informed while remaining focused on Christ with The Pour Over Today. Please support our TPO sponsors! Cru: give.cru.org/tpo Compassion International: compassion.com/TPO Men's Daily Bible: https://links.thepourover.org/MensDailyBiblePod Upside: https://links.thepourover.org/Upside Every Woman's Bible: everywomansbible.com

A NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll offers insights into how the outcome of former President Donald Trump's New York criminal trial might affect how people vote. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says the U.S. is paying attention as some NATO allies allow Ukraine to strike military targets inside Russia using their weapons. And Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito says he will not recuse himself from cases related to former President Trump and his 2020 election defeat. 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 Dana Farrington, Nick Spicer, Elana Hadler Perl, Lisa Thomson and Ally Schweitzer. It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Ben Abrams and Lindsay Totty. We get engineering support from Arthur Laurent. Our technical director is Zac Coleman.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Thursday, May 30th, 2024Today, both parties finish their closing arguments in the election interference trial; Trump tells donors that he will crush pro-Palestinian protests if he's elected; Judge Cannon denies Jack Smith's motion for a limited gag order in the Florida case; the Biden campaign has tapped Jan. 6 officers to campaign in battleground states ahead of the Presidential debate; the DNC is planning a virtual meeting to nominate Biden early so he can be on the Ohio ballot; an appeals court rejects the argument that the Democratic-lean of DC's jury pool makes it unfit for January 6 cases; an appeals court has upheld a retired NYPD officer's 10-year prison sentence for his role in the insurrection; plus Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comRead Justice Alito's letters rejecting calls to recuse himself from Jan. 6 Supreme Court cases (PBS)Mother of Jan. 6 officer Michael Fanone swatted after he called Trump 'authoritarian' (NBC News)Jenna Ellis, ex-Trump campaign legal adviser, has Colorado law license suspended for 3 years (CBS News)Melinda French Gates says she's donating $1B to women's rights (NBC News) Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote?utm_source=TwitterAG&utm_medium=creator_organic&utm_campaign=muellershewrote&utm_content=FollowMehttps://muellershewrote.substack.comhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsDr. Earyn McGee (Herpetologist)https://twitter.com/Afro_HerperInflation Reduction Act Guidehttps://www.whitehouse.gov/cleanenergy/inflation-reduction-act-guidebookTo mow or not to mow? What science says about early season lawn carehttps://www.kunc.org/podcast/inthenoco/2024-05-17/to-mow-or-not-to-mow-what-science-says-about-early-season-lawn-care Live Show Ticket Links:https://allisongill.com (for all tickets and show dates)Sunday, June 2nd – Chicago IL – Schubas TavernFriday June 14th – Philadelphia PA – City WinerySaturday June 15th – New York NY – City WinerySunday June 16th – Boston MA – City WineryMonday June 17th Boston, MA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-Bos2Wednesday July 10th – Portland OR – Polaris Hall(with Dana!)Thursday July 11th – Seattle WA – The Triple Door(with Dana!)Thursday July 25th Milwaukee, WI https://tinyurl.com/Beans-MKESunday July 28th Nashville, TN - with Phil Williams https://tinyurl.com/Beans-TennWednesday July 31st St. Louis, MO https://tinyurl.com/Beans-STLFriday August 16th Washington, DC - with Andy McCabe, Pete Strzok, Glenn Kirschner https://tinyurl.com/Beans-in-DCSaturday August 24 San Francisco, CA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-SF Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

In a letter to two Senators, Justice Samuel Alito explained why he is obliged to hear cases related to Donald Trump under the Supreme Court's code of conduct. What's behind the campaign to tarnish the reputations of the conservative members of the Court? Plus, 14 pro-democracy activists are convicted by a Hong Kong court under trumped up national security charges. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, Inez Stepman of the Independent Women's Forum and host of the "High Noon" podcast is in again for Jim. Join Greg and Inez as they discuss Justice Alito rejecting demands from Democrats to recuse himself on certain cases, a hilariously dumb attack from Rolling Stone designed to discredit Justice Barrett, plus Inez's latest observations from the Trump trial.First, they are pleased, though not surprised, to hear that Justice Samuel Alito refuses to recuse himself from the Trump immunity case (or other possible January 6-related lawsuits), a request made by Senate Democrats on the absurd grounds that his wife flew an upside-down American flag outside their home after a dispute with the neighbors and the Appeal to Heaven flag outside of their beach home. Next, they shake their heads as Rolling Stone tries to smear Justice Amy Coney Barrett simply due to her husband representing the parent company of Fox News in a defamation lawsuit. They explain why the left is trying to manufacture outrage against the right-leaning justices and they also make the obvious point that spouses of Supreme Court justices are still allowed to have jobs and still allowed to exercise free speech rights.Finally, they weigh in on Donald Trump's hush money trial, in which jurors are not provided with written instructions from the judge. They also note the judge's guidance that jurors need to agree that at least one of the charges against Trump is valid to have a unanimous verdict - but they don't have to agree on which of those charges he's guilty of. Inez also laments the way in which the justice system has been politicized and weaponized, which this trial has made clear.

Today, Inez Stepman of the Independent Women’s Forum and host of the “High Noon” podcast is in again for Jim. Join Greg and Inez as they discuss Justice Alito rejecting demands from Democrats to recuse himself on certain cases, a hilariously dumb attack from Rolling Stone designed to discredit Justice Barrett, plus Inez’s latest observations […]

This episode is presented by Carolina Readiness Supply – Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito smacks down Democrats' calls for him to recuse himself from two cases over the absurd manufactured outrage over two flags that his wife flew at their homes. Subscribe to the podcast at: https://ThePeteKalinerShow.com/  All the links to Pete's Prep are free: https://patreon.com/petekalinershow Get exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the 5 AM Hour: Larry O'Connor and Mercedes Schlapp discussed: ABOUT BUS TOUR: https://ourbodiesoursports.com/#bustour Justice Alito Tells Dems To Pound Sand, Refuses To Recuse Himself In J6 Cases Justice Alito tells Congress he will not recuse from Jan. 6-related cases Judge's Problematic Jury Instructions in Trump's Hush Money Trial Where to find more about WMAL's morning show:  Follow the Show Podcasts on Apple podcasts, Audible and Spotify. Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor,  @Jgunlock,  @patricepinkfile and @heatherhunterdc.  Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Show Website: https://www.wmal.com/oconnor-company/ How to listen live weekdays from 5 to 9 AM: https://www.wmal.com/listenlive/ Episode: Thursday, May 30, 2024 / 5 AM Hour  O'Connor and Company is proudly presented by Veritas AcademySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

1. Jury Starts to Deliberate in Trumps 'Hush Money' Trial: Recap of the Charges, the Burden of Proof, What the Jury Must Consider, How They'll Reach a Verdict, the Jury's Request to Rehear Certain Testimony, and More (1:31)2. Justice Alito Issues Formal Response to Calls for His Recusal After Flag Incidents; Here's What It Says (15:06)Watch this episode on YouTube.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here. 

Former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial is now in the hands of a jury. The Israeli prime minister's national security adviser says the country expects “another seven months of fighting” in Gaza. Ukrainian soldiers detail how US-supplied military tanks are faring in the war with Russia. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito says he will not recuse himself from cases related to January 6 or the 2020 election despite a flag controversy. And, Negro League statistics are being recognized in the MLB record books. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Listen to the latest from Bloomberg NewsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

1. Hush Money Trial Comes to a Close; Here's What Happens Now (0:32)2. Truth Social Post on Trump's Account About 'Unified Reich' Causes Controversy (4:23)3. Justice Alito's Upside-Down Flag in Front Yard Raises Questions (8:49)4. Quick Hitters: Rudy Giuliani and Others Plead Not Guilty in AZ, Chair of FDIC to Step Down, Biden Administration Releasing 1M Barrels of Oil (14:17)Watch this episode on YouTube.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here. 

There was a flurry of filings in the Delphi murders case — also known as the case against Richard Allen — on Friday May 17, 2024. In this episode, we will try to unpack them.Support The Murder Sheet by buying a t-shirt here: https://www.murdersheetshop.com/Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A motion for recusal or dismissal of a judge is a legal request made by one party in a case asking that the judge assigned to the case be removed or disqualified from presiding over it. This motion can be based on various grounds, such as bias or conflict of interest, which may impair the judge's ability to fairly and impartially adjudicate the case. The party making the motion typically presents evidence or arguments supporting their claim for recusal or dismissal, and the decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority. If granted, a new judge will be assigned to the case to ensure a fair trial or proceeding.Basis for the Motion: The party seeking recusal or dismissal typically asserts that the judge has a bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest that could affect their ability to fairly adjudicate the case. This bias could be based on personal relationships, financial interests, previous involvement in the case, or other factors that create the appearance of partiality.Legal Standards: Different jurisdictions have specific rules and legal standards governing when a judge should be recused or dismissed. These standards often require a showing of actual bias or the appearance of bias that would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Filing the Motion: The party making the motion submits a formal written document to the court detailing the grounds for the recusal or dismissal request. This document may include supporting evidence, such as affidavits, witness statements, or legal precedent, to bolster the argument for why the judge should step aside.Opposition and Response: The opposing party has an opportunity to respond to the motion, either agreeing or disputing the grounds for recusal or dismissal. They may present counterarguments or evidence to support the judge's impartiality and argue against the motion.Decision by the Court: The decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority, typically someone higher in the judicial hierarchy. This ensures an independent review of the allegations and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Consequences of Granting the Motion: If the motion is granted, the judge in question will be recused or dismissed from the case, and a new judge will be assigned to hear the matter. This helps to preserve the fairness and integrity of the legal proceedings and ensures that justice is served.(commercial at 8:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:PDF.COMMONWEALTH - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Judge who was overseeing the Richard Allen arrest and prosecution has now recused himself after blasting the public for being blood thirsty and going so far as to say that he and his family feels threatened. A new judge has been appointed already and Richard Allen has been moved to a more secure location. (commercial at 11:02)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/delphi-murders-richard-allen-judge-recused-b2217342.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A motion for recusal or dismissal of a judge is a legal request made by one party in a case asking that the judge assigned to the case be removed or disqualified from presiding over it. This motion can be based on various grounds, such as bias or conflict of interest, which may impair the judge's ability to fairly and impartially adjudicate the case. The party making the motion typically presents evidence or arguments supporting their claim for recusal or dismissal, and the decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority. If granted, a new judge will be assigned to the case to ensure a fair trial or proceeding.Basis for the Motion: The party seeking recusal or dismissal typically asserts that the judge has a bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest that could affect their ability to fairly adjudicate the case. This bias could be based on personal relationships, financial interests, previous involvement in the case, or other factors that create the appearance of partiality.Legal Standards: Different jurisdictions have specific rules and legal standards governing when a judge should be recused or dismissed. These standards often require a showing of actual bias or the appearance of bias that would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Filing the Motion: The party making the motion submits a formal written document to the court detailing the grounds for the recusal or dismissal request. This document may include supporting evidence, such as affidavits, witness statements, or legal precedent, to bolster the argument for why the judge should step aside.Opposition and Response: The opposing party has an opportunity to respond to the motion, either agreeing or disputing the grounds for recusal or dismissal. They may present counterarguments or evidence to support the judge's impartiality and argue against the motion.Decision by the Court: The decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority, typically someone higher in the judicial hierarchy. This ensures an independent review of the allegations and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Consequences of Granting the Motion: If the motion is granted, the judge in question will be recused or dismissed from the case, and a new judge will be assigned to hear the matter. This helps to preserve the fairness and integrity of the legal proceedings and ensures that justice is served.(commercial at 6:54)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:PDF.COMMONWEALTH - Google Drive

A motion for recusal or dismissal of a judge is a legal request made by one party in a case asking that the judge assigned to the case be removed or disqualified from presiding over it. This motion can be based on various grounds, such as bias or conflict of interest, which may impair the judge's ability to fairly and impartially adjudicate the case. The party making the motion typically presents evidence or arguments supporting their claim for recusal or dismissal, and the decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority. If granted, a new judge will be assigned to the case to ensure a fair trial or proceeding.Basis for the Motion: The party seeking recusal or dismissal typically asserts that the judge has a bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest that could affect their ability to fairly adjudicate the case. This bias could be based on personal relationships, financial interests, previous involvement in the case, or other factors that create the appearance of partiality.Legal Standards: Different jurisdictions have specific rules and legal standards governing when a judge should be recused or dismissed. These standards often require a showing of actual bias or the appearance of bias that would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Filing the Motion: The party making the motion submits a formal written document to the court detailing the grounds for the recusal or dismissal request. This document may include supporting evidence, such as affidavits, witness statements, or legal precedent, to bolster the argument for why the judge should step aside.Opposition and Response: The opposing party has an opportunity to respond to the motion, either agreeing or disputing the grounds for recusal or dismissal. They may present counterarguments or evidence to support the judge's impartiality and argue against the motion.Decision by the Court: The decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority, typically someone higher in the judicial hierarchy. This ensures an independent review of the allegations and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Consequences of Granting the Motion: If the motion is granted, the judge in question will be recused or dismissed from the case, and a new judge will be assigned to hear the matter. This helps to preserve the fairness and integrity of the legal proceedings and ensures that justice is served.(commercial at 10:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:PDF.COMMONWEALTH - Google Drive

A motion for recusal or dismissal of a judge is a legal request made by one party in a case asking that the judge assigned to the case be removed or disqualified from presiding over it. This motion can be based on various grounds, such as bias or conflict of interest, which may impair the judge's ability to fairly and impartially adjudicate the case. The party making the motion typically presents evidence or arguments supporting their claim for recusal or dismissal, and the decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority. If granted, a new judge will be assigned to the case to ensure a fair trial or proceeding.Basis for the Motion: The party seeking recusal or dismissal typically asserts that the judge has a bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest that could affect their ability to fairly adjudicate the case. This bias could be based on personal relationships, financial interests, previous involvement in the case, or other factors that create the appearance of partiality.Legal Standards: Different jurisdictions have specific rules and legal standards governing when a judge should be recused or dismissed. These standards often require a showing of actual bias or the appearance of bias that would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Filing the Motion: The party making the motion submits a formal written document to the court detailing the grounds for the recusal or dismissal request. This document may include supporting evidence, such as affidavits, witness statements, or legal precedent, to bolster the argument for why the judge should step aside.Opposition and Response: The opposing party has an opportunity to respond to the motion, either agreeing or disputing the grounds for recusal or dismissal. They may present counterarguments or evidence to support the judge's impartiality and argue against the motion.Decision by the Court: The decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority, typically someone higher in the judicial hierarchy. This ensures an independent review of the allegations and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Consequences of Granting the Motion: If the motion is granted, the judge in question will be recused or dismissed from the case, and a new judge will be assigned to hear the matter. This helps to preserve the fairness and integrity of the legal proceedings and ensures that justice is served.(commercial at 10:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:PDF.COMMONWEALTH - Google Drive

A motion for recusal or dismissal of a judge is a legal request made by one party in a case asking that the judge assigned to the case be removed or disqualified from presiding over it. This motion can be based on various grounds, such as bias or conflict of interest, which may impair the judge's ability to fairly and impartially adjudicate the case. The party making the motion typically presents evidence or arguments supporting their claim for recusal or dismissal, and the decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority. If granted, a new judge will be assigned to the case to ensure a fair trial or proceeding.Basis for the Motion: The party seeking recusal or dismissal typically asserts that the judge has a bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest that could affect their ability to fairly adjudicate the case. This bias could be based on personal relationships, financial interests, previous involvement in the case, or other factors that create the appearance of partiality.Legal Standards: Different jurisdictions have specific rules and legal standards governing when a judge should be recused or dismissed. These standards often require a showing of actual bias or the appearance of bias that would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Filing the Motion: The party making the motion submits a formal written document to the court detailing the grounds for the recusal or dismissal request. This document may include supporting evidence, such as affidavits, witness statements, or legal precedent, to bolster the argument for why the judge should step aside.Opposition and Response: The opposing party has an opportunity to respond to the motion, either agreeing or disputing the grounds for recusal or dismissal. They may present counterarguments or evidence to support the judge's impartiality and argue against the motion.Decision by the Court: The decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority, typically someone higher in the judicial hierarchy. This ensures an independent review of the allegations and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Consequences of Granting the Motion: If the motion is granted, the judge in question will be recused or dismissed from the case, and a new judge will be assigned to hear the matter. This helps to preserve the fairness and integrity of the legal proceedings and ensures that justice is served.(commercial at 8:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:PDF.COMMONWEALTH - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A motion for recusal or dismissal of a judge is a legal request made by one party in a case asking that the judge assigned to the case be removed or disqualified from presiding over it. This motion can be based on various grounds, such as bias or conflict of interest, which may impair the judge's ability to fairly and impartially adjudicate the case. The party making the motion typically presents evidence or arguments supporting their claim for recusal or dismissal, and the decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority. If granted, a new judge will be assigned to the case to ensure a fair trial or proceeding.Basis for the Motion: The party seeking recusal or dismissal typically asserts that the judge has a bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest that could affect their ability to fairly adjudicate the case. This bias could be based on personal relationships, financial interests, previous involvement in the case, or other factors that create the appearance of partiality.Legal Standards: Different jurisdictions have specific rules and legal standards governing when a judge should be recused or dismissed. These standards often require a showing of actual bias or the appearance of bias that would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Filing the Motion: The party making the motion submits a formal written document to the court detailing the grounds for the recusal or dismissal request. This document may include supporting evidence, such as affidavits, witness statements, or legal precedent, to bolster the argument for why the judge should step aside.Opposition and Response: The opposing party has an opportunity to respond to the motion, either agreeing or disputing the grounds for recusal or dismissal. They may present counterarguments or evidence to support the judge's impartiality and argue against the motion.Decision by the Court: The decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority, typically someone higher in the judicial hierarchy. This ensures an independent review of the allegations and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Consequences of Granting the Motion: If the motion is granted, the judge in question will be recused or dismissed from the case, and a new judge will be assigned to hear the matter. This helps to preserve the fairness and integrity of the legal proceedings and ensures that justice is served.(commercial at 10:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:PDF.COMMONWEALTH - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A motion for recusal or dismissal of a judge is a legal request made by one party in a case asking that the judge assigned to the case be removed or disqualified from presiding over it. This motion can be based on various grounds, such as bias or conflict of interest, which may impair the judge's ability to fairly and impartially adjudicate the case. The party making the motion typically presents evidence or arguments supporting their claim for recusal or dismissal, and the decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority. If granted, a new judge will be assigned to the case to ensure a fair trial or proceeding.Basis for the Motion: The party seeking recusal or dismissal typically asserts that the judge has a bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest that could affect their ability to fairly adjudicate the case. This bias could be based on personal relationships, financial interests, previous involvement in the case, or other factors that create the appearance of partiality.Legal Standards: Different jurisdictions have specific rules and legal standards governing when a judge should be recused or dismissed. These standards often require a showing of actual bias or the appearance of bias that would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Filing the Motion: The party making the motion submits a formal written document to the court detailing the grounds for the recusal or dismissal request. This document may include supporting evidence, such as affidavits, witness statements, or legal precedent, to bolster the argument for why the judge should step aside.Opposition and Response: The opposing party has an opportunity to respond to the motion, either agreeing or disputing the grounds for recusal or dismissal. They may present counterarguments or evidence to support the judge's impartiality and argue against the motion.Decision by the Court: The decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority, typically someone higher in the judicial hierarchy. This ensures an independent review of the allegations and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Consequences of Granting the Motion: If the motion is granted, the judge in question will be recused or dismissed from the case, and a new judge will be assigned to hear the matter. This helps to preserve the fairness and integrity of the legal proceedings and ensures that justice is served.(commercial at 9:54)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:PDF.COMMONWEALTH - Google Drive

A motion for recusal or dismissal of a judge is a legal request made by one party in a case asking that the judge assigned to the case be removed or disqualified from presiding over it. This motion can be based on various grounds, such as bias or conflict of interest, which may impair the judge's ability to fairly and impartially adjudicate the case. The party making the motion typically presents evidence or arguments supporting their claim for recusal or dismissal, and the decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority. If granted, a new judge will be assigned to the case to ensure a fair trial or proceeding.Basis for the Motion: The party seeking recusal or dismissal typically asserts that the judge has a bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest that could affect their ability to fairly adjudicate the case. This bias could be based on personal relationships, financial interests, previous involvement in the case, or other factors that create the appearance of partiality.Legal Standards: Different jurisdictions have specific rules and legal standards governing when a judge should be recused or dismissed. These standards often require a showing of actual bias or the appearance of bias that would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Filing the Motion: The party making the motion submits a formal written document to the court detailing the grounds for the recusal or dismissal request. This document may include supporting evidence, such as affidavits, witness statements, or legal precedent, to bolster the argument for why the judge should step aside.Opposition and Response: The opposing party has an opportunity to respond to the motion, either agreeing or disputing the grounds for recusal or dismissal. They may present counterarguments or evidence to support the judge's impartiality and argue against the motion.Decision by the Court: The decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority, typically someone higher in the judicial hierarchy. This ensures an independent review of the allegations and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Consequences of Granting the Motion: If the motion is granted, the judge in question will be recused or dismissed from the case, and a new judge will be assigned to hear the matter. This helps to preserve the fairness and integrity of the legal proceedings and ensures that justice is served.(commercial at 9:54)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:PDF.COMMONWEALTH - Google Drive

A motion for recusal or dismissal of a judge is a legal request made by one party in a case asking that the judge assigned to the case be removed or disqualified from presiding over it. This motion can be based on various grounds, such as bias or conflict of interest, which may impair the judge's ability to fairly and impartially adjudicate the case. The party making the motion typically presents evidence or arguments supporting their claim for recusal or dismissal, and the decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority. If granted, a new judge will be assigned to the case to ensure a fair trial or proceeding.Basis for the Motion: The party seeking recusal or dismissal typically asserts that the judge has a bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest that could affect their ability to fairly adjudicate the case. This bias could be based on personal relationships, financial interests, previous involvement in the case, or other factors that create the appearance of partiality.Legal Standards: Different jurisdictions have specific rules and legal standards governing when a judge should be recused or dismissed. These standards often require a showing of actual bias or the appearance of bias that would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Filing the Motion: The party making the motion submits a formal written document to the court detailing the grounds for the recusal or dismissal request. This document may include supporting evidence, such as affidavits, witness statements, or legal precedent, to bolster the argument for why the judge should step aside.Opposition and Response: The opposing party has an opportunity to respond to the motion, either agreeing or disputing the grounds for recusal or dismissal. They may present counterarguments or evidence to support the judge's impartiality and argue against the motion.Decision by the Court: The decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority, typically someone higher in the judicial hierarchy. This ensures an independent review of the allegations and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Consequences of Granting the Motion: If the motion is granted, the judge in question will be recused or dismissed from the case, and a new judge will be assigned to hear the matter. This helps to preserve the fairness and integrity of the legal proceedings and ensures that justice is served.(commercial at 9:54)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:PDF.COMMONWEALTH - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A motion for recusal or dismissal of a judge is a legal request made by one party in a case asking that the judge assigned to the case be removed or disqualified from presiding over it. This motion can be based on various grounds, such as bias or conflict of interest, which may impair the judge's ability to fairly and impartially adjudicate the case. The party making the motion typically presents evidence or arguments supporting their claim for recusal or dismissal, and the decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority. If granted, a new judge will be assigned to the case to ensure a fair trial or proceeding.Basis for the Motion: The party seeking recusal or dismissal typically asserts that the judge has a bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest that could affect their ability to fairly adjudicate the case. This bias could be based on personal relationships, financial interests, previous involvement in the case, or other factors that create the appearance of partiality.Legal Standards: Different jurisdictions have specific rules and legal standards governing when a judge should be recused or dismissed. These standards often require a showing of actual bias or the appearance of bias that would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Filing the Motion: The party making the motion submits a formal written document to the court detailing the grounds for the recusal or dismissal request. This document may include supporting evidence, such as affidavits, witness statements, or legal precedent, to bolster the argument for why the judge should step aside.Opposition and Response: The opposing party has an opportunity to respond to the motion, either agreeing or disputing the grounds for recusal or dismissal. They may present counterarguments or evidence to support the judge's impartiality and argue against the motion.Decision by the Court: The decision on whether to grant the motion is ultimately made by another judge or judicial authority, typically someone higher in the judicial hierarchy. This ensures an independent review of the allegations and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.Consequences of Granting the Motion: If the motion is granted, the judge in question will be recused or dismissed from the case, and a new judge will be assigned to hear the matter. This helps to preserve the fairness and integrity of the legal proceedings and ensures that justice is served.(commercial at 8:00)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:PDF.COMMONWEALTH - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Judge who was overseeing the Richard Allen arrest and prosecution has now recused himself after blasting the public for being blood thirsty and going so far as to say that he and his family feels threatened. A new judge has been appointed already and Richard Allen has been moved to a more secure location. (commercial at 11:02)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/delphi-murders-richard-allen-judge-recused-b2217342.html

A case before the US Supreme Court involves the legality of obstruction charges for January 6th insurrectionists. Even though the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas supported Trump's effort to subvert the 2020 election, Thomas will not recuse himself. During his questioning yesterday, he appeared to minimize the insurrection saying “there have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings.” He then asked if this obstruction charge had been applied to other protests as if anything could approach similarity to the storming of the US. Capitol. Political analyst and presidential historian John Rothmann will join us to discuss. Get ready for “It's the Planet, Stupid!” Environmental journalist Belinda Waymouth takes a look at how the justice system is handling environmental cases and how it could make a big difference.

We have updates on the NYAG civil fraud $175M “Subprime Car Loan King” bond debacle, Trump's flurry of motions in a desperate attempt to delay or dismiss the Manhattan hush money criminal trial, Rudy's bankruptcy, Fulton County, and  the disbarment proceedings of Jeffrey Clark and John Eastman.Representatives Biggs and Gosar get subpoenaed by Arizona prosecutors in their fraudulent electors investigation.Plus Pete Navarro goes Supreme Court Shopping; FCI Trump and more. FCI Miami Commissary https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/mia/mia_legal_activities.pdf Allison Gillhttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotePete Strzokhttps://twitter.com/petestrzokThe Podcasthttps://twitter.com/aisle45podWant to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early?Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45podTell us about yourself and what you like about the show - http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short

In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson and guest Ankush Khardori delve into the tangled web of legal challenges surrounding former President Trump. We dissects a series of cases poised to reshape our understanding of presidential immunity and the limits of executive power. Tune in for an episode rich in legal insight, where the implications of these judicial battles are laid bare, revealing a complex mosaic of potential outcomes that could alter the political and legal landscape. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1️⃣ Trump's Immunity and Public Perception: A significant portion of the discussion revolved around Trump's claims of immunity, the consequences of his potential conviction, and public opinion on the matter, noting a poll revealing a potential conviction would negatively impact his support among independents and Republicans.2️⃣ Michael Cohen's Credibility: Ankush Khardori discussed the use of Michael Cohen's public statements to question his reliability in the trial, highlighting inconsistent statements and animosity towards Trump. The challenges of proving Trump's knowledge of wrongdoing and rehabilitating Cohen as a witness were also explored. 3️⃣ Mar-a-Lago Case & Jury Instructions: We delve into the Mar-a-Lago case, with a particular focus on proposed jury instructions and Judge Eileen Cannon's rulings. We voiced concerns about the legality and implications of the proposed instructions and the judge's perceived favorable treatment of Trump's arguments.Follow Our Host:On Threads: @LevinsonJessica

...Plus, Reality of women and pregnancy complications leaves GOP flummoxed

Things are getting heated in D.C., where Donald Trump is blasting Special Counsel Jack Smith's request to restrict his public comments on the federal election fraud case. MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord dig into Judge Chutkan's options, plus Trump's effort to get that judge to recuse herself. They'll also break down the latest in GA where yet another Trump co-defendant is trying to get his case moved to federal court.