Podcasts about usaid

Allie and Judd Saul, the founder of Equipping the Persecuted, expose how the mainstream media is downplaying Nigeria's Christian genocide. Thousands slaughtered, villages erased, churches burned by radical Fulani jihadists, while the government turns a blind eye. However, the tide may be turning, as Donald Trump has vowed to take action to protect Christians, while Nicki Minaj brought attention to the genocide at the United Nations. Hope rises amid horror. Join us to pray, awaken the church, and stand with our persecuted family before it's too late. Learn more about Judd Saul's ministry outreach, Equipping the Persecuted, here: ⁠https://equippingthepersecuted.org⁠ Buy Allie's book "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion": ⁠⁠⁠https://www.toxicempathy.com⁠⁠ --- Timecodes: (00:00) Intro (00:25) Radical Islam's Threat (08:30) Religion in Nigeria (13:10) How to Stop the Genocide (19:50) US Aid (25:25) Attacks on Christians (38:50) Islam Infiltrating America (47:10) Nicki Minaj Speaks Up (51:55) Muslims Convert to Christianity --- Today's Sponsors: Good Ranchers — Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠GoodRanchers.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and subscribe to any box (but preferably the Allie Beth Stuckey Box) to get free burgers, hot dogs, bacon, or chicken wings in every box for life. Plus, you'll get $40 off when you use code ALLIE at checkout. Jase Medical — Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jase.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and enter code ALLIE at checkout for a discount on your order. Cozy Earth - Go to ⁠⁠CozyEarth.com/RELATABLE⁠⁠ and use code RELATABLE for up to 40%! Pre-Born — Will you help rescue babies' lives? Donate by calling #250 and say keyword BABY or go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠Preborn.com/ALLIE⁠⁠⁠⁠. Patriot Mobile — Go to⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PatriotMobile.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠or call 972-PATRIOT and use promo code ALLIE for a free month of service! Carly Jean Los Angeles — Go to CarlyJeanLosAngeles.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and use code ALLIEB to get 20% off your first CJLA order, site wide (one-time use only) and start filling your closet with timeless staple pieces --- Episodes you might like: Ep 1255 | Jihad vs. Jesus: Islam's Plan to Conquer Christian America | Raymond Ibrahim https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/relatable-with-allie-beth-stuckey/id1359249098?i=1000732327165 Ep 1115 | Islam Taught Her to Hate Christians — Then She Became One | Guest: Lily Meschi ⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1115-islam-taught-her-to-hate-christians-then-she/id1359249098?i=1000680609640⁠ Ep 909 | The Left Is Falling in Love with Osama bin Laden | Guest: James Lindsay ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-909-the-left-is-falling-in-love-with-osama-bin/id1359249098?i=1000635088760⁠ Ep 109 | Intersectionality & Islam ⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-109-intersectionality-islam/id1359249098?i=1000437500986⁠⁠ --- Buy Allie's book "You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love": ⁠⁠https://www.alliebethstuckey.com⁠⁠   Relatable merchandise – use promo code ALLIE10 for a discount: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Trump has signed a bill that gives the US Justice Department thirty days to release its files on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Some of the documents could be withheld or heavily redacted. Also: Silicon Valley's Nvidia sees record earnings amid AI boom; Israel conducts major airstrikes in Gaza despite ceasefire; FBI intensifies search for "modern day Pablo Escobar"; Colombia pushes ahead with controversial airstrikes on rebel groups; Ukrainian suspect faces extradition in Nord Stream investigation; the philanthropists filling the gap left by USAID withdrawal; and Gustav Klimt's Portrait of Elisabeth Lederer goes under the hammer. The Global News Podcast brings you the breaking news you need to hear, as it happens. Listen for the latest headlines and current affairs from around the world. Politics, economics, climate, business, technology, health – we cover it all with expert analysis and insight. Get the news that matters, delivered twice a day on weekdays and daily at weekends, plus special bonus episodes reacting to urgent breaking stories. Follow or subscribe now and never miss a moment. Get in touch: globalpodcast@bbc.co.uk

We examine the fallout from the cuts to US foreign aid.We meet projects in Rwanda and Nepal that were close to shutting down - and hear the story of a mystery donor who stepped in to keep them going. But how long will the support last? Presented and produced by Sam Fenwick (Image: Beatha making soap in Rwanda as part of one of the projects funded by USAID. Credit: Village Enterprise)

Tommy and Ben discuss Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's visit to Washington, his request for F-35 fighter jets and a NATO-like security guarantee, the real estate deals the Trump family might get in return, and how corruption is driving US foreign policy, including in the case of a gold-bar bribe from the Swiss. Then they talk about new reports on embattled (and embarrassing) FBI Director Kash Patel, what leaked emails tell us about Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with Israeli intelligence and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, how Chinese hackers used AI in a game-changing new way, why the former prime minister of Bangladesh was sentenced to death, a massive corruption scandal in Ukraine, an update on civilians fleeing violence in Sudan, and a new documentary about how Adolf Hitler's teeny tiny secret caused big problems. Then Ben speaks with author and former assistant administrator at USAID, Atul Gawande, whose new documentary “Rovina's Choice” highlights the staggering rise in preventable malnutrition and deaths after American cuts to foreign aid.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Andy Kim, U.S. Senator (D NJ), talks about his work in the Senate and the issues in New Jersey, including ACA subsidies, the  New Jersey election results, USAID and more.

Paul Martin was fired from his role as USAID Inspector General after he published a report warning that the Trump administration's plans to dismantle USAID placed more than $480 million in food and other commodities in danger of spoilage or theft. Martin joins us to recount the chaotic few months leading up to his termination from USAID and how his firing fits into a broader assault on independent government oversight and Constitutional checks and balances that are essential to American democracy.Martin served as Inspector General for USAID from January 2024 through February 11, 2025. He previously served for fourteen years as Inspector General for NASA and Vice Chair of the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. He received a bachelor's degree in journalism from Penn State, where he was part of The Daily Collegian, and a law degree from Georgetown Law. His lecture, which also features former U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent, is available on the McCourtney Institute's YouTube channel. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

CannCon and Zak Paine tear into a massive morning of political chaos, media spin, and narrative warfare in this loaded episode of Badlands Daily. They break down USAID-funded media collapse, the absurdity of the Epstein email frenzy, and how every “bombshell” continues to blow back on Democrats instead of Trump. As the hosts walk through Dershowitz clips, Politico narratives, Plaskett's exposed text messages, and Trump's pointed Truth Social posts demanding the release of Epstein files, they lay out why the story looks less like a scandal for Trump, and more like a trap sprung on his enemies. The conversation intensifies with new hit pieces from NPR and Media Matters targeting Badlands hosts, dissecting why establishment media is suddenly panicked about the “Trump-as-informant” theory. CannCon and Zak dive into the mechanics of lawfare, DOJ maneuvers, Pam Bondi's involvement, SDNY strategy, the unfolding J6 pipe bomber controversy, and the timing of federal investigations hinted at by Cash Patel. With humor, receipts, and sharp analysis, they expose the layers of psyops, midterm setups, and narrative control attempts swirling through the political ecosystem.

Viện trợ thời hậu USAID sẽ phụ thuộc vào giá trị chiến lược của một quốc gia đối với Washington.Xem thêm.

Long time lurker, first time poster - be nice please! :) I was searching for summary data of EA funding trends, but couldn't find anything more recent than Tyler's post from 2022. So I decided to update it. If this analysis is done properly anywhere, please let me know. The spreadsheet is here (some things might look weird due to importing from Excel to sheets) Observations EA grantmaking appears on a steady downward trend since 2022 / FTX. The squeeze on GH funding to support AI / other longtermist priorities appears to be really taking effect this year (though 2025 is a rough estimate and has significant uncertainty.) I am really interested in particular about the apparent drop in GW grants this year. I suspect that it is wrong or at least misleading - the metrics report suggests they are raising ~$300m p.a. from non OP donors. Not sure if I have made an error (missing direct to charity donations?) or if they are just sitting on funding with the ongoing USAID disruption. Methodology I compiled the latest grants databases from EA Funds, GiveWell, OpenPhilanthropy, and SFF. I added summary level data from ACE. To remove [...] ---Outline:(00:41) Observations(01:26) Methodology(02:12) Notes --- First published: November 14th, 2025 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/NWHb4nsnXRxDDFGLy/historical-ea-funding-data-2025-update --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

Daylight savings propaganda. The communist training camps we are sending our young ladies too. Trump does not share the limelight. Married to a Canadian honeypot. What props did Jesse vote against in Texas? USAID was funding the BBC while they lied about Trump. Follow The Jesse Kelly Show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheJesseKellyShowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Drew learned about gold, silver & retirement with Augusta – now it's your turn: https://drdrew.com/gold • “Names will be named” says Robert Kennedy III, author of “The Confessions of Anthony Fauci” (avail Nov 18). Bobby “The Third” is the son of HHS Secretary RFK Jr. and married former CIA spy Amaryllis Fox. While investigating Dr. Anthony Fauci's connections to gain-of-function research and the COVID-19 pandemic, Bobby says he went down a rabbit hole and discovered “USAID was shipping bat coronaviruses to Wuhan through a now-defunct firm called Metabiota… and the #2 investor? Hunter Biden's Rosemont Seneca.” Activist Marc Morano joins live from Belém, Brazil, where he is covering the UN's COP30 (also known as Clear-Cut30). Robert Kennedy III is the author of The Confessions of Anthony Fauci. He previously directed Fear & Loathing in Aspen, chronicling Hunter S. Thompson's 1970 run for sheriff, and is married to Amaryllis Fox, the former CIA spy now serving as deputy director of National Intelligence. Learn more at https://x.com/bobbykennedyx⠀Marc Morano is publisher of ClimateDepot.com, a former senior staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and producer of Climate Hustle and Climate Hustle 2. He is the author of The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown. Follow at https://x.com/climatedepot 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 Find out more about the brands that make this show possible and get special discounts on Dr. Drew's favorite products at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/sponsors⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  • AUGUSTA PRECIOUS METALS – Thousands of Americans are moving portions of their retirement into physical gold & silver. Learn more in this 3-minute report from our friends at Augusta Precious Metals: https://drdrew.com/gold or text DREW to 35052 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠• FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/fatty15⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/paleovalley⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • VSHREDMD – Formulated by Dr. Drew: The Science of Cellular Health + World-Class Training Programs, Premium Content, and 1-1 Training with Certified V Shred Coaches! More at https://drdrew.com/vshredmd • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twc.health/drew⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your physician before making any decisions about your health. 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://kalebnation.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) and Susan Pinsky (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/firstladyoflov⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠e⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Executive Producers • Kaleb Nation - ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://kalebnation.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ • Susan Pinsky - ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/firstladyoflove⁠⁠⁠⁠ Content Producer & Booking • Emily Barsh - ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/emilytvproducer⁠⁠⁠⁠ Hosted By • Dr. Drew Pinsky - ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/drdrew⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We are still going to continue with our dig into UN women's bovine excrement, but before we do, we've got to give a shoutout to us, from the past. We've talked about how USAID manipulated other nations'governments. Three guesses who else's government they tried to manipulate and control, and the first 2 don't count!

Hold deg fast – her kommer en episode som virkelig får deg til å lure på hvor skattepengene dine egentlig havner! Are Søberg, den skarpe finansmannen og fondsforvalteren, bedre kjent som "Sløseriombudsmannen" med over 100 000 dedikerte følgere på Facebook, er tilbake som gjest. Han gransker offentlig sløsing, absurd byråkrati og korrupsjon i bistand med laserpresisjon, og i denne runden tar vi et dypdykk inn i det grønne skiftets mørke sider.Vi kickstarter med en hysterisk anekdote fra Kåkånomics-festivalen der Are plutselig blir Norges egen Elon Musk for en toppsjef i US AID – latteren sitter løst! Så graver vi oss ned i palmeolje-bløffen som Jens Stoltenberg raste over i selvbiografien sin, kinesiske klimasvindler og det totalt uklare klimabudsjettet som sluker milliarder uten resultater. Mot slutten reflekterer vi over all kritikken mot podkaster som min: Hvorfor er folk så redde for frie stemmer? Er det ikke bra at podkaster lar oss demokratisere debatten? Denne episoden er en øyeåpner som blander latter, sjokk og skarpe innsikter – perfekt for deg som vil le mens du tenker kritisk over sløsinga som rammer oss alle!► DONASJONERVipps: Søk opp “Snakk med Silje” eller bruk vippsnummer: 806513Bitcoin lightning adresse: psykologsilje@bb.noPayPal:NOK: https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=LZBFC3PKM8ECA► KANALERSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3XIJBJlX8FyZkyluivEch7Apple podkaster: https://podcasts.apple.com/no/podcast/snakk-med-silje/id1684607083YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@SnakkMedSiljeSubstack: https://open.substack.com/pub/psykologsilje► SOMEInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/psykologsilje?igsh=MW84MDE0MWplc2FwbA==TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@psykologsilje?_t=8oc3HBC1r4z&_r=1Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/psykologsiljeTwitter: https://x.com/Silje_SchevigLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/silje-schevig-243750101?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app

Headlines for November 13, 2025; Trump “Knew About The Girls”: Calls Grow For Full Epstein Files After Release of Emails; Rep. Adelita Grijalva Speaks out on Epstein Files & More After Being Sworn in 7 Weeks Late; Dr. Atul Gawande: Hundreds of Thousands Have Already Died Since Trump Closed USAID

Episode Summary (for marketing + platforms):In this episode of The Social Impact Podcast, host Bree Jensen sits down with Jace Newton, Director of Impact at Liquid I.V., to explore how a simple hydration product has grown into a global force for good.From his early days teaching in Morocco to leading impact initiatives at USAID and Liquid I.V., Jace shares how purpose, travel, and listening to communities shaped his career in humanitarian relief. Together, Bree and Jace dive into Liquid I.V.'s mission to provide clean water access for 2 million people by 2026, their groundbreaking Confluence program funding 16 U.S. water organizations, and their role in disaster relief—from wildfires in California to communities around the world.Listeners will learn what it takes to build community-first impact, the importance of knowing your role during crises, and how corporations can lead through sustainable purpose.

Episode Summary (for marketing + platforms):In this episode of The Social Impact Podcast, host Bree Jensen sits down with Jace Newton, Director of Impact at Liquid I.V., to explore how a simple hydration product has grown into a global force for good.From his early days teaching in Morocco to leading impact initiatives at USAID and Liquid I.V., Jace shares how purpose, travel, and listening to communities shaped his career in humanitarian relief. Together, Bree and Jace dive into Liquid I.V.'s mission to provide clean water access for 2 million people by 2026, their groundbreaking Confluence program funding 16 U.S. water organizations, and their role in disaster relief—from wildfires in California to communities around the world.Listeners will learn what it takes to build community-first impact, the importance of knowing your role during crises, and how corporations can lead through sustainable purpose.

Unleashed: The Political News Hour with Nate Cain – Democrats folded like a cheap suit as the Senate passed a clean funding bill 60-40. President Trump turned their surrender into a kill shot on Obamacare, demanding hundreds of billions go directly to American families instead of insurance cartels. The Supreme Court just grabbed the Mississippi late-ballot case, deep-state USAID traitors got...

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger Picture Fed Miran is pushing for another rate cut. Secretary Burgum says lower energy prices means lower prices. This is how Trump battling the [CB] inflation machine. Elon explains debt slavery. Trump is building the golden age and bringing us back to sound money and the constitution.  The FBI/DOJ are handling multiple investigations behind the scenes. They just release the Clinton Corruption Files. These files show how the Clinton's accepted money from foreign groups in a pay to play scheme. It has begun the people will begin to learn who has been treasonous to this country. Trump is in the process of constructing a new America. The [DS] tried to destroy it and now Trump is building a new one.   Economy (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Fed's Miran Pushes Another Rate Cut. A Smaller Move Could Be Enough.  Federal Reserve governor Stephen Miran said Monday he could support a quarter percentage-point rate cut at the Fed's December meeting, even though he continues to see a stronger case for a half-point move. Source: barrons.com https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1987969323508363295?s=20 https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/1988263397012500691?s=20   laundering. They showed it to you and then they shut it down. NGOs the world over getting unverified, often untraceable, no-questions-asked disbursements from the US Treasury. To the tune of hundreds of billions a year. This was ON TOP OF the billions they were sending to Ukraine and about 60 other countries as 'foreign aid'. They extract a massive amount of wealth from the American public yearly. Around $2 trillion, I think. Then, they used the US Treasury payment system to disburse over 100 billion/year to their NGOs around the world to launder that money to themselves. This was probably one of the BIGGEST revenue streams they had. And it was the first one Trump and the DOGE boys cut earlier this year. When this was happening, you had the lawmakers in Congress and former presidential administration officials SCREAMING at Trump and Bessent to turn the USAID and other NGO disbursements back on. You don't hear much of their whining anymore. They know it's not going to happen. Trump got the US federal government to a surplus in 2 of the past 10 months. I guarantee you NONE of the rat bastards who's carefully constructed taxation-and-theft system he's destroying saw this coming a year ago. And that's a beautiful thing.  https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1988243440685977644?s=20   was caused by the big deficit spending." "So as you bring down deficit spending, inflation will come down. Right now, we've taken substantial tariff income over time that will rebalance as the factories move to the U.S. and that will become the corporate income or wage income - and by bringing down the budget deficit, we are bringing down inflation!" Scott is setting the record straight   https://twitter.com/NewsTreason/status/1988113088449487254?s=20 terms of investment, from the tariffs." Notice he didn't say “stimulus” he said “dividend”….  DIVIDEND: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually in the form of cash or additional shares of stock.

It's the 60th anniversary of the failed coup in Indonesia, the rise of the dictator Suharto and the removal of popular leader Sukarno. The events that followed the coup led to a period mass killings across the archipelago nation. It's estimated that anywhere between 500,000-3 million people, mostly members of the PKI (the Indonesian Communist Party), were killed. Besides the mass murder of PKI members and anyone else identified as an opponent to the regime, Suharto's forces carried out an erasure of the history and culture of the opposition. Since the fall of Suharto in 1998, declassified documents have shown us the significant role that the Indonesia military took in the genocide and the role western governments (the U.S., the U.K., Australia) played in Suharto's takeover.To discuss all of this, we're re-joined by Dr. Clinton Fernandes. We discuss the history of Indonesia's failed coup and the subsequent genocide, the role of western governments and politics in Indonesia today. Bio//Clinton Fernandes is an Australian historian and scholar who is professor of international and political studies at the University of New South Wales in Canberra, Australia.-----------------

Live from Crooked Con, Tommy and Ben look back at the last year since Trump was re-elected and unpack the worst and most surprising moments of Trump 2.0 foreign policy, including the president's bogus claims that he's a “peacemaker,” the continuing horrors of Russia's war on Ukraine, the administration's incoherence on China, and the catastrophic gutting of USAID. Then the guys are joined by Representatives Yassamin Ansari and Ro Khanna to discuss the future of Democratic foreign policy. They talk about how the next generation of Democrats should lead on immigration, Israel, Iran, climate change, Venezuela, and more. Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

-The BBC gets a savage takedown for editing Trump's J6 speech while Rob gleefully shouts “Bye-bye BBC!” -On the Newsmax Hotline, Mike Benz joins to drop reporting bombs—figuratively and almost literally—about Stanford's censorship empire, USAID's “regime change hobby,” and the still-missing January 6 pipe bomber. Today's podcast is sponsored by :GET FRESH OLIVE OIL : Try real farm fresh olive oils for FREE plus $1 dollar shipping at http://GetFreshRobCarson.com BEAM DREAM POWDER : Improve your health by improving your sleep! Get 40% off this sleep supplement by using code NEWSMAX at http://shopbeam.com/NewsmaxBIRCH GOLD - Protect and grow your retirement savings with gold. Text ROB to 98 98 98 for your FREE information kit! To call in and speak with Rob Carson live on the show, dial 1-800-922-6680 between the hours of 12 Noon and 3:00 pm Eastern Time Monday through Friday…E-mail Rob Carson at : RobCarsonShow@gmail.com Musical parodies provided by Jim Gossett (www.patreon.com/JimGossettComedy) Listen to Newsmax LIVE and see our entire podcast lineup at http://Newsmax.com/Listen Make the switch to NEWSMAX today! Get your 15 day free trial of NEWSMAX+ at http://NewsmaxPlus.com Looking for NEWSMAX caps, tees, mugs & more? Check out the Newsmax merchandise shop at : http://nws.mx/shop Follow NEWSMAX on Social Media:  -Facebook: http://nws.mx/FB  -X/Twitter: http://nws.mx/twitter -Instagram: http://nws.mx/IG -YouTube: https://youtube.com/NewsmaxTV -Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsmaxTV -TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@NEWSMAX -GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/newsmax -Threads: http://threads.net/@NEWSMAX  -Telegram: http://t.me/newsmax  -BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/newsmax.com -Parler: http://app.parler.com/newsmax Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sunday on PBS News Weekend, lawmakers hold a rare Sunday session to try to break the stalemate on day 40 of the shutdown. Famine spreads through Sudan as tens of thousands flee violence in the city of El-Fasher. A new study suggests a troubling connection between medical imaging and pediatric cancer. Plus, the effect of ending USAID funding on countries like Indonesia and America’s image abroad. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The ripple effects of the Trump administration’s elimination of USAID are being felt in dozens of countries where the agency supported initiatives ranging from public health programs to infrastructure and climate resilience projects. Angeles Ponpa from Northwestern University’s school of journalism traveled to Indonesia to see the effect on one of the world’s fastest-sinking cities. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The ripple effects of the Trump administration’s elimination of USAID are being felt in dozens of countries where the agency supported initiatives ranging from public health programs to infrastructure and climate resilience projects. Angeles Ponpa from Northwestern University’s school of journalism traveled to Indonesia to see the effect on one of the world’s fastest-sinking cities. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

In this episode, our guest is Candace Miller, a seasoned global development and public health expert who has spent decades leading impactful programs across Africa, with organizations like the Millennium Challenge Corporation and USAID's Power Africa. Candace shares how her hands-on experience in energy access—particularly through solar mini-grids for health facilities—sparked her shift into clean energy advocacy in the U.S. Now focused on accelerating the energy transition in the Northeast, she discusses policy barriers, affordability concerns, and the critical role of combating misinformation. From electrifying health clinics in Africa to navigating permitting hurdles in Massachusetts, Candace brings deep insight and optimism to the evolving clean energy landscape. She also weighs in on the future of EVs, the role of citizen movements, and the emerging potential of fusion energy. Please join to find more. Connect with Sohail Hasnie: Facebook @sohailhasnie X (Twitter) @shasnie LinkedIn @shasnie ADB Blog Sohail Hasnie YouTube @energypreneurs Instagram @energypreneurs Tiktok @energypreneurs Spotify Video @energypreneurs

JVL is half-delirious from the shingles vaccine and Sarah Longwell is dragging him through one of the wildest weeks in politics. From massive Democratic wins to Jeff Flake's fantasy-land op-ed, Elon Musk's trillion-dollar ego trip, and the jaw-dropping humanitarian fallout from dismantling USAID. They break down why Republicans are in full disarray, how Trump's SNAP showdown is backfiring, and what new polling says about the road ahead.

Musk, Rubio, and Trump dismantled USAID, without any warning, in a matter of months. The results of this action have been catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of people have died, 2/3's of those who've died are children. That death toll will continue to grow. Public man mad death, all courtesy of Musk, Rubio, and Trump. And Congress & the Supreme Court did nothing to stop them. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tara exposes a series of shocking truths—from the Wuhan lab origins of COVID-19 and government censorship, to Chinese researchers smuggling weaponized pathogens into the U.S., to the infiltration of U.S. universities by foreign agents. She also explores alarming trends in American politics, crime glorification, economic sabotage, and workforce instability. This episode is a hard-hitting examination of threats to national security, public health, and everyday American life. Lies, cover-ups, bioweapons, and a country teetering on the edge—what you're not being told. In this explosive episode, Tara unpacks multiple crises facing the United States: 1. **COVID Origins and Cover-Ups:** UNC virologist Ralph Baric briefed U.S. intelligence agencies in January 2020 that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan military lab, yet government agencies, social media platforms, and leading officials censored and misrepresented the facts for years. 2. **Funding Controversy:** Millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars from the Pentagon and USAID were sent to the Wuhan lab, raising questions about accountability and potential complicity in the pandemic's spread. 3. **Bioweapon Smuggling:** Chinese researchers at the University of Michigan have been caught attempting to smuggle genetically modified pathogens, including weaponized blight and ringworm, threatening American agriculture and public health. 4. **Political and Social Chaos:** Tara discusses alarming trends in U.S. politics, including crime glorification, illegal immigrant candidates, extremist political aspirants, and infiltration of government and defense agencies by foreign actors. 5. **Economic Instability:** October layoffs hit a 22-year high, while Federal Reserve actions, influenced by political agendas, are affecting job growth and economic stability. 6. **Cultural and Social Shifts:** Observations on early holiday displays, side hustles, and changing societal norms reflect a nation under stress and transition. This episode blends investigative reporting, national security concerns, and social commentary, warning listeners of the hidden forces shaping America's present and future. COVID-19, Wuhan lab, Ralph Baric, Anthony Fauci, deep state, censorship, Facebook, YouTube, U.S. defense funding, Pentagon, USAID, Chinese bioweapons, smuggling, University of Michigan, Gordon Chang, STEM espionage, food security, agricultural threats, revelation, crime glorification, Democratic politics, illegal immigration, extremist candidates, economic sabotage, Jerome Powell, layoffs, side hustles, Tara Show, national security

The lab, the lies, the cover-up — the COVID story they didn't want you to know. Tara exposes the shocking truth behind the origins of COVID-19, censorship, and government deception. From the Wuhan lab to U.S. funding of bioweapons research, she unpacks whistleblower revelations, FOIA documents, and testimony from top virologists like Dr. Ralph Baric. Learn how intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, and social media platforms allegedly covered up the lab origin of COVID-19, while millions of lives were lost. This episode dives deep into why the truth was suppressed, who may be responsible, and what it means for accountability in America. Tara unpacks explosive revelations about COVID-19 and the U.S. government's response: Lab Origins Confirmed: Top virologist Dr. Ralph Baric testified to intelligence agencies in January 2020 that COVID-19 originated from gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, contradicting official claims of a wet market origin. Government Cover-Up: Despite knowing the truth, agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI, along with Dr. Fauci, allegedly misled the public. Social media platforms censored posts and blocked experts who raised the lab-leak theory. U.S. Funding of Wuhan Lab: Millions in Pentagon and USAID funding allegedly supported research at the Wuhan facility, described as a Chinese military bioweapons lab, raising questions about U.S. accountability and allegiance. Media Silence: Despite FOIA documents and whistleblower evidence, major outlets largely ignored the story, leaving Americans uninformed while the pandemic spread and millions died. Ongoing Questions: Tara examines why the U.S. allowed research at a foreign military bioweapons lab, who benefited from the cover-up, and whether elements of the government may still be compromised. This episode exposes a complex web of deception, censorship, and mismanagement surrounding the pandemic, challenging listeners to reconsider what they thought they knew about COVID-19 and government transparency. COVID-19 origin, Wuhan lab, Ralph Baric, Dr. Shi Zhengli, intelligence community, CIA, FBI, NSA, FOIA, Anthony Fauci, Pentagon funding, US government cover-up, bioweapons research, censorship, social media bans, RFK, virologists, COVID whistleblower, deep state, Tara Show, global pandemic

AOT2 and Ugochi discuss Nigerians celebrating Halloween, the Lagos State Government's 24-hour traffic management operation ahead of the festive season, and a hilarious “Believe It or Not” story about a woman who reported the sun to the police. They also talk X of the Week, Essentials for going to a strip club, Once Upon a Time, and round up with Prop and Flop of the Week before signing out. OUTLINE00:00 - Introduction04:00 - Catch up19:30 - Nigerians celebrating Halloween 31:44 - X of the week41:30 - Believe it or not - woman who reported the sun to the police station50:00 - Essentials for going to a strip club01:07:10 - Lagos state Government declares a state-wide 24-hour traffic management operation ahead of the festive season01:15:16 -  Once Upon a Time 01:28:30 - Prop and flop of the week01:39:30 - Sign out

Today, on the Hudson Mohawk Magazine, Mark Dunlea starts with an overview of elections on November 4th. Then, for our peace segment, we hear about nuclear disarmament and Venezuela. Later on, Rosemary Armao discusses the shutdown of US AID. After that, Benno interviews singer, songwriter and guitarist Sabrina Trueheart. Finally, we have part 3 of a 4 part interview with Media Sanctuary Board member Elizabeth Press. Co-hosts: Mark Dunlea & Benno Greene Engineer: Jalaya Reid

Bongani Bingwa speaks to a health expert as South Africa faces a major setback in its decades-long fight against HIV. After years of progress marked by fewer deaths, wider treatment access, and millions on life-saving medication, the sudden withdrawal of key U.S. funding since February has left clinics struggling to stay open. The impact is already being felt — with an estimated 660,000 viral-load tests missed, thousands may be going without critical monitoring to ensure their treatment is effective. This morning, we unpack what these aid cuts mean for the country’s public health system, the vulnerable communities most at risk, and the urgent steps needed to prevent South Africa from losing hard-won ground in the battle against HIV. 702 Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station. Bongani makes sense of the news, interviews the key newsmakers of the day, and holds those in power to account on your behalf. The team bring you all you need to know to start your day Thank you for listening to a podcast from 702 Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 06:00 and 09:00 (SA Time) to Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa broadcast on 702: https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/36edSLV or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/zEcM35T Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Albany area native Michelle Dworkin back home after the Trump administration shut down USAID this year ending her foreign service career talks about people dying globally, disasters like Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica unanswered, taxpayer dollars wasted  and national security endangered by the ill-informed closure of that agency.Michelle Dworkin was until 2025 a career foreign service officer with the US Agency for International Development. Over, some 23 years, she served in Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, and Washington, DC. She possesses In-depth knowledge of government processes, congressional affairs, and project development.  She lives now near Albany NY with her parents and daughter. 

Der var en gang, hvor USA ville redde verden. Hvor præsident John F. Kennedy satte sig for at få amerikansk hjælp ud til verdens fattigste. Hvor store sække med mad blev sendt til sultne mennesker, og på sækkene stod der USAID from the American People. Det er mere end 60 år siden og på mange måder lang tid siden. For tidligere i år satte den genvalgte Donald Trump sig bag det store skrivebord i Det Ovale Kontor og underskrev det, der ligner en dødsdom for USAID og ideen om at supermagten mætter sultne munde i andre lande. Politikens Jesper Thobo Carlsen er lige kommet hjem fra et hjørne af Etiopien, hvor Trumps beslutning kommer til at betyde liv eller død for potentielt millioner af mennesker.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Albany area native Michelle Dworkin back home after the Trump administration shut down USAID this year ending her foreign service career talks about people dying globally, disasters like Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica unanswered, taxpayer dollars wasted and national security endangered by the ill-informed closure of that agency. Michelle Dworkin was until 2025 a career foreign service officer with the US Agency for International Development. Over, some 23 years, she served in Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, and Washington, DC. She possesses In-depth knowledge of government processes, congressional affairs, and project development. She lives now near Albany NY with her parents and daughter.

with Brad Friedman & Desi Doyen

Episodio 801 de Contralínea En Vivo conducido por Anahí Del Ángel y Aníbal García: -Más allá de la USAID: injerencia de EU en México y Latinoamérica- Transmisión 11 de marzo de 2025 CONTRALÍNEA EN VIVO se transmite de lunes a viernes a partir de las 10:00hrs (hora del centro de México) a través de Facebook live, YouTube y Telegram. La MESA DE ECONOMÍA POLÍTICA se trasmite todos los lunes a partir de las 14:00hrs. Nuestro programa de análisis, AMÉRICA INSUMISA, se trasmite los martes a partir de las 14hrs. AGENDA DE SEGURIDAD NACIONAL es los miércoles a partir de las 14:00hrs Estamos en Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Whatsapp y Telegram como Contralínea. Escúchanos en Spotify, Apple Podcast e Ivoox como Contralínea Audio.

Listen to the full episode on Patreon Part 2 follows the money flowing from US agencies and interests to anti-Liberation Theology figures in Latin America. We meet Jesuit operator Roger Vekemans, who in the 1960s drew funding from the CIA, USAID, West German bishops, and U.S. conservative foundations to undermine Liberation and Christian socialism in Chile and beyond.  Nelson Rockefeller used Protestant missions as a model for soft power in the region, including the Summer Institute of Linguistics and their aviation-radio infrastructure (JAARS) that doubled as state and military logistics in Amazon frontiers. That infrastructure was part of a project to rewire communal lifeways into an individualism compatible with capitalism.  But what about the “reverse boomerang”? Pope Leo XIV's Dilexi te: On Love for the Poor, is a pastoral yet pointed retrieval of Liberation Theology's moral center, in which inequality is posited as the root of social ills. Leo rejects trickle-down myths, insists on solidarity with migrants, and quietly sidelines the old Marxism panic. By grounding church mission in the lived poverty of Jesus himself, Leo offers a calm but withering rebuke to Christofascism and the politics of exclusion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the first of a two-part deep dive into how U.S. foreign policy stared down the political threat of Liberation Theology by promoting Evangelical Christianity in Latin America. The CIA and USAID, in league with Vatican conservatives like Cardinal Ratzinger, spent money and social capital on the suppression of this vital new movement which insisted that poverty is political and that faith without structural change is hollow.  By contrast, the Evangelical emphasis on individual sin, salvation, and personal prosperity aligned with Cold War and neoliberal interests.  Spiritualities engineered to serve empire don't just pacify the poor abroad—they come back to police democracy at home. The “Evangelical boomerang” shows up in shifting Latino religious demographics and voting patterns, while the “reverse boomerang” hints that Liberation Theology language—once condemned—now shapes Pope Leo's message in this time of rising fascism.  If MAGA mystics, prosperity preachers, and tech-bro shamans offer a gospel of self-aggrandizement, Liberation Theology counters with a message of shared material reality: no one owns the food, we share it; the Sabbath serves people, not power; love of God is inseparable from love for the poor.  Part 1 lays the intellectual and historical groundwork; Part 2 follows the covert money networks and then asks whether a newly emboldened Catholic social vision can stiffen global resistance to authoritarian capitalism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tonight on The Last Word: Rep. Jamie Raskin demands answers about Ghislaine Maxwell reportedly receiving preferential treatment in prison. Also, Republicans let Affordable Care Act subsidies lapse. Plus, Somalia's health systems are collapsing amid cuts to USAID. And Trump backs a bailout for Argentina while cutting aid to Africa. Rep. Jamie Raskin, Sherrod Brown, Stephanie Nolen, and Nick Kristof join Lawrence O'Donnell. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

"The Wizard and the Prophet" by Charles C. MannRhishi Pethe's "Software is Feeding the World" Newsletter "In 1968, the year a USAID official coined the term 'Green Revolution', Norman Borlaug gave a victory lap speech at a wheat meeting in Australia. Twenty years before, he said, Mexican farmers had reaped about 760 pounds of wheat from every acre planted. Now that figure had risen to almost 2,500 pounds per acre, triple the harvest from the same land. The same thing was happening in India. He said the first green revolution wheat had been tested there just in 1964-1965 growing season. It had been so successful that the government had tested it on 7,000 acres the next year, and now it was covering almost 7 million acres. The same thing was happening in Pakistan, and this didn't even count the Green Revolution rice, also short and disease resistant, which was spreading across Asia." That is an excerpt from the book we'll be talking about here today. "The Wizard and the Prophet" by Charles C. Mann. The subtitle is "two remarkable scientists and they're dueling visions to shape tomorrow's world." One of those scientists, "the wizard", was Norman Borlaug: the father of the green revolution. Today's episode focuses on Borlaug's life and contributions to improving crop productivity in some of the most impoverished areas of the world. This episode is co-hosted by Tim Hammerich and Rhishi Pethe.

Suchitra Vijayan speaks with Abdullahi Boru Halakhe in a conversation that traces the longue durée of exploitation and violence in the Congo from the colonial atrocities of King Leopold II to the resource wars that continue to devastate the region today. They unpack how the technologies of extraction and the politics of dispossession remain intertwined, shaping a global system in which Congolese land, labour, and life continue to underwrite the comforts of the Global North. Abdullahi situates Congo's crisis within the history of empire and its afterlives. He revisits the 19th-century “civilising mission” of Henry Morton Stanley and Leopold's personal ownership of the Congo Free State, connecting it to today's extraction of coltan, cobalt, and gold that powers Silicon Valley. From the uranium that fuelled the Manhattan Project to the minerals driving AI and green tech, he argues that the Congolese people have been made to pay for the world's progress with their blood and labour. The conversation then turns to Rwanda's complicity in the ongoing violence. Abdullahi unpacks how the legacies of the 1994 genocide, and the First and Second Congo Wars that followed, continue to shape Rwanda's sub-imperial role in the region. He details how Rwanda and Uganda act as conduits for resource extraction, exporting minerals that geologically do not exist within their borders, and how the profits of this trade flow through the Gulf states to Western markets. In this network, Congo becomes the epicentre of a global pipeline linking African sub-imperial powers, Gulf petrostates, and Western tech conglomerates: a chain of exploitation that transforms human suffering into industrial capital. The discussion broadens into an examination of how the same extractive and militarised logics underpin genocides and wars across the Global South from Congo to Sudan to Palestine. Abdullahi identifies the United Arab Emirates as a central malign actor, financing wars and shaping political economies of violence under the guise of development and modernity. What emerges is a picture of a world where the technologies of genocide — surveillance, securitisation, and resource militarisation — are integral to the global order. The episode closes with a meditation on history as resistance. For Abdullahi, liberation begins with reclaiming historical knowledge and refusing amnesia. From the Bandung Conference to the dreams of pan-African solidarity, he insists that history offers both warning and possibility: a reminder that despair is political, but so is hope. As Suchitra notes, this conversation marks a rare moment in the Technologies of Genocide series — one where history itself becomes a site of liberation, and knowledge a tool against the algorithmic erasure of human struggle. — Abdullahi Boru Halakhe is the Senior Advocate for East and Southern Africa at Refugees International. He is an African policy expert with over a decade of experience in security, conflict, human rights, refugee work, and strategic communications. He has advised organisations including the International Rescue Committee, International Crisis Group, Amnesty International, BBC, the EU, AU, USAID, and the UNDP. Abdullahi holds a Master's in International Security Policy from Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.

Filmmaker Billy Corben joins Chuck Todd to talk about his new documentary Men of War—a wild true story that Corben calls “Florida Man with international implications.” The film follows a group of would-be mercenaries and ex-soldiers who tried to stage a coup in Venezuela, exposing how Miami’s shadowy underworld collides with global politics. Corben and Todd dive into the cocaine-fueled chaos of Miami in the ’80s and ’90s, the psychological toll of endless war, and how one ex-Green Beret accidentally stumbled into Trump’s orbit while plotting regime change. From Marco Rubio’s precarious foreign policy balancing act to the ongoing collapse of the Democratic Party in Florida, Chuck and Billy explore how Latin American politics, disinformation, and corruption all intertwine in the Sunshine State. Plus, they discuss Miami’s misunderstood identity, Trump’s rumored presidential library, and whether the city’s mayoral race signals what’s next for Florida’s political future. Got injured in an accident? You could be one click away from a claim worth millions. Just visit https://www.forthepeople.com/TODDCAST to start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win! Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Billy Corben joins the Chuck ToddCast 02:00 Men of War is basically “Bay of Pigs” for Venezuela 02:45 Men of War is perfectly timed for today’s news cycle 03:45 Cocaine boom was huge in Miami in the 80’s & 90’s 05:00 Men of War is “Florida Man w/ international implications” 07:00 The psychological damage of multiple tour deployments 09:00 The main character Jordan is a “post-modern” version of a soldier 13:15 Protagonist accidentally entered Trump’s high end orbit 17:30 Jordan needed to put together a trailer to find financiers for his coup 19:30 Shady international characters are common to find in Miami 20:15 Reception from the Venezuelan community for the doc? 22:15 Everybody in Miami wants to be president of a free Cuba 23:30 1950s cars are the only private possessions in Cuba 26:00 Chuck’s grandfather worked in Cuba, had to display photos of Castro 28:30 Miami is misunderstood as a melting pot when it isn’t 29:15 Miami has self segregated its neighborhoods 30:00 60% of Florida Venezuelans voted for Trump, now leaving the state 31:30 If ICE targets south Florida, there could be a massive political shift 32:45 Marco Rubio = Anakin Skywalker? Preventing the very worst of Trump 33:30 Rubio will be the fall guy for any major foreign policy failure 34:30 Administration is playing with fire in Venezuela 36:00 Congress has no idea what the administration is doing in Venezuela 37:30 The failed Venezuelan coup was memory holed because of Covid 39:30 Feels like we’re redoing Latin American policy of the 80’s 40:15 How has Jordan Goudreau not gotten a pardon from Trump? 42:30 American intervention in Latin America never goes well 44:00 End of USAID is creating vacuum in poor countries being filled by China 45:30 What does a “free Venezuela” look like in the Trump 2.0 era? 47:00 Jordan Goudreau feels betrayed by the American government 48:00 Algorithms have ruined social media 49:00 Is Miami-Dade red, blue, purple or something else politically? 52:30 Trump’s future presidential library slated for Miami 53:45 Miami is still a firm red county 56:00 Nothing is going well in Florida for the Democratic party 56:45 Trump is less popular in Florida than he was a year ago 58:00 Who wins the mayor’s race in Miami? 59:45 Mayor’s race will head to a December runoff 1:02:00 There’s historically been brazen corruption in Miami mayoral races 1:03:30 Trump thinks “asylum” means mental institution 1:06:00 Thoughts on Mario Cristobal 1:08:30 Miami can survive 1 loss and make the playoff, but not 2 1:12:00 Reuben Bain feels like a vintage Miami playerSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Chuck ToddCast, Chuck breaks down why Washington feels paralyzed — and how Trump’s gravitational pull still dictates everything from congressional gridlock to campaign strategy. From Mike Johnson’s dependence on Trump to Democrats’ internal tug-of-war between moderates and progressives, Chuck explores how both parties are struggling to govern in a fractured information ecosystem. He also looks at growing calls among policy thinkers for constitutional reform — from term limits and age caps to rethinking the incentives that drive political behavior. Despite the chaos, Chuck makes the case for cautious optimism: America’s democracy may be clogged, but it’s not beyond repair. Then, filmmaker Billy Corben joins Chuck Todd to talk about his new documentary Men of War—a wild true story that Corben calls “Florida Man with international implications.” The film follows a group of would-be mercenaries and ex-soldiers who tried to stage a coup in Venezuela, exposing how Miami’s shadowy underworld collides with global politics. Corben and Todd dive into the cocaine-fueled chaos of Miami in the ’80s and ’90s, the psychological toll of endless war, and how one ex-Green Beret accidentally stumbled into Trump’s orbit while plotting regime change. From Marco Rubio’s precarious foreign policy balancing act to the ongoing collapse of the Democratic Party in Florida, Chuck and Billy explore how Latin American politics, disinformation, and corruption all intertwine in the Sunshine State. Plus, they discuss Miami’s misunderstood identity, Trump’s rumored presidential library, and whether the city’s mayoral race signals what’s next for Florida’s political future. Finally, he answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment and looks ahead to the weekend in college football. Got injured in an accident? You could be one click away from a claim worth millions. Just visit https://www.forthepeople.com/TODDCAST to start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win! Timeline: 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 02:15 When Trump is overseas, the news cycle feels slower & less urgent 03:15 The American government is clogged like a toilet 04:00 Mike Johnson can’t do anything without Trump 05:15 There are not enough empowered moderates in congress 07:00 Republicans haven’t created an ACA alternative for 10 years 08:30 Democrats could pay a price for SNAP benefit cut 10:00 Democrats can extend funding for 3 weeks, and keep their leverage 12:30 The political elite in DC has self segregated in Trump 2.0 13:45 There’s no security for companies holding government contracts 15:00 Grifters have flooded to DC 15:45 Some progressives feel they can take over the Democratic party 16:30 Moderate Dems trying to find a way to grow the coalition 17:15 Large group of policy analysts worried about information ecosystem 18:45 DC gatherings being held to discuss preventing another Trump 21:00 America desperately needs to update the constitution 22:30 We shouldn’t be afraid to ask voters to make big changes 23:15 Strong argument for a 75 year old age limit for office 25:00 Trump is too lazy to pursue the worst course of history 26:45 The case for optimism during a dark political moment 27:30 Reforming the constitution is an 80/20 issue 28:15 Case for reform needs to tied to voters day to day lives 30:30 A bull in the China shop personality cult can’t run a country 31:30 We need to update the blueprint of the democracy 33:15 We desperately need better incentive structures for leaders 35:15 A leader needs to make the case for reform that isn’t about themselves or Trump 40:30 Billy Corben joins the Chuck ToddCast 42:30 Men of War is basically "Bay of Pigs" for Venezuela 43:15 Men of War is perfectly timed for today's news cycle 44:15 Cocaine boom was huge in Miami in the 80's & 90's 45:30 Men of War is "Florida Man w/ international implications" 47:30 The psychological damage of multiple tour deployments 49:30 The main character Jordan is a "post-modern" version of a soldier 53:45 Protagonist accidentally entered Trump's high end orbit 58:00 Jordan needed to put together a trailer to find financiers for his coup 1:00:00 Shady international characters are common in Miami 1:00:45 Reception from the Venezuelan community for the doc? 1:02:45 Everybody in Miami wants to be president of a free Cuba 1:04:00 1950s cars are the only private possessions in Cuba 1:06:30 Chuck's grandfather worked in Cuba, had to display photos of Castro 1:09:00 Miami is misunderstood as a melting pot when it isn't 1:09:45 Miami has self segregated its neighborhoods 1:10:30 60% of Florida Venezuelans voted for Trump, now leaving the state 1:12:00 If ICE targets south Florida, there could be a massive political shift 1:13:15 Marco Rubio = Anakin Skywalker? Preventing the very worst of Trump 1:14:00 Rubio will be the fall guy for any major foreign policy failure 1:15:00 Administration is playing with fire in Venezuela 1:16:30 Congress has no idea what the administration is doing in Venezuela 1:18:00 The failed Venezuelan coup was memory holed because of Covid 1:20:00 Feels like we're redoing Latin American policy of the 80's 1:20:45 How has Jordan Goudreau not gotten a pardon from Trump? 1:23:00 American intervention in Latin America never goes well 1:24:30 End of USAID is creating vacuum in poor countries being filled by China 1:26:00 What does a "free Venezuela" look like in the Trump 2.0 era? 1:27:30 Jordan Goudreau feels betrayed by the American government 1:28:30 Algorithms have ruined social media 1:29:30 Is Miami-Dade red, blue, purple or something else politically? 1:33:00 Trump's future presidential library slated for Miami 1:34:15 Miami is still a firm red county 1:36:30 Nothing is going well in Florida for the Democratic party 1:37:15 Trump is less popular in Florida than he was a year ago 1:38:30 Who wins the mayor's race in Miami? 1:40:15 Mayor's race will head to a December runoff 1:42:30 There's historically been brazen corruption in Miami mayoral races 1:44:00 Trump thinks "asylum" means mental institution 1:46:30 Thoughts on Mario Cristobal 1:49:00 Miami can survive 1 loss and make the playoff, but not 2 1:52:30 Reuben Bain feels like a vintage Miami player 1:58:00 Chuck's thoughts on interview with Billy Corben 1:58:30 Ask Chuck 1:59:15 Would Dems impeach with control of both houses of Congress in '27? 2:03:45 Should we be paying congress more to attract better candidates? 2:08:45 If possible, would you make the US a parliamentary system? 2:14:15 Is 60 Minutes devolving into a FOX style program that lobs softballs? 2:20:15 Violent and dangerous rhetoric not equal on both sides? 2:24:00 World series reaction 2:28:00 College football previewSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In February, the Trump administration announced cuts to more than 90% of USAID’s foreign aid contracts and $60 billion in overall assistance around the world. In July, the agency’s remaining programs were brought under the control of the State Department. Thousands of USAID staff and contractors working in the US and around the world have been fired or laid off, including Portlander Leah Petit. A global health professional for nearly 20 years, Petit was a senior program advisor at USAID’s Office of HIV/AIDS when she lost her job in late January. Her projects focused on strengthening local health systems in Africa and Asia to sustain long-term HIV prevention, monitoring and treatment efforts.    In August, Petit embarked on a new career when she launched “Global Development Interrupted,” a podcast she hosts and produces featuring former USAID workers who help dispel misconceptions about the agency’s work overseas and how it has benefited Americans here. Established nearly 65 years ago, USAID has delivered lifesaving humanitarian assistance and medicines, mobilized to halt the spread of deadly diseases like Ebola, expanded access to clean drinking water and sanitation, along with countless other relief and development programs. Petit joins us to share more details about her podcast and what’s at stake when the US reverses its leadership on international aid, including the millions of lives that are expected to be lost with the dismantling of USAID.  

The main issue keeping the government closed is healthcare — specifically, the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that have been in place since 2021 and further lowered premium costs for Americans. Democrats want the enhanced subsidies extended, Republicans don't. Without them, folks who rely on healthcare plans they bought on the exchange will see their premiums skyrocket. But there are other countries with private insurance options where healthcare doesn't cost so much that people risk going without it. To find out what's going on here and what America could do about it, we spoke to Mark Shepard. He's an associate professor of public policy at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government.And in headlines, the U.S. extends its trade deal with Mexico for several weeks, USDA confirms food stamps will not go out November 1, and a rag-tag group of former USAID workers band together to fund some of the shuttered agency's most critical programs.Show Notes:Check out Mark's article – https://tinyurl.com/mt2avcmaCall Congress – 202-224-3121Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

My guest today is Laura Baringer. Laura is a returning guest, the Founder of Purpose Built by Laura, a Business Strategist, Coach, and so much more.Laura believes anyone can start a business — but you should love the business you build.She helps entrepreneurs and business owners grow businesses that are sustainable, profitable, and deeply aligned with their values.Before founding Purpose Built by Laura, Laura spent 15+ years leading nonprofit initiatives across gender, tech, and public health — including launching and scaling a multi-million-dollar USAID program in Rwanda. Along the way, she advised boards, invested in startups, and consulted with mission-led organizations worldwide.Laura's background is in business strategy, strategic planning, and organizational development, and she brings that lens into everything she does. Whether it's clarifying your offers, mapping your client journey, or designing a business model that actually works — strategy is always at the core.In 2021, Laura made the leap to full-time coaching and built her own business from scratch. Today, she help founders cut through the noise, own their expertise, and grow with clarity and confidence — without burning out or compromising what matters most.Connect with Laura:Laura's website: https://www.purposebuiltbylaura.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/laurabaringer/Support the showMake Life Less Difficult~ Support:buymeacoffee.com/lisatilstra

The people who created the Covid virus have never been punished. Dr. Andrew Huff knows them personally, which is why they're trying to terrorize him into silence. (00:00) Peter Daszak, USAID, and Predicting Pandemics (08:49) The Moment Huff Realized His Company Was Doing Gain-Of-Function Research (14:07) China's Bioweapons Labs, Wuhan, and the CIA (39:44) Big Pharma and the Government's Covid Psyop (50:53) How They Targeted Dr. Huff for Speaking Out (1:00:35) Dr. Huff Being Mysteriously Followed (1:25:00) Was Anyone Held Accountable for Terrorizing Dr. Huff? Paid partnerships with: GCU: Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Learn more at https://GCU.edu Byrna: Go to https://Byrna.com or your local Sportsman's Warehouse today. Last Country Supply: Real prep starts with the basics. Here's what I keep stocked: lastcountrysupply.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Watch every episode ad-free & uncensored on Patreon: https://patreon.com/dannyjones Mike Benz is a former State Department official and current Executive Director of the Foundation For Freedom Online, a free speech watchdog organization dedicated to restoring the promise of a free and open Internet. SPONSORS https://mizzenandmain.com - Use code DANNY20 for 20% off. https://mnniceethno.com/dj - Use code DJ22 for 22% off your first order. https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/DANNY - Use code DANNY and get $50 in lineups when you play your first $5 lineup! https://whiterabbitenergy.com/?ref=DJP - Use code DJP for 20% off EPISODE LINKS Mike's YouTube channel:  @MikeBenzCyberOfficial  https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber https://www.instagram.com/mikebenzcyber https://foundationforfreedomonline.com FOLLOW DANNY JONES https://www.instagram.com/dannyjones https://twitter.com/jonesdanny OUTLINE 00:00 - Music diplomacy 17:17 - USAID is funding shadow diplomacy 19:41 - Dua Lipa is pop propaganda 26:14 - Bono's liveaid scam 35:32 - Taylor Swift & The Gerasimov Doctrine 49:08 - NATO & Graphika censorship 01:05:03 - The Minerva Initiative 01:12:15 - Taylor Swift is a military disinformation asset 01:22:28 - Digital Censorship Act: how the EU can censor American speech 01:36:55 - Newsguard, middleware & social media censorship 01:48:47 - YouTube's settlement with Trump 01:57:12 - Google's 'Project Owl' 02:07:05 - Section 230 is a distraction 02:19:28 - Aftermath of Charlie Kirk's death 02:24:04 - The federal vs. state censorship crisis 02:39:02 - Who benefits from the censorship industry 02:44:39 - WEF push for digital ID's 02:51:09 - Elon Musk & the digital control grid 03:03:22 - Future of freedom of speech Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices