The Epstein Rewind: Prince Andrew The Charitable

We have heard for weeks now about Bryan Kohberger and the interview he had with the WSU police department. Now, the Independent has some more details after filing a public records request and getting a response.Let's check it out!(commercial at 9:27)to contact me:[email protected]:Police have ‘no record’ of whether Bryan Kohberger was offered internship position months before Idaho murders | The Independent

Prince Andrew remains obstinate in the face of a growing outcry for him to come forward with any pertinent evidence he might have.David Boies, a lawyer for roughly a dozen of the survivors has now come out publicly adding his voice to Attorney General Berman's in calling for Andrew to speak under oath and wondering if Andrew is recieving bad advice in the same statement.A spokesman for Andrew had no comment.(Commercial at 12:19)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8281419/Prince-Andrew-ignores-three-formal-requests-interviewed.html

We get right back to the conversation this morning as we discuss what it means to be social media influencer.(commercial at 17:57)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbbrandon/2021/10/09/gabby-petito-has-forever-changed-the-allure-of-being-a-social-media-influencer/?sh=60c383029c0d

The dive into the court documents continues this episode as we are taking a look at several different filings. Namely, the death sentence filing by the prosecution.(commercial at 5:57)to contact me:[email protected]:062623 Notice Pursuant to Idaho Code 18-4004A.pdfsource:062723 PUBLIC Stipulation for Preparation Release of Transcript Records of Grand Jury.pdf (idaho.gov)source:062623 States Request for Time to Respond to Defendants Third Motion to Compel Discovery Supporting Dec.pdf (idaho.gov)source:062923 Motion to Temporarily Seal Exhibit 1 of the States Supplemental Response to Defendants 4th Supplem.pdf (idaho.gov)

The so-called "congressional hush fund" refers to the egregious misuse of taxpayer dollars to quietly settle sexual harassment and misconduct claims against members of Congress and their staff. Managed through the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR), this fund has been used for decades to pay off accusers, shielding politicians from public accountability while keeping their misconduct hidden from voters. Rather than forcing individual offenders to bear the financial and reputational consequences of their actions, this system has effectively allowed elected officials to use public money as a personal damage-control mechanism. The settlements, often accompanied by strict non-disclosure agreements, have ensured that the public remains in the dark about the full extent of misconduct within the halls of power.This corrupt and unethical practice highlights the deep rot within the political establishment, where lawmakers—who are supposed to represent the people—operate under a different set of rules, immune to the very standards they impose on others. Instead of facing criminal charges or public disgrace, offenders have been protected by a taxpayer-funded safety net, enabling repeat offenses and further entrenching a culture of impunity. The fact that these payouts were made with no transparency, and without the consent of the very taxpayers footing the bill, is a grotesque violation of public trust. Despite public outrage and calls for reform, only limited changes have been made, with many settlements still shrouded in secrecy, leaving Americans to wonder just how many powerful figures have escaped justice at their expense.to contact me:[email protected]:Congress paid $17 million in settlements. Why we know so little about that money. | CNN Politics

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:[email protected]:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:[email protected]:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:[email protected]:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:[email protected]:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

Jeffrey Epstein assembled a legal defense team that was nothing short of an all-star roster of high-powered attorneys, leveraging their influence, connections, and expertise to shield him from accountability for years. His legal team included prominent figures such as Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor and constitutional expert, who played a key role in negotiating Epstein’s highly controversial 2008 plea deal, which resulted in a lenient sentence despite overwhelming evidence of his crimes. Another heavyweight was Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel best known for investigating President Bill Clinton, who joined Epstein’s defense during his legal battles. Additionally, Roy Black, a renowned criminal defense attorney famous for representing high-profile clients such as William Kennedy Smith, provided legal expertise in Epstein’s cases, further ensuring he had the best legal minds at his disposal.Beyond these high-profile names, Epstein’s legal team also included former U.S. attorneys and politically connected lawyers who worked aggressively behind the scenes to secure deals, intimidate accusers, and minimize public scrutiny. Former Miami U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, who later became Secretary of Labor, played a pivotal role in orchestrating the infamous non-prosecution agreement that shielded Epstein and his co-conspirators from serious federal charges. Other attorneys, including Jay Lefkowitz and Martin Weinberg, specialized in complex criminal defense and used every legal avenue to protect Epstein from exposure. This elite team, with its deep ties to law enforcement and the judicial system, managed to keep Epstein’s crimes hidden for years, allowing him to continue operating with impunity until public pressure finally led to his arrest in 2019.to contact me:[email protected]