Stacey Plaskett Protected: Is Jeffrey Epstein Accountability Already Dead in Congress? (11/20/25)

Bryan Kohberger is expected to be formally sentenced today in Boise, Idaho, to four consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole, plus an additional decade for burglary, after pleading guilty to the November 13, 2022, murders of four University of Idaho students. The death penalty was removed through his plea deal, and he has waived his right to appeal. While the sentencing itself is largely procedural given the agreement, the hearing represents the first time the surviving victims' families and roommates may address him directly, read impact statements, and share the emotional aftermath of the tragedy.A pivotal moment to watch is whether Kohberger chooses to exercise his right of allocution — that is, whether he will speak to the court. Though legally allowed to do so, he is under no obligation, and experts believe there's a low likelihood he'll offer any explanation or expression of remorse. Many families, public figures (including former President Trump), and the broader community are pressing for answers about motive and intent — questions that remain largely unanswered. Following the hearing, the judge may unseal additional documents, and Kohberger will likely be transferred to a maximum-security facility to serve out his life sentence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

5 Loka 13min

From the archives: 1-25-23The wheels of justice continue to grind in the Bryan Kohberger trial, even if the actual trial itself hasn't gotten under way yet. Even with the gag order and the large gap in time between court appearances, things are happening behind the scenes as the lawyers for both sides continue to formulate their plans.In this episode, we hear from several experts who lay out what might be happening behind the scenes and what we can expect when things get rolling in earnest inside of the courtroom.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EXPLAINER: What to expect in State of Idaho vs. Bryan Kohberger case – The Daily EvergreenBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

5 Loka 12min

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

4 Loka 15min

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

4 Loka 10min

In the letter submitted to the court, stylist Deonte Nash voiced strong concern over the possibility of Sean “Diddy” Combs being released before sentencing. Nash described Combs as having a “long, well-documented history of violent, coercive, and retaliatory behavior,” and warned that releasing him would likely be taken by Combs as “yet another license to continue intimidating, threatening, and harming people who challenge or expose him.” He urged the judge to prioritize the safety of those who had testified and the public at large over any presumption that Combs should be granted leniency at that stage.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ex. E (Deonte).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

4 Loka 8min

Sean “Diddy” Combs was sentenced to 50 months in federal prison—just over four years—for violating the Mann Act, a century-old law prohibiting the transportation of individuals across state lines for prostitution or immoral purposes. The charges stemmed from multiple incidents where prosecutors alleged Combs used his private jets and security teams to move women across the country for what they described as “commercial sexual activity under coercive conditions.” While prosecutors initially sought an 11-year sentence, citing a pattern of predatory behavior and abuse, the defense pleaded for leniency, pointing to his age, charitable works, and family ties. The judge ultimately “split the difference,” opting for a sentence that reflected both accountability and proportionality, landing closer to the middle of the guideline range.Alongside his prison term, Combs was hit with a $500,000 fine and five years of supervised release following his incarceration, during which he’ll face restrictions on travel, mandatory counseling, and drug testing. The judge also ordered him to complete a rehabilitation and behavioral accountability program, emphasizing that this sentence was not just punitive but corrective. Despite avoiding the more severe sex trafficking and racketeering charges—which could have landed him a life sentence—Combs’s conviction under the Mann Act marked a significant fall from grace for one of hip-hop’s most powerful figures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

4 Loka 15min

In her impact statement, “Mia” (a former assistant who testified under that alias) urged the judge to deliver a sentence that truly reflects the harm she says Combs caused. She stressed that his wealth, power, and fame shouldn’t protect him from full accountability, and she asked the court to consider not only past abuse but the ongoing danger she feels.Capricorn Clark, another former employee who testified about a violent incident involving Combs, asked for a more substantial sentence, saying that time away from “his money, drugs, and power is the only punishment he will recognize.” She framed a longer sentence as justice not just for her, but also a message to others, stressing that Combs’s influence must be checked.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.516.3_4.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.516.4_3.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

4 Loka 13min

​In a motion filed on April 16, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requested the exclusion of two prior incidents from his upcoming federal trial. The first pertains to a 1999 nightclub shooting at Club New York, where Combs was present and initially charged but later acquitted. His attorneys argue that introducing this event would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially biasing the jury by suggesting a propensity for violence. They contend that this incident lacks direct relevance to the current charges and would unfairly influence the jury's perception.The second incident involves a 2016 alleged assault at a recording studio, which the defense also seeks to exclude. Combs' lawyers assert that this event is unrelated to the current case and its inclusion would serve only to prejudice the jury. They argue that admitting such evidence would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, which restrict the use of prior bad acts to prove character and caution against evidence that could cause unfair prejudice. The defense maintains that these incidents do not provide legitimate insight into the allegations at hand and should not be presented during the trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.240.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

4 Loka 19min