Beyond The Horizon Podcast Por Bobby Capucci arte de portada

Beyond The Horizon

Beyond The Horizon

De: Bobby Capucci
Escúchala gratis

Acerca de esta escucha

 Beyond the Horizon is a project that aims to dig a bit deeper than just the surface level that we are so used to with the legacy media while at the same time attempting to side step the gaslighting and rhetoric in search of the truth. From the day to day news that dominates the headlines to more complex geopolitical issues that effect all of our lives, we will be exploring them all.

It's time to stop settling for what is force fed to us and it's time to look beyond the horizon.Copyright Bobby Capucci Ciencia Política Política y Gobierno
Episodios
  • The War Between Diddy's Legal Team And The Prosecution Over Juror # 6 Heats Up (Part 3) (6/16/25)

    The War Between Diddy's Legal Team And The Prosecution Over Juror # 6 Heats Up (Part 3) (6/16/25)
    Jun 16 2025
    In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror’s perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.

    Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government’s action is not a legitimate concern about the juror’s qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.














    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdf
    Más Menos
    9 m
  • The War Between Diddy's Legal Team And The Prosecution Over Juror # 6 Heats Up (Part 2) (6/16/25)

    The War Between Diddy's Legal Team And The Prosecution Over Juror # 6 Heats Up (Part 2) (6/16/25)
    Jun 16 2025
    In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror’s perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.

    Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government’s action is not a legitimate concern about the juror’s qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.














    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdf
    Más Menos
    12 m
  • The War Between Diddy's Legal Team And The Prosecution Over Juror # 6 Heats Up (Part 1) (6/16/25)

    The War Between Diddy's Legal Team And The Prosecution Over Juror # 6 Heats Up (Part 1) (6/16/25)
    Jun 16 2025
    In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror’s perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.

    Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government’s action is not a legitimate concern about the juror’s qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.














    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdf
    Más Menos
    13 m
adbl_web_global_use_to_activate_webcro805_stickypopup
Todavía no hay opiniones