Podcasts about Acosta

The MotoGP Team-Sport-Manufaturer contract has been signed, and it is officially Silly Season time! I discuss high-profile signings of Marquez, Acosta, and Bagnaia, then preview the DutchTT in Assen!The Rundown:- The MotoGP-not-a-Concorde-Agreement has been signed - time for Silly Season to start- Marc Marquez - two more years at Ducati - can he add to his legend?- Pedro Acosta - Ducati scores the biggest prize of Silly Season- Pecco Bagnaia - extra-long deal makes Aprilia...the VR46 Factory Team?- A spec Moto3 Class? Yamaha taking over in 2028, and their MotoGP team will benefit- Assen! My Preview of the DutchTT- The Favorites - Ducati is surging- The Watch List - Is Aprilia regrouping?- The Hot Seat - KTM riders (mostly) looking for a ride- The Picks! For the DutchTT Sprint and MotoGP raceWho do you think will win in Assen? Let me know! Find all of the latest episodes at Motoweek.net, follow on Bluesky and Instagram – and you can support the show on Patreon!Thanks for listening!

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

This episode, concept illustrator Fernando Acosta is here to talk all things Disney+ Percy Jackson and the Olympians! Discussion topics may include: finding the right look for Thalia's tree, the process behind concept art, illustrating Polyphemus' island, the brilliance of Production Designer Dan Hennah, and taking inspiration from the books as you go.Check out Fernando's work on Percy & more here: https://www.facosta.com/#/percy-jackson/Check us out on Patreon to submit questions for future interviews and to get exclusive episodes, cut material, art previews, and more! https://www.patreon.com/MonsterDonutPodcastHave a question? Want to contribute your own analysis? Feel like arguing? Email monsterdonutpodcast@gmail.com.Come say hi and check out the sketches Phoebe made this episode on Twitter, Instagram, or TikTok! @PJOPod on all platforms.Find our new Monster Donut merch here!: https://www.redbubble.com/people/monsterdonut/explore.More information on the show can be found at https://www.monsterdonutpodcast.com/THEME SONG:"The Mask of Sorokin," music and arrangement by Dan CordeGuitars - Dan CordeBass - Quinten MetkeDrums - Todd CummingsRecorded, mixed, & mastered by Todd CummingsOUTRO MUSIC:"Shadow Run," music and arrangement by Dan CordeGuitars - Dan CordeBass - Quinten MetkeDrums - Todd CummingsRecorded, mixed, & mastered by Todd Cummings Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Welcome to Last Call, a look at the biggest stories we covered over the past week on the 3 Martini Lunch. Jim Geraghty was on vacation, so we heard from very capable guest hosts, including Jim's National Review colleague, Charlie Cooke. This week Charlie and Greg discuss three stories that suggest many on the left are […]

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Pedro Acosta joins us for Chapter 405 of Gypsy Tales.From winning the Moto3 World Championship as a rookie to becoming one of the biggest stars in MotoGP, Pedro Acosta sits down for an in-depth conversation about his journey, the pressure of being compared to Marc Márquez, life inside the MotoGP paddock, racing for KTM, and what it takes to compete at the highest level of motorcycle racing. Pedro is one of the most exciting talents motorcycle racing has seen in years, and this conversation gives a rare look at the person behind the helmet.00:00:00 Intro00:04:53 Welcome Pedro Acosta to Gypsy Tales00:09:54 Inside the Barcelona MotoGP Weekend00:24:05 First Laps on a MotoGP Bike00:28:06 How Quickly Tires Fade in MotoGP00:34:23 MotoGP without Phillip Island?00:36:54 Pedro's Isle of Man TT Ambitions00:40:08 The Growth of MotoGP00:43:16 From Nothing to MotoGP Racer00:47:13 Falling in Love with the Motorcycle00:52:49 Pedro Almost Didn't Make it00:59:40 Work Ethic over Talent?01:02:15 Pedro Acosta's Impossible Last to First Victory01:09:22 Motocross Made Pedro a better MotoGP Racer01:22:50 Pedro Acosta's Love for Supercross01:26:14 Pedro's Respect for Marc Marquez01:32:01 Pedro Acosta on the Marc Marquez Comparisons01:37:12 Pecco VS Marquez: Teammate Rivalry01:42:40 The Wins That Got Away01:51:03 The Highs and Lows with KTM01:58:50 Pedro Acosta's Closest Shot at Victory in 202602:02:53 Alex Marquez HORROR Crash... Catalunya MotoGP02:06:22 Are MotoGP Restarts Too Dangerous?02:07:51 The Next MotoGP Dynasty02:13:45 2026 MotoGP Championship Predictions02:20:18 Where the KTM beats Ducati02:24:06 MotoGP Bikes Will Never Be Better02:26:35 Success Hasn't Changed Pedro Acosta02:34:28 The Feeling of Supporting Family02:40:13 Pedro Acosta Loves a Good Party02:45:57 Pedro's Ultimate Career Goals02:51:35 The Pressure Created By MotoGP Media02:54:40 Pedro Acosta Behind the Wheel of a Rally Car02:55:59 Pedro's Obsession with Motocross03:00:50 ClosingIf you enjoyed this episode, make sure to like, subscribe, and leave a comment with who you'd like to see on the podcast next.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Welcome to Last Call, a look at the biggest stories we covered over the past week on the 3 Martini Lunch. Jim Geraghty was on vacation, so we heard from very capable guest hosts, including Jim's National Review colleague, Charlie Cooke. This week Charlie and Greg discuss three stories that suggest many on the left are losing their grip on reality, including Jim Acosta's absurd analysis of Trump's name being removed from the John F. Kennedy Center, the left's meltdown over Elon Musk becoming the world's first trillionaire, a new poll highlighting the huge partisan divide over patriotism, and NBA Finals MVP Jalen Brunson wishing he still paid taxes in Texas.First, they cover the left's obsession over the removal of President Trump's name from the Kennedy Center. Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta compared it to the fall of the Berlin Wall and called it “a sign that humankind can stand up against tyranny.”Next, they rip Democrats for their hysterical reaction following the SpaceX IPO, with the likes of Bernie Sanders and Ellizabeth Warren rushing to demand wealth taxes as soon as Musk crossed the trillion-dollar mark. Charlie condems the left's tendency towards punishing success and stifling ambition. Then, they comment on a new NBC poll on American patriotism showing the stark difference in responses between Republicans and Democrats. Pride in America among Democrats seems to be largely dependent upon the occupant of the White House. As an immigrant who is now a U.S. citizen, Charlie explains how disgraceful that thinking is. Finally, Charlie and Greg delight in a clip of NBA Finals MVP Jalen Brunson, who after delivering the New York Knicks their first championship in 53 years, admitted, “I miss the Texas taxes.” Texas does not tax personal income, while New York has one of the nation's highest tax burdens.Please visit our great sponsors:BetterHelpYou don't have to say yes to everything this summer. Find support in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at https://BetterHelp.com/3MLNoble GoldDownload the free investor kit. No pressure. No obligation. Just the information.  https://noblegoldinvestments.com/3mlFast Growing TreesBetter plants, better growing, and an extra 20% off with code MARTINI at https://FastGrowingTrees.com/Martini for a limited time; terms and conditions may apply.New episodes every weekday. 

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

Wild pig hunting may be great sport, but the grim reality is that feral swine are one of the most destructive biological forces in the American South--and Jody Acosta and team are deep in the frontline trenches fighting them. Constantly. As Delta Wildlife's Nuisance and Invasive Species Program Manager, Acosta is helping landowners combat millions of dollars in agricultural losses. From Delta culture to the hard realities of modern conservation, Acosta shares stories from the field, lessons learned the hard way, why this ongoing fight matters more than most people realize, winning strategies, biggest surprises, how--and why--rules of engagement continually evolve.    Visit the Legendary Brands That Make MOJO's Duck Season Somewhere Podcast Possible: MOJO Outdoors  Alberta Professional Outfitters Society Benelli Shotguns Bow and Arrow Outdoors Create the X Habitat Management App Ducks Unlimited  Flash Back Decoys GetDucks.com Migra Ammunitions onX Maps  Use code GetDucks25 to save 25% Sitka Gear SoundGear Use code GetDucks20 to save 25% Tom Beckbe USHuntList.com   Like what you heard? Let us know! • Tap Subscribe so you never miss an episode. • Drop a rating—it's like a high-five in the duck blind. • Leave a quick comment: What hit home? What made you laugh? What hunt did it remind you of? • Share this episode with a buddy who lives for duck season.   Want to partner? Have or know a story to share? Contact: Ramsey Russell ramsey@getducks.com

️ LA RUINA está de gira en http://www.laruinashow.com La Ruina desde Pamplona con Ignasi Taltavull (@ignasitf), Tomàs Fuentes (@cap0) y Toni Acosta volviendo loco a su mánager Este episodio cuenta con la colaboración de O2, la compañía de fibra y móvil. +info en https://o2online.es El juego, la taza y todo el merchandising oficial de La Ruina en https://lallamastore.com/ Ignasi Taltavull: http://www.instagram.com/ignasitf Tomàs Fuentes http://www.twitter.com/cap0 http://www.instagram.com/cap0 La Ruina sigue en redes: @laruinashow http://www.instagram.com/laruinashow

National Review Senior Editor Charles C.W. Cooke, who hosts the Charles C.W. Cooke Podcast, fills in for Jim on the Tuesday 3 Martini Lunch. Join Charlie and Greg as they discuss Jim Acosta's absurd analysis of Trump's name being removed from the John F. Kennedy Center, Virgina's attack on our Second Amendment rights, the UK's new social media ban for children, and the elusive details of the U.S.-Iran peace deal. First, they cover the left's obsession over the removal of President Trump's name from the Kennedy Center. Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta compared it to the fall of the Berlin Wall and called it “a sign that humankind can stand up against tyranny.” Charlie and Greg laugh at Acosta's delusional take. Next, Charlie and Greg rip Virginia officials for arguing that its citizens do not possess an individual right to keep and bear arms, despite protections in both the U.S. Constitution and Virginia's constitution. The argument comes as part of the state's defense of sweeping new gun-control measures. Charlie also dismantles the claim that Second Amendment protections apply only to organized militia service.Then, they slam the UK's newest laws banning several social media sites for children under 16. The ban includes platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and X. However far-left site Bluesky is conspicuously exempt. Charlie and Greg agree kids should not be on social media, but government control is not the solution. Finally, Charlie and Greg express their dismay with the lack of details regarding the U.S.-Iran peace deal. Trump says the war is over and markets are rallying, but the specifics of the deal have still yet to be released. Please visit our great sponsors:Fast Growing TreesBetter plants, better growing, and an extra 20% off with code MARTINI at https://FastGrowingTrees.com/Martini for a limited time; terms and conditions may apply.BetterHelpYou don't have to say yes to everything this summer. Find support in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at https://BetterHelp.com/3MLBrooklyn BeddingGet 30% off sitewide Brooklyn Bedding with promo code 3ML at https://BrooklynBedding.comNew episodes every weekday. 

What happens when a woman who spent decades holding everyone else together finally has no choice but to let go? In episode 265 of Joy Found Here, Florence Acosta — former Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, healthcare executive, and the person everyone leaned on — shares how a stroke at 50 became the moment that shattered her old identity and cracked her wide open. Her story is a powerful reminder that sometimes the body says stop long before we ever will.In This Episode, You Will Learn:(3:46) How Florence went from holding everything together to having a stroke at 50(6:05) Why chronic givers struggle to receive — and the mindset keeping them stuck(7:43) The sisterhood circle that cracked open her awareness around control and letting go(11:51) The childhood moment at age three that silently took her voice for decades(13:17) How writing on Substack became an unexpected act of reclaiming her voice(20:54) How the Miracle Morning helps Florence create space and stay grounded in recovery(23:04) The "Question of the Day" ritual she runs for her Substack subscribers(24:15) Florence's new business venture with her sister — and why she broke her own rule(26:41) Her "C-cubed" self-care approach: cooking, crocheting, and creative writing(31:03) Why people want to help — and how telling them how changes everythingFlorence Acosta spent nearly 30 years in healthcare — first as a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, then as executive director of a surgical center — carrying the weight of patients, teams, and everyone around her without ever pausing to fill her own cup. At 50, a stroke caused by an undetected arteriovenous malformation forced her to stop, and through the slow road of recovery, a women's sisterhood circle, and the discovery of writing, she found the voice she had quietly lost decades before. Today she writes about intentional living, mindset, and personal development through her Substack publication Becoming You with Florence Acosta.In this episode, Florence shares how decades of over-giving as both a healthcare professional and the person everyone leaned on ultimately led to her stroke — and how that rupture became the catalyst for rebuilding on her own terms. She traces her lifelong silence back to a childhood moment at age three, and how Substack became the unexpected place where she finally reclaimed her voice. Florence also opens up about her Miracle Morning practice, a new business venture with her sister, and her "C-cubed" self-care approach — cooking, crocheting, and creative writing — while delivering a powerful message to fellow chronic givers: open your hands and let people in before life forces you to.Connect with Florence Acosta:SubstackInstagramLet's Connect:WebsiteInstagram Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

#gobierno #corrupción #pnp La escandalosa querella de Sebastian Negrón Reichard ante el FEI pone de manifiesto acusaciones de corrupción que comprometen la credibilidad de una Secretaria de Justicia al servicio de La Fortaleza. A 40 años de Nelson Martínez Acosta y la primera versión del caso de asesinato de Luis Vigoreaux. | Dios no quiso traer el agua esta madrugada, según la Gobernadora. ¡Conéctate, comenta y comparte! #periodismoindependiente #periodismodigital #periodismoinvestigativo Síguenos en nuestras redes sociales: tiktok.com: https://x.com/Bonita_Radio Facebook: / bonitaradio Instagram: / bonitaradio X: https://x.com/Bonita_Radio

#gobierno #corrupción #pnp La escandalosa querella de Sebastian Negrón Reichard ante el FEI pone de manifiesto acusaciones de corrupción que comprometen la credibilidad de una Secretaria de Justicia al servicio de La Fortaleza. A 40 años de Nelson Martínez Acosta y la primera versión del caso de asesinato de Luis Vigoreaux. | Dios no quiso traer el agua esta madrugada, según la Gobernadora. ¡Conéctate, comenta y comparte! #periodismoindependiente #periodismodigital #periodismoinvestigativo Síguenos en nuestras redes sociales: tiktok.com: https://x.com/Bonita_Radio Facebook: / bonitaradio Instagram: / bonitaradio X: https://x.com/Bonita_Radio

Mensaje del 14 de junio del 2026 en el campus Miraflores de la iglesia Caminodevida - Lima, Perú por el pastor Walter Acosta.

Send us Fan MailMaster the art of the quick turnaround as we dive into the specifics of applying judges' feedback between bodybuilding competitions. Join Jami and Greg DeBernard alongside top IFBB Pro Olympians as they reveal why over-correcting is the most common mistake athletes make after a show. You will learn how to differentiate between feedback that requires more muscle and feedback that can be fixed with strategic posing. We explore the nuances of peaking, from managing tan issues to finding the right level of fullness for the stage. This episode is a masterclass in the 'chess moves' required to climb the rankings in record time. What You'll Learn: How to interpret 'tighter' or 'fuller' without ruining your conditioning. The impact of stage lighting and judge seating on the feedback you receive. Why hearing 'don't change anything' is a unique mental challenge. Techniques for using refeeds and sodium to fix flatness between shows. How posing can create the illusion of muscle density you haven't yet built.Elevate your stage presence by mastering the subtle details of competition adjustments. #bodybuilding #ifbbpro #fitnessfeedback #competitionsuccess #posingtipPhoebe Hagan is an IFBB Bikini Pro from the United Kingdom, known for her elite-level physique, precision posing, and competitive success on the global bodybuilding stage. She made history as the first UK Bikini athlete to place in the top 10 at the Olympia, securing 7th place in her debut. Beyond competition, Phoebe is a dedicated coach, content creator, and fitness influencer, sharing expert insights on training, posing, and mindset through her YouTube channel, social media, and The Posing Portal. Passionate about empowering athletes, she continues to inspire and educate the next generation of Bikini competitors worldwide.https://www.instagram.com/phoebehagan_http://www.theposingportal.comAimee Delgado is an IFBB Bikini Pro, FitBody Coach, and proud Native American. A dedicated wife and mother, she went from amateur to pro within a year, winning her class in just her fourth show. Passionate about fitness, she inspires others to chase their goals.http://www.fitnessbyaims.comhttps://www.instagram.com/fitnessbyaimshttps://youtube.com/@fitnessbyaimsMaria Acosta, originally from Venezuela, is a distinguished IFBB Bikini Pro and a dedicated Lifestyle, Prep, and Mindset Coach. She began her bodybuilding journey at 16 and moved to the United States seven years ago to pursue her dream of becoming a professional athlete, earning her IFBB Pro status at the 2021 North American Championships. In 2024, Maria showcased her exceptional talent by winning the Bikini titles at both the Miami Muscle Beach Pro and the Klash Series Southern USA Championships Pro, culminating in a remarkable 7th place finish at her Olympia debut. Beyond the stage, she is passionate about guiding individuals toward balanced lifestyles through her coaching platform, Mavi Fit Club. Maria's philosophy centers on trusting the process and believing in oneself, principles she embodies and instills in her clients. http://mavifitclub.comhttps://www.instagram.com/mvbozoWelcome to FitBody Lifestyle the podcast hosted by Jami and Greg DeBernard! Join us as we explore the multifaceted world of fitness, health, business, relationships, and the art of leading a well-rounded life. Whether you're pumping iron at the gym, grinding in your entrepreneurial endeavors, or simply striving for balance in your daily routine, you've landed in the right spot.In each episode, we'll embark on enlightening discussions, provide you with actionable tips, and share inspiring stories that touch on every aspect of your journey towards a healthier, more fulfilling life. We'll cover everything from fitness tips to expert guidance on nutrition,  and effective weight loss strategies. Dive deep with us into topics like strength training for both body and mind, fostering cardiovascular health, and discovering the harmony between your daily lifestyle and your personal well-being. We're here to help you unlock your full potential, empowering you to transform your mind, body, and overall life. Connect With Us:https://www.fitbodylifestylepodcast.com/https://www.fitbodyfusion.com/https://www.instagram.com/jamidebernard/https://www.instagram.com/fbf_papa_bear/https:/...

The new reporting centers on former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter, who launched the original mid-2000s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and says the case was undermined once federal prosecutors took control. According to the account, Reiter's department had gathered evidence from roughly two dozen alleged victims and their families, only to see the matter drift toward the now-infamous 2007 secret plea negotiations led by then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. The key political connection is that Acosta's office was operating under George W. Bush's Department of Justice, and Reiter says Acosta told him that “Main Justice” in Washington was providing guidance while Epstein's defense team was successfully stalling the case.That detail matters because it pushes scrutiny beyond Acosta alone and back toward DOJ leadership in Washington during the Bush administration, where the Epstein deal was being handled as more than a routine local prosecution. Epstein ultimately avoided federal sex-trafficking charges at the time and pleaded guilty in state court to solicitation-related charges, despite investigators having identified dozens of possible victims. The account also revisits the explosive claim that Acosta later told Trump transition officials he had been told Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and to leave the case alone, a statement that has long fueled questions about who protected Epstein, why the original case was buried, and how many people in power helped turn a sprawling abuse investigation into a sweetheart deal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Explosive Report Drags President George W. Bush Into Jeffrey Epstein Scandal

Lauren Hines-Acosta of the Chesapeake Bay Journal returns to talk with Jeff, Mary, and Eric about emerging issues that affect regional agriculture and the Bay ecosystem. Laura's scientific research and writing includes increased concern about biosolid applications to agricultural fields and possible contamination with "forever chemicals"; how artificial intelligence can increase nitrogen use efficiency; and how other technologies can detect what nutrients are being contributed by cover crop mixtures to ensuing crop rotations. If you are interested in Lauren's recent articles about biosolids, artificial intelligence, and conservation easements, please visit the Chesapeake Bay Journal website at https://www.bayjournal.com/Tune in, like, and subscribe anywhere you get your podcasts or 4thesoil.org/podcastAs always, we encourage you to cooperate with other farmers, graziers, and gardeners for peer-to-peer learning. We can all be 4 The Soil, for the future! Here is how with four principles: 1) Keep the soil covered -- Cover crops are our friends;2) Minimize soil disturbance -- Be gentle, take it easy;3) Maximize living roots year-round -- Keep roots growing; and4) Energize with diversity -- Thrive with diversity.If you are interested in art and framing the 4 The Soil posters for your office or home, the 16” by 20” posters are available for purchase and printing as single posters or a set of five posters. Additional, 4 The Soil gear and swag is available for purchase at https://4-the-soil.printify.me/If you have questions about soil and water conservation practices, soil health principles, or how you can celebrate National Soil Health Day on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, call or visit a USDA Service Center, a Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District office, or your local Virginia Cooperative Extension office.  4 the Soil: A Conversation is made possible with funding support from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and The Agua Fund. Other partners include the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Virginia Cooperative Extension; Virginia State University; Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and partners of the Virginia Soil Health Coalition.Disclaimer: Views expressed on this podcast are those of each individual guest.To download a copy of this, or any other show, visit the website 4thesoil.org. Music used during today's program is courtesy of the Flip Charts. All rights reserved. 4 the Soil: A Conversation is produced by On the Farm Radio in collaboration with Virginia Tech. The host and co-hosts are Jeff Ishee, Mary Sketch Bryant, and Eric Bendfeldt.

(00:00:00) Aprilia Meltdown, Marc Magic: A Wild HungarianGP! (00:00:01) Welcome to the MotorWeek Podcast (00:00:07) Marquez's Impressive Comeback (00:02:42) Qualifying and Sprint Race Overview (00:06:53) Analyzing Marquez's Performance (00:10:30) Other Notable Riders' Performances (00:18:17) Sunday's MotoGP Race (00:19:05) The Turn One Crash (00:25:07) Marquez vs. Acosta Battle (00:31:47) Post-Race Analysis and Championship Standings (00:32:13) Pedro Acosta's Impressive Performance Aprilia completely implodes, while Marquez...only adds to the Marc mystique. I recap all of the MotoGP action - and craziness - at Balaton Park, and talk about how it affects the MotoGP Championship! The Rundown:- Balaton Park! My Recap of an eventful HungarianGP- Qualifying: Marc says he's good for one lap. That may not have been totally truthful- Sprint: Marc is back, and Acosta does what he can- Ducati looks better than Aprilia. Well...at least Marc does- MotoGP Race: Hey, Jorge - look out for those Apri--- oops, oh well...- The Martin wreck - that was...not ideal- Marquez-Acosta - did that short battle give Marc the extra motivation he needed?- Pecco was a bit lucky - but who cares when you get a trophy?- Morbidelli and Binder need to explain themselves.- The Championship picture: and, just like that, Marc gets a lifeline- My take on the HungarianGP: where were the fans?What did you think of Balaton Park? Let me know on Facebook or the Motoweek Reddit Sub.Find all of the latest episodes at Motoweek.net, follow on Bluesky and Instagram – and you can support the show on Patreon!Thanks for listening! 

Mark Filip's importance in the Epstein non-prosecution deal is that he was not some minor bureaucratic name floating around the edges of the case. As Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Filip was part of the highest tier of DOJ leadership when the federal government approved the deal that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to avoid a sweeping federal prosecution. The agreement itself was negotiated in Florida, but the political and institutional muscle behind it came from Washington, where Epstein's powerhouse defense team had direct access to senior DOJ officials. Filip's sign-off mattered because it showed that the deal was not merely the product of one local U.S. Attorney's office going rogue; it had the blessing, awareness, or at minimum the acquiescence of DOJ leadership at the highest levels.That is why focusing only on Alex Acosta misses the larger architecture of what happened. Acosta was the U.S. Attorney in South Florida, and he became the public face of the sweetheart deal, but the real gravity was above him. The Epstein defense team pushed the matter into Main Justice, where Mukasey and Filip sat atop the department, and the final outcome reflected the power of that intervention. The deal shielded Epstein, protected unnamed potential co-conspirators, kept victims in the dark, and turned what should have been a major federal sex-trafficking prosecution into a managed local resolution. In that sense, Filip and Mukasey were not background characters in the Epstein plea deal; they were part of the DOJ brass whose authority helped make the arrangement possible.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Last year was the first time we went to Balaton, and the result wasn't great. This year? Hate the track, love the riders. And I say 'riders', plural, because it takes two to tango. And people, did we get one hell of a dance between Acosta and Marquez today. Yes, the king is back and schooling everyone with 1,5 functional arms. Keen readers might notice that this is slightly less than the average of 2, but leave it to Marquez to make the best of it and show everyone how it's done. And if that doesn't make you excited, then just think:He's only going to get better from here. Who also keeps steadily doing better is Pedro Acosta, showing us how gentlemen duel while speeding over the tarmac with Marc. He's making the KTM look good, perhaps even better than it really is. Now let's put him on a Ducati next year, and see what happens...So yes, Mat and Peter have got plenty to talk about. Also, is this going to be the year that the Bez becomes champion? You never know...---Want more? Visit our website or support us on Patreon. With big thanks as always to Brad Baloo from The Next Men and Gentleman's Dub Club for writing our theme song. Check out The Nextmen for more great music! And additional thanks to flowerhead, who's music you can find here. And thanks to our sponsors, OnTrack Experiences. Check them out if you want an easy all-in-one package for your favourite race!Oh, and a quick word in regards to sponsors: If you're interested in connecting with a really unique MotoGP audience — we're working with Smash Brand Group out of Sydney to manage partnerships. Curious? Just head to smashbrandgroup.com.au and get in touch!