Podcasts about Acosta

The official story has always painted Alex Acosta as the man solely responsible for Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but that version is designed to mislead. Acosta was a mid-level figure, a convenient scapegoat set up to absorb public outrage while the real decisions were made in Washington. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, and other senior DOJ brass were the ones who met with Epstein's powerful legal team, signed off on the immunity clause, and ensured the deal protected not only Epstein but his co-conspirators. Acosta merely carried out orders that had already been determined above him, and when the truth started to unravel, he was offered up as the fall guy to shield the institution.The failure to subpoena everyone involved—from state prosecutors to Main Justice leadership—reveals that Congress is more interested in theater than accountability. By focusing blame on Acosta, the system preserved itself, kept survivors from the truth, and avoided admitting the uncomfortable reality that DOJ itself bent the law to protect a billionaire predator. True justice requires putting every official who touched the deal under oath, including Mukasey and Filip, to expose how the NPA was engineered. Until that happens, the scandal remains unresolved and the cover-up intact, with Acosta remembered not as the architect of Epstein's freedom, but as the shield sacrificed to keep the powerful safe.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The official story has always painted Alex Acosta as the man solely responsible for Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but that version is designed to mislead. Acosta was a mid-level figure, a convenient scapegoat set up to absorb public outrage while the real decisions were made in Washington. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, and other senior DOJ brass were the ones who met with Epstein's powerful legal team, signed off on the immunity clause, and ensured the deal protected not only Epstein but his co-conspirators. Acosta merely carried out orders that had already been determined above him, and when the truth started to unravel, he was offered up as the fall guy to shield the institution.The failure to subpoena everyone involved—from state prosecutors to Main Justice leadership—reveals that Congress is more interested in theater than accountability. By focusing blame on Acosta, the system preserved itself, kept survivors from the truth, and avoided admitting the uncomfortable reality that DOJ itself bent the law to protect a billionaire predator. True justice requires putting every official who touched the deal under oath, including Mukasey and Filip, to expose how the NPA was engineered. Until that happens, the scandal remains unresolved and the cover-up intact, with Acosta remembered not as the architect of Epstein's freedom, but as the shield sacrificed to keep the powerful safe.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Are you feeling the rapid transformation of the "Great Shift" toward 2026? Join, Robyn and Colleen Benelli, and returning guest Rosalyn Acosta as they explore the practical "hows" of manifestation and energy healing. Rosalyn talks about how to bridge your spiritual vision into physical form using ethical plant medicine, quantum physics, and "spiritual efficiency" for your daily life.  In This Episode, You Will Learn: •    Discover the biological science behind smudging with Sage and Palo Santo, including how it affects cortisol and airborne bacteria. •    Master the difference between the Horizontal and Vertical realms to better balance your daily life with your energy body. •    Explore the Seer, Feeler, and Knower archetypes to identify and manage your unique intuitive gifts and boundaries. •    Release collective heaviness by utilizing "spiritual efficiency"—energy hacks designed for busy parents and professionals. •    Navigate the "Great Shift" of 2026 by anchoring your authentic light and supporting the next generation of "homoluminous" youth. Connect with Rosalyn: •    Book a distance or in-person session: www.livehealtravel.com/heal/ •    Upcoming Teen Reiki 1 Training & Rite of Passage: https://livehealtravel.com/teen-training-and-rite-of-passage/   Connect with Colleen & Robyn •    Website: ReikiLifestyle.com •    Online Classes: Register for upcoming Reiki Training •    YouTube: Watch our Video Discussions & Journeys •    Instagram: @reikilifestyleofficial Join Our Community •    Free Online Distance Reiki Share: Join us every Tuesday from 9:30 am – 11:00 am Pacific Time for a global healing circle. •    colleen@reikilifestyle.com For Questions •    Free Consultation Call with Danni Love the Show? •    If this episode helped you on your journey, please Subscribe and leave a 5-star review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. •    Your support helps us share the gift of Reiki with more people around the world!  **DISCLAIMER** This episode is not a substitute for seeking professional medical care but is offered for relaxation and stress reduction, which support the body's natural healing capabilities. Reiki is a complement to and never a replacement for professional medical care. Colleen and Robyn are not licensed professional health care providers and urge you to always seek out the appropriate physical and mental help professional health care providers may offer. Results vary by individual.

Alex Acosta's appearance before Congress was nothing short of a masterclass in bureaucratic nonsense and evasive cowardice. Instead of accountability, he offered the same tired excuses and jargon-filled deflections, pretending that the Epstein plea deal was some sort of complicated chess match rather than what it truly was: a grotesque betrayal of justice. He smirked, stammered, and dressed up cowardice as prudence, insisting his hands were tied when in reality, he was the one tying them. It was a performance not of contrition but of arrogance, as if the public should feel lucky that this man even bothered to show up and grace them with his half-truths.Worse still, Acosta continues to play his role in the Epstein charade, feeding the illusion that this was merely an unfortunate footnote in a prosecutor's career rather than a calculated decision that shielded a predator and his powerful friends. By refusing to admit fault or show genuine remorse, he reinforces the same wall of silence that has defined the entire cover-up from day one. His congressional testimony wasn't about truth—it was about maintaining the narrative, keeping the spotlight off the networks of influence that Epstein served. Acosta wasn't testifying for the people; he was testifying for the system that thrives on protecting the powerful, and in doing so, he revealed exactly why history will remember him as a coward who sold out justice and stood by it with a smirk.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Alex Acosta: Former US attorney defends Epstein's 2008 plea deal in hours-long appearance on Capitol Hill | CNN Politics

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

Let us know what you think!In this episode of the Security Halt! Podcast, host Deny Caballero speaks with retired Green Beret Martin Acosta, a veteran advocate focused on raising awareness about alternative approaches to mental health recovery.Martin discusses the growing conversation around psychedelic medicine, plant medicine, and trauma healing, while emphasizing the importance of education, responsible use, and strong community support systems.In This Episode• The mental health challenges facing many veterans • Why some veterans are exploring plant medicine and psychedelic therapies • The importance of education and responsible integration • The role of community in healing and recovery • The evolving conversation around veteran mental healthChapters:00:00 Why Veteran Mental Health Conversations Are Changing 02:53 Martin Acosta's Journey from Green Beret to Advocate 06:10 Understanding Psychedelic Medicine and Plant Medicine 08:54 The Role of Education and Responsible Use 11:49 Community Support in Veteran Healing 14:59 Making Informed Decisions About Mental Health 18:01 The Personal Journey of Recovery and Growth 26:55 Personal Transformation and Healing 29:50 Alternative Approaches to Pain and Trauma 32:58 Advocating for Veteran Mental Health Awareness 36:57 Embracing the Reality of the Healing Process 43:57 Finding Strength Through Difficult Experiences 50:32 Living Fully After TraumaSupport the showProduced by Security Halt Media

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

Missy Christie de Acosta - Conviventia: educación, familia, liderazgo y atención humanitaria by Javeriana919fm

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.

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.

On December 7, 2003, 13-year-old Daniel Morcombe left home to catch a bus on Queensland's Sunshine Coast, expecting a normal afternoon of Christmas shopping, but he never arrived. His disappearance sparked the largest police investigation in Queensland's history, gripping a nation and leaving a family and community searching for answers. As years passed, the case followed a winding path marked by missed connections, resurfacing names, and investigative risks. This episode explores the moments before Daniel vanished and the long road that followed, without revealing where it ultimately led.  Sources: https://danielmorcombe.com.au/, Accessed March 3rd, 2026  Day, Bek, “Detective reveals the subtle clue that gave away Daniel Morcombe's killer Brett Cowan immediately”, News, July 19th 2025, https://www.news.com.au/national/crime/detective-reveals-the-subtle-clue-that-gave-away-daniel-morcombes-killer-brett-cowan-immediately/news-story/8e3600ca2562c9d007dd421f99feaf2c, Accessed March 3rd, 2026  Acosta, Nicole, “A Teen Waited at a Bus Stop, Then Vanished Forever. 8 Years Later, an Undercover Sting Finally Revealed What Happened to Him”, People, February 8th, 2025, https://people.com/daniel-morcombe-case-australia-killed-by-brett-peter-cowan-8788148, Accessed March 3rd, 2026  Gokhale, Stuti, “Daniel Morcombe Murder: Where is Brett Peter Cowan Now?”, The Cinemaholic, October 19th, 2022, https://thecinemaholic.com/daniel-morcombe-murder-where-is-brett-peter-cowan-now/, Accessed March 3rd, 2026   Morgan, Amber, “The Tragic Story Of Daniel Morcombe, The 13-Year-Old Australian Boy Who Was Kidnapped From A Bus Stop”, All That's Interesting, October 7th, 2025, https://allthatsinteresting.com/daniel-morcombe, Accessed March 3rd, 2026

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.

Dave sits down with Joe Lamberson, Director of Digital Initiatives & Partnerships at Acosta Group, to discuss how brands can modernize digital shelf execution and keep up with rapidly rising retailer expectations.With Acosta supporting thousands of brands across retail and ecommerce, Joe has a unique perspective on the operational challenges brands face—from content creation and item setup to retailer scorecards and image requirements.A major theme of the episode is the Acosta × It'sRapid partnership, and how automation is helping brands scale digital shelf content creation while maintaining quality and compliance.They discuss:Why digital shelf content refresh has become an always-on processHow AI is helping brands break the speed / quality / cost tradeoff in content creationThe growing importance of mobile hero images and retailer scorecardsHow Acosta works with technology partners like It'sRapid to help brands scale content executionWhy image creation, visual analytics, and automation are becoming essential capabilitiesWhat generative search and AI could mean for product discoverabilityConnect with Joe on LinkedInFollow Beyond the Shelf on LinkedInLearn More about It'sRapidGet the It'sRapid Creative Automation PlaybookTake It'sRapid's Creative Workflow Automation with AI surveyEmail us at sales@itsrapid.io to find out how to get your free AI Image AuditTheme music: "Happy" by Mixaud - https://mixaund.bandcamp.comProducer: Jake Musiker

Alex Acosta's appearance before Congress was nothing short of a masterclass in bureaucratic nonsense and evasive cowardice. Instead of accountability, he offered the same tired excuses and jargon-filled deflections, pretending that the Epstein plea deal was some sort of complicated chess match rather than what it truly was: a grotesque betrayal of justice. He smirked, stammered, and dressed up cowardice as prudence, insisting his hands were tied when in reality, he was the one tying them. It was a performance not of contrition but of arrogance, as if the public should feel lucky that this man even bothered to show up and grace them with his half-truths.Worse still, Acosta continues to play his role in the Epstein charade, feeding the illusion that this was merely an unfortunate footnote in a prosecutor's career rather than a calculated decision that shielded a predator and his powerful friends. By refusing to admit fault or show genuine remorse, he reinforces the same wall of silence that has defined the entire cover-up from day one. His congressional testimony wasn't about truth—it was about maintaining the narrative, keeping the spotlight off the networks of influence that Epstein served. Acosta wasn't testifying for the people; he was testifying for the system that thrives on protecting the powerful, and in doing so, he revealed exactly why history will remember him as a coward who sold out justice and stood by it with a smirk.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Alex Acosta: Former US attorney defends Epstein's 2008 plea deal in hours-long appearance on Capitol Hill | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Venha visitar a nossa Loja:https://iconografia-da-historia-3.myshopify.com/?utm_medium=product_shelf&utm_source=youtubeSiga nosso canal de CORTES:https://www.youtube.com/@IconografiadaHistoria-cortesE siga também nosso canal parceiro "CAFÉ E CAOS TV" apresentado pelo nosso querido Fernandão e Agnes Andradehttps://www.youtube.com/@CafeecaostvAJUDE-NOS A MANTER O CANAL ICONOGRAFIA DA HISTÓRIA: Considere apoiar nosso trabalho, participar de sorteios e garantir acesso ao nosso grupo de Whatsapp exclusivo: https://bit.ly/apoiaoidhSe preferir, faz um PIX: https://bit.ly/PIXidhNos acompanhe no Spotify @iconocastSiga ICONOGRAFIA DA HISTÓRIA em todas as redes: https://linktr.ee/iconografiadahistoriaoficialSiga o JOEL PAVIOTTI: https://bit.ly/joelpaviottiApresentação: Joel PaviottiTexto e roteirização: Adriana de PaulaRevisão: Adriana de PaulaCâmera e produção: Fernando ZenerattoEdição: Fernando ZenerattoDireção: Fernando Zeneratto / Joel Paviotti

Danny Segura entrevista a Javier Torres, entrenador de Javier Reyes y Waldo Cortés-Acosta, acerca de la victoria de Reyes y su baile viral en UFC México, qué le sigue a Cortés-Acosta y mucho más.

The long-running focus on Alex Acosta has obscured a more uncomfortable reality: the Epstein non-prosecution agreement was architected and approved at the highest levels of the Department of Justice, not improvised by a single U.S. Attorney in Florida. Contemporary emails and internal DOJ documentation show that Epstein's legal team did not treat Acosta as the final decision-maker. Instead, they escalated directly to Main Justice, where Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip exercised authority over the case. Those records make clear that the contours of the deal—federal immunity, secrecy from victims, and an extraordinary carve-out protecting potential co-conspirators—were discussed, vetted, and ultimately sanctioned in Washington. This was not a rogue local plea deal; it was a federal policy decision shaped by DOJ leadership.The paper trail matters because it contradicts years of public narrative and political convenience. Emails show Epstein's lawyers communicating confidence that DOJ headquarters was receptive, even as the gravity of the allegations was well understood. Mark Filip's sign-off, coming from the second-highest office in the department, formalized a decision that could not have proceeded without Mukasey's institutional blessing. That documentation undercuts claims that the NPA was the product of prosecutorial leniency or negligence at the district level. It demonstrates instead a coordinated, top-down intervention that insulated Epstein from federal exposure while sidelining victims' rights. The emails don't just revise the story of who was responsible—they confirm that the most powerful figures in the Justice Department knowingly built and approved the framework that allowed Epstein to escape meaningful accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Danny Segura entrevista a Javier Torres, entrenador de Javier Reyes y Waldo Cortés-Acosta, acerca de la victoria de Reyes y su baile viral en UFC México, qué le sigue a Cortés-Acosta y mucho más.

Send a text“How can I break cycles of generational trauma?” “How can I stop my Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) from reflecting onto my kids?” — Almost everyone experiences trauma in their lives, and it weighs heavily on each of us. 33% of people who experienced trauma in their childhood reflect it onto their children, creating a cycle of trauma. But we aren't defined by our trauma, and generational trauma is avoidable. In fact, today Benoit Harpey and Amina Elsamahy sit down with Eddie Acosta, who is a child abuse and neglect survivor, speaker on trauma-informed parenting, youth professional, author, and advocate for breaking the cycle of trauma. In part one of this conversation, Eddie tells his story from being an abused foster kid to a father who broke the cycle of trauma in his family, explains why trauma is often repeated, and tells us what it takes to build a trauma-free home. This isn't out of reach—Eddie did it, and so can you. Hit play to hear meaningful insights, gain practical advice, and to start breaking the cycle of trauma in your family today.

Osnovno pitanje pred prvu trku sezone u Buriramu je bilo da li neko može da se odupre Marcu Marquezu, Acosta pobedom u sprintu i Bezz pobedom u glavnoj trci jasno stavili do znanja da duvaju novi vetrovi u kraljevskoj klasi. Jedini koji još uvek nedostaje je Pecco Bagnaia.------------------OMV, ZVANIČNI PARTNER LAP 76 ⛽️Preuzmite OMV MyStation mobilnu aplikaciju, podržite Lap 76 - https://www.omv.co.rs/sr-rs/mystationPretvorite poene u trenutke radosti - svaka kupovina na OMV stanicama vam donosi poene, koje možete pretvoriti u trenutke radosti u prodavnici OMV-a.Pri kupovini goriva, preporučujemo MaxxMotion, za koji ostvarujete i popust!

The Kirkland & Ellis response treats the May 19, 2008 letter from the Southern District of Florida's First Assistant U.S. Attorney not as a good-faith summary, but as a document that actively distorts the historical record of the Epstein investigation. The firm argues that the letter is riddled with contradictions, misleading framing, and outright falsehoods that cannot be chalked up to sloppy drafting or innocent error. Rather than accurately recounting investigative decisions, the letter is portrayed as a post-hoc justification designed to sanitize prosecutorial conduct after the fact. Kirkland & Ellis makes clear that the document attempts to reshape reality—presenting disputed actions as settled facts and glossing over decisions that directly benefited Epstein.Critically, the response emphasizes that the letter's defects are not marginal or technical, but foundational, calling into question the integrity of the government's entire narrative. By systematically comparing the letter's assertions with what actually occurred, Kirkland & Ellis suggests that the misrepresentations were deliberate and strategic, intended to create a paper trail that could withstand scrutiny rather than reflect truth. The firm characterizes the letter as emblematic of how the Epstein case was managed from start to finish: facts were selectively presented, inconvenient details were omitted or reframed, and the official record was bent to support an outcome already decided. In this view, the May 19 letter is not merely inaccurate—it is itself evidence of how the Epstein investigation was manipulated and why accountability was avoided.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00013801.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The 2026 MotoGP season got started with action, drama, controversy, and...a tire that tried to run away from Marc Marquez. More importantly - Aprilia took the fight to Ducati, and Pedro Acosta took the fight to everyone in the start of what might be a wild MotoGP Championship. I recap the ThaiGP!The Rundown:- The ThaiGP! Round 1 Recap:- Qualifying - Raul Fernandez shines, Pecco Bagnaia struggles- Sprint: controversy shadows an absolute thriller of a race- The 'Indicent" - should it have even been a penalty?- Pedro vs. Marc foreshadows exciting times ahead as teammates- MotoGP Race: Aprilia makes a statement that Ducati won't soon forget- Bezz leads an impressive Aprilia charge at the front- What happened to Marc's rear wheel??- Trackhouse could quietly compete for the Independent Team title- The Championship picture - Aprilias and Pedro stacking up in the top spots- Aprilia vs. Ducati - has the balance of power shifted? And can Marc counter Bezz (or, more importantly, when will Marc be able to counter Bezz)- My Take on Thailand!What did you think of Buriram? 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!

Dre Harrison, Lewis Duncan and Peter McLaren review all the action to come out of the 2026 Season Opener, the Thai Grand Prix. Marco Bezzecchi dominated in what may be Aprilia's greatest day in MotoGP, with four of their bikes in the Top 5. Is that a sign of things to come? Pedro Acosta and Marc Marquez also went toe-to-toe in the Sprint race, with a controversial penalty demoting Marquez down to 2nd for Acosta to become MotoGP's youngest sprint winner. Was it the right decision? All that and more on the latest Crash MotoGP Podcast! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

E' andata come ci si aspettava con l'Aprilia di Bezzecchi dominante...ma non fino a questo punto! Quattro moto nei primi cinque posti con Bez, Raul Fernandez, Martin e Ogura, con solo Pedro Acosta con la KTM fra di loro è stata una sorpresa.Una sorpresa, ma fino ad un certo punto, lo è stata la tattica di gara di Marc Marquez, piuttosto attendista, fino a che un problema di pressione alla gomma posteriore, od un salto su un cordolo - la ricostruzione non ci convince - ha determinato la piegatura del cerchio posteriore ed il ritiro.Era il 21° giro ed in quel momento Marc era in quarta posizione, ma era il più veloce in pista e stava attaccando. Il podio era sicuramente alla sua portata, forse anche il secondo posto, ma le gare sono così.Ma la classifica la trovate dovunque: Paolo, Carlo e Matteo analizzano la gara, danno le loro opinioni e gettano anche uno sguardo sulla situazione Honda e Yamaha. Soprattutto quest'ultima in crisi ed in silenzio stampa, anche se Paolo Pavesio ci ha messo la faccia.Divisi con il pubblico se Ducati stia per affacciarsi ad una crisi, oppure si sia semplicemente trattato di una gara sfortunata.Una Live con oltre 2600 'membri' in diretta a commentare, dire la propria, chattare fra loro, assentire o dissentire con il terzetto di punta di GPOne.

The Kirkland & Ellis response treats the May 19, 2008 letter from the Southern District of Florida's First Assistant U.S. Attorney not as a good-faith summary, but as a document that actively distorts the historical record of the Epstein investigation. The firm argues that the letter is riddled with contradictions, misleading framing, and outright falsehoods that cannot be chalked up to sloppy drafting or innocent error. Rather than accurately recounting investigative decisions, the letter is portrayed as a post-hoc justification designed to sanitize prosecutorial conduct after the fact. Kirkland & Ellis makes clear that the document attempts to reshape reality—presenting disputed actions as settled facts and glossing over decisions that directly benefited Epstein.Critically, the response emphasizes that the letter's defects are not marginal or technical, but foundational, calling into question the integrity of the government's entire narrative. By systematically comparing the letter's assertions with what actually occurred, Kirkland & Ellis suggests that the misrepresentations were deliberate and strategic, intended to create a paper trail that could withstand scrutiny rather than reflect truth. The firm characterizes the letter as emblematic of how the Epstein case was managed from start to finish: facts were selectively presented, inconvenient details were omitted or reframed, and the official record was bent to support an outcome already decided. In this view, the May 19 letter is not merely inaccurate—it is itself evidence of how the Epstein investigation was manipulated and why accountability was avoided.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00013801.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

La penalizzazione inflitta a Marc Marquez per il sorpasso all'ultimo giro su Acosta ha acceso le polemiche ma trova tutti, piloti e manager, d'accordo. Non si può penalizzare un sorpasso deciso, ma nel quale i piloti si sono solo sfiorati e Marc non è uscito dalla pista.Lo stesso Acosta che lo ha subito ha confessato che a ruoli inversi avrebbe fatto lo stesso.E' questa la nuova MotoGP che vuole Liberty Media?Nel contempo nessuna penalizzazione per Alex Marquez che nelle primissime battute ha portato fuori Di Giannantonio, non intenzionalmente ovviamente, ma rovinandogli comunque la gara.E' l'argomento di conversazione di Paolo, Carlo e Matteo in una live piena di commenti.Si parla anche dell'errore di Bezzecchi ovviamente, e della gara spenta di Bagnaia.

Megyn Kelly begins the show by calling out Bill Clinton ahead of his forced deposition related to Jeffrey Epstein, revisiting his long history of connections to Epstein, his obvious lies and spin in public statements over the past couple months, and more. Then Mike Benz, Executive Director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, joins to discuss the critical gaps in the Jeffrey Epstein files between 1999 and 2001, why Epstein's earlier Bear Stearns years are critical to understanding the whole picture, why full declassification of CIA and State Department records is essential to understand Epstein's role and relationships, claims that Alex Acosta said Jeffrey Epstein “belonged to intelligence,” what Acosta has said publicly since, why Epstein's intel connections are so crucial to understanding the truth about him, and more. Then Jim Fitzgerald and Maureen O'Connell, former FBI agents, join to discuss Savannah Guthrie's latest Instagram plea emphasizing that the cash reward can be claimed anonymously, whether her appearance was strategically crafted to appeal directly to the abductors, new Ring camera footage showing a white car leaving Nancy Guthrie's neighborhood around the estimated time of her disappearance, conflicting reports about whether the vehicles could be connected to the case, and more. Then Megyn dives into Megan Rapinoe trashing Team USA men's hockey for taking a call from President Trump, her critique of Kash Patel being in the locker room, her constant hate and hypocrisy, the wild story of a top SCOTUS lawyer gambling millions and now going to jail, and more.   Benz- https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber O'Connell- https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/best-case-worst-case/id1240002929 Fitzgerald- https://www.youtube.com/@ColdRedPodcast-tb2lb/featured   Done with Debt: https://www.DoneWithDebt.com & tell them Megyn Kelly sent you! SaunaSpace: Discover why SaunaSpace's infrared FireLight tech is redefining at‑home wellness—visit https://Sauna.Space/MEGYN and use code MEGYN for 10% off your entire order. PureTalk: Tired of big wireless prices? Switch to PureTalk for unlimited talk and text for $25/month—dial #250 and say MEGYN KELLY for 50% off your first month. Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow  Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Marc Marquez kuca na vrata nove istorije u 2026. godini, kao treći čovek ikada sa deset ili više titula šampiona sveta, a toliko je lako izgledalo sve u 2025. da se postavlja pitanje ima li pravog rivala? Ipak, Bagnaia ima priliku da i sam ispiše istoriju i pobedom nad MM93 sebe svrsta u red velikana MotoGP-a. Mogu li neki novi klinci do uspeha?------------------OMV, ZVANIČNI PARTNER LAP 76 ⛽️Preuzmite OMV MyStation mobilnu aplikaciju, podržite Lap 76 - https://www.omv.co.rs/sr-rs/mystationPretvorite poene u trenutke radosti - svaka kupovina na OMV stanicama vam donosi poene, koje možete pretvoriti u trenutke radosti u prodavnici OMV-a.Pri kupovini goriva, preporučujemo MaxxMotion, za koji ostvarujete i popust!

Do preseason testing results make a difference? Kind of. I talk about the riders' opinions of their own chances heading into the 2026 MotoGP season, then rank the manufacturers. Plus - we discuss minimum rider salaries.The Rundown:- MotoGP News:- Minimum Salaries - the riders deserve it- Preseason Testing:- Results from Thailand and Buriram- Ducati and Aprilia - set for a showdown?- KTM is in transition, but Acosta still has something to race for- Honda hits a plateau - how long will it take to move past it?- Yamaha has a LOT of work to do- My manufacturer rankings heading into the seasonOne more to go before the season starts! Check back for my ThaiGP Preview tomorrow!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!

Danny Segura entrevista a Javier Reyes acerca de su debut en UFC este sábado en UFC México contra Douglas Silva de Andrade, representar a Colombia, la famosa salsa de Waldo Cortés-Acosta y mucho más.

Danny Segura entrevista a Javier Reyes acerca de su debut en UFC este sábado en UFC México contra Douglas Silva de Andrade, representar a Colombia, la famosa salsa de Waldo Cortés-Acosta y mucho más.

Los Originales: 1. Se conoció que hay 50 pacientes de la misma Eps que estarían en las mismas condiciones de Kevin y sin recibir el tratamiento desde hace un mes.

Today's show is packed!We break down the fallout from Tucker's trip to Israel — including his airport standoff, reactions from Dave Rubin, and why some are comparing the moment to Jussie Smollett. Even Marjorie Taylor Greene jumped in to defend him.Meanwhile, journalist Ed O'Keefe gets roasted after claiming President Donald Trump has never been called a racist — followed by a brutal montage proving otherwise. DHS fires back at Jim Acosta, and media spin from Nicole Wallace gets fact-checked.We also cover:- Hillary Clinton denying 2028 rumors- Kash Patel on tracing Antifa funding- Chloe Cole's trial date- James Talarico vs Jasmine Crockett- John Thune and the SAVE Act- John Solomon with Dan Bongino on the filibuster- A heartwarming Trump moment with Ben Carson- A shoutout to Nicki MinajPlus: midterm polling trends, media hypocrisy, culture chaos, and the latest TikTok insanity.Subscribe and stay tuned for new episodes every weekday!Follow us here for more daily clips, updates, and commentary:YoutubeFacebookInstagramTikTokXLocalsMore InfoWebsite

 ¿Por qué un banco tradicional te aprueba un préstamo de $50,000 para un auto de lujo en una hora, pero te hace esperar meses (o te rechaza) si pides ese mismo dinero para crecer tu negocio? En este episodio de Gana Tu Día, nos sentamos con Javier Acosta, ex-banquero de inversión y presidente de PYMES Financial Partners, para destapar la realidad del sistema financiero y exponer las reglas ocultas que mantienen a los pequeños empresarios estancados.

Programa del 18 de febrero de 2026.

When Alex Acosta, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, agreed in 2008 to a plea deal that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to serve just 13 months in county jail despite federal sex-trafficking allegations, the agreement was widely criticized as outrageously lenient. But deeper reviews and federal court filings since have shown Acosta was not acting alone — the controversial non-prosecution agreement was effectively drafted and backed by officials in the main Department of Justice (DOJ), not just his local office. Documents and internal DOJ statements reveal that senior career prosecutors in Washington had negotiated the framework of the agreement, signed off on its unusually broad protections for Epstein and his associates, and limited the scope of charges in a way that prevented future federal prosecution. In this telling, Acosta served more as the frontman implementing a policy shaped and approved at the highest levels — including language that immunized unnamed co-conspirators and blocked state or federal prosecutors from bringing additional charges related to Epstein's trafficking network.Further underscoring that Acosta was not solely responsible, later Department of Justice reviews found that career prosecutors and supervisors in Washington had actively steered the deal's terms, and that many within the DOJ were aware of its extraordinary concessions. Rather than acting on his own judgment, Acosta was executing an agreement that DOJ leadership championed as the best way at the time to secure some form of accountability — a defense that has since been widely rejected. This perspective reframes the narrative: Acosta becomes a middleman who carried out a controversial deal designed, negotiated, and authorized by senior DOJ officials, rather than the lone architect of a lenient settlement that spared Epstein from the full weight of federal prosecution.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Kenneth Starr's email to Mark Filip wasn't just a lawyer whining about aggressive prosecutors—it was a calculated appeal to the very power center that ultimately let Epstein walk. Starr complained bitterly that the Florida team was digging too hard and treating Epstein like an actual criminal instead of the elite figure his defense team believed he was. What Starr was really doing was pressuring Filip—one of the highest-ranking officials in the Department of Justice—to step in and shut down a legitimate investigation. And the troubling part is that the email landed exactly where Epstein's legal machine wanted it: at the top of Main Justice, the same place that would go on to bless the non-prosecution agreement. The narrative that Alex Acosta “acted alone” collapses under the weight of communications like this. Starr wasn't appealing to Acosta. He was appealing above him—because that's where the real decision-making power sat.Filip's role in all this is even more damning when you consider the final outcome. DOJ headquarters didn't just look the other way—they authorized the sweetheart deal. They were the backstop that allowed Epstein's legal team to bypass federal prosecutors who wanted to charge Epstein with crimes carrying real prison time. Filip didn't just receive the email; Main Justice effectively delivered what Epstein's lawyers asked for. The infamous non-prosecution agreement wasn't Acosta freelancing—it was Washington signing off. The email illustrates how Epstein's team successfully moved the fight out of Florida and into D.C., where connections, prestige, and pressure carried far more weight than the testimony of dozens of abused children. Filip and Main Justice weren't bystanders—they were the reason the deal happened.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.22_1.pdf

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> The difference between the red and blue states are clear now. Those states that follow the green new scam are failing and those that are not are succeeding. Fuel prices are coming down except those states that are following the green new scam. ADP has revised its employment numbers back to 2010, the illusion is being exposed. The [DS] is now in a deep panic, they know that without their cheating system they will not be able to win the midterms. This is why in the end they will push another event to try to stop the elections and try to blame it on Trump, this will fail, they did this in 2020 and they cheated to overthrow the US government. All of the D’s crimes are being exposed, and in the end the D party will cease to exist.   Economy (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/StephenMoore/status/2019051853380514002?s=20 Trump’s Energy Agenda Lowers Gas Costs – Most Places  a new report notes that gasoline prices are dropping thanks to increased development under the Trump administration – but not everywhere. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, on Wednesday, took to his X account to share the news. https://twitter.com/SecretaryBurgum/status/2019070174779801671?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2019070174779801671%7Ctwgr%5E101bbd02c2c262b0bab597b657ae92b4f4696b9b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fwardclark%2F2026%2F02%2F04%2Ftrumps-energy-agenda-lowers-gas-costs-most-places-n2198829 Source:redstate.com ADP Employment Report Massively Revised to 2010 with Huge Erratic Differences in Month-to-Month Job Creation & Losses    The ADP National Employment Report data, released today by payroll processor ADP, was massively revised going back to 2010,     For example: In 2025, the new version (red) shows job declines in March, April, and May, when the old version showed substantial job gains (blue). Then for the second half of 2025, the new version (red) shows much bigger job gains of 345,000 for June through December, than the old version (131,000). For 2024, the new version shows big job losses in February and March (red), while the old version showed moderate gains (blue). And then again in September and October 2024, the new version showed job losses (red), when the old version showed massive job gains (blue). For 2023, the new version shows huge job gains for May, June, and July, while the old version showed much smaller job gains. These massive differences go back all the way back to 2010. The entire data set was massively revised. ADP's entire data series going back to 2010 was heavily revised, and shifted down by about 2.5 million jobs across the entire period. I Source: wolfstreet.com https://twitter.com/pete_rizzo_/status/2019085379178029264?s=20 Political/Rights One-Third of Washington Post's Entire Staff Is Being Laid Off Today they cut one-third of their staff. One-third of the Washington Post's staff is being laid off. Over 300 employees were let go today.   Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2019070303112962269?s=20 https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/2019021331728040047?s=20   served.” https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2018768203003170933?s=20   illegals arrest power. The braindead police chief says she didn't know he was illegal. NO CHANCE this is an accident. https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/2018170822762823946?s=20 border fit that criteria. No one in Mexico or Ecuador or Honduras etc live in nations where there is any state persecution of any protected class. It's all fake, all the way down. 2. All non-Mexican illegals have transited through additional countries on the way to America where there are no forms of state persecution, thereby further disproving any hypothetical claim 3. As yet further proof the claims are fake, aliens turn down the opportunity to avoid this fabricated persecution by being safely resettled in another nation 4. Illegal aliens receive free and functionally unlimited legal services. When facing deportation, they and their lawyers (as a matter of course) automatically file fake asylum applications. It's a multibillion dollar fraudulent industry. It's gross, unethical, and deeply immoral. Everyone involved in this system understands and knows these claims are false. Adjudicating these knowingly false claims is a full-time job for thousands of people. 5. Federal law requires illegal aliens to be detained pending a hearing for their (fake) asylum claim. These are not prisons. They are not being punished. No one is being sentenced. Civil detention and removal is not part of the Article III justice system (in fact, Congress stripped Article III of jurisdiction over civil immigration procedure). The goal of the US government is to send aliens home immediately (they get cash and a free plane ticket) with the fewest days in custody as logistically possible. Any delay is caused by the fake asylum claim. 6. When the fake asylum claim is heard on the “non-detained” docket the illegal aliens rarely show for their hearings. Those few who do show stay in the country regardless after losing (unless placed into detention). Removal orders are ignored as a matter of course. If and when absconders are eventually found (at great time and expense) they still have to be detained to actually effectuate the removal. At this point in time their lawyers will file a motion to reopen their asylum claim or otherwise appeal the finding and seek release again. Regardless, no removal of any alien anywhere can occur unless in a detained setting. If the alien has children they are, by law, supposed to stay in a family residential center (that costs more per night than a high-end hotel, and includes full medical, dental, scholastic and other services) 7. Biden officials did not even bother with the pretext of performing intake interviews for the millions and millions and millions they released into the US. The aliens were simply released on sight, no questions asked, with court dates years away, in the hope and expectation that by the time their fake asylum claims were adjudicated and rejected years later, Democrats would be able to scream that these illegals have now lived here for X years and they and their children must be allowed to stay at our permanent expense. No one in the prior Administration responsible for these decisions actually believed the or now this has anything to do with asylum. To them, it is just useful propaganda in service of infinite mass migration. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2019043492899725395?s=20 DOJ Files Show Jeffrey Epstein Was Reportedly About To Cooperate With Federal Prosecutors Just Weeks Before He Was Found Dead in Jail Epstein was going to flip? Today we learned that Jeffrey Epstein was ‘set to potentially cooperate with the feds' in his sex-trafficking case. The bombshell revelation comes after it was known that his lawyers and prosecutors met just two weeks before he was found dead in jail. The New York Post reported: https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2017678803896836343?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2017678803896836343%7Ctwgr%5Ecf86d4f223327c36358f06870502d78d212d1ac7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F02%2Fdoj-files-show-jeffrey-epstein-was-reportedly-about%2F Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/Wallstreet2024/status/2018911171869356233?s=20   https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/2019027407429382358?s=20   screws on Acosta to understand exactly how this was allowed to happen. It's hard to believe he made that decision on his own. There's a story there, and maybe it even explains how, 10 years later, he ended up as Trump's Labor Secretary. How does something like that happen? https://twitter.com/KatieMiller/status/2019019126006505788?s=20   Epstein was arrested and jailed. In his second, he's released the files. It's curious why didn't these Democrats want Justice before? https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/2018723390710858221?s=20   DOGE Geopolitical    Soybean count to 20 Million Tons for the current season (They have committed to 25 Million Tons for next season!), Airplane engine deliveries, and numerous other subjects, all very positive! The relationship with China, and my personal relationship with President Xi, is an extremely good one, and we both realize how important it is to keep it that way. I believe that there will be many positive results achieved over the next three years of my Presidency having to do with President Xi, and the People's Republic of China! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP War/Peace https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2018803094432502143?s=20 https://twitter.com/araghchi/status/2019135910881947914?s=20   Putin ‘Kept His Word’ On Ceasefire, Trump Says, As Large Attacks On Kiev Resume President Trump has praised his Russian counterpart for keeping his word on the brief winter freeze ceasefire. Last week Trump had picked up the phone and urged President Putin to refrain from attacking Kiev and other major cities. Trump said of the surprise pause that Putin had agreed to halt strikes for one week. Trump has newly told reporters that the agreement expired on Sunday, and that Russia kept its word. “It was Sunday to Sunday, and it opened up and he hit them hard last night,” Trump explained at the White House on Tuesday. “He kept his word on that… we'll take anything, because it's really, really cold over there.” And then as Reuters reported:   Source: zerohedge.com Medical/False Flags [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2019073176588919068?s=20  Chairman @SenRickScott 's letter & EXPOSING the rampant fraud in our health care system. https://twitter.com/susancrabtree/status/2019043192688042099?s=20 “HomeKey” housing program, which lacked basic verification systems. Shangri-La Industries, the ill-named homeless housing construction firm at the center of California’s fraud scandal, showered Newsom and L.A. County Democrats, as well as Rep. Robert Garcia with political donations. But so far, Newsom and the Dems are keeping the donations and didn’t respond to numerous RCP questions about whether they would give them back. The construction firm is STILL touting a Newsom endorsement and quote praising it on its Instagram account. Shangri-La Industries’ indicted and arrested CFO, Cody Holmes, is accused of looting taxpayer funding to convert seven motels to homeless housing. Holmes allegedly used the money to pay for a $46,000 a month rent for a Beverly Hills mansion, private jets, a Bentley and Ferrari, a gold diamond watch + Birken bags for his girlfriend, Madeleine Witt, plus 20 VIP passes to Coachella worth more than $50K. https://twitter.com/RebeccaTucker85/status/2018784027289993438?s=20   https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/2019056005997383836?s=20  implicitly condones those who try to kill his political enemies. It starts as implicit, then it becomes explicit. Like all marxists throughout history. https://twitter.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/2018747974663143563?s=20     https://twitter.com/NateFriedman97/status/2018770880931717299?s=20 https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2019091187462979705?s=20   https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2019060617257042222?s=20 https://twitter.com/TonyDGianino/status/2018802512586002723?s=20   of the people peaceably to assemble (U.S. Const. amend. I). You have the legal right to gather in public spaces for lawful purposes- – -like protesting, petitioning the government, or observing events—as long as it’s peaceful and doesn’t break other laws (e.g., no trespassing, no interfering with federal operations, no violence). Supreme Court cases like De Jonge v. Oregon (1937) made it clear: peaceable assembly is a fundamental right, cognate to free speech, and can’t be banned just because officials dislike the message. Governments can impose reasonable, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions (e.g., permits for large crowds, no blocking traffic) to protect public safety/order, but they can’t outright prohibit lawful gatherings or use force against peaceful participants. Bottom line: True peaceful assembly is 100% protected. Fake titles don’t create extra rights or shields for illegal interference. Stay lawful – – – stay peaceful—that’s the line.  President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2019059790593376473?s=20 https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/2019056233177657425?s=20 https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/2019059608271171723?s=20     Ryan Routh To Be Sentenced For Trump Assassination Attempt Today A federal judge is set to sentence Ryan Routh on Feb. 4 for attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump. Prosecutors are seeking a life sentence while the defense is arguing for leniency. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon sentenced Ryan Routh to life in prison for attempting to assassinate President Trump during the 2024 presidential election cycle, according to AP News.Federal prosecutors said Routh spent months planning the attack, showed willingness to kill anyone who interfered, and expressed zero remorse during the trial. They asked the judge to impose a life sentence on Routh to “send a message that seeking to assassinate a Presidential candidate will result in the most severe punishment.” Source: zerohedge.com  https://twitter.com/RedWave_Press/status/2019092540578807934?s=20   agency)—serving as vice chairman, according to CBS News. “President Trump intends to sign an executive order in coming days naming Vice President JD Vance as chairman of the task force, a move that’s meant to signal the importance of the effort to the president.” “The plan calls for Colin McDonald, who has been nominated by Mr. Trump for a newly created fraud investigator role at the Justice Department, to fall within the DOJ’s management structure – reporting to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy AG Todd Blanche – but to work closely with Vance and Ferguson.” https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2019122766570496512?s=20 Raskin: Trump ‘Has One Objective in Mind Which Is Trying to Steal the Election'   Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said President Donald Trump has one objective in mind: “trying to steal” the midterm election. Raskin said, “We know it's not as simple as just turning the clock back to, the time before Donald Trump, because obviously, those were the conditions that allowed for Donald Trump and MAGA to penetrate our society and take over our government. We're going to have to fortify democracy and freedom to make them much stronger going forward. And having been through this nightmare together and with the heroic resistance and opposition that we're seeing all over the country, we are going to make it through.”  ” Source: breitbart.com https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2018765587359412584?s=20 https://twitter.com/AndrewKolvet/status/2018899622945771837?s=20 https://twitter.com/daily_romania/status/2019033991333265491?s=20   https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2019024377862394140?s=20     https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2018740338689441821?s=20  try to cheat in the election again via harvesting mass mail-in ballots. The only election the Dems have “won” was in 2020 when there were mass mail-in ballots due to the man-made virus that “leaked” from a US-funded lab, via a CIA/USAID-funded project. The only thing that could save the Dems now, is some sort of catastrophe that they can leverage to their advantage. https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2018851005069226185?s=20  American People will see that the Dems are not actually all that popular. The Dems' perceived support is all one giant ruse. If we pass the SAVE Act, the 2026 election will serve as incontrovertible evidence that the Dems have been engaged in election fraud and treason. The public will have witnessed the sharp contrast with their own eyes. After the People see that the Dems are frauds that can only win by cheating, the public will not only be more willing to accept the reckoning, they will be cheering for it.  (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");