Podcast appearances and mentions of Bill Gates

Tonight on The Stew Peters Show, Jeff Berwick joins me to expose how Bill Gates, Epstein, and their demonic cabal plotted pandemics since 2011 for trillion-dollar profits, laundered billions through the Gates Foundation, obsessed over gene-editing Africans while testing deadly jabs on black kids, and engineered COVID as a global blood sacrifice ritual. Joining me tonight is E. Michael Jones to blow the lid off the Zionist Super Bowl psyop that's erasing the Epstein files proving our leaders are kid-eating pedophiles dragging us into nuclear war for Israel against Iran, ready to wipe out our troops. Epstein's alive, still eating child jerky in hiding. Files prove PizzaGate, Zorro Ranch kid farms, human jerky shipments, and acid baths—this cannibal network runs bolder than ever.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

In August 2019, a plaintiff identified as "Lisa Doe" filed a lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein's estate, alleging that she was recruited at age 17 under the pretense of teaching a dance-based exercise class at Epstein's New York townhouse. According to the lawsuit, an associate of Epstein hired her for this role, but subsequent interactions led to Epstein soliciting massages from her. The suit claims that during these encounters, Epstein forcibly used a sex toy on her and ultimately pressured her to recruit other dancers from her studio for similar purposes.The lawsuit asserts that Epstein's actions were part of a broader pattern of abuse facilitated by a network of associates who helped recruit and control young women. Lisa Doe's allegations highlight the manipulative tactics Epstein allegedly employed, such as exploiting her aspirations in dance to lure her into abusive situations. This case is among several that have been filed against Epstein's estate, aiming to hold accountable those involved in his extensive trafficking operations and to seek justice for the survivors of his abuse.​to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2019-08-20_LDoe_Complaint_for_filing (bwbx.io)

President Trump is standing strong against yet another media-manufactured smear. In this episode, we discuss the "racist video" clip Trump shared on Truth Social — a short video he did not fully view due to a staffer error. As soon as the full context was realized, it was deleted immediately. President Trump has been crystal clear: He condemns racism in all forms. Is this fake outrage from the Left? Is the Left trying to distract from real issues and attack a president who puts America First every single day? We also cover: - Super Bowl highlights: the best and worst commercials including Pepsi, Sabrina Carpenter, Xfinity, Pro Ice, and more - The halftime show that missed the mark on American values - Common-sense voter ID laws and why Democrats continue to fight against secure elections - Elon Musk correcting Bill Gates on basic science facts - Updates on Savannah Guthrie's message in the ongoing kidnapping case - California's punishing tax policies that continue to hurt hardworking American families - Pat's take on the weekend's biggest stories and more 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED! 00:13 Seattle Seahawks: Super Bowl Champions 01:59 Discussing the Super Bowl Ads 05:48 $180 Burger at the Super Bowl 08:09 President Trump on Racist Truth Social Post 10:54 President Trump Explains What Happened with the Racist Post 17:21 SAVE Act Update 18:32 Mail-In Ballots Over the Years 21:59 President Trump on the SAVE Act 30:45 Super Bowl: Bad Bunny Performance 35:23 Super Bowl: Pedro Pascal SUCKS! 36:32 Caller Tim 38:16 Fat Five 49:59 Elon Musk on Bill Gates 54:19 Super Bowl Commercial: Pepsi 55:53 Super Bowl Commercial: Sabrina Carpenter Pringles 57:28 Super Bowl Commercial: Xfinity Jurassic Park 59:34 Super Bowl Commercial: Budweiser 1:00:52 Super Bowl Commercial: Starlink 1:02:19 Streamer's Starlink Confiscated in Antarctica 1:08:19 Update on Savannah Guthrie's Mother (AI Video???) 1:12:16 California Wants to Tax People EVEN MORE! 1:14:53 Another Fraud Case, but in California? 1:16:49 Hillary Clinton is RIGHT?! 1:18:49 Portland Shooting 1:22:13 Super Bowl Commercial: Pro-ICE 1:23:01 Super Bowl Commercial: Ring Camera (Controversial) 1:31:16 Chipotle CEO Raising Prices? 1:33:38 Super Bowl Commercial: Grok - Contest Winner! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Full episodes and much more available on Patreon.com/slopquest Comedian Ryan O’Neill and Illustrator Andrew DeWitt bring you the dumbest takes on news, movies and ridiculous business ideas every week on Slop Quest! There’s a little Tina Turner talk at the start of the show. Ryan has a series of injuries when his luck runs out. Andy has a 14 hour delay on a flight. Ryan has his mind blown when he finds out lots of Bible Belt Christians don’t consider Catholics Christian. Then Andy attends a sword fighting class behind a CVS. Andy hides most of Reddit from himself. Then Andy recalls a product for getting lap dances that are just rubber underwear with lube in them. Ryan can’t believe that sexual surrogates are real. Ryan tries to figure out why Airforce Amy was a popular sex worker. Then the boys talk about Bill Gates a bit. Then Andy finds out how many dudes in their thirties have to be on viagra. O’Neill works out at an elementary school playground in Texas.

Bill Gates continues to appear in more and more of the Epstein files. Plus, Democrats wanted ICE to wear body cams, but now they're singing a different tune.  Visit the Howie Carr Radio Network website to access columns, podcasts, and other exclusive content.

Life in New York City continues to crumble as the winter death toll hits 18. Mayor Mamdani says raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy is the golden ticket to his communist agenda as Virginia devolves into an over-taxed hellscape. A true bombshell document shows Chris Wray and the FBI were planning months before the 2020 election for mass protests and uprisings, and even predicted the events at the Capitol on J6. Does that sound similar to Bill Gates' Event 201 "working session" to roll play a global pandemic, months before Covid hit?  

It’s Super Bowl Day in the US and while we’re not clear on the result, we do know that Kim Kardashian decided it was date night and Bad Bunny is actually one extremely good bunny. So, why did he inspire other musicians to put on a rival halftime show? In other business, the 'Coldplay kiss cam' woman is telling her side of the story of the night that changed her life, and Jessie Stephens, Clare Stephens and Holly Wainwright ask: What do you do with the kind of infamy that no-one wants? And, Recipe Tin Eats’ Nagi Maehashi is mourning the loss of her very good boy, the famous Dozer. Have we learned how to say goodbye to pets properly? And what do we do with that very particular grief? Plus, Melinda Gates and what you owe a truly terrible ex. And Bianca Censori — Kanye West’s wife — has given a long and winding interview about why she’s ready to put clothes on. Why, though? SUBSCRIBE here: Support independent women's media What To Listen To Next: Listen to our latest episode: Do I Matter? & The Bathroom Taboo Listen: The Female Emaciation Era — Holly & Jessie Weigh In Listen: An Urgent Theory About Kim Kardashian & Lewis Hamilton Listen: Scurrilous Gossip - Karl Stefanovic, Melania Trump & Sydney Sweeney, Oh My Listen: Fertility Vampires & The Murkiness Of 'Affair Baiting' Listen: It's Time To Burp Your House & The 3, 5, 7 Underwear Rule Listen: The New 'Wronged Wife' Divorce Playbook Listen: A Royal Summer Update Of Very Big Feelings Connect your subscription to Apple Podcasts Discover more Mamamia Podcasts here including the very latest episode of Parenting Out Loud, the parenting podcast for people who don't listen to... parenting podcasts. SUBSCRIBE here: Support independent women's media Watch Mamamia Out Loud: Mamamia Out Loud on YouTube What to read: When Bill Gates married Melinda, there was a condition. He could go on a yearly holiday with his ex. The one thing about the Epstein files everyone is missing. A guide to the Epstein files for people who don't have all day. Millions of Australians loved Dozer. Now RecipeTin Eats' Nagi Maehashi has said goodbye. It would be different if she had a voice. The disturbing truth about why Bianca Censori left Kanye West. THE END BITS: Check out our merch at MamamiaOutLoud.com GET IN TOUCH: Feedback? We’re listening. Send us an email at outloud@mamamia.com.au Share your story, feedback, or dilemma! Send us a voice message. Join our Facebook group Mamamia Outlouders to talk about the show. Follow us on Instagram @mamamiaoutloud and on Tiktok @mamamiaoutloudBecome a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The boys are back with another chaotic episode that kicks off with golf trash talk (Maxx and David destroyed Joe's team, naturally) before spiraling into the eternal question: can you hit a million YouTube subscribers by just... vlogging? Spoiler alert: probably not, unless you're willing to pivot to political commentary or fake a monster in your kid's closet. They dissect the brutal reality of content creation in 2025—where 50% of your own subscribers don't even watch your videos, vlogs are dying faster than their golf skills, and the podcast might actually be cannibalizing their individual channels. Maxx drops the existential bomb that he's been hanging with this crew longer than any friend group in his life, which is either heartwarming or deeply concerning depending on how you feel about hot tub confessions. Things take a hard left into politics when they tackle the racist White House social media incident (was it an accident or nah?), the Epstein files that keep getting darker (Bill Gates, STDs, and Bitcoin conspiracies, oh my!), and whether Trump is just using memes to distract from actual crimes. Joe becomes the reluctant fact-checker while everyone else processes the absolute insanity of our current timeline. They also somehow land on Candace Owens, the Erica Kirk drama, and why Utah produces both the cleanest cities and the wildest crime documentaries. The consensus? The ruling class does whatever they want, and we're all just here eating popcorn. But wait—there's more! In a twist nobody saw coming, the conversation derails into whether dinosaurs even existed (David and Shawley are skeptics, Joe is losing his mind), if humans would survive another Ice Age with electricity (probably?), and why you can't legally explore Antarctica (what are they hiding down there?!). They debate Mormon magic underwear, whether polar bears have ever eaten penguins (they live on opposite poles, duh), and if you jumped through a hole in the Earth, you'd pop out feet-first going 20,000 mph. Christian admits he ran into a tree while snowboarding at 48 mph trying to beat his top speed, and somehow the rainbow is now a controversial symbol. This podcast is 10% life updates, 40% conspiracy theories, and 50% pure unhinged chaos. Don't be sour.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

Today, convicted sex-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell is scheduled to sit for a deposition before the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as part of Congress's ongoing investigation into the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his network. Lawmakers have arranged for Maxwell to appear—likely by videolink from prison—to answer questions about her role in Epstein's operations, her connections with powerful individuals, and related matters that have come to light after the release of millions of federal documents linked to the Epstein case. Committee members, including Representative Ro Khanna, outlined specific questions they intend to ask, spanning alleged co-conspirators, unindicted individuals, and high-profile figures with ties to Epstein's world.However, Maxwell's legal team has made clear she intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and will refuse to answer substantive questions during this deposition, effectively pleading the Fifth throughout the session rather than provide testimony. According to lawmakers, Maxwell plans to read a prepared statement at the outset and then decline to respond to individual inquiries—citing her constitutional privilege and concerns about jeopardizing ongoing legal matters, including a habeas petition challenging her conviction. This strategy means Congress may not get direct answers from her today, even as it pursues broader scrutiny of Epstein's activities and associations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell is set to plead the fifth as she appears before the US Congress board investigating Jeffrey Epstein today | Daily Mail Online

Bill Clinton continues to dodge a formal deposition about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein despite having ample time for public appearances, marathons, and speeches. The same lawmakers who claim that “no one is above the law” have shown no urgency in questioning the former president who welcomed Epstein to the White House seventeen times, accepted his seed money for the Clinton Foundation, and invited Ghislaine Maxwell to his daughter's wedding. While they posture about accountability, their silence and inaction reveal a political double standard that shields their own. Clinton's carefully managed image — complete with polished smiles and “I don't recall” evasions — remains intact because those in power prefer the illusion of justice to the risk of truth.The spectacle has become political theater. Committees hold hearings, the media offers soft profiles, and the powerful continue to protect each other while victims are left waiting for real answers. Clinton's absence from the witness chair is more than an oversight — it's proof that justice in America operates on a sliding scale determined by status and influence. Every public event he attends is a reminder that accountability is optional for the elite, and every unasked question deepens the rot at the core of the system that claims to serve justice but exists only to preserve power.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Newly released Department of Justice documents from the ongoing Epstein Files review include surveillance logs that appear to contradict parts of the official narrative of Jeffrey Epstein's death in 2019. The logs describe an orange-colored figure moving up a staircase toward Epstein's locked housing tier at the Metropolitan Correctional Center late on the evening before his death, around 10:39 p.m. That movement—possibly an inmate or corrections officer carrying linen—was logged differently by the FBI and the DOJ's inspector general, and was not mentioned in earlier official accounts that asserted no one entered the tier that night. Experts reviewing the camera footage say the single working camera angle was limited, leaving uncertainty about whether someone could have approached the tier unnoticed, even as past statements from officials like former Attorney General Bill Barr maintained there were no additional entries.The newly released files also include interviews with prison staff and logs showing procedural failures on the night Epstein died, such as missed wellness checks and inconsistent inmate counts. The discrepancies between the surveillance observations and prior public claims have fueled fresh questions about the events surrounding his death, which was officially ruled a suicide. Though no new definitive evidence of foul play has been established, the details in the video logs and related records have underscored gaps and contradictions in the historical record of what happened inside the jail that night.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Who entered Epstein's jail tier the night of his death? Newly released video logs appear to contradict official accounts. - CBS News

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

In the newly released tranche of the Epstein files—millions of internal emails and documents made public by the U.S. Department of Justice—correspondence involving Howard Lutnick has revealed details that contradict his long-held public statements about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Lutnick had repeatedly claimed that he and his wife cut ties with Epstein around 2005 and that he had “limited interactions” with the disgraced financier, even saying at one point that he would “never be in a room” with him again after a weird encounter as neighbors in New York. However, the newly disclosed emails show that in 2012, years after Epstein's conviction on sex offense charges, Lutnick and his family actually planned and carried out a visit to Epstein's private Caribbean island, Little Saint James, agreeing to lunch with him there and coordinating logistics via email. Other messages show continued email contact into 2017 and references to Epstein contributing to a charitable dinner associated with Lutnick, undermining his repeated assertions that he had cut all contact decades earlier.These revelations have significantly weakened Lutnick's credibility on this issue because they directly contradict his public narrative of distancing himself from Epstein after 2005. Instead of “limited interactions,” the emails indicate ongoing contact and social engagement well into the 2010s, including family travel arrangements and personal communication long after Epstein's criminal conduct was widely known. When confronted with these files, Lutnick's office has downplayed the interactions and reiterated that he was never accused of wrongdoing, but the factual email trail—showing lunches, island visits, and cordial correspondence—stands in stark contrast to his earlier statements of severance and minimal contact, raising questions about why he misrepresented the extent of his relationship.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Lutnick and Epstein were in business together, Epstein files show - CBS News

Mark Epstein has consistently stated that he does not believe his brother, Jeffrey Epstein, died by suicide and has instead argued that he was murdered while in federal custody. From the beginning, Mark has pointed to what he sees as glaring irregularities in the circumstances of Jeffrey Epstein's death, including the failure of jail staff to properly monitor him, the broken or unusable surveillance cameras, and the rapid rush by authorities to declare the death a suicide. He has said these failures go far beyond ordinary negligence and suggest, at minimum, a system that allowed Epstein to die when powerful interests may have preferred him silent. Mark has emphasized that his brother had recently been taken off suicide watch and, in his view, showed no signs consistent with an imminent suicide at that moment. He has repeatedly framed these facts as incompatible with the official narrative offered by the Bureau of Prisons and the DOJ.Mark Epstein has also cited medical and forensic concerns to support his belief that his brother was killed. He has publicly referenced findings from the autopsy that noted fractures in Jeffrey Epstein's neck bones, arguing that these injuries are more commonly associated with strangulation than with hanging. Mark has said that the refusal of authorities to seriously address these findings, combined with the lack of accountability for the jail failures, reinforces his suspicion of foul play. He has further argued that Jeffrey Epstein was uniquely dangerous to powerful people because of what he knew, and that his death conveniently prevented testimony, cooperation, or further exposure of co-conspirators. For Mark Epstein, the issue is not just personal grief but what he describes as a profound failure of justice, where unanswered questions have been buried rather than investigated with the seriousness such a death demands.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Trump accused of role in Epstein's death in explosive email sent to FBI, documents reveal | The Independent

The controversy surrounding the Epstein files has intensified following President Trump's public directive calling on Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice to launch a new investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's associations—specifically targeting political opponents and several high-profile figures in finance and technology. The timing of this announcement is drawing significant scrutiny, arriving just months after the DOJ and FBI publicly stated that they had already conducted a comprehensive review of all Epstein-related materials, including more than 300 gigabytes of digital evidence, and concluded there was no basis to open any further criminal inquiries. That review asserted that the majority of evidence remained sealed primarily to protect victims and that there was no credible evidence of an Epstein “client list” or coordinated blackmail operation. Critics argue that the sudden reversal raises red flags about political motivations rather than new facts, particularly as Congress moves forward with a discharge petition intended to force the release of unredacted Epstein records to the public.Legal scholars and government accountability watchdogs warn that labeling this sudden initiative an “ongoing investigation” could be used to halt congressional access to Epstein-related records and effectively freeze public disclosure for months or even years. Under DOJ policy, active investigations allow the government to withhold documents that would otherwise be subject to subpoenas or release mandates, raising concerns that the move could function as a procedural shield rather than a legitimate inquiry. Critics argue that invoking investigative privilege at this moment—after years of limited transparency and repeated failures to hold institutions accountable—risks undermining public trust in the justice system and may set a dangerous precedent in which politically motivated probes are used to obstruct oversight. With bipartisan pressure continuing to build around the discharge petition seeking full release of the Epstein files, the coming weeks will test whether Congress can assert its authority or whether the executive branch can successfully deploy legal mechanisms to re-seal evidence and control the narrative around one of the most consequential criminal scandals in modern American history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In her posthumously published memoir, Nobody's Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, Giuffre alleges that while she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates she was sent to a “well-known Prime Minister” who raped her “more savagely than anyone had before”. She describes being choked until unconscious, bleeding from multiple wounds, and begging Epstein not to return her to that person — only to be told coldly “You'll get that sometimes.”The identity of the prime minister remains undisclosed in the memoir, but the revelation has stirred renewed scrutiny of the power networks and political complicity surrounding Epstein's trafficking operations. According to media coverage, Giuffre's ghostwriter claims to know all the “names in Epstein's files” and the book has reignited debates about immunity, accountability and how high the cover-up goes.Virginia Roberts Giuffre's allegations against her father, Sky Roberts, form one of the most painful elements of her memoir Nobody's Girl. In it, she writes that the abuse began when she was a young child and continued for years, leaving her emotionally broken and distrustful of the people who were supposed to protect her. She describes her father as someone who manipulated her sense of love and loyalty, creating confusion and fear. This betrayal, she explains, destroyed the foundation of safety that every child should have, and it became the earliest chapter of the exploitation that would later consume her life. Her account frames the abuse as the beginning of a long cycle of predation — one that made her susceptible to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's manipulation as a teenager.Sky Roberts has categorically denied the accusations, calling them false and saying he is devastated by the claims. Despite his denials, Virginia maintains that her father's actions were a key part of the trauma that defined her adolescence and adulthood. She says that being violated by someone within her own family conditioned her to accept mistreatment from others, because she no longer believed she deserved safety or respect. Her allegations have reignited painful conversations about generational abuse and how early trauma can make victims easier targets for predators later in life. For Giuffre, confronting this chapter publicly appears to be both an act of truth-telling and a step toward reclaiming power after years of silence and exploitation.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

When asked about Prince Andrew's exile from royal life and the Epstein scandal that forced King Charles to strip his brother of his military titles and patronages, Donald Trump struck a tone of sympathy — not for the victims, but for the Windsors. Speaking aboard Air Force One, Trump said, “I feel very badly. It's a terrible thing that's happened to the family. That's been a tragic situation. It's too bad. I mean, I feel badly for the family.” In classic Trump fashion, the comments came off as tone-deaf, framing the ordeal as a misfortune that befell the royals rather than a reckoning for Andrew's own actions or associations. He offered no mention of Virginia Giuffre, the survivors, or the broader scandal surrounding Epstein's network — only sorrow for the House of Windsor's discomfort.The remarks were quickly criticized as another example of Trump's tendency to sympathize with power over accountability. Rather than condemning Andrew's behavior or the pattern of privilege that shielded him for years, Trump painted the royals as victims of circumstance — as if Andrew had simply stumbled into bad luck rather than disgrace of his own making. His comments echoed the same populist-elite paradox that defines his persona: railing against “the establishment” while showing deference to its crowned members when they fall. For many observers, the takeaway was clear — once again, Trump's empathy seemed to extend only upward, toward the powerful, not toward the people whose lives were destroyed by Epstein and the system that protected him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Trump says he feels 'badly' for royal family over Andrew-Epstein scandal

If Prince Andrew is truly serious about clearing his name, there's only one path left to take—and it doesn't involve hiding behind palace walls or issuing carefully worded press releases. It means sitting down with investigators, under oath, and answering every question about his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Public opinion won't shift through PR stunts or vague denials; the only thing that could restore even a shred of credibility is the kind of transparency that comes with sworn testimony. Anything less will always look like evasion, and at this point, the court of public opinion has already rendered its verdict.By avoiding formal questioning, Andrew reinforces every suspicion surrounding him. His silence isn't a shield—it's a confession of fear. If he genuinely has nothing to hide, he should welcome the chance to confront the allegations head-on, with evidence and truth as his defense. Until he does, every statement he makes will sound hollow, every “no recollection” another nail in his reputation's coffin. The door to redemption is open, but only if he's willing to walk through it and face the same scrutiny as the people he once surrounded himself with.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:‘If he wants to clear his name, he will come forward': Andrew under fresh pressure from Congress to testify over Epstein

Subscribe to our Newsletter: https://theultimatepartner.com/ebook-subscribe/ Check Out UPX: https://theultimatepartner.com/experience/ https://youtu.be/-flNeKF6CxQ?si=xIIQ4LUl7oraQjkg Microsoft’s Cyril Belikoff joins Vince Menzione to reveal the seismic shift occurring within the newly reimagined Microsoft Marketplace. As the industry moves toward a predicted $300 billion partner opportunity by 2030, this discussion deconstructs the evolution of the “Frontier” vision, the launch of the AI apps and agents category, and the critical “Resale Enabled Offer” (REO) that is currently doubling deal sizes for early adopters. Whether you are a software company looking to scale globally or a reseller aiming to stitch together complex AI solutions, the message is clear: the flywheel is already spinning, and those who wait for a “perfect strategy” risk being permanently displaced by more agile competitors who are getting their feet wet today. Key Takeaways The Microsoft Marketplace has been reimagined into a single destination for discovering, buying, and deploying AI apps and agents. Analysts predict a staggering $300 billion opportunity for partners within the Microsoft Marketplace by 2030. The new Resale Enabled Offer (REO) allows software companies to authorize channel partners to resell on their behalf across specific geographies with minimal overhead. Cloud migration is far from over, as massive amounts of on-premise data and ISV apps still need to be modernized for the AI era. Marketplace deal sizes are doubling as customers use Azure commitments to retire their marketplace acquisition costs. Successful partners are moving away from “boiling the ocean” strategies and instead focusing on transacting one or two deals to learn the ecosystem’s mechanics. If you're ready to lead through change, elevate your business, and achieve extraordinary outcomes through the power of partnership—this is your community. At Ultimate Partner® we want leaders like you to join us in the Ultimate Partner Experience – where transformation begins. Key Tags: Microsoft Marketplace, AI apps and agents, Resale Enabled Offer, REO, Cyril Belikoff, Azure Marketplace, AppSource, cloud solutions, software companies, digital transformation, AI strategy, channel led sales, ISV solutions, cloud migration, Azure commitments, Microsoft Cloud, Frontier vision, MSP opportunity, marketplace transacting, AI monetization, global scale, procurement, IT deployment, technical modernization, partner ecosystem, business applications. Opening Lines: [00:00:00] Cyril Belikoff: Marketplace is really the extension of our vision for Frontier, uh, and the Microsoft Cloud. You know, the, the Microsoft technology takes a customer a long way, but in many ways to complete the thought. If you’re in football terms, you want to cross over the line and score touchdown. You can’t just get, uh, to the red zone. [00:00:20] Cyril Belikoff: You actually need partner solutions. [00:00:26] Vince Menzione: So let’s, let’s kick off to Marketplace a little bit right, too, because, uh, it’s been a big year for Marketplace, or 20, the first half of 2026 fiscal year 2026 has been a big year. A lot of announcements, a lot of things going on in the world, in marketplace. Where do we wanna start there? Let’s recap some of it. [00:00:44] Cyril Belikoff: Yeah. Um, so, um. It feels like a long time ago, but in, at the end of September, [00:00:51] Vince Menzione: yeah. [00:00:52] Cyril Belikoff: Um, at the AR tour, uh, in Chicago, we announced a new Microsoft marketplace. We reimagined that experience. It’s a new customer experience, single destination for customers to. You know, discover, find, try, buy, and deploy cloud solutions, AI apps and agents all in one place. [00:01:11] Cyril Belikoff: And so historically, we’ve had a little bit, uh, of decentralization. We had this thing called the Azure Marketplace and AppSource for different experiences. AppSource was more for teams and, and copilot. Um, and, and office, Azure Marketplace. Of course, that was for Azure. We brought all of that into one place. [00:01:30] Cyril Belikoff: So customers, whether they are looking for a SaaS solution running on Azure, an agent that snaps into copilot, an experience that runs in our security store, now they can go to one place. Um. marketplace.microsoft.com. It’s one, it’s the new Microsoft marketplace. And we have an, of course, we have a, we had, we launched a brand new category, AI apps and agents, and we launched that category in September. [00:01:54] Cyril Belikoff: Uh, bringing together numerous, uh, uh, partner offerings. Yeah. And today we have the largest catalog, um, probably in the mid four thousands of AI and agents. Wow. Available to customer. So fantastic. There was, there was quite a big moment in September. Um, and then fast forward a little bit to November, we announced a resale enabled offer, um, at Ignite [00:02:15] Vince Menzione: eo. [00:02:16] Vince Menzione: Eo [00:02:16] Cyril Belikoff: eo. I, [00:02:17] Vince Menzione: I like EO reminds me of the band back in the day. [00:02:19] Cyril Belikoff: Yeah. R Speedwagon. There you go. Uh, well, and it’s, it’s not that far from it because Oreo accelerates. Yeah. Um, what partners can do, uh, with the marketplace and really connects. Software companies and resellers, which I’m sure we’ll talk about in a second. [00:02:34] Cyril Belikoff: But that’s really the recap, um, of, uh, you know, the new Microsoft marketplace, how we enabling it for, uh, for partners through the the resell enable offer. [00:02:45] Vince Menzione: So, I know we talked on this a little bit, but I wanna maybe just expand on it. What does the frontier push and the marketplace evolution mean for partners? [00:02:53] Vince Menzione: Because I, I think it’s huge for both, for these partners to really monetize and accelerate their success working with you. [00:03:00] Cyril Belikoff: Yeah. So, um. Marketplace is really the extension of our vision for Frontier, uh, and the Microsoft Cloud. You know, the, the Microsoft technology takes a customer a long way, but in many ways to complete the thought and to, you know, uh, uh. [00:03:20] Cyril Belikoff: If you’re in football terms, you wanna cross over the line and score a touchdown, you can’t just get, uh, to the red zone. You actually need partner solutions. [00:03:28] Vince Menzione: Yeah. [00:03:29] Cyril Belikoff: Uh, and so that’s where the partner solutions, combined with Microsoft’s first party offerings become a really, really. Great offering and powerful offering for our customers to, to become Frontier. [00:03:40] Cyril Belikoff: So we have obviously a ton of AI experiences, our own co-pilot experiences, uh, Microsoft Foundry, which is a platform for ai, but in, in many ways, we need those industry solutions. We need those AI apps and agents from partners to complete that offering. And that’s really. How it comes together and, uh, you know, uh, I heard you from o was just on before me. [00:04:01] Cyril Belikoff: They actually predict that the Microsoft marketplace, uh, is a 300 billion partner opportunity by 2030. Yeah, they’re talking about, I think, mid eighties growth. We have literally seen our business for the last three years, and we are in the middle of our, uh, you know, third year doubling. And so when you get three or four years of doubling every year, that’s compounded doubling. [00:04:24] Cyril Belikoff: Um, so, uh, we have seen lots of momentum from customers, lots of interest. We’ve made it, you know. Interesting for customers. Um, and incentivize our customers with their Azure commitments that can retire their marketplace, uh, acquisitions that way. We’ve made it, we’ve put incentives for partners and for our own sellers. [00:04:44] Cyril Belikoff: So we really creating the flywheel for everybody in the market to see value from, uh, the marketplace. So. Like, like, like you mentioned, like m the, uh, you know, suggested [00:04:55] Vince Menzione: Yeah. [00:04:55] Cyril Belikoff: It’s only exploding the opportunity on marketplace. [00:04:58] Vince Menzione: Well, and you both touched on the fact that the data is not in the cloud yet. [00:05:02] Vince Menzione: Not all the data that needs to be in the cloud in order to drive the future of where we wanna go from a society. Mm-hmm. And from a business application perspective needs to be in the cloud. So huge opportunities for partners around data states, around securing that data, governing that data, and so on, on top of all the business applications, [00:05:19] Cyril Belikoff: right? [00:05:19] Vince Menzione: As promise. So incredible. Yep. So let’s [00:05:22] Cyril Belikoff: talk about, yeah. The call migration. The call migration, people think that is over and it’s long from over because customers have plenty, uh, on premise, uh, not only Microsoft technology, but the, the, the, the software company or the ISV app that sits on top of it. Yeah. [00:05:36] Cyril Belikoff: And that needs to be migrated, managed, modernized, um, and marketplace is a big part of that too. Um, but there’s so many services and, um, opportunities around it. [00:05:45] Vince Menzione: Incredible opportunity. Let’s talk about the channel and the channel opportunity. You, you touched on this earlier, right? So this really lighting up the channel. [00:05:53] Vince Menzione: I saw this loud and clear when we were at Ignite. Like this is a huge opportunity for the Es, for the resellers, for all the partners. And as part of REO, you’ve got huge opportunities you’re laying out for them for the 500,000 part partners. You know, we talk about the Bill Gates moment down here in Boca. [00:06:09] Vince Menzione: This is where it all started. Uh, yep. How, how do you think about marketplace in the channel today? [00:06:16] Cyril Belikoff: Yeah. You know, it’s, um, it’s vital. You know, we have a customer need, um, from. The smallest is small business all the way to enterprise. And the really, the only way we serve that, the only way we know how to serve that is with our partners from the largest of partners that serve our top enterprises down through, um, what we call small and medium and then down to our small business. [00:06:41] Vince Menzione: Yeah. [00:06:41] Cyril Belikoff: Um, and so, you know, we have seen our. You know, while our, we’ve seen a doubling of our business, we’ve seen three, three and a half to four x doubling of our channel led sales. [00:06:53] Vince Menzione: Yeah. [00:06:54] Cyril Belikoff: Um, over the last year. And so while our overall business is doubling, channel is accelerating even, you know, even more. [00:07:02] Cyril Belikoff: And so there, there’s a need from our customers because they buy from our channel and there’s obviously a need from the channel. And so we created this resale enabled offer. As you mentioned, we, um. We announced private preview in September and launched GA at Ignite. So, you know, uh, November, just before Thanksgiving holiday and retail Enable offer is all about scale and how we connect a, a, an independent software vendor or a software company. [00:07:27] Cyril Belikoff: To authorize a channel partner to resell on their behalf on a particular geography. And then that allows software companies to expand into new markets with very little overhead. And it allows the channel partners to create a set of offerings, not only from one partner, but you might have multiple software companies or applications that you stitch that are together to create an end-to-end customer offering or experience. [00:07:51] Cyril Belikoff: And so we are seeing, we are seeing many to many relationships. So software companies might authorize many resellers, many markets they’re in, for example. Yep. And then resellers, um, they’re, they’re becoming authorized resellers from many software companies so that they can really stitch together, end into end solution. [00:08:09] Cyril Belikoff: And it, we’re loving it and we are getting great feedback. It is early days for our global availability for, uh, re office, which. But we had partners that were literally waiting, um, uh, and waiting for deals. And within the first week there was, they were, uh, processing the, the Oreo deals at, at, at quite large scale already. [00:08:31] Cyril Belikoff: So. We are excited about the feedback that we’re getting. We, as you know, we, we stay close to that feedback and we listen well, um, and adjust from it. So we got more work to do, but, um, it’s a great opportunity for, to connect our, our multiple types of partners, software companies, and resellers. [00:08:48] Vince Menzione: Yeah, I agree. [00:08:49] Vince Menzione: And you know, I talk to a lot of these organizations myself, and there is palpable excitement. In the channel from Distees that were sort of disengaged a couple of years ago, maybe, trying to figure out where they were gonna monetize. And the other way area that’s aligned to this as well is the Ms. P community. [00:09:06] Vince Menzione: So these MSPs are getting bigger and bigger, and organizations like Accenture, Avanade, and ndl. Or becoming MSPs or creating Ms. P practices within their own firms. But there’s even these smaller MSPs, but many of ’em are getting to a billion dollars or more. These were little mom and pop companies years ago, but the customer so needs to have, you know, especially with ai, right? [00:09:27] Vince Menzione: Because we’re in a constant state of evolution right now. I need somebody that can help me on the tooling and then also help me on, you know, getting the tooling to work. And so, uh, we’re seeing a lot of excitement from that. Community, which wasn’t really as engaged with Microsoft the way they that they are now. [00:09:43] Vince Menzione: They’re really getting engaged in a big way. [00:09:46] Cyril Belikoff: Yeah, it’s promising. Like you say, you know, the, the, we’re all learning this new AI world and obviously marketplace has taken off. We’ve had the classic SaaS solutions or cloud solutions on marketplace for a while, but really un having the local partner that’s close to the customer, what the customer’s trying to need to do and be able to connect the, the traditional. [00:10:07] Cyril Belikoff: Software as a service applications with these new AI experiences and really, uh, stitch them together and help them operationalize, you know, in their own, you know, cus in their own terms and what they’re trying to, uh, do is so important. You know, um, and to your point there, there are large, they’re the large ones that are seeing opportunity on the marketplace. [00:10:27] Cyril Belikoff: But the, you know, when you get down to, uh, medium and smaller businesses, they really need their local friendly resetter to help them. [00:10:35] Vince Menzione: Yeah. [00:10:35] Cyril Belikoff: Uh, so you’re right. We are seeing an, a new en energy engagement from not only our existing 500,000 partners, but a bunch of those new ones. [00:10:44] Vince Menzione: So, uh, again, second week of 2026, and people are really just starting to wake up from the holidays. [00:10:50] Vince Menzione: Now they’re getting ready for their s ks. All these partners are lining up and getting their teams aligned. Uh, you’re in front of them. Let’s have a conversation like what should they be doing better and differently? What do they need to go do now? It’s 2026. [00:11:06] Cyril Belikoff: Yeah. Um, you know, first of all, if you’re a software company, you know, understand what the, the Microsoft marketplace can help you with, uh, can help you scale to global markets, remove burdens like tax, um, a processing, engaging with customers. [00:11:21] Cyril Belikoff: Um, we’re seeing an acceleration and doubling of, uh, not an acceleration deals, but doubling of deal sizes, as you know, through the marketplace. Uh, and there. It helps with engagement at different types of companies, whether it’s, or different types of, uh, roles in a company, whether it’s a, a procurement person or an IT person or a business person. [00:11:42] Cyril Belikoff: So, you know, get onto the marketplace, create offerings, um, and give us feedback. And then on the reseller side, um, also lots of opportunities, you know, register as, as a reseller, um, you know, understand the benefits and. The, the Azure sponsorships that we have available for you, that you can close deals with their, their, their credits and, and incentives that we provide to you. [00:12:06] Cyril Belikoff: And then figure out how you do your first deal with a software company. Um, yeah. You know, a lot of people will say like, should I have a big strategy? And Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if you want to, that’s okay, but just getting into. Uh, the marketplace, figuring out one or two deals, transacting and seeing the opportunity is many ways the best way to do it and to learn it yourself. [00:12:28] Cyril Belikoff: And then you figure out, okay, where, where’s the opportunity for me in this deal? Am I in the transaction? Uh, am I in the services around the transaction or combination? Um, and just getting your feet wet will get you going and, and, uh, get you learning. [00:12:42] Vince Menzione: You know, I think about this in the, the time the partners are, they have this huge opportunity with Microsoft around marketplace and then thinking about how they build their own ecosystem. [00:12:52] Vince Menzione: And like you said, don’t, don’t try and boil the ocean, right. Don’t try and do it all at once. Mm-hmm. But start out small, but understand, you know, work with the Microsoft teams, understand how, how co-selling works, how to engage with the, with the Microsoft organization. How to, how to be up on marketplace, how to situationally. [00:13:09] Vince Menzione: You know, Jay and I were talking about this 28 moments and he talked about a deal that started out as an AWS deal, but it wound up a Microsoft deal because NTT and Software one were involved in the in the deal and influencing the customer’s decision process. Right working with Microsoft. And so we just need to be smarter, I think. [00:13:28] Vince Menzione: I think today it’s a very different model than it was 20 years ago when you and I got started in this business. Uh, yeah. And people just really need to go think about this more strategically in how they build this. [00:13:39] Cyril Belikoff: It’s great. I totally agree. Um, like I said, getting your feet wet, understanding the co-sell to your point and, and, and how Microsoft sells. [00:13:48] Cyril Belikoff: Um, and then understand what customers are trying to, you know, get, get, get out of it with their, their Azure commitments and how they can retire their Azure commitments through purchases on marketplace, which in sense them, um, to also work on the marketplace. So you, I think partners will find Microsoft sellers. [00:14:04] Cyril Belikoff: Own compensation, um, incentive to work. We’ll find that customers are incentive to transact on the marketplace. And so just enter that, you know, triangle and, and get engaged and, uh, and learn and then give us feedback. Like, like I’ve mentioned many times with you, we, uh, we take feedback every month from customers and partners in, in forums like this, um, in other forums, and then we evolve and, you know, build out, uh, stronger experiences. [00:14:31] Vince Menzione: Yeah. Cyril, I want to thank you again. So great to have you join us today and, uh, so excited to continue our, our mutual relationship and our beneficial relationship in 2026. So thank you again for everything you do and supporting us. [00:14:45] Cyril Belikoff: Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Happy New Year to yourself and uh, and your community and, uh, thanks so much again. [00:14:50] Cyril Belikoff: Appreciate it. [00:14:50] Vince Menzione: Thank you, Cyril. The Ultimate Partner Winter Retreat is gonna be here in the Boca Studio. This is the third year that we’re gonna be here in Boca. This is always a favorite of our community members, our executive members, our sponsors and speakers. We’ll all be here in the studio, which is a really intimate setting. [00:15:12] Vince Menzione: We can see upwards of 40, 50 people. Uh, we’ll be hosting an incredible dinner at the Boca Resort overlooking the golf course. That’s an incredible property and, uh, we’d love to have you join us. Thank you for being part of the ultimate Partner community, and I hope to see you this year at one of our events. [00:15:30] Vince Menzione: Thank you.

Los nombres más poderosos del mundo aparecen en los Archivos Epstein. Pero solo una persona está en prisión. Este video analiza qué se liberó, qué se ocultó y por qué el poder siempre cae de pie. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A royal expert has warned that the fallout surrounding Prince Andrew's continued disgrace remains a major problem for King Charles III, raising questions about how the monarch intends to handle his brother's tainted legacy. Despite being stripped of royal duties, Andrew's association with Jeffrey Epstein continues to cast a long shadow over the family, undermining Charles's attempts to modernize the monarchy and project moral authority. The expert suggests that as long as Andrew clings to any form of royal privilege, the institution risks appearing tone-deaf and unwilling to enforce real accountability.King Charles now faces a defining challenge in determining whether to draw a permanent line between the Crown and his scandal-plagued brother. If he fails to do so, the damage could extend beyond Andrew himself—eroding public trust in the monarchy's integrity and its claim to moral leadership.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Congress, specifically the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform led by Robert Garcia and signed by 13–16 Democratic members, has formally written to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (formerly known as Prince Andrew) requesting that he provide a transcribed interview about his “long-standing friendship” with Jeffrey Epstein and his possible knowledge of Epstein's co-conspirators, enablers and criminal operations. The letter points to flight logs, financial records (including notations such as “massage for Andrew”), an email from 2011 in which Andrew allegedly wrote “we are in this together”, and the fact that he traveled with Epstein to several locations. The committee asks for Andrew's response by 20 November 2025.However, the request is not a binding subpoena: because Andrew is a foreign national no longer holding British royal immunity, Congress cannot compel his testimony in the same way it can U.S. citizens. He therefore may choose to decline without facing the usual legal penalties for ignoring a congressional subpoena. Congress and the committee stress that his cooperation is sought in the interest of justice for Epstein's victims and to shed light on potential further misconduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

The newly released emails between Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew directly contradict the central claims Andrew made during his disastrous Newsnight interview, where he insisted he had severed contact with Epstein years earlier and had no meaningful relationship after Epstein's 2008 conviction. The correspondence shows sustained, friendly communication well beyond the timeframe Andrew publicly acknowledged, including coordination around meetings, travel logistics, and tone that reflects familiarity rather than estrangement. This is not casual or incidental contact; the emails demonstrate continuity, comfort, and mutual access. Andrew's insistence that he had “nothing to do” with Epstein post-conviction collapses when placed alongside written evidence showing otherwise. The language used undercuts any claim of a reluctant or distant association. Instead, it paints a picture of an ongoing relationship that Andrew later tried to erase retroactively. The gap between what he said on camera and what he wrote privately is no longer debatable. It is documented.Even more damaging is how the emails dismantle Andrew's explanation for the now-infamous 2010 meeting at Epstein's Manhattan townhouse, which he framed as a one-time, honorable attempt to “end the friendship.” The correspondence shows no clean break, no finality, and no discomfort—only continuity before and after that meeting. This makes Andrew's Newsnight narrative read less like confusion and more like deliberate misrepresentation. The emails also undermine his claims about memory lapses, timing, and lack of awareness by anchoring events to specific dates and exchanges he cannot plausibly deny. Taken together, the record shows that Andrew didn't merely misstate details; he constructed a false storyline designed to minimize exposure once Epstein's crimes became impossible to ignore. The emails prove he wasn't distancing himself—he was managing optics. And once those private words are read alongside his public denials, the conclusion is unavoidable: Prince Andrew lied, plainly and repeatedly, in an interview meant to salvage his credibility.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Girls coming 'after school' and $5,000 cash floats: The full sordid truth about Andrew's wild NINE-DAY visit to Jeffrey Epstein's New York mansion | Daily Mail Online

Jeffrey Epstein's saga was never just the story of a sex-trafficking billionaire; it was the story of how power, intelligence, and money fuse into a single machine of influence. Documents released by the House Oversight Committee and reporting from outlets such as Drop Site revealed that Epstein's Manhattan apartment hosted figures like Yoni Koren, a senior Israeli intelligence officer tied to former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Leaked emails and calendar entries show wire transfers, coded errands, and meetings that overlapped with Barak's dealings with former CIA Director Leon Panetta and other defense officials. These records—paired with years of silence from major media—suggest that Epstein operated as a broker of access, moving seamlessly between finance, technology, and national-security circles while prosecutors, politicians, and governments looked the other way.Behind the procedural delays and partisan noise in Washington lies the same motive that shielded Epstein in life: protection of the powerful. The stalled congressional vote to release the full, unredacted “Epstein files” reflects bipartisan fear of what the documents might confirm—that the scandal wasn't an anomaly but a glimpse of how the modern intelligence economy actually works. Epstein's homes, jets, and investments formed a web where blackmail, espionage, and profit overlapped. Whether he acted as asset or opportunist remains unproven, but the surviving records make clear that his network touched the highest levels of state and corporate power. What's at stake in the fight over those files isn't gossip—it's the map of a system built to ensure that truth itself remains classified.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein's closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein's finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein's daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein's criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn's post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein's crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein's estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein's lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Prince Andrew's decision to host a party for Ghislaine Maxwell at Sandringham—where sex drugs like poppers were reportedly found—reads less like royal history and more like a bad dark comedy. The idea of a Queen's residence being turned into something resembling a low-rent Sopranos episode is almost surreal. The whole scene feels like parody: the Duke of York, standing beneath portraits of British monarchs, presiding over a soirée that sounds like Downton Abbey crashing headfirst into Trainspotting. It's especially grotesque given Epstein's reputation for avoiding drugs himself—he didn't need them, he used them on others. The thought of those same tools of control and exploitation making their way into a royal estate is equal parts absurd and revolting.What makes it worse is the total lack of accountability. The Palace still tries to frame these scandals as “private matters,” as though international sex trafficking and narcotics at royal residences can be brushed under the Windsor rug. Every new revelation cements Andrew as a man incapable of understanding—or even pretending to care about—the damage he's done to the Crown's image. Once considered a symbol of British decorum, Sandringham now sits as a monument to how far the monarchy has fallen, its history tainted by the stench of scandal and the arrogance of a prince who believed himself untouchable. In the end, Prince Andrew didn't just disgrace himself—he made royal scandal feel like a recurring sketch in a show that refuses to end.to contact me:source:Sex drugs 'found at party' disgraced Andrew hosted for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in Sandringham, new Royal book claims | Daily Mail Online

Maureen Comey, a federal prosecutor and daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, was recently removed from her position following a series of high-profile prosecutorial failures, most notably her handling of the Sean “Diddy” Combs case and the ongoing fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. In the Diddy case, despite mounting public allegations, corroborating testimony, and a sprawling federal investigation, Comey failed to secure a conviction on key charges—prompting criticism from within the DOJ and from the public, who viewed it as yet another instance of the wealthy and powerful skirting justice. Her role in the Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell matters had already drawn skepticism, particularly over the slow pace of disclosures and missing evidence. Combined, these failures painted a picture of a prosecutor either unwilling or unable to push cases against elite defendants across the finish line.Comey's dismissal is being viewed by many as symbolic of a broader institutional failure. For years, she was positioned as a central figure in prosecutions that promised accountability for Epstein's network of enablers, yet few meaningful outcomes followed. The fact that she is now gone—without fanfare, without accountability, and without explanation—only fuels suspicions that her presence was more about containment than prosecution. Her firing doesn't feel like justice—it feels like an after-the-fact cleanup, a quiet reshuffling meant to relieve pressure while continuing to protect the same circles that have evaded consequences all along.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ fires Maurene Comey, daughter of James Comey and a prosecutor in Sean Combs' and Ghislaine Maxwell's cases

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

New Epstein file revelations spark heated debate as the panel analyzes Bill Gates' response, Melinda Gates' emotional interview, and growing pressure for accountability among powerful elites. From Clinton controversies to public transparency demands, the discussion breaks down why Americans want answers.

Epstein proved the unthinkable: some "conspiracy theories" are horrifyingly real. Join the Heretics Community For Bonus Videos: https://andrewgoldheretics.com/ Join world-renowned skeptic Michael Shermer on Heretics for a gripping, evidence-driven conversation that redefines conspiracy theories. From Jeffrey Epstein's elite blackmail network and secret island to the once-banned COVID lab-leak theory, Bill Gates emails, vaccine controversies, moon-landing doubts, and elite power plays, Shermer uses Bayesian reasoning to distinguish real conspiracies from speculation—showing why even die-hard skeptics must update their views when hard evidence emerges. SPONSORS: Organise your life: https://akiflow.pro/Heretics  Earn up to 4 per cent on gold, paid in gold: https://www.monetary-metals.com/heretics/  Cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at https://mintmobile.com/heretics  He also tackles the decline of religion, Jordan Peterson's secular appeal, transgender ideology as potential social contagion with growing regret lawsuits, objective morality versus cultural trends, immigration politics, and whether true progress is happening or we're just cycling through extremes. Real cases like Epstein remind us: dismissing everything as paranoia can blind us to what's actually true. Epstein proved conspiracies can be real. Michael's links: https://www.skeptic.com https://michaelshermer.com #ConspiracyTheories #Epstein #MichaelShermer Join the 30k heretics on my mailing list: https://andrewgoldheretics.com  Check out my new documentary channel: https://youtube.com/@andrewgoldinvestigates  Andrew on X: https://twitter.com/andrewgold_ok   Insta: https://www.instagram.com/andrewgold_ok Heretics YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@andrewgoldheretics Chapters: 00:00 Welcome & Heretical Mindset 04:55 Bayesian Thinking & Changing Your Mind 09:50 COVID Origins, Lab Leak & Politicized Science 14:40 Vaccines, Boosters & Precautionary Principle Failures 19:25 Epstein Files, Bill Gates Emails & Elite Blackmail Theories 24:30 Why Epstein Was Real – & What It Means for Other Conspiracies 29:45 Moon Landing Hoax Claims Debunked 34:20 Decline of Religion, Jordan Peterson & Secular Morality 39:55 Transgender Surge, Social Contagion & Regret Lawsuits 44:50 Objective Moral Truths vs Cultural Fashion 49:55 Immigration, Empathy & Political Strategy Conspiracies 54:50 Progress, Backsliding & Hanlon's Razor 59:55 A Heretic Michael admires Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The government of the U.S. Virgin Islands launched a sweeping civil investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to expose how he used the territory as a hub for sex trafficking, money laundering, and regulatory capture. The USVI lawsuit accused Epstein of operating a criminal enterprise from Little St. James with the knowledge, cooperation, or willful blindness of banks, service providers, and wealthy associates who enabled his operations. Investigators focused on Epstein's financial networks, travel logistics, staffing pipelines, and the flow of cash that sustained years of abuse far from mainland scrutiny. The case sought accountability not only for Epstein's crimes but for the ecosystem that protected him, arguing that his island operation could not have functioned without elite facilitators. While the USVI ultimately settled with Epstein's estate, the investigation cracked open the mechanics of impunity that allowed him to thrive. It reframed Epstein not as a lone monster, but as the beneficiary of systemic indulgence by powerful people.Within that context, Glenn Dubin emerges as a deeply troubling figure whose proximity to Epstein went far beyond casual acquaintance. Dubin and his family maintained a long-standing relationship with Epstein, including documented social interactions and connections that overlapped with the period of Epstein's known trafficking activity. While Dubin has denied wrongdoing, the USVI's investigative posture placed pressure on individuals like him precisely because their wealth and access helped normalize Epstein's presence in elite circles long after his crimes were public. Dubin's continued association with Epstein, even after the 2008 conviction, reflects the moral bankruptcy the investigation sought to expose: powerful men choosing convenience and influence over basic human decency. The criticism is not about legal guilt alone, but about judgment, responsibility, and complicity by silence. In the USVI's accounting, figures like Dubin represent how Epstein stayed protected—by people who knew enough to walk away, but didn't.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff has accelerated litigation brought by a woman who says she was abused by Jeffrey Epstein, ordering the case against Bank of America (BofA) and The Bank of New York Mellon (BNY) onto a fast track. The plaintiff (referred to as “Jane Doe”) alleges the banks knowingly facilitated Epstein's trafficking operation, pointing to an account opened at BofA at Epstein's direction and alleging BNY processed around $378 million in payments to trafficking victims. The judge set November deadlines for motions to dismiss, demands full discovery by late February 2026, and indicated trials could begin in May or June 2026.The lawsuits bring fresh scrutiny to how major financial institutions may have turned a blind eye—or worse—to red flags around Epstein's operations. In the BofA complaint, the claim is made that the bank failed to file required Suspicious Activity Reports despite multiple warning signs, and profited from Epstein's business. The BNY suit accuses the bank of giving credit lines and processing vast sums tied to Epstein's model-agency front used in trafficking. Both banks say they will defend vigorously. The move follows earlier suits against JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank that settled for hundreds of millions of dollars without admissions of liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsources:Epstein Victim Lawsuits Against Bank of America and BNY Moving Quickly - Business Insider

Clayton Howard, a former male escort and frequent participant in Diddy's private sex parties known as “freak-offs,” has filed a lawsuit accusing both Sean “Diddy” Combs and Cassie Ventura of sex trafficking, coercion, and abuse. According to his claims, he was recruited to perform sex acts under the guise of high-end parties, only to find himself drugged, manipulated, and transported across state lines for increasingly degrading and violent encounters. He alleges that Diddy exercised complete control over the events, orchestrating who did what and with whom, often while recording the acts without consent. Howard describes a world of intimidation, where refusal meant exile, and participation meant surrendering autonomy and dignity.What makes his allegations even more explosive is his assertion that Cassie wasn't just a victim of Diddy's abuse—but an active participant in his exploitation. He accuses her of knowingly infecting him with an STD, coercing him into sexual acts, demanding he masturbate for hours while she filmed him, and ultimately pressuring him into an abortion. Howard paints a picture of Cassie as someone who embraced the power dynamic created by Diddy, allegedly using it to dominate and humiliate others in turn. His lawsuit portrays the entire environment as a sadistic, hierarchical structure of abuse where both Diddy and Cassie held power and used it to break down and control those beneath them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Howard v Combs Ventura

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

For years, Queen Elizabeth II chose preservation of the Crown over accountability, and nowhere was that failure clearer than in her handling of Prince Andrew and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Despite Epstein's 2008 conviction, Andrew continued to enjoy royal protection, status, and access, with no meaningful intervention from the monarch who ultimately controlled the institution's response. The Queen allowed Andrew to remain a working royal for years after Epstein's crimes were public knowledge, signaling that proximity to power outweighed the gravity of trafficking allegations. Even as public scrutiny intensified, the Palace defaulted to silence, denial, and delay, a pattern that insulated Andrew rather than confronting the moral rot of his associations. This was not ignorance; it was willful avoidance, a deliberate decision to treat Epstein as an embarrassment to be managed instead of a warning demanding decisive action. By prioritizing stability optics over ethical leadership, the Queen enabled a culture in which Andrew faced no immediate consequences.That failure reached its nadir after Andrew's disastrous 2019 interview, when the Palace response was reactive and begrudging, not principled. Only after overwhelming backlash did the Queen strip Andrew of military titles and patronages, and even then, the measures felt calculated to quiet outrage rather than acknowledge wrongdoing or institutional complicity. There was no transparent reckoning, no apology to survivors, and no clear admission that the monarchy had protected one of its own at the expense of justice. The Queen's refusal to act sooner sent a message that royal blood conferred immunity from scrutiny, reinforcing a hierarchy where victims' voices mattered less than preserving the façade of dignity. History will not remember this as quiet restraint; it will remember it as abdication. In shielding Andrew for as long as she did, Queen Elizabeth II didn't merely overlook his Epstein ties—she normalized the idea that power excuses proximity to predation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

There is nothing unclear about Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, and anyone pretending otherwise is not confused, they are cowardly. The files are explicit and repetitive, documenting a system of abuse built on recruitment, payment, silence, and protection, not isolated misconduct. Minimization does not require denial, only dilution: urging people to “move on,” reframing accountability as obsession, or shaming anger as irrational. That behavior slows momentum, protects power, and preserves the same structures that shielded Epstein for decades. Many doing this now once demanded transparency and justice, but their courage vanished when accountability threatened their own political tribe. The facts did not change; their loyalties did. This is surrender disguised as restraint, and it actively enables a predator's legacy.What makes this especially vile is the erasure of victims in real time. Former advocates don't dispute the evidence; they simply stop amplifying it, redirect attention, and fall silent when pressure appears. That silence is tactical, and it mirrors the discretion Epstein relied on to operate. Anger and disgust are not excess here—they are the appropriate response to industrialized abuse and institutional failure. Claims that continued scrutiny “helps Epstein” invert reality; silence, deference, and respectability helped him, while exposure damaged him. Ending scrutiny protects enablers, not survivors. This moment is a moral sorting: comfort versus courage, tribe versus truth. Those minimizing the record are not being nuanced—they are enabling abuse, even now, even after death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Recent, publicly released documents from the Epstein files show that French politician Jack Lang had a documented personal relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein that extended over several years. Lang's name and correspondence appear numerous times in Department of Justice files, including emails thanking Epstein for hospitality and evidence that Lang and his family accepted favors such as use of Epstein's vehicles. Epstein also made donations and financial contributions tied to Lang's circle, including to a French nonprofit and film projects linked to Lang's daughter; those connections have already prompted professional consequences for her. Lang has maintained that he did not know about Epstein's criminal activities at the time and has denied wrongdoing, but the documented correspondence and interactions are now a significant part of the broader scrutiny of how Epstein cultivated relationships with influential figures.Similarly, former Norwegian prime minister and Thorbjørn Jagland appears in the Epstein archives with documented contact and communications. Emails published from the files show repeated exchanges between Jagland and Epstein, including plans discussed regarding trips and requests involving contacts overseas, and interactions that span years. Norwegian authorities have now opened a formal criminal investigation into Jagland for gross corruption related to these ties, focusing on whether he received improper benefits such as paid travel, medical bills, or other financial advantages during his time in prominent positions like head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. Jagland has acknowledged the contacts and described them in diplomatic terms, but the emerging evidence and ongoing investigations mean his relationship with Epstein is under active legal and public scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsourceFrance's former culture minister Jack Lang summoned over Epstein links - France 24Norway investigates former prime minister over Epstein ties - ABC News

Even from behind bars, Ghislaine Maxwell has remained a steadfast and vocal defender of Prince Andrew, clinging to a narrative of innocence that defies the mountain of public scrutiny and survivor testimony. In interviews and through intermediaries, Maxwell has repeatedly insisted that the infamous photo of Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre—his arm around her bare waist, Maxwell herself grinning in the background—is either doctored or misrepresented. This denial comes despite the fact that the image has been widely authenticated and corroborated by multiple individuals, including Giuffre. Maxwell's unwavering defense appears less about truth and more about protecting a shared past—one steeped in elite privilege, mutual secrets, and potentially incriminating knowledge. Her loyalty to Andrew reads not as moral conviction, but as a desperate act of preservation for a world that once protected them both.What stands out about Maxwell's continued defense of Prince Andrew is how consistent it has remained, even after her own conviction. Rather than expressing any accountability or reflecting on the damage caused by the trafficking ring she was convicted of helping to run, Maxwell has chosen to double down on denying Andrew's involvement. She's made repeated claims that the photo of Andrew with Virginia Giuffre is fake, despite no credible evidence to support that. Her stance seems rooted less in legal strategy and more in loyalty to past allies. It suggests that, even in prison, Maxwell is still protecting the network of high-profile individuals connected to Epstein, perhaps in the hope that continued silence or allegiance might one day benefit her.

The Trump administration now says a “softer touch” might be required when it comes to their immigration agenda in Minnesota. Tom Homan, President Donald Trump's border head, says that 700 ICE agents will leave the state.In another warning sign for Republicans in Washington, a Democratic candidate won an upset in a special election for a Texas State Senate seat.And the Department of Justice released another round of Epstein emails on Friday, revealing communications between the late New York financier and several public figures, from Bill Gates to Elon Musk.Talks between the U.S. and Iran got off to a stuttering start this week, one moment being tabled, and the next moment being back on. Arab leaders lobbied the White House on Wednesday to not walk away from the table entirely.The Trump administration revealed a plan to create a critical mineral reserve and a new trade alliance, aimed at taking away China's ability to use its near monopoly of the rare metals as leverage in trade negotiations.Spain is set to follow Australia's lead and implement a ban on social media use for minors.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

A new tranche of Jeffrey Epstein's emails makes one thing painfully clear: Epstein was a central figure in the lives of a lot of big names in tech, and had influence on a surprising number of companies and executives. David and Nilay talk through what we've learned from the new emails so far. Then they turn to Anthropic's spicy new Super Bowl ads about... ads, which caused a big reaction from OpenAI (which is betting big on ads). They also discuss this week's antitrust hearing about Netflix's purchase of Warner Bros., the latest in Brendan Carr is a Dummy, Google Home's big buttons upgrade, and much more. Further reading: Here's how Epstein broke the internet Former Windows 8 boss recruited Epstein to help negotiate his messy Microsoft exit Jeffrey Epstein arranged a meeting with Tim Cook for the former head of Windows The Epstein files  Google co-founder Sergey Brin visited Epstein's private island and traded emails with Ghislaine Maxwell. It turns out Elon Musk didn't exactly ‘refuse' the invite to Jeffrey Epstein's island.  Will Elon Musk's emails with Jeffrey Epstein derail his very important year?  Bill Gates says accusations contained in Epstein files are ‘absolutely absurd' Jeffrey Epstein was permanently banned from Xbox Live  ‘We've basically funded an elite global pedophile ring since 2015.'  Anthropic says ‘Claude will remain ad-free,' unlike an unnamed rival Anthropic's blog post: Claude is a space to think Sam Altman responds to Anthropic's ‘funny' Super Bowl ads  OpenAI's CMO on X Nvidia CEO denies he's ‘unhappy' with OpenAI Netflix lands in the middle of a culture war during Senate hearing Everyone is stealing TV  Disney says Josh D'Amaro will replace Bob Iger as CEO  FCC aims to ensure “only living and lawful Americans” get Lifeline benefits Elon Musk is merging SpaceX and xAI to build data centers in space — or so he says  Peloton's gamble on expensive new hardware has yet to pay off Google Home finally adds support for buttons  Raspberry Pi is raising prices again as memory shortages continue  Valve's Steam Machine has been delayed, and the RAM crisis will impact pricing  Aluminium: Why Google's Android for PC launch may be messy and controversial Subscribe to The Verge for unlimited access to theverge.com, subscriber-exclusive newsletters, and our ad-free podcast feed.We love hearing from you! Email your questions and thoughts to vergecast@theverge.com or call us at 866-VERGE11.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We continue to dig through the Epstein file dump, finding Rothschild connections, bizarre video interview sessions with Steve Bannon, damning phone calls, plus Melinda Gates responds to the embarrassing suggestions that Bill Gates dosed her.Tempo is offering our listeners 60-percent off their first box at tempomeals.com/brokensim!Make life easier by getting harder and discover your options at BlueChew.com using the promo code "BROKEN"!Visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/BROKEN and use code "BROKEN" and get $50 in lineups when you play your first $5 lineup!Go to gemini.com/card to learn more! Terms Apply.For Sam's dates visit samtripoli.com/events!More stuff: Get episodes early, and unedited, plus bonus episodes: patreon.com/brokensimulationSocial media: Twitter: @samtripoli, @johnnywoodard Instagram: @samtripoli, @johnnyawoodardBroken Simulation Hosts: Sam Tripoli, Johnny Woodard