Podcasts about Breaking news

C&R talk Mike McCarthy to the Steelers! Why the delayed reaction, & why the crocodile tears? There's Breaking News about Bill Belichick not making first-ballot Hall of Fame! The guys react! Plus, the Lakers were on fire!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

C&R discuss Mike McCarthy to the Steelers & the delayed reaction! Why the crocodile tears? There's Breaking News about Bill Belichick not making first-ballot Hall of Fame! The guys react! The Lakers were on fire, & they ask how many cries do you get per year? They talk Southwest & the end of eras! Plus, 'SHOWTIME MAHOMES TRIVIA,' big ass Koa, & college STD rates!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Newly unsealed court documents reveal chilling new details in the Michael McKee case, accused of murdering Spencer and Monique Tepe. Retired Columbus homicide detective Jay Fulton joins us LIVE to break down what this new evidence could mean for prosecutors. What's up STS Nation? Welcome to the global phenomenon that is Surviving the Survivor — the show that brings you the Best Guests in all of True Crime. We're breaking in LIVE with major developments in the Michael McKee case. New court documents allege the accused surgeon was spotted outside the home of Monique and Spencer Tepe weeks before their murders, raising serious questions about premeditation. Joining us is retired homicide detective Jay Fulton, who walks us through what investigators look for in cases involving alleged stalking, surveillance, and delayed-action violence — and how this new evidence could reshape the prosecution's strategy moving forward.Support the show & be a part of #STSNation:Donate to STS' Trial Travel: Https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/GJ...VENMO: @STSPodcast or Https://www.venmo.com/stspodcastCheck out STS Merch: Https://www.bonfire.com/store/sts-store/Joel's Book: Https://amzn.to/48GwbLxSupport the show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorEmail: SurvivingTheSurvivor@gmail.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Scott Mason talks with the Philadelphia Inquirer's lead draft analyst Devin Jackson about the breaking news surrounding the New York Jets and day #1 of Senior Bowl week in Mobile Alabama! Devin discusses: -The news of the Jets and OC Tanner Engstrand parting ways -Where the OC and DC searches may go from here -Which players impressed the most on day #1 of Senior Bowl practice -What he will be looking to see on day #2 And much more! Check out the Play Like A Jet store and get your "Play Like A Jet" logo shirt RIGHT NOW! Hoodies, hats, mugs, etc.....also available! https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/19770068-play-like-a-jet-logo-shirt?store_id=717242 To advertise on Play Like A Jet, please contact: Justin@Brokencontrollermedia.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Prince Andrew's decision to skip his own daughter Princess Eugenie's eleventh birthday in order to remain with Jeffrey Epstein stands as one of the clearest illustrations of how distorted his priorities had already become long before the scandal exploded publicly. While his wife and daughters traveled to Disneyland for a family celebration, Andrew chose to stay behind in Florida at Epstein's mansion after days spent socializing with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. This was not a work obligation, a diplomatic emergency, or a matter of state. It was a voluntary choice to abandon a milestone in his child's life to continue the company of a man who was already known within elite circles for troubling behavior and dubious dealings. The image is stark: a prince of the realm missing his daughter's birthday because the pull of Epstein's world mattered more than family, duty, or basic judgment.What makes the episode especially damning is not just the neglect, but what it reveals about Andrew's character and values. This was not an isolated lapse, but part of a broader pattern in which Epstein's access, wealth, and social utility repeatedly took precedence over responsibility and common sense. Andrew later insisted he ended the friendship in 2000, yet this incident occurred after that supposed break, exposing the claim as fiction and reinforcing how deeply embedded he remained in Epstein's orbit. Skipping a child's birthday is small compared to the allegations that followed, but symbolically it captures the core of Andrew's downfall: entitlement over accountability, indulgence over obligation, and a willingness to trade family, reputation, and eventually his royal role itself for proximity to a predator whose protection he seemed determined to preserve.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Prince Andrew Skipped Eugenie's 11th Birthday to Party with Epstein: Report

Representative Anna Paulina Luna publicly accused Judge Paul Engelmayer of obstructing transparency in the Epstein files by denying requests for a special master and refusing to intervene in what she characterized as the Justice Department's slow-walking of disclosures, framing the ruling as evidence of judicial complicity in protecting powerful interests. Luna claimed the court's refusal to step in effectively gave the DOJ cover to continue delaying and heavily redacting materials required to be released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and she suggested that the judiciary was now part of a broader institutional effort to suppress damaging information. In public statements and on social media, she portrayed Engelmayer's order as proof that “the system protects itself,” positioning herself as one of the few lawmakers willing to confront both the courts and the Justice Department. Her rhetoric cast the ruling not as a jurisdictional decision, but as an intentional act to shield elites connected to Epstein. By personalizing the dispute around Engelmayer, Luna attempted to transform a procedural setback into a political confrontation. The tone was accusatory and absolutist, presenting the judge's refusal as moral failure rather than legal limitation.Critics of Luna argue that her attack on Engelmayer was misleading, legally simplistic, and politically opportunistic, because the judge's ruling rested on well-established jurisdictional boundaries rather than any endorsement of secrecy. Engelmayer explicitly acknowledged the importance of transparency and congressional oversight but stated that he lacked authority to enforce a civil disclosure statute within a criminal case — a limitation Luna largely ignored in favor of incendiary framing. By depicting a procedural ruling as evidence of corruption, Luna blurred the line between oversight advocacy and populist grandstanding, feeding public distrust in the judiciary without offering a realistic legal path forward. Observers note that her comments substituted accusation for substance, inflating her role as a crusader while sidestepping the reality that enforcement power rests primarily with Congress itself, not the courts. Instead of advancing a workable strategy to compel compliance, Luna's rhetoric focused on spectacle and outrage. In doing so, she risked weakening legitimate oversight efforts by turning a technical legal dispute into a personal attack on a judge whose ruling, however frustrating, reflected structural limits rather than institutional malice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Rep. Luna to Newsmax: Impeach Judge Impeding Epstein Files | Newsmax.com

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In early September 2020, amid growing scandal and public scrutiny over his associations with Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew traveled to Balmoral Castle to hold what was described as “crisis talks” with Queen Elizabeth II. This meeting was seen as a critical moment for the royal household, as the Queen and her advisors sought to manage the fallout from mounting allegations, including accusations by Virginia Giuffre and the widely publicized BBC Newsnight interview that followed. Sources at the time characterized the trip as an urgent effort to contain reputational damage and assess Andrew's future role within the monarchy.Though details of the discussions were never made public, the visit marked the beginning of a permanent shift for Prince Andrew. In the wake of the scandal, he stepped back from public duties and relinquished many of his official roles and patronages. The Balmoral meeting highlighted the monarchy's internal crisis and underscored the delicate balancing act between familial loyalty and institutional preservation as the royal family confronted one of its most serious controversies in decadesTo contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8692215/Duke-York-visited-Queen-Balmoral-crisis-talks-Jeffrey-Epstein.html

During Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, a curious and controversial detail surfaced when testimony referenced an alleged photograph showing Maxwell appearing pregnant during the period when she was accused of actively recruiting and abusing minors. The mention was brief but striking, because it directly contradicted the image Maxwell and her defense had long cultivated of her whereabouts, activities, and physical condition during key years of Epstein's operation. The implication was not merely gossip, but a challenge to timelines and narratives Maxwell had relied on to distance herself from day-to-day involvement. If authentic, the image suggested she was present, socially active, and physically visible in Epstein's world at a time when she later claimed to be elsewhere or disengaged. The prosecution did not present the photo as definitive proof of pregnancy, but its mention underscored how much of Maxwell's personal history during those years remains obscured or contested. It raised questions about what else may have been concealed or minimized.The defense quickly downplayed the significance of the alleged image, framing it as irrelevant, speculative, or misinterpreted, and the court did not allow it to become a focal point of the case. Still, its appearance during trial highlighted the broader pattern of incomplete transparency surrounding Maxwell's life during the height of Epstein's trafficking network. Observers noted that even small inconsistencies took on outsized importance because Maxwell's credibility was already under intense scrutiny. The alleged photograph became another example of how fragments of information, when introduced under oath, chipped away at carefully constructed narratives. While the jury was instructed to focus on the charged conduct rather than personal rumors, the reference lingered as a reminder that Maxwell's public story and private reality often failed to align. In a case defined by secrecy and manipulation, even an unresolved image carried weight.to  contract me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Topics discussed: Is Patriots' QB Drake Maye having a "good" playoff so far? // Patriots CB Marcus Jones shares what it means to him to participate in the Super Bowl // Patriots QB Drake Maye gives an update on his shoulder and any restrictions he'll face // AFC Championship Game "Ted Talk": Ted Johnson's takeaways from Patriots-Broncos // Grading Drake Maye's performance in the playoffs through three games // How big of a concern is Drake Maye's shoulder over the next two weeks? // Stephen A. Smith is "sleeping" on the Patriots in the Super Bowl | Calls from Pats' fans on Drake Maye // Reacting to BREAKING NEWS about Bill Belichick's 2026 Football Hall of Fame candidacy // Three Point Stance, The Drive, Odds and Ends + more!

(0:00) Felger, Mazz, and Murray open the final hour of the show by reading what Mike Reiss wrote about the Patriots and Drake Maye reaching the Super Bowl. Plus, Breaking News that Bill Belichick will not be a 1st Ballot Hall of Famer. (13:30) More thoughts on Bill Belichick not making the Hall of Fame in 2026. (25:10) Calls come in on Belichick not being a first HOFer to wrap up the show. (34:30) The Final Word! See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Packers Total Access : BREAKING NEWS! Two Defensive Coaches Are Leaving With Jeff Hafley 

Packers Total Access : BREAKING NEWS! Two Defensive Coaches Are Leaving With Jeff Hafley 

Despite the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) requiring the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release all unclassified investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein by the legal deadline of 19 December 2025, only a tiny portion has been made public, triggering frustration among victims' advocates and lawmakers. Legal experts told the Guardian that efforts to compel full disclosure have been stymied; an attempt to appoint an independent monitor (a special master) to oversee the release failed, and the DOJ has shown little willingness to comply voluntarily. Attorneys representing survivors argued that transparency is essential for healing, accountability, and justice, and urged continued legal pressure through litigation, congressional oversight, Freedom of Information Act enforcement and sustained public scrutiny to force compliance.Experts also highlighted structural weaknesses in the current law — particularly that it lacks clear enforcement mechanisms or judicial oversight — which have allowed the DOJ to delay and limit disclosures with few consequences. Congressional leaders like Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, who co-sponsored the EFTA, said they will pursue every available legal avenue to ensure the files are released, including potential lawsuits or legislative fixes. Observers warned that without stronger enforcement tools, truth and closure for Epstein's survivors may remain elusive, as the agency charged with upholding the law is perceived to be flouting it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What else can be done to force Trump's DoJ to release all the Epstein files? Legal experts weigh in | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

In 2014, Jeffrey Epstein — through his estate's representatives — submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection seeking records that would reveal whether and how he had been subject to any monitoring, surveillance, questioning, or investigation by the agency years after his 2008 guilty plea to solicitation of prostitution involving a minor. The request asked for documents that could illuminate how, why, or when Epstein was flagged as a subject of interest by border officials, a detail long obscured from public view. This unusual FOIA filing, uncovered by investigative reporter Jason Leopold, shows Epstein actively trying to understand the scope of government scrutiny against him long before the recent push to release a much broader cache of files tied to his case.The story comes amid ongoing controversy surrounding the federal government's handling of material related to Epstein's criminal conduct and alleged networks. Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed by Congress in November 2025, the Department of Justice was required to release all investigative records within 30 days, but as of early 2026 had only shared a tiny fraction of the millions of documents potentially responsive to that mandate. Epstein's FOIA request adds another layer to the public's scrutiny of what information federal agencies collected and retained about him, and how much remains hidden or heavily redacted decades after key events in the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein Filed a FOIA Request - Bloomberg

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

Hart, Fitzy and Ted react to a shocking update about Bill Belichick and his candidacy for induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2026.

Topics discussed: Revisiting our conversation with Patriots QB Drake Maye (The Drive) // Reacting to BREAKING NEWS about Bill Belichick's 2026 Football Hall of Fame candidacy // Mike Francesa's hilariously contradicts himself on the topic of Broncos coach Sean Payton (Odds and Ends)

Hour 2--J&J Show Tuesday 1/27/26--Jeff Borzello, ESPN CBB Reporter, on NBA Draft, Pablo story & Penny w J&J + J&J discuss breaking news from Buffalo - Joe Brady new coach & more

Top Stories for January 27th Publish Date: January 27th PRE-ROLL: GCPS From the BG AD Group Studio Welcome to the Gwinnett Daily Post Podcast. Today is Tuesday, January 27th and Happy Birthday to Bobby Blue Band I’m Peyton Spurlock and here are your top stories presented by KIA Mall of Georgia. Gwinnett County Police to host local hiring event Winter storm knocks out power to thousands of Gwinnett homes Parkview grad Quincy Bryant turns NIL experience into financial lifeline for college athletes All of this and more is coming up on the Gwinnett Daily Post podcast, and if you are looking for community news, we encourage you to listen daily and subscribe! Break 1: KIA Mall Of Ga - Sugar Hill Ice Skating Rink Final STORY 1: Gwinnett County Police to host local hiring event Thinking about joining the Gwinnett County Police Department? Here’s your chance—they’re hosting a hiring event on Feb. 6 (3–8 p.m.) and Feb. 7 (8 a.m.–3 p.m.). First things first: submit an application before the event. Once you do, an investigator will call to schedule your appointment. No appointment? You can still show up, but expect a longer wait. And no, you don’t need to attend both days. The process isn’t quick—it can take hours—so plan ahead. Phase I includes orientation, a physical agility test, an interview, a psych exam, and a background check. If you qualify, you might walk away with a conditional job offer. What’s in it for you? A starting salary between $55,923 and $86,090, a 10% hiring bonus, annual raises, and education incentives (up to 6% for a degree). Night Watch officers even get a 5% shift differential. Requirements? Be 21 by academy graduation, have a high school diploma or GED, a valid driver’s license, and be eligible for P.O.S.T. certification. Ready to apply? Visit GwinnettPoliceJobs.com. STORY 2: Winter storm knocks out power to thousands of Gwinnett homes Winter Storm Fern wreaked havoc in Gwinnett County, leaving more than 10,000 residents without power as of Sunday afternoon. Georgia Power reported that, by 5:30 p.m., 9,741 of its customers in the county were in the dark. Peachtree Corners was hit hardest, with 3,120 outages, followed by Berkley Lake and Duluth (1,729), southwest Lawrenceville (1,797), and another 905 near State Route 316. Walton EMC wasn’t spared either—1,771 customers were without power by 5 p.m. The biggest cluster? Along Five Forks Trickum Road, where 767 homes were affected. Jackson EMC also reported 1,067 outages, with 892 concentrated in Lawrenceville. STORY 3: Parkview grad Quincy Bryant turns NIL experience into financial lifeline for college athletes College athletes are making serious money these days, thanks to NIL deals and revenue sharing. But here’s the thing—most of them don’t know what to do with it. Some have advisors, sure, but plenty don’t. Quincy Bryant, a former Parkview football star and Wake Forest standout, saw it all firsthand. Unlike many, he had a plan. While still in college, he invested his NIL earnings, bought a house, and rented it to teammates. Word spread, and soon, everyone was asking him for financial advice. That’s how Final Whistle Wealth was born. Alongside his former teammate Trent Nicholson, Bryant launched the company to help athletes manage their money and plan for life after sports. They started small—one-on-one sessions, then classes—and eventually built a full program with support from Wake Forest’s Startup Lab. Now, they’re developing an app to make budgeting and financial planning easier for athletes. For more, check out www.finalwhistlewealth.com. We have opportunities for sponsors to get great engagement on these shows. Call 770.874.3200 for more info. We’ll be right back Break 2: Ingles Markets 7 STORY 4: Gwinnett County to host Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day on Feb. 7 Got old bug spray, paint cans, or that half-empty bottle of weed killer sitting in your garage? You’re not alone. The EPA calls this stuff “household hazardous waste”—basically, anything that can catch fire, explode, corrode, or poison. And no, you can’t just toss it in the trash or pour it down the drain (seriously, don’t). Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division warns that doing so can pollute groundwater, lakes, and streams. That’s where Gwinnett County’s Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day comes in. Since 2018, this biannual event has made it easier for residents to safely ditch their hazardous junk. The first event of 2026 is happening Saturday, Feb. 7, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Gwinnett County Fairgrounds in Lawrenceville. Accepted items include spray pesticides, auto fluids, batteries, paint, propane cylinders, and even cooking oil. Not accepted? Ammunition, fireworks, electronics, or biohazard waste. Residents can bring up to five containers of waste for free. For details, visit www.GwinnettCB.org or call 770-822-5187. STORY 5: Gwinnett Grads Julian Ashby, Jared Ivey headed to Super Bowl LX Gwinnett County’s got a guaranteed Super Bowl champ this year, no matter what happens on February 8. Why? Two hometown rookies—Parkview’s Julian Ashby and North Gwinnett’s Jared Ivey—are heading to the big game. Ashby’s Patriots edged out the Broncos 10-7 in a snowy AFC Championship, while Ivey’s Seahawks outlasted the Rams 31-27 for the NFC title. Ashby, a 23-year-old long snapper, was flawless in the storm. Drafted in the seventh round by New England, he’s the first long snapper picked since 2021. Before that? Four solid years at Furman and a standout season at Vanderbilt. Ivey, meanwhile, fought his way onto Seattle’s roster as an undrafted free agent. The 6-foot-6 linebacker didn’t play in the NFC Championship but made his mark at Ole Miss with 125 tackles and 16 sacks after transferring from Georgia Tech. No matter who wins, Gwinnett’s streak of Super Bowl champs—now four years running—stays alive. We’ll be right back. Break 3: EAGLE THEATRE Gentleman’s Guide STORY 6: Dr. William Foege, leader in smallpox eradication, dies Dr. William Foege, the towering figure—literally and figuratively—behind the eradication of smallpox, has passed away at 89. He died Saturday in Atlanta, according to the Task Force for Global Health, which he co-founded. At 6-foot-7, Foege was hard to miss, but it was his brilliance and calm determination that truly set him apart. A former CDC director in the late ’70s and early ’80s, he spent his life battling infectious diseases and reshaping global health. His crowning achievement? Smallpox. In the 1960s, while working as a medical missionary in Nigeria, Foege pioneered the “ring containment” strategy—vaccinating only those in contact with infected individuals. It was a bold, resourceful move born out of necessity (there wasn’t enough vaccine to go around). And it worked. By 1980, the World Health Organization declared smallpox eradicated, saving hundreds of millions of lives. STORY 7: State House to operate minus one member after suspension from office The Georgia General Assembly is down yet another lawmaker this session—this time, it’s State Rep. Sharon Henderson, who’s been suspended after a federal indictment. Governor Brian Kemp signed the suspension Thursday, following a committee’s decision that Henderson’s charges “adversely affect” her ability to serve. She’s accused of two counts of theft of government funds and 10 counts of making false statements tied to federal unemployment benefits during the pandemic. Her case? It’s not moving fast—pretrial’s set for Feb. 19. Meanwhile, former Rep. Karen Bennett, resolved similar charges quickly, pleading guilty to fraudulently claiming $13,940 in pandemic relief. Kemp, required by the state constitution, appointed a review committee for Henderson’s case, including Attorney General Chris Carr, Rep. Jan Jones, and Sen. Harold Jones II. Their findings led to her suspension. With several legislative seats still vacant, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is scheduling special elections, including one for Bennett’s seat on March 10. We’ll have closing comments after this Break 4: GCPL PASSPORT Signoff – Thanks again for hanging out with us on today’s Gwinnett Daily Post Podcast. If you enjoy these shows, we encourage you to check out our other offerings, like the Cherokee Tribune Ledger podcast, the Marietta Daily Journal, or the Community Podcast for Rockdale Newton and Morgan Counties. Read more about all our stories and get other great content at www.gwinnettdailypost.com Did you know over 50% of Americans listen to podcasts weekly? Giving you important news about our community and telling great stories are what we do. Make sure you join us for our next episode and be sure to share this podcast on social media with your friends and family. Add us to your Alexa Flash Briefing or your Google Home Briefing and be sure to like, follow, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Produced by the BG Podcast Network Show Sponsors: www.ingles-markets.com www.kiamallofga.com Ice Rink – Downtown Sugar Hill NewsPodcast, CurrentEvents, TopHeadlines, BreakingNews, PodcastDiscussion, PodcastNews, InDepthAnalysis, NewsAnalysis, PodcastTrending, WorldNews, LocalNews, GlobalNews, PodcastInsights, NewsBrief, PodcastUpdate, NewsRoundup, WeeklyNews, DailyNews, PodcastInterviews, HotTopics, PodcastOpinions, InvestigativeJournalism, BehindTheHeadlines, PodcastMedia, NewsStories, PodcastReports, JournalismMatters, PodcastPerspectives, NewsCommentary, PodcastListeners, NewsPodcastCommunity, NewsSource, PodcastCuration, WorldAffairs, PodcastUpdates, AudioNews, PodcastJournalism, EmergingStories, NewsFlash, PodcastConversations See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Minnesota is spiraling — and the media doesn't want to talk about it.In today's episode, we break down the escalating chaos in Minneapolis, including coordinated agitator activity, attacks on ICE agents, and mounting evidence that political leaders are undermining law enforcement. We dive into Signal chat leaks, protest coordination tactics, and why some officials appear more concerned with optics than public safety.We also cover:- Pam Bondi's response to the Minnesota unrest- Media figures getting fact-checked in real time- Chiefs of police pushing back against the narrative- Viral leftist videos exposing just how radical things have becomePlus, we shift gears into culture and media insanity — including the latest Andrew Tate controversy, viral TikTok meltdowns, and why the mainstream press keeps missing the story.SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TO SUPPORT OUR SHOW!For a limited time, listeners get up to 25% off their entire order. Just head to https://CowboyColostrum.com/CHICKS and use code CHICKS at checkout. Lock down protection on both your new gadgets and your old faithful devices with 60% off Webroot at https://Webroot.com/ChicksSubscribe and stay tuned for new episodes every weekday!Follow us here for more daily clips, updates, and commentary:YoutubeFacebookInstagramTikTokXLocalsMore InfoWebsite

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The Post editorial is not an argument, it is a tantrum disguised as analysis, built almost entirely out of contempt for the reader rather than engagement with the facts. Instead of explaining why the Epstein files should remain limited or why institutional handling has been sound, it opens by ridiculing curiosity itself, portraying transparency as hysteria and accountability as a nuisance. It repeatedly blames the public for prosecutors' workload while carefully ignoring the far more damning question of why millions of pages of sensitive material were allowed to accumulate in secrecy for years without resolution. The piece weaponizes the word “conspiracy” to dismiss any inquiry without ever confronting the actual record of non-prosecution agreements, sealed grand juries, immunity clauses, and documented institutional failures that made skepticism inevitable. By framing bipartisan concern as pathology and inquiry as obsession, the editorial tries to convert distrust — created by government misconduct — into a moral defect of the audience. Its constant appeals to SDNY's prestige function as a shield against scrutiny rather than evidence of competence. The article never once grapples with the known procedural irregularities that protected Epstein for decades, because acknowledging them would collapse its thesis. Instead, it replaces investigation with scolding and substitutes sneer for substance. The result is not journalism but narrative discipline, instructing readers that the real scandal is not trafficking, immunity, or protection, but the audacity of citizens to ask how power escaped consequence.More revealing than anything the piece says is what it refuses to say: nothing about the non-prosecution agreement, nothing about unnamed co-conspirators, nothing about sealed testimony, nothing about intelligence overlaps, nothing about the long record of deliberate suppression that made the Epstein case a legitimacy crisis in the first place. By insisting that “no evidence has ever surfaced” while ignoring flight logs, settlements, testimony, recruitment patterns, and financial trails, the editorial performs selective blindness in service of institutional self-defense. Its claim that Biden's access disproves Trump ties relies on naïve assumptions about leaks and ignores the legal architecture that prevents disclosure, while its mockery of “distraction” theories rings hollow in an article explicitly designed to redirect attention away from the files. The editorial's core fear is not conspiracy thinking but institutional exposure, because the danger of the Epstein archive is not salacious gossip but procedural truth — who intervened, who stalled, who authorized, and who buried. In the end, the piece is less a defense of reason than a plea for quiet, urging the public to abandon scrutiny so elites may remain undisturbed. It treats transparency as vandalism, victims as inconvenience, and curiosity as illness, revealing a worldview in which legitimacy is preserved not by accountability but by exhaustion. Far from debunking hysteria, the editorial demonstrates exactly why distrust persists: when institutions cannot answer questions, they try to shame people into stopping them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:You'll never guess what the new Epstein scandal is

Vicente Zambada Niebla, also known as "El Vicentillo," is a prominent figure in Mexican organized crime, specifically associated with the Sinaloa Cartel. Born on February 14, 1975, in Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico, he is the son of Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, one of the top leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel. Vicente Zambada rose through the ranks within the cartel and became one of its key operatives.Zambada was implicated in various drug trafficking activities, including coordinating the transportation and distribution of narcotics, primarily cocaine and marijuana, into the United States. His role within the cartel involved managing logistics, negotiating with other criminal organizations, and overseeing drug shipments.In February 2009, Vicente Zambada was arrested by Mexican authorities in Mexico City. His arrest was a significant blow to the Sinaloa Cartel, as he was considered one of its highest-ranking members at the time. Zambada's capture highlighted the ongoing efforts by law enforcement to dismantle the cartel's leadership structure.During his trial in the United States, Zambada provided extensive testimony against other members of the Sinaloa Cartel, including his own father, Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, as well as Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, the infamous former leader of the cartel. His cooperation with U.S. authorities led to the conviction of numerous cartel members and provided valuable insights into the inner workings of the organization.Throughout the trial, Zambada's testimony shed light on the violence, corruption, and vast network of drug trafficking that characterized the Sinaloa Cartel's operations. His insights were crucial in building cases against other cartel leaders and dismantling key aspects of their criminal enterprise.One notable quote from Vicente Zambada during his trial emphasized the pervasive influence of the cartel: "The organization has more power than the government because the government itself is corrupt." This statement underscores the extent to which organized crime has infiltrated various institutions in Mexico.In October 2019, Vicente Zambada was sentenced to 15 years in prison by a U.S. federal court for his involvement in drug trafficking. Despite his cooperation with authorities, Zambada still faced significant legal consequences for his criminal activities.Then in 2023, that cooperation with the United States Government came to an end after a visit from a known Sinaloan sponsored lawyer. In this episode, we begin our exploration of the case brought by the United States of America against Vicente Zambada and what has transpired since.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:show_temp-3.pl-1.pdf (wired.com)

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild's identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein's representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case's factual recordto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1027.pdf

Vicente Zambada Niebla, also known as "El Vicentillo," is a prominent figure in Mexican organized crime, specifically associated with the Sinaloa Cartel. Born on February 14, 1975, in Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico, he is the son of Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, one of the top leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel. Vicente Zambada rose through the ranks within the cartel and became one of its key operatives.Zambada was implicated in various drug trafficking activities, including coordinating the transportation and distribution of narcotics, primarily cocaine and marijuana, into the United States. His role within the cartel involved managing logistics, negotiating with other criminal organizations, and overseeing drug shipments.In February 2009, Vicente Zambada was arrested by Mexican authorities in Mexico City. His arrest was a significant blow to the Sinaloa Cartel, as he was considered one of its highest-ranking members at the time. Zambada's capture highlighted the ongoing efforts by law enforcement to dismantle the cartel's leadership structure.During his trial in the United States, Zambada provided extensive testimony against other members of the Sinaloa Cartel, including his own father, Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, as well as Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, the infamous former leader of the cartel. His cooperation with U.S. authorities led to the conviction of numerous cartel members and provided valuable insights into the inner workings of the organization.Throughout the trial, Zambada's testimony shed light on the violence, corruption, and vast network of drug trafficking that characterized the Sinaloa Cartel's operations. His insights were crucial in building cases against other cartel leaders and dismantling key aspects of their criminal enterprise.One notable quote from Vicente Zambada during his trial emphasized the pervasive influence of the cartel: "The organization has more power than the government because the government itself is corrupt." This statement underscores the extent to which organized crime has infiltrated various institutions in Mexico.In October 2019, Vicente Zambada was sentenced to 15 years in prison by a U.S. federal court for his involvement in drug trafficking. Despite his cooperation with authorities, Zambada still faced significant legal consequences for his criminal activities.Then in 2023, that cooperation with the United States Government came to an end after a visit from a known Sinaloan sponsored lawyer. In this episode, we begin our exploration of the case brought by the United States of America against Vicente Zambada and what has transpired since.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:show_temp-3.pl-1.pdf (wired.com)

Vicente Zambada Niebla, also known as "El Vicentillo," is a prominent figure in Mexican organized crime, specifically associated with the Sinaloa Cartel. Born on February 14, 1975, in Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico, he is the son of Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, one of the top leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel. Vicente Zambada rose through the ranks within the cartel and became one of its key operatives.Zambada was implicated in various drug trafficking activities, including coordinating the transportation and distribution of narcotics, primarily cocaine and marijuana, into the United States. His role within the cartel involved managing logistics, negotiating with other criminal organizations, and overseeing drug shipments.In February 2009, Vicente Zambada was arrested by Mexican authorities in Mexico City. His arrest was a significant blow to the Sinaloa Cartel, as he was considered one of its highest-ranking members at the time. Zambada's capture highlighted the ongoing efforts by law enforcement to dismantle the cartel's leadership structure.During his trial in the United States, Zambada provided extensive testimony against other members of the Sinaloa Cartel, including his own father, Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, as well as Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, the infamous former leader of the cartel. His cooperation with U.S. authorities led to the conviction of numerous cartel members and provided valuable insights into the inner workings of the organization.Throughout the trial, Zambada's testimony shed light on the violence, corruption, and vast network of drug trafficking that characterized the Sinaloa Cartel's operations. His insights were crucial in building cases against other cartel leaders and dismantling key aspects of their criminal enterprise.One notable quote from Vicente Zambada during his trial emphasized the pervasive influence of the cartel: "The organization has more power than the government because the government itself is corrupt." This statement underscores the extent to which organized crime has infiltrated various institutions in Mexico.In October 2019, Vicente Zambada was sentenced to 15 years in prison by a U.S. federal court for his involvement in drug trafficking. Despite his cooperation with authorities, Zambada still faced significant legal consequences for his criminal activities.Then in 2023, that cooperation with the United States Government came to an end after a visit from a known Sinaloan sponsored lawyer. In this episode, we begin our exploration of the case brought by the United States of America against Vicente Zambada and what has transpired since.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:show_temp-3.pl-1.pdf (wired.com)

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Nancy Pelosi's reaction to her own party voting to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt was less about principle and more about protecting power. Instead of defending the authority of Congress or the right of the Oversight Committee to enforce subpoenas, Pelosi reportedly scolded Democratic members for daring to treat the Clintons like any other witnesses. Her message was unmistakable: some people are simply too important to be subjected to the same rules as everyone else. By warning lawmakers that they should have waited and by dismissing the contempt vote as a mistake, Pelosi wasn't defending procedure — she was reinforcing the idea that the Clintons remain untouchable inside the Democratic hierarchy, even when they refuse lawful subpoenas tied to one of the largest sex-trafficking scandals in modern history.The episode exposed a deeper hypocrisy that Pelosi never addressed. For years, Democrats — including Pelosi herself — championed contempt proceedings against Trump officials as a sacred defense of congressional authority. But when that same authority was aimed at the Clintons, suddenly restraint, patience, and party unity became more important than accountability. Pelosi's scolding wasn't about fairness or law; it was about damage control, shielding legacy figures whose testimony could reopen politically explosive questions about Epstein, elite protection, and institutional failure. In doing so, she sent a clear signal to rank-and-file Democrats: accountability is mandatory for outsiders, but optional for the powerful, especially when their last name is Clinton.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Exclusive: Pelosi privately blasts Democrats for vote to hold Clintons in contempt in Epstein probe | CNN Politics

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild's identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein's representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case's factual recordto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1027.pdf

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild's identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein's representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case's factual recordto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1027.pdf

Vicente Zambada Niebla, also known as "El Vicentillo," is a prominent figure in Mexican organized crime, specifically associated with the Sinaloa Cartel. Born on February 14, 1975, in Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico, he is the son of Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, one of the top leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel. Vicente Zambada rose through the ranks within the cartel and became one of its key operatives.Zambada was implicated in various drug trafficking activities, including coordinating the transportation and distribution of narcotics, primarily cocaine and marijuana, into the United States. His role within the cartel involved managing logistics, negotiating with other criminal organizations, and overseeing drug shipments.In February 2009, Vicente Zambada was arrested by Mexican authorities in Mexico City. His arrest was a significant blow to the Sinaloa Cartel, as he was considered one of its highest-ranking members at the time. Zambada's capture highlighted the ongoing efforts by law enforcement to dismantle the cartel's leadership structure.During his trial in the United States, Zambada provided extensive testimony against other members of the Sinaloa Cartel, including his own father, Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, as well as Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, the infamous former leader of the cartel. His cooperation with U.S. authorities led to the conviction of numerous cartel members and provided valuable insights into the inner workings of the organization.Throughout the trial, Zambada's testimony shed light on the violence, corruption, and vast network of drug trafficking that characterized the Sinaloa Cartel's operations. His insights were crucial in building cases against other cartel leaders and dismantling key aspects of their criminal enterprise.One notable quote from Vicente Zambada during his trial emphasized the pervasive influence of the cartel: "The organization has more power than the government because the government itself is corrupt." This statement underscores the extent to which organized crime has infiltrated various institutions in Mexico.In October 2019, Vicente Zambada was sentenced to 15 years in prison by a U.S. federal court for his involvement in drug trafficking. Despite his cooperation with authorities, Zambada still faced significant legal consequences for his criminal activities.Then in 2023, that cooperation with the United States Government came to an end after a visit from a known Sinaloan sponsored lawyer. In this episode, we begin our exploration of the case brought by the United States of America against Vicente Zambada and what has transpired since.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:show_temp-3.pl-1.pdf (wired.com)

patreon.com/alwaysirish #notredame #collegefootball #SEC #Georgia #pennstate #ohiostate #miami #mikegoolsby #goolsby #notredamefootball #notredame #miami #cfp notre dame x @AlwaysIrishINC https://alwaysirishmerch.com/https://www.si.com/college/notredame

patreon.com/alwaysirish #notredame #collegefootball #SEC #Georgia #pennstate #ohiostate #miami #mikegoolsby #goolsby #notredamefootball #notredame #miami #cfp notre dame x @AlwaysIrishINC https://alwaysirishmerch.com/https://www.si.com/college/notredame

Packers Total Access : BREAKING NEWS! Packers Hire Jonathan Gannon In Middle Of Livestream

Packers Total Access : BREAKING NEWS! Packers Hire Jonathan Gannon In Middle Of Livestream

Vicente Zambada Niebla, also known as "El Vicentillo," is a prominent figure in Mexican organized crime, specifically associated with the Sinaloa Cartel. Born on February 14, 1975, in Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico, he is the son of Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, one of the top leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel. Vicente Zambada rose through the ranks within the cartel and became one of its key operatives.Zambada was implicated in various drug trafficking activities, including coordinating the transportation and distribution of narcotics, primarily cocaine and marijuana, into the United States. His role within the cartel involved managing logistics, negotiating with other criminal organizations, and overseeing drug shipments.In February 2009, Vicente Zambada was arrested by Mexican authorities in Mexico City. His arrest was a significant blow to the Sinaloa Cartel, as he was considered one of its highest-ranking members at the time. Zambada's capture highlighted the ongoing efforts by law enforcement to dismantle the cartel's leadership structure.During his trial in the United States, Zambada provided extensive testimony against other members of the Sinaloa Cartel, including his own father, Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, as well as Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, the infamous former leader of the cartel. His cooperation with U.S. authorities led to the conviction of numerous cartel members and provided valuable insights into the inner workings of the organization.Throughout the trial, Zambada's testimony shed light on the violence, corruption, and vast network of drug trafficking that characterized the Sinaloa Cartel's operations. His insights were crucial in building cases against other cartel leaders and dismantling key aspects of their criminal enterprise.One notable quote from Vicente Zambada during his trial emphasized the pervasive influence of the cartel: "The organization has more power than the government because the government itself is corrupt." This statement underscores the extent to which organized crime has infiltrated various institutions in Mexico.In October 2019, Vicente Zambada was sentenced to 15 years in prison by a U.S. federal court for his involvement in drug trafficking. Despite his cooperation with authorities, Zambada still faced significant legal consequences for his criminal activities.Then in 2023, that cooperation with the United States Government came to an end after a visit from a known Sinaloan sponsored lawyer. In this episode, we begin our exploration of the case brought by the United States of America against Vicente Zambada and what has transpired since.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:show_temp-3.pl-1.pdf (wired.com)