Podcasts about Breaking news

Focusing on the most salacious elements of the Epstein scandal—photos, social associations, provocative rumors, and unverifiable claims—ultimately obscures the most consequential aspects of the case. While those details draw attention, they are often difficult to substantiate and easy for powerful figures to dismiss as tabloid sensationalism or partisan hysteria. This dynamic allows individuals like Donald Trump to deflect scrutiny by arguing that critics are obsessed with gossip rather than facts. When the public debate centers on what cannot be conclusively proven, it weakens legitimate inquiries and shifts attention away from demonstrable conduct such as institutional obstruction, delayed disclosures, and efforts to limit transparency. In effect, sensationalism becomes a shield rather than a weapon, blurring the line between serious investigation and speculative outrage.More importantly, an overemphasis on salacious claims gives cover to those seeking to bury the scandal altogether. By encouraging critics to overreach, it allows defenders to collapse the entire Epstein issue into a debate about conspiracy theories rather than accountability. The most critical elements of the scandal—the use of power to suppress records, resist subpoenas, control narratives, and prevent full public disclosure—are procedural and often unglamorous, but they are also provable. History shows that major reckonings rarely begin with the most shocking allegations; they begin with exposing cover-ups, paper trails, and institutional misconduct. When attention is redirected away from obstruction and toward spectacle, it delays accountability and helps ensure that Epstein's network remains protected long after the crimes themselves are no longer in dispute.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Metropolitan Police in London have announced that they will not reopen or pursue a criminal investigation into Prince Andrew over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, stating that there is no new or compelling evidence that meets the threshold for further action. According to the Met, they have repeatedly reviewed material related to Epstein over the years, including information that surfaced during Ghislaine Maxwell's prosecution in the United States, and concluded that nothing presented warrants a formal criminal probe under UK law. The force emphasized that its position has been consistent and that past assessments found no viable lines of inquiry involving Prince Andrew that could be pursued to a prosecutable standard.In response to the Metropolitan Police's announcement, the family of Virginia Roberts Giuffre issued sharp and emotional criticism, describing the decision as a devastating but unsurprising failure of justice. They said the refusal to investigate Prince Andrew reinforced a long-standing pattern in which powerful men are shielded while survivors are left to carry the burden alone. The family emphasized that Virginia repeatedly named Prince Andrew as part of her abuse claims and did so at great personal cost, facing years of public scrutiny, legal intimidation, and character attacks. In their view, the Met's decision sends a clear message that status and proximity to power still outweigh the voices of victims, no matter how consistent or detailed their accounts may be.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Guiffre family's fury as Met drops probe into Mail on Sunday's revelation that Andrew told officer to dig up dirt on Virginia | Daily Mail Online

Top Stories for December 16th Publish Date: December 16th PRE-ROLL: Villa Rica Wonderland Train From the BG AD Group Studio Welcome to the Gwinnett Daily Post Podcast. Today is Tuesday, December 16th and Happy Birthday to Yosemite Sam I’m Peyton Spurlock and here are your top stories presented by KIA Mall of Georgia. Gwinnett leaders update lawmakers on voting site challenges, public safety efforts Brookwood High selected to participate in the GaDOE Gifted in Action series Gwinnett Chamber announces 2025 Business Excellence Award winners Plus, Shane Delancey the Director of the Christmas Tradition at the Strand Theatre 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 Georgia - Sugar Hill Ice Skating Rink STORY 1: Gwinnett leaders update lawmakers on voting site challenges, public safety efforts Gwinnett County is cutting polling locations—down from 156 to 144—and the reason? Insurance headaches. Churches and private organizations, once reliable voting sites, are pulling out, according to Elections Supervisor Zach Manifold. Manifold shared the news during a meeting with Gwinnett’s state lawmakers, where elections and public safety took center stage. Chairwoman Nicole Love Hendrickson emphasized collaboration: “When local and state leaders work together, we serve our residents better.” On the safety side, Police Chief J.D. McClure highlighted staffing gains and a futuristic twist—drones as “first eyes” on crime scenes. Progress, but challenges remain. STORY 2: Brookwood High selected to participate in the GaDOE Gifted in Action series Brookwood High just got a big nod from the Georgia Department of Education—it’s been featured in the GaDOE Gifted in Action series, a webinar collection for educators working with gifted and talented students. Eric Rovie’s AP Literature and Language classes were in the spotlight, with the GaDOE team recording his students in action. Rovie’s approach? Open discussions, tough questions, and a classroom built on trust. Gifted education isn’t just about acceleration, says Dr. Keena Ryals-Jenkins of GCPS—it’s about sparking curiosity and pushing boundaries. STORY 3: Gwinnett Chamber announces 2025 Business Excellence Award winners The Gwinnett Chamber’s Business Excellence Awards lit up the John Maxwell Leadership Center last week, celebrating the movers, shakers, and innovators shaping Gwinnett’s business scene. Nick Masino, Chamber President & CEO, kicked things off, followed by keynote speaker Darryll Stinson—a TEDx speaker and leadership guru—who delivered a heartfelt, no-fluff message about trust, growth, and greatness. “It’s about elevating results,” he said, leaving the room buzzing. Masino summed it up: “When our businesses thrive, so does our region.” Winners spanned 10 categories, from Spectrum Autism Support Group (Community Contributor) to iS3 Tech Services’ Adam Hammock (Founder Award). A night of well-earned applause. 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 - DTL HOLIDAY STORY 4: Gwinnett road closures Dec. 13-19 Heads up, Gwinnett drivers—here’s what’s happening on the roads this week (Dec. 13–19). Expect closures, detours, and delays, all courtesy of construction, utility work, and improvements. Big ones to note: **Ballpark Lane** is closed through April 2026. Detours are in place, but, yeah, plan extra time. Other spots with intermittent lane closures include **Beaver Ruin Road**, **Sugarloaf Parkway**, and **Rockbridge Road**—plus about 30 more. For details or detour routes, contact the Gwinnett DOT. STORY 5: ART BEAT: Players Guild at Sugar Hill to stage 'The Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder' Looking for a darkly funny way to kick off the new year? *The Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder* hits Sugar Hill’s Eagle Theatre stage Feb. 6–15, promising six performances of murder, mayhem, and music. The story? Monty Navarro, a broke clerk, discovers he’s ninth in line to inherit a fancy title and fortune. His solution? Start “removing” the D’Ysquith family members ahead of him. It’s twisted, hilarious, and based on the 1907 novel *Israel Rank*. JD Touchton stars as Monty, marking his first musical role in four years. Tickets? Boxoffice@pgatsh.com. Now, here is Shane Delancey the Director of the Christmas Tradition at the Strand Theatre - Shane Delancey - Break 3: THE STRAND HOLIDAY STORY 6: Mill Creek Grad Holden Cammarata Runs 100-Mile Day for Williams Syndrome Holden Cammarata had a wild dream—run 100 miles in a single day. Not a marathon, not two, but *four*. The 2025 Mill Creek grad and Georgia Tech freshman had always pushed himself, running cross country in high school and now with Georgia Tech’s club team. But this? This was next level. “It’s a big jump,” he admitted. “With my foot surgery coming up, I figured this might be my last shot.” But Holden didn’t just run for himself. He ran for Molly Kate Cloer, the little sister of his high school teammate Tyler, who has Williams Syndrome. Inspired by their family, he turned his grueling goal into a fundraiser, raising over $8,000 for the cause. The run itself? Brutal. By mile 60, his injured foot was screaming. By mile 80, the park closed, forcing him to finish in a church parking lot. Every step hurt. But his parents, old teammates, and even strangers showed up to cheer him on, some running alongside him. After 25 hours, 33 minutes, and 32 seconds, Holden crossed the finish line—exhausted, in pain, but surrounded by love. STORY 7: Northside Hospital Gwinnett named one of nation's best for maternity care Northside Hospital Gwinnett just got some big news—it’s officially one of the best places in the country to have a baby, according to *U.S. News & World Report*. The hospital earned a “High Performing” rating for maternity care, putting it in the top 10% nationwide for uncomplicated pregnancies. Pretty impressive, right? Last year alone, they delivered 4,245 babies. Northside Gwinnett also scored high marks in 15 other areas, from heart surgery to stroke care. When you’re here, you’re family. We’ll have closing comments after this Break 4: GCPS Hiring 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 Holiday Celebration 2025 – City of Sugar Hill Team GCPS https://www.downtownlawrencevillega.com/ 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.

In today's episode, we break down the explosive fallout surrounding Candace Owens, her controversial meeting with Erika Kirk, and the online backlash that followed. From cult-like reactions and vile commentary to public figures finally pushing back, this conversation pulls no punches.We also cover Islamist terror plots, disturbing new surveillance footage, and lawmakers sounding the alarm on rising extremism — including Rep. Mike Collins' blunt assessment of recent attacks. From Tim Pool and Megyn Kelly to Scott Jennings, Jesse Watters, and Senator Kennedy, we connect the dots the media refuses to touch.SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TO SUPPORT OUR SHOW!Join the Angel Guild today. Go to https://Angel.com/ChicksOnTheRight Watch the Homestead movie, then stream Homestead: The Series exclusively on Angel. Give loved ones something lasting—go to https://Superpower.com/gift for a free $49 premium gift box with gifted membership. Please mention our show.Sponsored by Omaha Steaks — Save big on gourmet gifts and holiday favorites at https://www.OmahaSteaks.com with code CHICKS for an extra $35 off checkout. Terms apply.Get 60% off Webroot Total Protection at https://Webroot.com/Chicks to protect against holiday cybercrime.Subscribe and stay tuned for new episodes every weekday!Follow us here for more daily clips, updates, and commentary:YoutubeFacebookInstagramTikTokXLocalsMore Info

Scott Mason talks with Chris Nimbley of Jetsinsider.com about the midweek news and notes surrounding the New York Jets! Chris discusses the removal of Steve Wilks as the Jets' defensive coordinator, what led to the decision, where the team may go from here at that spot in the future, another Gang Green defender landing on season ending IR ......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

Order my new book: https://geni.us/AtlasOfUFOs The trailer for Steven Spielberg's long-awaited UFO movie has finally dropped and it's officially titled Disclosure Day. In this breaking news episode, Andy walks through the teaser trailer shot by shot, looking at the symbolism, themes, and heavy UFO lore running throughout. Religious imagery, animal symbolism, global broadcasts, altered voices, and the idea of full worldwide disclosure all feature heavily. The episode also covers new comments from members of Congress on UAPs following the latest Weaponized interview, including pushback from agencies, the need for subpoena power, and questions about whether disclosure can ever happen through official channels. Plenty of listener reactions and first impressions included.

The tragic Bondi Beach terror attack turned a joyful Hanukkah celebration into nightmare – 15 innocent lives lost to radical hatred. A wake-up call on failed policies, gun control lies, and the need for gun rights. Full breakdown on The Right Side. Pray for the victims. ✡️ #BondiBeachAttack #HanukkahTerror #trump #australia #islam #terrorSubscribe to Doug's YouTube Channel: @TheRightSideDougBillingsClick the link below to support the show please.Support the show

New details emerge on the death of Rob Reiner and his wife as the couple's son is arrested. Also, the manhunt intensifies for the gunman in the fatal mass shooting at Brown University as authorities share new images of a person they are seeking to question. Plus, holiday travel preps get underway as a record number of Americans are set to travel. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for attorney–client and work product protection in her lawsuit with Virginia Roberts Giuffre sought to shield a wide range of documents and communications from disclosure during discovery. Maxwell argued that certain materials requested by Giuffre were protected because they reflected legal strategy, attorney communications, or preparations made in anticipation of litigation. Her filing emphasized that forcing disclosure would unfairly expose her defense strategy and violate long-standing legal privileges designed to protect confidential legal consultation. Maxwell's attorneys framed the motion as a necessary safeguard against what they characterized as overbroad and invasive discovery demands. They contended that without these protections, defendants in high-profile civil litigation would be placed at a systemic disadvantage. The motion leaned heavily on precedent affirming the sanctity of attorney–client privilege and work product doctrine. Maxwell's team positioned the issue as procedural rather than substantive, arguing it was about legal fairness, not hiding facts. The filing attempted to narrow what Giuffre could access while preserving Maxwell's litigation posture.In response, the dispute highlighted broader tensions in the case over transparency versus privilege. Giuffre's side argued that Maxwell was using privilege claims too expansively to block relevant evidence, particularly materials that could shed light on Epstein's operations and Maxwell's role within them. The motion became part of a recurring pattern in the litigation, where Maxwell sought to limit discovery that could expose damaging details under the guise of legal protection. Courts were asked to balance legitimate privilege against the need for factual development in a case involving serious allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking. The issue underscored how privilege claims can function as both a shield for legal strategy and a barrier to accountability. Ultimately, the motion reflected Maxwell's broader legal strategy of tightly controlling information flow. It also reinforced the adversarial nature of the lawsuit, where discovery itself became a central battleground. The fight over work product was less about isolated documents and more about how much of Maxwell's conduct would be subject to scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloud

Virginia Roberts is battling it out in court with someone known as Jane doe # 133. The battle has to do with Jane Doe's persistent resistance to her name being unsealed as part of the document dump initiated by Judge Preska. Virginia Roberts and her legal team say that transparency and the publics right to know outweighs Jane doe's right to privacy, considering she has already been named in public. Now it will be up to the court to decide.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein Victim Virginia Giuffre Fighting Jane Doe's Objection to Unsealing of Records (radaronline.com)

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for attorney–client and work product protection in her lawsuit with Virginia Roberts Giuffre sought to shield a wide range of documents and communications from disclosure during discovery. Maxwell argued that certain materials requested by Giuffre were protected because they reflected legal strategy, attorney communications, or preparations made in anticipation of litigation. Her filing emphasized that forcing disclosure would unfairly expose her defense strategy and violate long-standing legal privileges designed to protect confidential legal consultation. Maxwell's attorneys framed the motion as a necessary safeguard against what they characterized as overbroad and invasive discovery demands. They contended that without these protections, defendants in high-profile civil litigation would be placed at a systemic disadvantage. The motion leaned heavily on precedent affirming the sanctity of attorney–client privilege and work product doctrine. Maxwell's team positioned the issue as procedural rather than substantive, arguing it was about legal fairness, not hiding facts. The filing attempted to narrow what Giuffre could access while preserving Maxwell's litigation posture.In response, the dispute highlighted broader tensions in the case over transparency versus privilege. Giuffre's side argued that Maxwell was using privilege claims too expansively to block relevant evidence, particularly materials that could shed light on Epstein's operations and Maxwell's role within them. The motion became part of a recurring pattern in the litigation, where Maxwell sought to limit discovery that could expose damaging details under the guise of legal protection. Courts were asked to balance legitimate privilege against the need for factual development in a case involving serious allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking. The issue underscored how privilege claims can function as both a shield for legal strategy and a barrier to accountability. Ultimately, the motion reflected Maxwell's broader legal strategy of tightly controlling information flow. It also reinforced the adversarial nature of the lawsuit, where discovery itself became a central battleground. The fight over work product was less about isolated documents and more about how much of Maxwell's conduct would be subject to scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Ghislaine Maxwell's defense strategy at trial leaned heavily on the anticipated use of expert witnesses to undermine the government's narrative and cast doubt on the reliability of its evidence. Her legal team signaled plans to call psychologists, memory experts, and other specialists to challenge survivor testimony, particularly on issues of recollection, suggestion, and the passage of time. By framing key witnesses as vulnerable to memory distortion or external influence, Maxwell hoped to weaken the emotional and evidentiary weight of the prosecution's case without directly attacking every factual allegation head-on.More broadly, Maxwell sought to use experts to reframe the case as one built on imperfect recollections rather than corroborated criminal conduct. This approach aimed to elevate technical disputes over credibility, memory science, and investigative methodology, shifting the jury's focus away from the broader pattern of grooming and recruitment alleged by the government. Ultimately, many of these efforts were limited or rejected by the court, and the jury appeared unpersuaded by attempts to intellectualize away consistent testimony from multiple victims. The failed reliance on experts highlighted the weakness of Maxwell's defense when confronted with overlapping evidence and firsthand accounts that proved difficult to explain away through theory alone.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Epstein estate tried to shut down the lawsuit Ghislaine Maxwell filed against it by arguing that her claims were legally baseless and strategically opportunistic. Maxwell had sued the estate seeking reimbursement for legal fees and protection she claimed Epstein had promised her, but the executors countered that no such binding agreement existed. They portrayed her demand for indemnification as both speculative and self-serving, especially given her criminal conviction and the mountain of evidence tying her to Epstein's trafficking operation. In their view, Maxwell was attempting to shift responsibility for her own conduct onto a dead man's estate that already faced enormous financial pressure from survivor settlements and ongoing litigation.To reinforce their position, the estate argued that Maxwell's lawsuit was essentially an effort to rewrite history—attempting to cast herself as someone entitled to Epstein's financial shield despite her central role in enabling his crimes. They emphasized that the estate had no obligation to fund her defense, especially when her actions were outside the scope of any legitimate employment or partnership and were, instead, criminal in nature. The executors also noted that satisfying Maxwell's claims would siphon money away from compensation intended for survivors, contradicting the estate's publicly stated commitments. Ultimately, their motion to dismiss framed Maxwell's lawsuit as a legally flimsy maneuver designed to grab resources she was never owed and to distance herself from the consequences of her own conduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloud

Bobby, Eddie and country music singer/songwriter, Matt Stell sit down to talk about the albums that completely rewired how they hear music. Each of them brings a Top 3 that shaped their life, with stories about where they were, what was going on, and why those records still hold up. Along the way, they get into how certain songs attach themselves to specific memories and why some albums age better than others. Matt also drops some breaking news from his personal life that the guys were not expecting. Plus, they dive into the greatest lead singers and debut albums ever and end up in a full-on music debate that’ll have you making your own list as you listen.Follow on Instagram: @TheBobbyCast Follow on TikTok: @TheBobbyCast Watch this Episode on YoutubeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

SEASON 4 EPISODE 41: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN The president of the United States is celebrating the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife. It is at first impossible to believe that what follows isn’t satire. Then it becomes heart-breaking that it isn’t satire. Then it becomes infuriating. Finally it becomes more evidence that every minute this man is permitted to REMAIN president – the rest of us – the rest of us in the WORLD – are in mortal danger. Trump really believes that Rob Reiner “passed away… due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with… Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Trump’s ability to make everything about HIM – his need to be, as the old dark joke goes, the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral – is not some kind of act. You will recall his reaction to 9/11 – that it made HIM the owner of the SECOND tallest building in downtown Manhattan, not just the third. It crested when he publicly speculated that a baseball player broke his ankle because he sold his apartment in a Trump building. It is called Shallow Affect and it means in essence that you do not KNOW how actual normal humans interact nor what causes the events in THEIR lives. You cannot CONCEIVE of their lives. You look at a picture of the world and you see only you. You look in a mirror and you correctly see YOU but you are firmly convinced that when OTHERS look in THEIR mirrors… they ALSO see only you. Human beings do not believe these things. Trump does. It means he can believe - and do - anything.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Brian Walshe has been found guilty of 1st degree murder in the murder of his wife Ana Walshe ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.

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.

Today we will try a variation of the limited edition WinterFest Pebbles...this year with Marshmallows! Then some more granola from our good pal Bob, and Breaking News! Andrew bought something for us to try!!! It's an interesting granola from Kodiak...protein packed! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A look at the life and legacy of Rob Reiner as new details emerge following his and his wife's deaths from apparent stab wounds. Also, police in Providence, Rhode Island still searching for the gunman at Brown University after a man detained as a person of interest was suddenly released. Plus, more information on the horrific terror attack on Australia's Bondi Beach where at least 15 people were shot and killed during a Hanukkah celebration. And, how major retailers and restaurants are struggling due to a penny shortage. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Tara wakes listeners up to a relentless cascade of breaking news: a shocking Hollywood murder, a collapsing FBI narrative after a university shooting, and disturbing global terror developments stretching from the U.S. to Europe and Australia. As the West grapples with violence, cultural conflict, and policy failures, Tara also finds a rare moment of hope — a small but meaningful win for families just trying to make Christmas special

What an absolutely insane and disturbing weekend in the news. Tara unpacks the chaos surrounding a deadly university shooting, a major FBI embarrassment, and deeply troubling revelations about terrorism, immigration failures, and cultural clashes across the West. From a botched geolocation arrest at Brown University to shocking admissions about unvetted refugees, this episode pulls no punches. This is not just a news recap — it's a warning

It's one of those mornings where the news hits hard before the coffee does ☕❄️. Tara walks listeners through a rapid-fire series of shocking developments: a brutal Hollywood murder, a collapsing FBI narrative around a university shooting, and deeply alarming revelations about terrorism, Syria, and U.S. foreign policy. This episode pulls back the curtain on what Tara calls “the level of pretend” — and why history may be repeating itself in terrifying ways. ⏱️ Episode Highlights ❄️ Cold Morning, Colder News: Waking up to shock after shock as temperatures hover near record lows

Tara wakes up to a freezing morning and even colder headlines ❄️. From a stunning FBI misstep in the Brown University shooting to horrifying revelations about unvetted refugees, terrorists released into the country, and crimes that defy belief, this episode exposes a cascade of failures that are only now coming to light. As Tara connects the dots between years-old decisions and today's chaos, one thing becomes clear: these consequences were predicted — and ignored. ⏱️ Episode Highlights ❄️ Cold Morning, Hot Mess: Bone-chilling temperatures match the tone of the headlines

Tara breaks down a morning of shocking headlines: Rob Reiner and his wife, Michelle, allegedly murdered in their Hollywood mansion

Exclusive! We get the lowdown on new Purina dog foods the day they hit the shelves. Dr. RuthAnn Lobos (@petvetruthann), senior veterinarian at Purina will outline the rationale behind their new "Advantedge Plus" senior and digestive formulations, and why many of us should consider one or the other. We'll parse ingredients, specs, and the new product development process from a researcher's notion to stocking retail shelves. We'll cover why and how dogs "choose" favorite foods, when our dog actually becomes a "senior" citizen, indications of a dog's aging, and find out what ingredients go into the new formulations and why. Dr. RuthAnn talks about why we shouldn't feed prior to a hunt, how Purina "taste tests" new foods, and defines a healthy physique for a sporting dog. "Fix It" keeps your dog warm after a cold wet hunt, and listeners tell us what they're giving their dog for Christmas or Hannukah. And it's all brought to you by: HiVizSights.com, Mid Valley Clays and Shooting School, TrulockChokes, HiViz shooting systems, Pointer shotguns, Purina Pro Plan Sport and FindBirdHuntingSpots.com.

Gary and Shannon break down a foiled terror plot in Los Angeles, the murder of the Reiners, and newly leaked photos tied to Jeffrey Epstein. We also cover reports of actor Anthony Geary’s death, major lawsuits facing Uber, and Airbnb’s crackdown on unauthorized parties.#GasFantasy4play / #Motivational Monday See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dawn Richard filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging years of physical, verbal, and sexual abuse during her time with Danity Kane and later as part of Diddy-Dirty Money. The suit claims that Combs forced extreme working conditions, deprived her of basic needs like food and sleep, and subjected her to sexual exploitation. Richard described incidents of violence, including witnessing abusive behavior toward other women and being trapped at parties where drugs and underage girls were involved. She also alleges financial manipulation and threats of violence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Dawn Richard v. Sean Diddy Combs - DocumentCloud

Before Ghislaine Maxwell's arrest in July 2020, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York conducted a secret grand jury investigation that quietly accelerated in the months following Jeffrey Epstein's death. The grand jury heard testimony from witnesses, reviewed financial records, communications, flight data, and other documentary evidence tied to Epstein's sex trafficking operation and Maxwell's alleged role in facilitating it. Subpoenas were issued, immunity agreements were reportedly used to compel cooperation, and prosecutors focused on building a case that could stand independently of Epstein, centering on recruitment, grooming, transportation, and coordination of underage victims over many years.Crucially, the grand jury probe unfolded while Maxwell remained publicly uncharged and largely out of sight, allowing prosecutors to work without alerting her to the full scope or timing of the case. By the time of her arrest, the investigation had already matured to the point where prosecutors felt confident proceeding without Epstein as a defendant, relying instead on corroborated victim testimony and documentary evidence. The secrecy of the grand jury process also meant that potential co-conspirators were shielded from public scrutiny during this phase, a fact that later fueled criticism once Maxwell was charged alone. In effect, the pre-arrest grand jury investigation laid the foundation for Maxwell's prosecution while simultaneously highlighting how narrowly the government chose to pursue accountability once the case entered the public stage.to contact me:bobbycapucciBefore Ghislaine Maxwell's arrest in July 2020, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York conducted a secret grand jury investigation that quietly accelerated in the months following Jeffrey Epstein's death. The grand jury heard testimony from witnesses, reviewed financial records, communications, flight data, and other documentary evidence tied to Epstein's sex trafficking operation and Maxwell's alleged role in facilitating it. Subpoenas were issued, immunity agreements were reportedly used to compel cooperation, and prosecutors focused on building a case that could stand independently of Epstein, centering on recruitment, grooming, transportation, and coordination of underage victims over many years.Crucially, the grand jury probe unfolded while Maxwell remained publicly uncharged and largely out of sight, allowing prosecutors to work without alerting her to the full scope or timing of the case. By the time of her arrest, the investigation had already matured to the point where prosecutors felt confident proceeding without Epstein as a defendant, relying instead on corroborated victim testimony and documentary evidence. The secrecy of the grand jury process also meant that potential co-conspirators were shielded from public scrutiny during this phase, a fact that later fueled criticism once Maxwell was charged alone. In effect, the pre-arrest grand jury investigation laid the foundation for Maxwell's prosecution while simultaneously highlighting how narrowly the government chose to pursue accountability once the case entered the public stage.to contact me:bobbycapucci

Dawn Richard filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging years of physical, verbal, and sexual abuse during her time with Danity Kane and later as part of Diddy-Dirty Money. The suit claims that Combs forced extreme working conditions, deprived her of basic needs like food and sleep, and subjected her to sexual exploitation. Richard described incidents of violence, including witnessing abusive behavior toward other women and being trapped at parties where drugs and underage girls were involved. She also alleges financial manipulation and threats of violence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Dawn Richard v. Sean Diddy Combs - DocumentCloud

In its early days, the Jeffrey Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund was presented as a streamlined, independent mechanism designed to bypass the slow grind of civil litigation and get money into survivors' hands quickly. Administered by Jordana Feldman—who had previously worked on the 9/11 fund—the program was structured to allow claimants to come forward confidentially, submit evidence privately, and receive individualized offers based on the severity and duration of their abuse. The estate touted the fund as a gesture of accountability, emphasizing that survivors would not have to confront Epstein's enablers in court or relive their trauma in adversarial proceedings. Early reporting noted that dozens of women registered almost immediately, and the fund was inundated with initial inquiries, signaling how many victims had remained silent in the shadows of Epstein's power for years.But behind the polished presentation, the fund's formation showed cracks that raised concern among survivors and advocates. Early payouts were contingent on the estate's liquidity, and from the outset the executors—Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, both longtime Epstein insiders—warned that they might not have enough accessible cash to meet demand. This created immediate skepticism about whether the estate was truly committed to compensating victims or simply attempting to limit long-term legal exposure. Survivors questioned why the very people who helped run Epstein's financial empire were now controlling the purse from which reparations would flow. At the same time, the USVI government voiced concern that the fund's confidentiality provisions could shield key information about the scope of Epstein's trafficking network. In those early months, while some survivors viewed the fund as a path to long-overdue validation, others saw it as a controlled, estate-friendly structure that risked trading truth for expediency.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for Filing

Taken as a whole, the plea conference transcript documents the formal moment when Jeffrey Epstein secured an unusually favorable resolution to serious felony charges, one that was explicitly premised on compliance with strict custodial and supervisory conditions. The court accepted the plea on the understanding that Epstein would serve meaningful jail time, submit to sex-offender designation, comply with supervision, and abide by restrictions meant to prevent further harm. On paper, the agreement was presented as a final, enforceable resolution that balanced punishment with accountability, and the court relied on representations that Epstein would follow those terms in full.With the benefit of hindsight, it is now clear that those assumptions did not hold. Epstein's subsequent treatment and behavior—his hollowed-out incarceration, continued privileges, and apparent disregard for key restrictions—call into question whether the plea terms were ever genuinely satisfied. That breakdown matters because the plea deal and the related non-prosecution agreement were conditional arrangements, dependent on good-faith compliance. When viewed in this broader context, the transcript reads not as a clean conclusion, but as the starting point of a failed enforcement process that allowed the protections of the deal to remain in place despite evidence that its core requirements were not being met.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.463.3.pdf

Taken as a whole, the plea conference transcript documents the formal moment when Jeffrey Epstein secured an unusually favorable resolution to serious felony charges, one that was explicitly premised on compliance with strict custodial and supervisory conditions. The court accepted the plea on the understanding that Epstein would serve meaningful jail time, submit to sex-offender designation, comply with supervision, and abide by restrictions meant to prevent further harm. On paper, the agreement was presented as a final, enforceable resolution that balanced punishment with accountability, and the court relied on representations that Epstein would follow those terms in full.With the benefit of hindsight, it is now clear that those assumptions did not hold. Epstein's subsequent treatment and behavior—his hollowed-out incarceration, continued privileges, and apparent disregard for key restrictions—call into question whether the plea terms were ever genuinely satisfied. That breakdown matters because the plea deal and the related non-prosecution agreement were conditional arrangements, dependent on good-faith compliance. When viewed in this broader context, the transcript reads not as a clean conclusion, but as the starting point of a failed enforcement process that allowed the protections of the deal to remain in place despite evidence that its core requirements were not being met.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.463.3.pdf

Taken as a whole, the plea conference transcript documents the formal moment when Jeffrey Epstein secured an unusually favorable resolution to serious felony charges, one that was explicitly premised on compliance with strict custodial and supervisory conditions. The court accepted the plea on the understanding that Epstein would serve meaningful jail time, submit to sex-offender designation, comply with supervision, and abide by restrictions meant to prevent further harm. On paper, the agreement was presented as a final, enforceable resolution that balanced punishment with accountability, and the court relied on representations that Epstein would follow those terms in full.With the benefit of hindsight, it is now clear that those assumptions did not hold. Epstein's subsequent treatment and behavior—his hollowed-out incarceration, continued privileges, and apparent disregard for key restrictions—call into question whether the plea terms were ever genuinely satisfied. That breakdown matters because the plea deal and the related non-prosecution agreement were conditional arrangements, dependent on good-faith compliance. When viewed in this broader context, the transcript reads not as a clean conclusion, but as the starting point of a failed enforcement process that allowed the protections of the deal to remain in place despite evidence that its core requirements were not being met.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.463.3.pdf

Kathryn Ruemmler, a former Obama White House Counsel and prominent Clinton-aligned attorney, has emerged as a largely overlooked but consequential figure in Jeffrey Epstein's post-conviction legal orbit. Ruemmler has characterized her dealings with Epstein as strictly professional, yet efforts by the Epstein estate to block access to correspondence between the two have raised questions about the nature and sensitivity of that relationship. Epstein's legal strategy during his most legally perilous period relied heavily on high-level attorneys capable of managing exposure, controlling risk, and navigating institutional pressure. The estate's resistance to disclosure has drawn attention precisely because Epstein's own reputation no longer requires protection, suggesting concern about potential fallout for others. Despite this, Ruemmler's role has received comparatively little sustained media or political scrutiny.The muted attention to Ruemmler reflects a broader pattern in the Epstein saga, where focus often centers on the abuser while minimizing examination of the professional networks that enabled his continued operation. Legal facilitators, unlike co-conspirators, frequently remain shielded by privilege, credentials, and procedural opacity, even when their work materially contributed to delaying accountability. This dynamic stands in contrast to the treatment of survivors, who face extensive scrutiny while elite actors benefit from silence. Ruemmler's case underscores how Epstein's longevity was not solely the product of individual misconduct, but of institutional mechanisms that absorbed and managed risk on his behalf. Until those enabling structures are examined with the same rigor applied to Epstein himself, critical aspects of the case remain unresolved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Denise George, during her tenure as Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands, pushed aggressively to keep certain Epstein-related records sealed as she built a wide-ranging investigation into Epstein's criminal network and the financial infrastructure that supported it. Her position wasn't about protecting Epstein—it was about preserving the integrity of an active, highly sensitive investigation involving powerful institutions, international financial flows, and potential co-conspirators who had not yet been publicly named. George argued repeatedly in court filings that premature disclosure of subpoenas, deposition transcripts, banking records, and witness identities could alert targets, jeopardize evidence, and compromise ongoing law-enforcement efforts. She maintained that the scope of Epstein's activity in the USVI was deeper and more complex than previously understood, and that investigators needed the shield of sealed records to pursue leads without interference.At the same time, George's insistence on sealing certain documents reflected her awareness that the investigation threatened politically connected figures in the Virgin Islands and beyond. She sought to prevent leaks that could give advance warning to individuals who might destroy documents, move assets, or coordinate stories. Her critics accused her of being overly secretive, but George countered that the secrecy was temporary, legally justified, and essential to holding powerful actors accountable. Ironically, after she filed a sweeping lawsuit against JPMorgan alleging the bank knowingly enabled Epstein's trafficking operation, she was fired by the governor—an event that only amplified scrutiny of why the sealed records mattered and who might have been implicated. Her push to maintain strict confidentiality was ultimately part of a larger strategy: protect the investigation first, then reveal the truth once the evidence was secured.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Dawn Richard filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging years of physical, verbal, and sexual abuse during her time with Danity Kane and later as part of Diddy-Dirty Money. The suit claims that Combs forced extreme working conditions, deprived her of basic needs like food and sleep, and subjected her to sexual exploitation. Richard described incidents of violence, including witnessing abusive behavior toward other women and being trapped at parties where drugs and underage girls were involved. She also alleges financial manipulation and threats of violence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Dawn Richard v. Sean Diddy Combs - DocumentCloud

As the December 19th DOJ deadline approaches, expectations for a meaningful Epstein file release remain predictably low. History suggests this will be less a moment of transparency and more a carefully managed pressure-release, offering recycled information already known while withholding anything truly damaging to the government or to Donald Trump. If there had been genuine intent to disclose the full truth, it would not have required months of procedural theater and resistance. Instead, the long delay itself signals reluctance, not resolve. A DOJ overseen by figures who have actively fought disclosure is unlikely to suddenly reverse course out of goodwill. Skepticism here is not cynicism for its own sake, but a rational response to an institution that has consistently prioritized self-protection over accountability.What should be expected is a document dump heavy on redactions, light on substance, and carefully curated to avoid embarrassment or legal exposure. FBI 302s, internal emails, candid assessments, and anything implicating systemic failures or political sensitivity are almost certainly off the table. Names may appear without context, timelines without consequence, and pages without meaningful content. If this release is perceived as insulting or deliberately hollow, it risks igniting a backlash that narratives and media spin may not contain. The real story may not be what is released, but what is conspicuously absent—and the justifications used to keep it that way. Epstein disclosures have only ever advanced under pressure, not voluntary transparency, and this release is unlikely to change that fundamental reality.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

This morning we're confronting an incredibly dark and tragic weekend on multiple fronts. First, we'll look at the horrific news of two more mass shootings, one in Australia and another at Brown University, senseless acts of violence that have shaken communities and left families devastated. We'll also address the shocking and heartbreaking news that legendary filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Singer Reiner were found dead in their Los Angeles home in an apparent homicide. These events are awful and senseless, and the violence we've seen recently feels increasingly prominent and destabilizing. Join us live as we break down the news, talk about what we know so far, and grapple with how dark and challenging the current moment feels. This is a difficult, emotional discussion, and we're here to walk through it together. This episode is sponsored by ZBiotics. Go to https://zbiotics.com/LEMON and use LEMON at checkout for 15% off first time orders. This episode is brought to you by Graza. Take your food to the next level with Graza Olive Oil. Visit https://graza.co/DON and use promo code DON today for 20% off your first order! This episode is sponsored by Fatty15. Get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription Starter Kit by going to https://fatty15.com/LEMON and using code LEMON at checkout. This episode is brought to you by MSI. Donate now to help millions of women get access to care — and to hope. You can Text LEMON to five eleven five eleven, or go to https://MSIUnited States.org. This episode is sponsored by Aura Frames. Exclusive $35 off Carver Mat at https://on.auraframes.com/DONLEMON. Promo Code DONLEMON Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the December 19th DOJ deadline approaches, expectations for a meaningful Epstein file release remain predictably low. History suggests this will be less a moment of transparency and more a carefully managed pressure-release, offering recycled information already known while withholding anything truly damaging to the government or to Donald Trump. If there had been genuine intent to disclose the full truth, it would not have required months of procedural theater and resistance. Instead, the long delay itself signals reluctance, not resolve. A DOJ overseen by figures who have actively fought disclosure is unlikely to suddenly reverse course out of goodwill. Skepticism here is not cynicism for its own sake, but a rational response to an institution that has consistently prioritized self-protection over accountability.What should be expected is a document dump heavy on redactions, light on substance, and carefully curated to avoid embarrassment or legal exposure. FBI 302s, internal emails, candid assessments, and anything implicating systemic failures or political sensitivity are almost certainly off the table. Names may appear without context, timelines without consequence, and pages without meaningful content. If this release is perceived as insulting or deliberately hollow, it risks igniting a backlash that narratives and media spin may not contain. The real story may not be what is released, but what is conspicuously absent—and the justifications used to keep it that way. Epstein disclosures have only ever advanced under pressure, not voluntary transparency, and this release is unlikely to change that fundamental reality.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Metropolitan Police in London have announced that they will not reopen or pursue a criminal investigation into Prince Andrew over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, stating that there is no new or compelling evidence that meets the threshold for further action. According to the Met, they have repeatedly reviewed material related to Epstein over the years, including information that surfaced during Ghislaine Maxwell's prosecution in the United States, and concluded that nothing presented warrants a formal criminal probe under UK law. The force emphasized that its position has been consistent and that past assessments found no viable lines of inquiry involving Prince Andrew that could be pursued to a prosecutable standard.In response to the Metropolitan Police's announcement, the family of Virginia Roberts Giuffre issued sharp and emotional criticism, describing the decision as a devastating but unsurprising failure of justice. They said the refusal to investigate Prince Andrew reinforced a long-standing pattern in which powerful men are shielded while survivors are left to carry the burden alone. The family emphasized that Virginia repeatedly named Prince Andrew as part of her abuse claims and did so at great personal cost, facing years of public scrutiny, legal intimidation, and character attacks. In their view, the Met's decision sends a clear message that status and proximity to power still outweigh the voices of victims, no matter how consistent or detailed their accounts may be.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Guiffre family's fury as Met drops probe into Mail on Sunday's revelation that Andrew told officer to dig up dirt on Virginia | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.