Podcasts about Breaking news

The Supreme Court just ruled on Title IX and transgender athletes in women's sports — and Chicks on the Right is breaking it down live, just an hour after the decision dropped. Joined by Jennifer Sey, CEO and founder of XX-XY Athletics, we unpack the bundled Idaho and West Virginia cases, what the 9-0 Title IX ruling and 6-3 Equal Protection split actually mean, and why this is being called a win — but not the final word.Jen explains why the ruling only protects the 27 states that already have laws on the books, while the remaining 23 states (including Colorado, California, and New York) can keep allowing biological males to compete in girls' sports. We dig into her work leading a successful Colorado ballot initiative, why this issue can't be solved state-by-state for elite athletes competing across state lines, and why she believes the country needs national legislation.The conversation also covers the feminist divide on trans inclusion in sports, reactions to Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinions, mainstream media coverage of the ruling, and two AI-generated videos imagining how blue-state governors and Title IX itself might respond.Jen's mission at XX-XY Athletics: putting the focus back on girls!Follow XX-XY Athletics: xxxyathletics.comFollow Jennifer Sey on Twitter/X: @JenniferSeySubscribe and stay tuned for new episodes every weekday!Follow us here for more daily clips, updates, and commentary:YoutubeFacebookInstagramTikTokXLocalsMore InfoWebsite

C&R laugh about two meme crazes over the weekend, Sophie & Jazz! There's Breaking News on Ja Morant to Portland, & strong rumors about LeBron & AD in Golden State, the guys react. Curse of the Lollipop? Covino's Yankees get swept by Red Sox. Is Brandon Aiyuk the new AB? They debate on the unhinged actions & future of the troubled Niner. Plus, 'BIG PAPI TRIVIA,' Toy Story 5, & 25 mill for a jersey number!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

C&R laugh about two meme crazes over the weekend, Sophie & Jazz! There's Breaking News on Ja Morant to Portland, & strong rumors about LeBron & AD in Golden State, the guys react. Plus, Curse of the Lollipop, Covino's Yankees get swept by Red Sox!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Time Codes: 00:23 welcome back 00:51 Lamelo to Minnesota 13:04 Heat Predictions 22:27 knicks moves 30:33 lebron to GSW 38:19 Bad Plays 45:58 draft recap Topstep: https://go.topstep.com/hoopin code BARSTOOL for 30% off your first No Activation Fee Trading Combine today. Offer expires July 13, 2026 at 11:59 PM CT. See terms and conditions at www.topstep.com/barstool. Offer valid on one (1) No Activation Fee Trading Combine® of any size. Offer valid on the initial payment of Trading Combine only. U.S. Traders only. Subsequent rebills for each account will be at the standard price of the account purchased. Commodity Trading involves risk of loss and is not suitable for all individualsYou can find every episode of this show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or YouTube. Prime Members can listen ad-free on Amazon Music. For more, visit barstool.link/patbevpod

June 26, 2026, 4pm; Pete Buttigieg, the first openly gay confirmed Cabinet member in U.S. history, former Transportation secretary and who many Democrats hope will be a possible 2028 contender, announcing a post on Substack today he and his family were the target of a quote  “cruel, politically motivated hoax." For more from Nicolle, follow and download her podcast, “The Best People with Nicolle Wallace,” wherever you get your podcasts.To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In today's  episode KJ and Jim bring you the week's trending crime related headlines. Check out the below for all the topics of the headlines we are covering today! #truecrime  #breakingnews #crime #news #podcast #tonyspell #jadarius minnieweather #PlanetFitness       Timestamps03:00 Louisiana Pastor Tony Spell's Beatdown.11:00 Louisiana Man Re-Arrested and Charged With Murder of Missing 15 Year Old.19:00 Arby's Manager Gives Customer Herpes.23:00Utah Woman Shoots Ex-Husband at Indoor Playground27::00 Planet Fitness Personal Trainer Mystery Gets Deeper. *UPDATE*34:00 International Indiscretions: Man Throws 3 year Old Into Croc Enclosure.40:00 True Crime Time Machine: Lorena Bobbitt Case 33 Years Later.45:00 88 Year Old Kills 3rd Girlfriend in 50 Years.50:00 Lustful Lawbreakers: Cop Caught Having Sex In Patrol Car.55:00 Nightmare Ex-Husband Stalks Wife to the Point of Killing Her. Overtime1:01:00 The “Scattered Dutchman”1:05:00 Wal-Mart Cashier Arrested After Hiding Lottery Ticket Receipt.1:10:00 Former NFL Player's Home Contained Body Buried In Backyard.1:15:00 18 Vehicle Burglaries Later-A Louisiana Suspect Is Arrested."OVERTIME" Video-Version ON PATREON can be found via either link below:Exposed PatreonUnspeakable Patreon

Haitian plaintiffs did raise exactly that claim, arguing that Trump's decision to strip their TPS was motivated by racial animus and citing Trump and administration officials' own racist statements about Haitian immigrants. Alito's response in the majority opinion was that because Trump expresses hostility toward immigrants broadly, his actions cannot be considered racially motivated. Hawk points out that this reasoning ignores Trump's own documented statements about countries populated by Black and brown people, and the fact that of approximately 6,500 refugees admitted to the United States in 2025, all but three were white South Africans. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent that the evidence from Trump's own statements made clear the TPS revocation targeting Haitian immigrants was driven by race and racial animus, and that those statements were so egregious Alito did not quote or cite them in the majority opinion. Hawk connects this ruling to the court's recent dismantling of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the resulting race to redraw congressional maps across Confederate states, arguing that together these decisions represent a court that has become an instrument of white supremacy and authoritarian consolidation of executive power. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

"Radio Host Malone." Zaslow's glasses stop the show in its tracks as the chat explodes with Looks Like submissions, but we do react to the in-show BREAKING NEWS that LaMelo Ball has been traded to Minnesota to be paired with Anthony Edwards. Good move? Bad move? Combustible? Franchise changing? Sports? Plus, Pablo is the hobnobber or hobnobbers, Jaylen Brown clearly wants out, and Austin Reaves' max contract. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We react to the BREAKING NEWS that LaMelo Ball is being traded to the Timberwolves. Also, we're joined by WWE Superstar Seth Rollins to make a bet with Michelle about Packers vs. Bears, and to preview WWE Night of Champions. Then, Fanatics CEO Michael Rubin stops by to rate Evan & Michelle's "white" outfits today. Plus, Canty's Best Bet, and the most UnSportsmanLike moments of the day! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Coverage of overnight breaking news, as two devastating earthquakes rock Venezuela, killing dozens and leaving hundreds injured. Also, details on a late-night vote where Senate Republicans refused to rein in the President's war powers after President Trump visited Capitol Hill and chastised party members for criticizing the war in Iran. Plus, more World Cup buzz as Team USA returns to the field for their third match. And, growing speculation about the location of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce's wedding.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We react to the BREAKING NEWS that LaMelo Ball is being traded to the Timberwolves. Also, we're joined by WWE Superstar Seth Rollins to make a bet with Michelle about Packers vs. Bears, and to preview WWE Night of Champions. Then, Fanatics CEO Michael Rubin stops by to rate Evan & Michelle's "white" outfits today. Plus, Canty's Best Bet, and the most UnSportsmanLike moments of the day! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The congressional oversight committee handling the Epstein investigation is a toothless operation built to create the appearance of action while keeping the coverup intact. Instead of forcing witnesses into sworn, public, high-pressure testimony where lies and evasions carry real consequences, the committee has relied on closed-door sessions, voluntary testimony, delayed transcripts, and soft procedures that let people dodge, forget, spin, and hide behind lawyers. That makes the testimony nearly worthless, because if witnesses do not fear being held accountable, they have every reason to give half-truths, claim amnesia, and protect themselves and the institutions around them.James Comer is allowing the process to function as a wall, not an investigation. The whole operation was supposed to drain the Epstein story of momentum and bury it under procedure, but the discharge petition disrupted that plan and forced the committee to look busy. So instead of pursuing real accountability, Comer and the committee keep cutting corners, controlling the process, and feeding the public another round of political theater. The result is more secrecy, more delay, more circular testimony, and more protection for the powerful, while survivors and citizens are once again handed process instead of truth.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

Western Australian police have agreed to review how officers handled their interactions with Virginia Giuffre before her death by suicide in April 2025. Giuffre's brother, Sky Roberts, and sister-in-law, Amanda Roberts, wrote to both police and the state coroner asking for scrutiny of the response to a domestic violence dispute involving Giuffre and a former partner. Police commissioner Col Blanch confirmed during a parliamentary hearing that the family's letter had been received and that a review was underway, while saying he did not yet know the details of the police response and wanted the review to establish what happened.The family says they are not challenging the official circumstances of Giuffre's death, but they want answers about whether police failed to properly follow up after she reportedly went to a police station more than once. Amanda Roberts questioned where those reports are and why further action did not appear to continue, while Sky Roberts framed the push as part of a broader demand to examine systemic failures around domestic and family violence. Family violence experts and advocates have also backed the request for an inquest, arguing that Giuffre's case could expose wider failures in how authorities respond to victims before tragedy strikesto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Western Australian police to review response to Virginia Giuffre domestic violence dispute | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

Jeffrey Epstein repeatedly manipulated the legal, social, and institutional systems around him by exploiting power imbalances, cultivating influential allies, and leveraging ambiguity to delay or derail accountability. From the earliest reports, he relied on intermediaries to insulate himself—using employees and recruiters to create distance between himself and victims—while simultaneously presenting himself as a legitimate financier whose wealth and connections discouraged scrutiny. When allegations surfaced, Epstein's lawyers went over the heads of local prosecutors, engaging directly with federal officials and framing the case as narrow, manageable, and unsuitable for aggressive prosecution. This strategy culminated in the 2008 non-prosecution agreement, an extraordinary deal that shut down a federal investigation, shielded unnamed co-conspirators, and was negotiated in secret, all while victims were kept in the dark. The outcome was not accidental; it was the result of sustained pressure, elite access, and a legal strategy designed to exploit discretion and deference within the justice system.Even after his crimes were widely known, Epstein continued to bend the system to his advantage through delay, obfuscation, and reputation laundering. He used civil settlements, confidentiality agreements, and aggressive legal threats to silence victims and discourage further reporting, while simultaneously rebranding himself through academic donations, philanthropic fronts, and proximity to respected institutions. When scrutiny intensified, agencies repeatedly stalled, narrowed the scope of inquiries, or claimed jurisdictional or procedural limits, allowing Epstein to maintain a veneer of legitimacy long after credible evidence of serial abuse existed. His ability to survive multiple investigative moments was not due to a lack of evidence, but to a pattern of institutional failure—one that Epstein anticipated, exploited, and reinforced—turning bureaucratic inertia, prosecutorial caution, and elite protection into tools that consistently worked in his favor.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Gates told the House Oversight Committee that his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was, in his telling, about philanthropy — Epstein claimed he could connect Gates to wealthy donors who might put major money into global health work. Gates said he met Epstein beginning in 2011, after Epstein's 2008 conviction, and continued interactions until 2014, when he concluded Epstein could not deliver on those promises. He denied witnessing Epstein commit crimes, denied visiting Epstein's island, ranch, or Florida home, and said he “never victimized anyone,” while acknowledging that he may have been in the presence of Epstein victims during his dealings with Epstein.The more damaging part is that Gates admitted Epstein gained access to sensitive information about his personal life, including extramarital affairs, and allegedly tried to use that information — mixed with falsehoods, according to Gates — to pressure him back into contact. Gates portrayed Epstein as a manipulator who used proximity to powerful people to launder his reputation, while lawmakers pressed the obvious question: why Gates kept engaging with a convicted sex offender at all. Gates expressed regret, saying he should never have met with Epstein, but the testimony still adds another example of Epstein's method: insinuating himself into elite circles, collecting leverage, and using access as currency.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill Gates says he didn't witness crimes but may have been in presence of Epstein victims | CNN Politics

Jeffrey Epstein's infamous Palm Beach mansion—where many of his alleged crimes took place—was ultimately sold off and demolished after years of controversy and legal battles tied to his estate. After Epstein's death, real estate developer Todd Michael Glaser bought the property, razed the existing house, and put the empty waterfront lot back on the market. That parcel, with about 170 feet of Intracoastal Waterway frontage, was then purchased by venture capitalist David Skok, a partner at Matrix Partners, for nearly $26 million—significantly more than what the developer paid. Skok acquired the land after the original structure was removed, turning a place associated with trauma and public outrage into a blank slate.While specific public plans for the property under its new owner haven't been fully detailed, the change in ownership and demolition itself signal a deliberate shift in vision: to erase the physical remnants of a site tied to abuse and transform the parcel into something entirely new. Initially, Glaser had hoped to build a large modern estate, but architectural board pushback led him to sell the lot instead. With Skok now in control, the focus appears to be on redevelopment rather than preservation of the notorious structure, marking a controversial but clear departure from the mansion's dark past.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Annie Farmer testified during Ghislaine Maxwell's federal trial that she was just 16 years old when Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein flew her to Epstein's ranch in New Mexico under the guise of an academic retreat. Farmer explained that she initially believed the trip was meant to provide her with educational and career opportunities. Instead, she said the experience quickly turned uncomfortable and exploitative. She recalled Maxwell giving her a massage during which Maxwell touched her breasts, an incident that left her feeling frozen and terrified. She also testified that Epstein had climbed into her bed unexpectedly and caressed her without consent. Farmer described feeling "panicked" and manipulated by two adults who had promised mentorship and safety.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

J&J Show--Hour 1 Thursday 6/25/26--Giant breaking news on LaMelo Ball trade. Ja's value must be super low? Ja to Charlotte??

We start the show off with some super cross talk AK Andy Kamenetzky and Chris "Geeter" McGee. We are live from the Bike Shed Moto Co in the Arts District. BREAKING NEWS. Lakers guard Austin Reaves intends to sign a 4 yr $185 million dollar deal to return to the Lakers. What does this mean going forward for AR? What does this mean for LeBron James? Can the Lakers build the right team from Luka and Austin Reaves? What is the expectation for AR? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ben and Ashley have breaking news on the latest status of Taylor Frankie Paul's season of "The Bachelorette" ...and the most intriguing info is about where it's likely to air! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Nancy Guthrie case takes another dramatic turn as a new ransom note claims Nancy Guthrie is "buried with nature," raising more questions about what happened and whether the message is credible. In this latest update on Nancy Guthrie, acclaimed journalist Howard Blum reveals what his sources are telling him about the investigation, the ransom letters, and where the case may be headed. As the search for Nancy Guthrie continues, investigators in Tucson, Arizona are working to separate fact from misinformation while pursuing every possible lead. In this STS Podcast episode, we break down the disturbing new ransom note, examine Howard Blum's reporting, and discuss what these latest developments could mean for the case. We also explore how survivor stories, true crime news, cold cases, sts podcast, real crime stories keep public attention focused on investigations that desperately need answers. Could this latest message contain a real clue, or is it another attempt to mislead investigators? We examine the evidence, the theories, and the unanswered questions surrounding the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. Key Points Covered New ransom note claims Nancy Guthrie is "buried with nature" Howard Blum shares information from his sources Investigators examine the credibility of the latest message Ongoing search efforts in Tucson, Arizona What these developments could mean for the future of the caseLinks and show info Subscribe, Like & Set Alerts to "ALL" for show times & breaking news. https://www.youtube.com/@SurvivingThe... Become a Member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-yr... 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/stspodcast Check out STS Merch: Https://www.bonfire.com/store/sts-store/ Joel's Book: Https://amzn.to/48GwbLx Support the show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivor Email: SurvivingTheSurvivor@gmail.com Surviving The Survivor is a leading destination for true crime analysis, breaking crime news, murder trial coverage, criminal investigations, courtroom breakdowns, and live case discussions. Hosted by Emmy Award-winning journalist Joel Waldman and his mother Karm, a child Holocaust survivor, STS brings together top FBI profilers, homicide detectives, criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors, forensic experts, journalists, victims' advocates, and survivors to analyze the biggest true crime stories. From high-profile murder cases and missing persons investigations to serial killers, criminal psychology, police procedures, and major court trials, STS delivers fact-based reporting and expert insight from those who have worked some of the nation's most notorious cases. Known for having the best guest in true crime, STS gives viewers direct access to the experts behind the headlines. Join #STSNation for live shows, breaking updates, audience Q&As, and in-depth case analysis.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

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

Jean-Luc Brunel was found dead in his cell at La Santé prison in Paris during the early hours of February 19, 2022. French authorities said the 75-year-old modeling agent had been found hanged during an overnight inspection and treated his death as a suicide. Brunel had been held in custody since his arrest at Charles de Gaulle Airport in December 2020, when authorities detained him as he was preparing to fly to Senegal. He was under formal investigation over allegations involving the rape and sexual assault of minors and adults, as well as suspicions that he had helped arrange transportation and accommodations for young women connected to Jeffrey Epstein. Brunel denied the allegations against him and died before the case could proceed to trial.Brunel had been a prominent figure in the international modeling industry and founded MC2 Model Management with financial backing from Epstein. Multiple women had accused him of sexual misconduct over several decades, while Virginia Giuffre alleged in court filings that he supplied young women and girls to Epstein. His death ended the possibility that he would face a public trial, testify under oath or be questioned further about his relationship with Epstein and others in their social and business circles. French authorities opened an investigation into the circumstances of his death, but officials reported no immediate indication that another person had been involved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Stormer jumps in to share breaking news that ABC is thinking about finally airing Taylor Frankie Paul's Bachelorette season, despite the controversy. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hawk addresses the establishment's attempt to frame the losses as a product of antisemitism, pointing out that the three congressional districts involved contain some of the largest Jewish populations of any districts in the country, meaning Jewish voters themselves rejected the AIPAC-backed candidates in large numbers. He plays a clip of Joe Scarborough's reaction and walks through an Axios report on moderate Democrats describing the results as an earthquake. Hawk also covers New York Attorney General Letitia James expressing disappointment in Mamdani, and plays a clip of New Jersey Congressman Josh Gottheimer going on Fox News to attack the results and conflate criticism of Israel's policies in Gaza with antisemitism. Hawk responds directly to Gottheimer's framing and his proposed legislation titled No Grounds for Discrimination, connected to a Brooklyn coffee shop named Poetica that banned Congressman Goldman over his support for Israeli policy. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

Ben Shapiro aired his own criticism, calling out JD Vance for getting embarrassed by Iran and saying he has never seen a weaker Republican performance. Hawk also plays a clip of Mark Thiessen, a former George W. Bush speechwriter and one of the most consistent Trump boosters at the Washington Post and on Fox News, breaking from his pattern of unconditional praise to call the Iran deal a disaster. Hawk walks through a list of Thiessen's previous columns dating back to March, each one predicting or celebrating Trump's imminent victory in Iran, as context for how significant it is to hear Thiessen criticize the deal at all. Hawk covers the financial terms of the agreement, including the release of roughly $100 billion in previously frozen Iranian assets that is already underway, on top of a $300 billion reconstruction fund. He also references the deal's language committing the United States to lifting all sanctions on Iran, including on oil sales, and contrasts the entire outcome with what the Obama-era JCPOA accomplished without a war or a closed Strait of Hormuz. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

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

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

In September 2025, Peter Mandelson — then the United Kingdom's Ambassador to the United States — was dismissed (effectively recalled and fired) by Prime Minister Keir Starmer after revelations about his longstanding social relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein surfaced. Emails published earlier that year showed Mandelson had maintained contact with Epstein after Epstein's 2008 conviction and had expressed supportive sentiments toward him, which diplomats said was far deeper than what had been known at the time of his appointment. Those communications raised questions about his judgment and suitability for the high-profile diplomatic post, prompting Starmer to remove him from the position immediately.In February 2026, the scandal escalated when authorities arrested Mandelson on 23 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office. This followed the release of internal documents and emails from the U.S. Department of Justice's Epstein files suggesting he may have shared sensitive government information with Epstein during his time in government in 2009–10. As part of the fallout, Mandelson resigned from the House of Lords and the Labour Party, and British police executed search warrants at his residences as part of a criminal investigation. His arrest reflects widening legal and political consequences from the Epstein file revelations that have also embroiled other high-profile figures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Recent disclosures from congressional investigations and documents tied to the Epstein estate have exposed a far deeper and more personal relationship between Kathryn Ruemmler and Jeffrey Epstein than previously acknowledged, raising serious questions about her judgment and fitness to serve as general counsel of Goldman Sachs. Emails and schedules show she met with Epstein dozens of times between 2014 and 2019 — long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor — and that their communication ranged from career advice and personal travel planning to repeated informal exchanges, which some insiders view as far beyond the scope of mere professional interaction. She was even named as a backup executor in an early version of Epstein's will, a detail that triggered internal alarm at Goldman once it became public, and suggests a level of trust and intimacy that many observers find profoundly inappropriate given Epstein's crimes. The revelations directly undermine her role on Goldman's Reputational Risk Committee, where she helps decide which clients and relationships could endanger the firm's ethical standing.Even after Goldman's leadership publicly defended Ruemmler and denied any formal plans to replace her, the controversy has not dissipated; critics argue that the firm's insistence on keeping her in a top legal and governance role reflects a troubling tolerance for ethical ambiguity when it benefits powerful insiders. Some executives reportedly view Ruemmler as a potential liability whose past associations were not fully disclosed or understood at the time of her hiring, and whose continued presence on ethics-related committees sends a poor message about the bank's commitment to accountability and moral judgment. The fact that these revelations emerged only through released documents and not proactive disclosure further fuels skepticism about transparency at the highest levels of Goldman Sachs, intensifying scrutiny from investors, lawmakers, and corporate governance watchdogs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New court doc asserts former Obama WH counsel advised Jeffrey Epstein during critical reputational and legal battles | CNN Politics

Virginia Roberts Giuffre's lawsuit against Prince Andrew was filed in federal court in New York in August 2021, accusing him of sexually abusing her when she was 17 after she had allegedly been trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The case alleged that Andrew assaulted her in multiple locations, including London, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and it was brought under New York's Child Victims Act, which temporarily allowed older abuse claims to be filed despite expired statutes of limitation. Andrew denied the allegations and tried to get the case dismissed, but Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected that effort in January 2022, allowing the lawsuit to move forward while making clear that the ruling was not a finding that the accusations were trueThe lawsuit was explosive because it threatened to drag Andrew into discovery, depositions, and possibly a public civil trial over his relationship with Epstein and Maxwell. Instead, in February 2022, Andrew and Giuffre reached an out-of-court settlement for an undisclosed amount, with Andrew agreeing to make a substantial donation to Giuffre's victims' rights charity while making no admission of liability. The settlement ended the civil case, but it did not erase the damage: Andrew had already lost royal duties, military affiliations, and much of his public standing, and the case cemented him as one of the most disgraced figures in the modern royal family.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Calling Jeffrey Epstein's death a “systemic failure” may be technically accurate, but it leaves out the human decisions that made that failure possible. Systems do not skip rounds, falsify logs, ignore cellmate requirements, or leave one of the most high-profile detainees in federal custody alone in a cell after an earlier incident. Tova Noel's congressional testimony painted her as undertrained, overworked, and shaped by the dysfunctional culture inside MCC New York, but that does not erase the fact that she and Michael Thomas were assigned to watch Epstein and failed to carry out the checks that might have changed what happened. The larger institutional breakdown mattered, but it moved through people, choices, paperwork, missed warnings, and supervisors who allowed the conditions to exist.The most troubling unanswered questions remain higher up the chain: who approved Epstein being housed with Nicholas Tartaglione, who failed to replace his later cellmate after Reyes was moved, who knew Epstein was alone despite the cellmate requirement, and who decided Noel and Thomas should be working that shift despite fatigue, inexperience, or concerns about reliability. Noel and Thomas may have failed personally, but they also may have been placed inside a broken structure where failure was almost guaranteed. That does not prove they were deliberately set up, but it makes the question unavoidable. Until the public gets names, documents, and a clear chain of command for those critical decisions, the official explanation remains incomplete.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Andrew Windsor is facing another wave of damaging allegations, this time tied to claims from royal biographer Andrew Lownie's updated book about the House of York. One of the central accusations involves an airline stewardess who allegedly said Andrew behaved inappropriately during a flight, grabbing or spinning her around before grinding against her. The accusation adds to the larger image of Andrew as someone who moved through elite spaces with entitlement, arrogance, and a sense that normal boundaries did not apply to him.Another alleged airplane incident involves Andrew on a British Airways flight to New York in 2010, where a flight attendant claimed he complained that his bottled water was too cold before putting it inside his trousers and joking that it would warm up there. The broader point is that these stories are being folded into the already ugly public narrative surrounding Andrew: his Epstein ties, his fall from royal duties, his repeated denials, and the long-running accusations that he treated people around him with contempt while protected by status, money, and the institution around him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Rupert Lowe's inquiry says it received evidence from survivors, relatives, whistleblowers, professionals and political figures about organised child sexual exploitation in communities across the United Kingdom. The report describes a recurring pattern in which vulnerable girls were targeted with attention, gifts, alcohol and drugs before being subjected to sexual violence, intimidation and trafficking between offenders and locations. It states that the victims discussed in the evidence were predominantly white British girls and that many of the alleged perpetrators were men of Pakistani Muslim heritage. The inquiry says the abuse was allowed to continue because police forces, social services, schools, healthcare providers, licensing authorities and government bodies repeatedly failed to identify victims, share information, investigate allegations properly or intervene when clear warning signs appeared.The report calls for mandatory reporting of suspected child sexual exploitation, improved collection of demographic information about victims and offenders, specialist police units and a consistent national system for sharing safeguarding intelligence. It also recommends regular training for police officers, teachers, medical staff and social workers; automatic referrals when children present with injuries, pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, self-harm or other indicators of exploitation; and long-term medical, psychological, housing and legal support for survivors. Additional recommendations include reviewing convictions imposed on children who committed offences while being exploited, stronger sentencing, deportation proceedings against convicted foreign nationals where legally applicable, and legal action against perpetrators or officials believed to have escaped accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Rape Gang Inquiry Report.docx

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

Tova Noel, one of the two correctional officers assigned to the Metropolitan Correctional Center's Special Housing Unit on the night Jeffrey Epstein died, told the House Oversight Committee that she failed to conduct the required inmate checks and later signed records falsely indicating that the rounds had been completed. Noel described an understaffed, poorly managed facility in which she was exhausted, inadequately trained and assigned duties beyond her normal responsibilities. She maintained that she last saw Epstein alive during the evening medication round and observed nothing that made her believe he was preparing to harm himself. Noel also testified that Epstein received unusual accommodations, including extra bed linens, a CPAP machine and access to medication that appeared different from the treatment ordinarily given to other prisoners.Noel denied having any role in Epstein's death, receiving money in connection with him or knowing anything about an alleged payment to facilitate access to his cell. She also rejected claims that she was the unidentified orange-colored figure seen moving toward Epstein's tier at approximately 10:39 p.m., insisting that she never returned to the area and could not explain what—or who—the surveillance image showed. Although Noel said she believed Epstein died by suicide because he was supposedly alone inside the cell, her testimony did little to resolve the most important unanswered questions: why required checks were abandoned, why Epstein remained without a cellmate, who or what appeared near the tier, and how so many security procedures failed simultaneously. Instead, her account reinforced the picture of extraordinary negligence, special treatment and institutional dysfunction surrounding the death of the most consequential prisoner in federal custody.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Tova-Noel-Transcript.pdf

Tova Noel, one of the two correctional officers assigned to the Metropolitan Correctional Center's Special Housing Unit on the night Jeffrey Epstein died, told the House Oversight Committee that she failed to conduct the required inmate checks and later signed records falsely indicating that the rounds had been completed. Noel described an understaffed, poorly managed facility in which she was exhausted, inadequately trained and assigned duties beyond her normal responsibilities. She maintained that she last saw Epstein alive during the evening medication round and observed nothing that made her believe he was preparing to harm himself. Noel also testified that Epstein received unusual accommodations, including extra bed linens, a CPAP machine and access to medication that appeared different from the treatment ordinarily given to other prisoners.Noel denied having any role in Epstein's death, receiving money in connection with him or knowing anything about an alleged payment to facilitate access to his cell. She also rejected claims that she was the unidentified orange-colored figure seen moving toward Epstein's tier at approximately 10:39 p.m., insisting that she never returned to the area and could not explain what—or who—the surveillance image showed. Although Noel said she believed Epstein died by suicide because he was supposedly alone inside the cell, her testimony did little to resolve the most important unanswered questions: why required checks were abandoned, why Epstein remained without a cellmate, who or what appeared near the tier, and how so many security procedures failed simultaneously. Instead, her account reinforced the picture of extraordinary negligence, special treatment and institutional dysfunction surrounding the death of the most consequential prisoner in federal custody.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Tova-Noel-Transcript.pdf

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

Hawk plays a clip of Nichols appearing on Deadline White House with Nicole Wallace on June 22nd. He covers Trump's claim that Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is essentially worthless, a reversal from his earlier position that Iran must surrender its entire nuclear program. Hawk points out that Iran only resumed enrichment after Trump tore up the JCPOA in 2018, and that JD Vance's announcement of independent nuclear inspectors entering Iran was something the Obama deal already secured from 2015 to 2018. Hawk argues that Iran won this war not militarily but economically and psychologically, by accurately profiling both Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu from the start and understanding exactly how each would respond to domestic economic pressure. He notes Trump was warned before the war began, including by Tucker Carlson, that Iran's first move would be closing the Strait of Hormuz. He didn't listen. Hawk also addresses Pete Hegseth's role, the Iranian delegation's refusal to shake JD Vance's hand, and the unresolved conflict between Israel and Lebanon that continues to block any lasting deal. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

Liz Oyer, a former DOJ pardon attorney, argues that Todd Blanche and the Trump Justice Department have been hiding the real reason Ghislaine Maxwell was moved from FCI Tallahassee to the minimum-security Federal Prison Camp Bryan in Texas after Blanche personally interviewed her for roughly nine hours over two days. Maxwell, who is serving 20 years for helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually exploit girls, gave Trump highly favorable statements during that meeting, saying he was “a gentleman” and denying that she ever saw him behave inappropriately with Epstein. Days later, she was moved to a far less restrictive prison camp, despite Bureau of Prisons rules that generally bar convicted sex offenders from minimum-security camps because they carry a “public safety factor” requiring at least low-security confinement.The core accusation is that the DOJ's public explanation does not hold up. BOP claimed Maxwell was moved for safety reasons and that there was no special treatment, but Oyer says safety threats are normally handled through protective custody, SHU placement, or a transfer to another appropriate low-security facility — not by sending a convicted sex trafficker to the least-secure kind of federal prison. The “clear admission,” in her view, is a May 6, 2026 change to BOP policy giving the attorney general power to designate or redesignate where prisoners are held, which she sees as a retroactive attempt to justify what already happened to Maxwell and to give Blanche sweeping power over prisoner placement. Her conclusion is blunt: this looks like preferential treatment for Maxwell, potentially tied to protecting Trump, and it should be a major line of questioning at Blanche's confirmation hearing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'Clear admission' Trump DOJ broke rules to help Ghislaine Maxwell uncovered by expert - Raw StoryBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Tova Noel, one of the two correctional officers assigned to the Metropolitan Correctional Center's Special Housing Unit on the night Jeffrey Epstein died, told the House Oversight Committee that she failed to conduct the required inmate checks and later signed records falsely indicating that the rounds had been completed. Noel described an understaffed, poorly managed facility in which she was exhausted, inadequately trained and assigned duties beyond her normal responsibilities. She maintained that she last saw Epstein alive during the evening medication round and observed nothing that made her believe he was preparing to harm himself. Noel also testified that Epstein received unusual accommodations, including extra bed linens, a CPAP machine and access to medication that appeared different from the treatment ordinarily given to other prisoners.Noel denied having any role in Epstein's death, receiving money in connection with him or knowing anything about an alleged payment to facilitate access to his cell. She also rejected claims that she was the unidentified orange-colored figure seen moving toward Epstein's tier at approximately 10:39 p.m., insisting that she never returned to the area and could not explain what—or who—the surveillance image showed. Although Noel said she believed Epstein died by suicide because he was supposedly alone inside the cell, her testimony did little to resolve the most important unanswered questions: why required checks were abandoned, why Epstein remained without a cellmate, who or what appeared near the tier, and how so many security procedures failed simultaneously. Instead, her account reinforced the picture of extraordinary negligence, special treatment and institutional dysfunction surrounding the death of the most consequential prisoner in federal custody.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Tova-Noel-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Les Wexner framed his nearly six-hour congressional deposition about Jeffrey Epstein as a political stunt, calling it “silly,” “a nothing burger,” and accusing House Democrats of using the session for “airtime” rather than serious oversight. He claimed he had “nothing to hide,” repeated that he knew nothing about Epstein's criminal conduct, and cast himself as another person deceived by Epstein — financially wounded, personally embarrassed, but not responsible. That posture is convenient, but it also dodges the central problem: Wexner was not some casual acquaintance. He was one of Epstein's most powerful patrons and most prominent clients, and the idea that he could hand Epstein extraordinary access, trust, and legitimacy while remaining completely unaware of the warning signs is exactly why lawmakers and the public remain skeptical.Wexner also attacked Democrats for leaving the room, holding press events, and asking questions he believed were designed for campaign material, including one about his donations to Ohio Sen. Jon Husted. But that criticism works only if you accept Wexner's premise that his role has already been fully explained, and it has not. His complaints about optics do not erase the deeper issue: Epstein's access to elite institutions depended on men like Wexner giving him credibility, wealth, and proximity to power. Wexner may want the deposition to be “one and done,” but his insistence that there was nothing meaningful to ask sounds less like closure and more like an attempt to reduce years of unresolved questions into an annoyance he believes he has outgrown.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Wexner Calls Congressional Epstein Deposition ‘Silly,' Says Democrats Used It as ‘Photo Op' | News | The Harvard CrimsonBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is portrayed as someone whose public charm and privileged image always sat alongside a much uglier reputation behind the scenes. His former girlfriend Sandi Jones described him as a “real character” who liked making people laugh and was popular with women, but that softer image is contrasted with accounts of Andrew as loud, spoiled, arrogant, and difficult from childhood onward. The broader portrait is of a man indulged by royal status, treated as the Queen's favorite son, and allowed to move through life with a sense that ordinary rules did not apply to him.That personality profile becomes part of the larger explanation for his downfall: Andrew was once marketed as the handsome war-hero prince, especially after serving as a helicopter pilot during the Falklands, but the old “Randy Andy” image curdled into something far darker as his behavior, judgment, friendships, and entitlement came under scrutiny. The same traits once dismissed as cheeky royal mischief — arrogance, self-importance, vulgar humor, and a need to be catered to — are presented as warning signs that followed him into adulthood, through his failed marriage, his trade envoy controversies, his Epstein association, the disastrous Newsnight interview, and finally his collapse into disgrace.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's ex-girlfriend sums up his 'real personality' in four words | Royal | News | Express.co.ukBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The failure to keep Jeffrey Epstein alive was not just a jailhouse screwup; it was a neon-lit indictment of the Bureau of Prisons as an institution. Epstein was one of the most high-profile federal detainees in the country, a man whose survival mattered to victims, investigators, the courts, and the public's faith in the justice system. Yet the BOP managed to leave him effectively unprotected inside MCC New York, despite his prior incident in custody, despite the obvious stakes, and despite basic procedures that were supposed to prevent exactly this outcome. The DOJ Inspector General found failures involving his housing, supervision, required rounds, staff performance, and institutional follow-through, including the failure to ensure he had a cellmate and the failure of staff to carry out required responsibilities in the hours before his death. In other words, the agency did not merely drop the ball; it dropped the ball, kicked it into traffic, falsified the paperwork, and then asked the country to accept that this was just another unfortunate bureaucratic accident.That is why Epstein's death personifies the absolute dumpster fire the BOP was and continues to be: an agency defined by understaffing, broken infrastructure, bad management, weak accountability, and a culture where catastrophic failures somehow become nobody's fault in any meaningful way. The DOJ's own watchdog has described federal corrections management as a long-running major challenge, with persistent problems including staffing shortages, deteriorating facilities, and contraband, while reporting around Epstein's death tied his case to broader BOP failures rather than a single isolated lapse. And that is the real insult. If the BOP could not properly safeguard the most watched prisoner in America, inside one of the most scrutinized cases in modern history, then what chance does an ordinary prisoner have when nobody is watching, nobody is famous, and nobody in power is afraid of the consequences? Epstein's death did not create the crisis of confidence around the BOP; it exposed it in the ugliest possible way.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Former President **Bill Clinton's inscription to Ghislaine Maxwell — “To Ghislaine, with love” — in a signed copy of his memoir is more than just a casual gesture; it reeks of intimacy and poor judgment. At a time when Maxwell was already deeply enmeshed in Epstein's world, such a public figure choosing to gift her a personalized keepsake raises troubling questions about the depth of his relationship with her. It underscores the hypocrisy of powerful leaders who later sought to distance themselves from Epstein and Maxwell, even as evidence continues to surface showing they were more than passing acquaintances.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jean-Luc Brunel was found dead in his cell at La Santé prison in Paris during the early hours of February 19, 2022. French authorities said the 75-year-old modeling agent had been found hanged during an overnight inspection and treated his death as a suicide. Brunel had been held in custody since his arrest at Charles de Gaulle Airport in December 2020, when authorities detained him as he was preparing to fly to Senegal. He was under formal investigation over allegations involving the rape and sexual assault of minors and adults, as well as suspicions that he had helped arrange transportation and accommodations for young women connected to Jeffrey Epstein. Brunel denied the allegations against him and died before the case could proceed to trial.Brunel had been a prominent figure in the international modeling industry and founded MC2 Model Management with financial backing from Epstein. Multiple women had accused him of sexual misconduct over several decades, while Virginia Giuffre alleged in court filings that he supplied young women and girls to Epstein. His death ended the possibility that he would face a public trial, testify under oath or be questioned further about his relationship with Epstein and others in their social and business circles. French authorities opened an investigation into the circumstances of his death, but officials reported no immediate indication that another person had been involved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

First Take begins with impending Giannis news! He's getting traded before the draft Tuesday night to either the Celtics or Heat! Which team can offer the better package? Then, Stephen A. apologized to Jalen Brunson and Josh Hart for giving up on them numerous times, requesting they be traded, and generally never having a positive outlook on the Knicks, ever! Should the championship Knicks forgive Stephen A. for being so consistently rude to them? Next, is AJ Dybantsa the clear cut number one pick? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices