Podcasts about Breaking news

This is an emergency episode to share some breaking news, Jenn Lichter and Adam Merry sign pro contracts with All Conditions Gear (ACG), filling out their growing roster of top global talent. Both Jenn and Adam are making their 2026 debut and their ACG debut at the Black Canyon 100k in two weeks.     WATCH REST DAY LIVE   Chapters:   04:15 Introduction and Major News 06:57 Personal Updates and Life Changes 09:58 Transitioning to New Partnerships 12:30 The Energy at ACG and Brand Support 15:24 Behind the Scenes of Contract Negotiations 18:16 Training for Black Canyon 20:55 Race Strategy and Mindset 23:56 Equipment Choices for Race Day 26:25 Final Thoughts and Looking Ahead   REGISTER FOR THE BIG ALTA   REGISTER FOR GORGE WATERFALLS   Sponsors:   Grab a trail running pack from Osprey Use code FREETRAIL25 for 25% off your first order of NEVERSECOND nutrition at never2.com Go to ketone.com/freetrail30 for 30% off a subscription of Ketone IQ   Freetrail Links: Website | Freetrail Pro | Patreon | Instagram | YouTube | Freetrail Experts   Dylan Links: Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | Strava

Liverpool have agreed a deal to bring 20 year old Jermey Jacquet from Rennes and Pajak is here with his take on the news! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Craig Sandlin and Mike Hart break down the breaking news that the Cincinnati Reds and Eugenio Suarez are in agreement on a 1-year deal. They discuss the signing, Geno's role with the team, and the required move to get the roster down to 40 men. 

The U.S. Department of Justice has released a massive trove of documents — more than three million pages of files, images and emails related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — under the federal Epstein Files Transparency Act. Among the newly available material are previously unseen images and correspondence involving high-profile figures, including former U.S. President Donald Trump (who is mentioned thousands of times in the documents and has claimed the release “absolves” him), and British figures such as Lord Peter Mandelson and Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. The files include emails suggesting Mandelson communicated with Epstein on policy matters, and appear to show images of Andrew in compromising situations; the revelations have intensified scrutiny of both men's past associations with Epstein. The release has also brought up curious items like an alleged email from Sarah Ferguson congratulating Epstein on the birth of an alleged secret child.The fallout from the material has been swift and political: Lord Mandelson resigned from the UK Labour Party to avoid further embarrassment and may be summoned to testify before U.S. lawmakers about his ties to Epstein, with bank records reportedly showing significant payments linked to the financier. Meanwhile, Prince Andrew continues to deny wrongdoing even as visuals and exchanges from the files draw renewed attention to his relationship with Epstein. The release also includes millions of pages that critics say reveal disturbing content and raise questions about elite associations, though U.S. authorities maintain they have found no basis for new criminal charges based on the files alone.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

What most people don't realize is that the Miami Herald didn't “expose” Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart deal — three of his victims and their lawyers did. Long before the headlines, those women and attorneys Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards had been fighting for nearly a decade to uncover how then–U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta secretly gave Epstein and his network immunity from prosecution. Acosta's office violated the Crime Victims Rights Act by hiding the non-prosecution agreement and misleading the victims into thinking the federal case was still alive. The Justice Department fought the victims at every turn, denying them information and arguing they had no rights, but Cassell and Edwards refused to quit. Their persistence forced the truth out: Epstein's elite legal team dictated the deal, silenced victims, and helped him serve just 13 cushy months while his crimes went largely untouched.The case exposed far more than Epstein's depravity — it revealed a justice system built to serve power, not people. Poor, vulnerable girls were targeted, dismissed, and smeared while prosecutors and billionaires protected one another. The same biases that fail defendants crushed the victims too, showing how easily money warps the law. But despite every obstacle, those women and their lawyers won a ruling confirming the government's illegal concealment, proving that even against billionaires and corrupt officials, truth can still claw its way to the surface. Their courage didn't just expose Epstein — it ripped the mask off the system that shielded him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn't justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta's insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he'd been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google Drive

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn't justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta's insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he'd been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google Drive

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn't justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta's insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he'd been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google Drive

The U.S. Department of Justice has begun releasing a massive tranche of documents related to its long-running investigations into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, following the Epstein Files Transparency Act—a law passed by Congress last November requiring the release of all relevant government files. On January 30, 2026, DOJ officials announced they had made available more than 3 million pages of records, along with over 2,000 videos and about 180,000 images, which represent the largest single disclosure of material to date. The files originate from multiple federal inquiries, including the Florida and New York Epstein cases, the Maxwell prosecution, and probes into Epstein's death, and were extensively reviewed and redacted by hundreds of department attorneys to protect victim privacy before publication. Officials said the release brings DOJ into compliance with the transparency law, although some material was withheld under legal privileges or statutory exceptions.The release has generated intense scrutiny and debate. The documents shed further light on Epstein's activities and communications with wealthy and high-profile figures, and they include previously unseen correspondence, flight logs, court records, and other investigative material. However, the disclosure arrived more than a month after the December 19, 2025 deadline set by law, drawing bipartisan criticism that the process was slow and overly cautious. Some lawmakers and advocacy groups argue that millions of pages still remain unreleased and that redactions obscure critical information about Epstein's network and alleged associates, while DOJ leadership has defended the review as necessary to protect victims and comply with legal requirements.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What's inside the latest Epstein files released by the Justice Department | CNN Politics

The U.S. Department of Justice has begun releasing a massive tranche of documents related to its long-running investigations into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, following the Epstein Files Transparency Act—a law passed by Congress last November requiring the release of all relevant government files. On January 30, 2026, DOJ officials announced they had made available more than 3 million pages of records, along with over 2,000 videos and about 180,000 images, which represent the largest single disclosure of material to date. The files originate from multiple federal inquiries, including the Florida and New York Epstein cases, the Maxwell prosecution, and probes into Epstein's death, and were extensively reviewed and redacted by hundreds of department attorneys to protect victim privacy before publication. Officials said the release brings DOJ into compliance with the transparency law, although some material was withheld under legal privileges or statutory exceptions.The release has generated intense scrutiny and debate. The documents shed further light on Epstein's activities and communications with wealthy and high-profile figures, and they include previously unseen correspondence, flight logs, court records, and other investigative material. However, the disclosure arrived more than a month after the December 19, 2025 deadline set by law, drawing bipartisan criticism that the process was slow and overly cautious. Some lawmakers and advocacy groups argue that millions of pages still remain unreleased and that redactions obscure critical information about Epstein's network and alleged associates, while DOJ leadership has defended the review as necessary to protect victims and comply with legal requirements.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What's inside the latest Epstein files released by the Justice Department | CNN Politics

The U.S. Department of Justice has begun releasing a massive tranche of documents related to its long-running investigations into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, following the Epstein Files Transparency Act—a law passed by Congress last November requiring the release of all relevant government files. On January 30, 2026, DOJ officials announced they had made available more than 3 million pages of records, along with over 2,000 videos and about 180,000 images, which represent the largest single disclosure of material to date. The files originate from multiple federal inquiries, including the Florida and New York Epstein cases, the Maxwell prosecution, and probes into Epstein's death, and were extensively reviewed and redacted by hundreds of department attorneys to protect victim privacy before publication. Officials said the release brings DOJ into compliance with the transparency law, although some material was withheld under legal privileges or statutory exceptions.The release has generated intense scrutiny and debate. The documents shed further light on Epstein's activities and communications with wealthy and high-profile figures, and they include previously unseen correspondence, flight logs, court records, and other investigative material. However, the disclosure arrived more than a month after the December 19, 2025 deadline set by law, drawing bipartisan criticism that the process was slow and overly cautious. Some lawmakers and advocacy groups argue that millions of pages still remain unreleased and that redactions obscure critical information about Epstein's network and alleged associates, while DOJ leadership has defended the review as necessary to protect victims and comply with legal requirements.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What's inside the latest Epstein files released by the Justice Department | CNN Politics

Ghislaine Maxwell has filed new legal claims asserting that dozens of individuals connected to Jeffrey Epstein were shielded from prosecution through “secret settlements” with federal prosecutors. In her recent habeas corpus petition, Maxwell alleges that 29 men associated with Epstein—including 25 who reached undisclosed deals and four potential co-conspirators known to investigators—were never indicted or publicly identified. She argues these concealments violated her constitutional rights and undermined the fairness of her 2021 sex-trafficking trial, asserting that she would have called such individuals as witnesses had she known of them. Maxwell's filing presses that the Justice Department's handling of these agreements and the slow pace of releasing Epstein-related files under the Epstein Files Transparency Act warrant reconsideration of her conviction.A central piece of Maxwell's broader legal strategy also revisits the 2007 non-prosecution agreement that federal prosecutors made with Epstein in Florida, which she and her lawyers have argued should have extended immunity to co-conspirators like herself. Maxwell previously asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether that agreement legally barred her prosecution, but the Court declined to hear her appeal. Her latest claims blend allegations of secret deals with assertions that prosecutorial practices—particularly around the non-prosecution agreement and undisclosed co-conspirators—constitute new evidence of fundamental trial flaws, which she says justify vacating her sentence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Stunning Epstein twist as Ghislaine Maxwell claims 29 friends cut 'secret deals' with DOJ | Daily Mail Online

Dan Bardell is live on transfer deadline day to see how the day is developing for Aston Villa and whilst he was on, some Harvey Elliott news broke!

Ghislaine Maxwell, a woman who has never wanted for a buck, is now at the mercy of her ex husband Scott Borgerson to pay her lawyers so that her attempt at an appeal can move forward. According to reports, Borgerson is hesitant to pony up the money and the lawyers for Maxwell are saying that he is dragging his feet.(commercial at 6:58)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11473189/Ghislaine-Maxwells-appeal-jeopardy-estranged-husband-refuses-pay-legal-bills.html

The release of the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's death was marked by a delay so drawn out that it raised more questions than it answered. Epstein died in August 2019, yet the OIG report—supposedly the definitive account of the failures at the Metropolitan Correctional Center—did not surface until mid-2023. That nearly four-year gap created an atmosphere of suspicion, where the public was left to speculate in the absence of transparency. For a case of such magnitude, involving one of the most notorious prisoners in U.S. custody, the government's inability—or unwillingness—to produce timely findings came across as stonewalling rather than due diligence. Each year that ticked by without answers only deepened the impression that the investigation was less about accountability and more about managing fallout.Critics have argued that the slow pace betrayed the very purpose of oversight. The OIG is meant to reassure the public that even the federal system can police itself, but when it takes nearly half a decade to confirm “errors” that were obvious within days of Epstein's death—broken cameras, sleeping guards, falsified logs—the credibility of the process collapses. Instead of restoring confidence, the delay reinforced the perception that the system was dragging its feet, hoping the public's outrage would fade. By the time the report finally arrived, many saw it as an afterthought: a bureaucratic box checked too late to matter, more a shield for officials than a search for truth.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein Death: Justice Department Still Hasn't Released Report (businessinsider.com)

Writer Christopher Mason says that Ghislaine Maxwell commissioned him to write a birthday song for Jeffrey Epstein that included very lurid and sexualized references—specifically lyrics about “24-hour erections” and “schoolgirl crushes” when Epstein had taught at Dalton School. According to Mason, Maxwell gave him highly explicit instructions about what to include in the lyrics, but prevented him from contacting anyone else who might have known Epstein for background. Mason claims the song was performed at a dinner with wealthy men in attendance, and that the mood was celebratory, even mocking. The song apparently referenced Epstein's sexual behavior in front of guests like Leslie Wexner and others in his social circle.To contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12235042/ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-24-hour-erections/

The first week of Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial in New York featured emotionally charged testimony from his former partner, singer Cassie Ventura. Over four days, Ventura detailed an 11-year relationship marked by coercion, physical abuse, and manipulation. She described being forced into drug-fueled "freak-offs"—group sex encounters with paid escorts—often filmed and allegedly used by Combs for blackmail. A 2016 hotel surveillance video showing Combs assaulting Ventura was presented as evidence. Ventura also recounted an incident where Combs allegedly threatened to suspend someone over a balcony, illustrating a pattern of intimidation and control.The defense acknowledged Combs' history of violence and substance abuse but argued that these actions did not constitute sex trafficking. They portrayed the events as part of a consensual lifestyle, aiming to separate personal misconduct from criminal enterprise. Additional testimony from singer Dawn Richard supported Ventura's claims, recalling a 2009 incident where Combs allegedly assaulted Ventura over a domestic dispute. The prosecution contends that Combs operated a criminal network involving staff who facilitated the alleged abuses. The trial, expected to last several more weeks, continues to draw significant public attention.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn were not peripheral figures orbiting Jeffrey Epstein. They were structural supports, the load bearing pillars that allowed his criminal empire to function, survive scrutiny, and endure scandal. Darren Indyke, Epstein's longtime lawyer, was the gatekeeper. He controlled access, managed settlements, structured opaque trusts, and ensured that Epstein's money and secrets were insulated from exposure. Indyke was there through arrests, plea deals, civil suits, and reputational implosions, always positioning Epstein one legal step ahead of accountability. Without Indyke's legal architecture, Epstein's web of shell companies, offshore vehicles, and confidentiality agreements collapses under its own weight. He was not merely providing legal services. He was actively maintaining the machinery that allowed Epstein to keep operating in plain sight.And then there was Richard Kahn, the financial engineer who made the money move quietly and efficiently. Kahn handled Epstein's books, managed his finances, and kept the cash flowing through a maze designed to obscure origin, purpose, and beneficiaries. This was not passive bookkeeping. This was deliberate financial camouflage, the kind that allows illegal activity to be funded, sustained, and hidden behind layers of complexity. Together, Indyke and Kahn formed a firewall between Epstein and consequence. They didn't just serve a client, they preserved an ecosystem of abuse by protecting the money that powered it. Strip them away and Epstein is exposed, vulnerable, and limited. With them in place, he was untouchable for decades. That is what indispensability looks like, and it should haunt anyone who still pretends this was the work of a lone monster rather than a professionally maintained criminal enterprise.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The first week of Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial in New York featured emotionally charged testimony from his former partner, singer Cassie Ventura. Over four days, Ventura detailed an 11-year relationship marked by coercion, physical abuse, and manipulation. She described being forced into drug-fueled "freak-offs"—group sex encounters with paid escorts—often filmed and allegedly used by Combs for blackmail. A 2016 hotel surveillance video showing Combs assaulting Ventura was presented as evidence. Ventura also recounted an incident where Combs allegedly threatened to suspend someone over a balcony, illustrating a pattern of intimidation and control.The defense acknowledged Combs' history of violence and substance abuse but argued that these actions did not constitute sex trafficking. They portrayed the events as part of a consensual lifestyle, aiming to separate personal misconduct from criminal enterprise. Additional testimony from singer Dawn Richard supported Ventura's claims, recalling a 2009 incident where Combs allegedly assaulted Ventura over a domestic dispute. The prosecution contends that Combs operated a criminal network involving staff who facilitated the alleged abuses. The trial, expected to last several more weeks, continues to draw significant public attention.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

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

The Department of Justice's declaration that Jeffrey Epstein was a "lone wolf" with no ties to intelligence and no involvement in kompromat is not just laughable—it's an insult to the intelligence of every American with a functioning frontal lobe. This isn't just a lie; it's a grotesque act of gaslighting. You don't amass blackmail material on billionaires, politicians, and royalty by accident. You don't operate an international sex trafficking ring out of mansions, private islands, and government-funded plea deals unless someone very powerful is holding the door open. For the DOJ to issue this absurd narrative in 2025, after years of irrefutable evidence and obvious patterns, is like spitting in the face of every survivor, whistleblower, journalist, and citizen who's been screaming the truth while being told they were delusional.What this memo really signals is institutional rot—an admission, cloaked in denial, that the system doesn't intend to clean up its mess. It's a grotesque pantomime of justice, hoping the public will grow tired, stop asking questions, and let the concrete dry over a grave full of secrets. But this isn't going away. You don't get to burn the files, wash your hands, and pretend the smell isn't still in the air. The Epstein operation was too big, too protected, and too damn obvious to be chalked up to one rogue predator. What we're witnessing is not closure—it's cover-up, and it reeks.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

Ghislaine Maxwell has stated in interviews that her biggest regret is ever meeting Jeffrey Epstein—a claim that, on the surface, might sound like remorse, but upon closer inspection feels more like an evasion of responsibility. Rather than expressing deep sorrow for the harm done to the victims she groomed and enabled, Maxwell frames her regret around how Epstein's downfall impacted her own life. It's a self-serving statement that conveniently positions her as a victim of circumstance rather than a key participant in a vast sex trafficking enterprise. By centering her regret on the personal consequences of their association, rather than the lives shattered by their actions, Maxwell continues to sidestep any meaningful acknowledgment of guilt.Critically, this so-called regret lacks any mention of the underage girls she recruited, manipulated, and, in some cases, directly abused. She doesn't express sorrow for the trauma inflicted, for the years stolen, or for the trust she violated under the guise of mentorship. Her regret is about proximity—not culpability. It's a statement crafted for image repair, not accountability. In the grand scheme of her crimes, saying she regrets meeting Epstein is like an arsonist lamenting the decision to light a match because they now have burn scars—not because the building went up in flames. It's hollow, calculated, and emblematic of Maxwell's continued refusal to face the full horror of what she did.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1683885/ghislaine-maxwell-interview-prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-spt

In the 2nd hour of the show, Ramie Makhlouff & Anthony Herron discuss the news that Bears Offensive Coordinator Declan Doyle will be heading to the Baltimore Ravens to assume the same position.

Thank you Dianne Mize, Angie T, Pamela, Theresa Lease, John H, and many others for tuning into my live video with Jim Acosta! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit decodingfoxnews.substack.com/subscribe

The United States Virgin Islands have made out quite well for themselves when it comes to collecting money from Jeffrey Epstein's estate and others involved in Epstein's crimes and activities and now we are learning that they have added another 62.5 million dollars to the pot after it was revealed that Leon Black paid them off so that he would be released from all Epstein related lawsuits moving forward.Meanwhile, nobody has been arrested in the USVI and there is no (known) criminal case working its way through the system.(commercial at 11:06)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Report: Billionaire Leon Black Paid V.I. $62.5 Million Over Epstein Ties | St. Thomas Source (stthomassource.com)

Jimmy Kimmel, like most of the loud mouths who know little to nothing about Jeffrey Epstein, thinks it's a good idea to bring Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes up and frame those crimes and the years of abuse as a conspiracy theory, all in order to try and score "points" against someone he doesn't like. Meanwhile, what exactly has Kimmel done to bring light to the situation? Has he ever invited any of the survivors on his show? Has he ever questioned his pals the Clintons for their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? You all know the answers to those questions. In this episode, we take a look at Kimmel's latest comments about Jeffrey Epstein and how he attempted to label Aaron Rodgers as a conspiracy theorist for bringing it up. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jimmy Kimmel takes aim at Aaron Rodgers over his comments on Jeffrey Epstein and UFOs | Daily Mail Online

Ghislaine Maxwell complained of guard misconduct by portraying herself as a victim of mistreatment inside federal custody, repeatedly alleging that guards were improperly watching her, disrupting her sleep, and violating her privacy. She claimed that routine checks amounted to harassment, arguing that guards were deliberately making noise, shining lights, and observing her in ways she said were unnecessary and punitive. Her legal team framed these complaints as evidence of a hostile detention environment, suggesting that the Bureau of Prisons was failing to respect her dignity and rights. The thrust of her argument was that standard suicide-watch style monitoring, implemented in the shadow of Jeffrey Epstein's death, crossed the line into abuse. What Maxwell cast as misconduct, however, closely mirrored the very safeguards the BOP put in place precisely because of her proximity to one of the most notorious custodial failures in modern history.The complaints landed poorly in the court of public opinion, given the gravity of the crimes she was accused of facilitating. Critics noted the stark contrast between Maxwell's grievances about personal discomfort and the years of exploitation suffered by Epstein's victims, whose privacy and bodily autonomy were systematically stripped away. Her allegations against guards read less like a serious civil rights claim and more like an attempt to reframe herself as persecuted rather than protected from self-harm. Judges and prosecutors largely treated her complaints as secondary to the overwhelming security concerns surrounding her detention. In the end, Maxwell's focus on guard behavior underscored a recurring pattern in her defense strategy: deflecting attention from her role in Epstein's operation by recasting herself as the one being wronged by the system.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The U.S. Department of Justice has released more than 3 million pages of documents, images, and videos related to its long-running investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates, including court records, interview transcripts, call logs, and other materials, in the latest compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed by Congress and signed into law last year. The material — which also includes roughly 2,000 videos and 180,000 images — represents a significant expansion of the publicly available record, although portions of the roughly 6 million potentially responsive pages identified by the department remain under review or redaction due to legal protections, privacy concerns for victims, and other restrictions.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the release was aimed at fulfilling the statutory requirement for transparency, and stressed that redactions were applied to protect survivors and sensitive content, including explicit material and personal information, but denied that any files were withheld to protect specific public figures. The release comes after sustained public and bipartisan congressional pressure following earlier partial disclosures, and while it greatly expands access to internal DOJ and FBI records on Epstein's crimes and investigations, officials acknowledge that further review and possible future disclosures are likely as the process continues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ releases millions of pages of additional Epstein files

Gordon Gee framed his defense of Les Wexner as a matter of loyalty, philanthropy, and presumed ignorance, insisting that Wexner was blindsided by Jeffrey Epstein and had no meaningful awareness of the abuse orbiting his former confidant. Gee leaned heavily on Wexner's decades of charitable giving and institutional support, portraying him as a benefactor whose generosity and civic engagement should outweigh uncomfortable questions. In doing so, Gee treated proximity to Epstein as an unfortunate coincidence rather than a relationship that lasted years, involved extraordinary financial power, and raised obvious red flags long before the public reckoning.What makes Gee's defense so troubling is not just what he said, but what he refused to confront. By defaulting to character references and donation tallies, Gee sidestepped the basic issue of responsibility that comes with wealth, access, and sustained association. His comments implied that elite benefactors deserve the benefit of the doubt denied to everyone else, and that institutional gratitude can substitute for scrutiny. Instead of demanding accountability proportional to influence, Gee lowered the bar, effectively arguing that if someone gives enough money and claims shock afterward, the questions should stop. For critics, that posture doesn't protect the truth—it protects the donor class, and it reinforces the very culture of deference that allowed Epstein's network to operate in plain sight for so long.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Former OSU President Gee defends Les Wexner amid probe into billionaire's ties to Epstein | WOSU Public Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

Streaming services played an outsized role in rekindling public interest and scrutiny in the Jeffrey Epstein case by making documentaries about his life, network, and crimes widely accessible. Projects like Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich on Netflix showcased survivors' stories alongside investigative reporting, exposing the broader systems of power and complicity that helped shield Epstein from accountability.  Other streaming platforms similarly offered exposés—such as Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein? on Hulu and Prince Andrew, Maxwell & Epstein on Discovery+/Prime Video—which helped sustain media momentum, push archival material into public view, and keep pressure on law enforcement and institutions tied to Epstein.The cultural influence of these streaming documentaries also amplified the voices of survivors and shifted public discourse, creating renewed demand for transparency and legal accountability. For example, Surviving Jeffrey Epstein on Lifetime reportedly triggered a 34 % jump in calls to a U.S. sexual‐assault hotline, showing how media exposure mobilized public attention to issues of sexual abuse and institutional failure.   In many ways, streaming allowed the Epstein story to transcend news cycles—embedding it into ongoing popular awareness and pressuring institutions and legal actors to respond more aggressively.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Top Stories for January 31st Publish Date: January 31st PRE-ROLL: KIA Mall Of Georgia From the BG AD Group Studio Welcome to the Gwinnett Daily Post Podcast. Today is Saturday, January 31st and Happy Birthday to Jackie Robinson I’m Peyton Spurlock and here are your top stories presented by Gwinnett KIA Mall of Georgia. Lanier Islands Resort offering Valentine's Day romantic getaway package Amid walkouts, GCPS affirms students’ right to expression, reminds them to follow rules Scott McCray’s lasting impact on downtown Lawrenceville 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: EAGLE THEATRE STORY 1: Lanier Islands Resort offering Valentine's Day romantic getaway package Lanier Islands Resort—where love stories seem to write themselves. With over a dozen dreamy indoor and outdoor wedding venues, it’s no wonder this lakeside gem has been the backdrop for countless “I do’s.” And this year? Valentine’s Day lands on a Saturday, making it the perfect excuse for a romantic escape. For couples looking to make a weekend of it, the resort’s Valentine’s Romantic Getaway has all the swoon-worthy details: champagne, chocolate-covered strawberries, cozy accommodations, a multi-course dinner at Sidney’s overlooking the lake, and breakfast the next morning. Want more? There’s spa treatments, snow fun at Margaritaville, or even a game day at Game Changer. Planning to pop the question? The resort’s wedding consultants can help you nail the moment, from finding the perfect spot to booking a photographer. Love is definitely in the air at Lanier Islands. STORY 2: Amid walkouts, GCPS affirms students’ right to expression, reminds them to follow rules Students across Gwinnett County are walking out of class, protesting immigration enforcement and the fear it’s brought into their schools. The district is trying to balance it all—supporting students’ voices while keeping things safe and orderly. The protests come as frustration grows nationwide over ICE’s actions, including the deaths of two U.S. citizens. Some students say they’re scared to even show up to school. The district reiterated its policy: ICE can’t enter non-public areas of schools without a judge-signed warrant. But fear lingers. Enrollment has dropped by thousands since ICE activity ramped up in 2025, according to the Gwinnett County Association of Educators. For now, GCPS is working with students to keep protests peaceful and on-campus. STORY 3: Scott McCray’s lasting impact on downtown Lawrenceville When Scott McCray first set his sights on expanding his restaurant footprint, downtown Lawrenceville wasn’t exactly buzzing. “It was quiet—really quiet,” he said. “Not much going on, but I saw potential.” That was back in the early 2000s, when the corner spot he wanted—a beat-up old drugstore—wasn’t even available. So, he waited. By 2006, McCray’s Tavern opened on Perry Street, and two decades later, it’s a cornerstone of Lawrenceville’s now-vibrant Square. Today, McCray owns nine restaurants, including Perry Street Chophouse and several McCray’s Taverns across metro Atlanta. But he’s not done yet. “We’ve got another building on the Square,” he teased. “Still figuring out what to do with it, but we’re working on something.” And then there’s St. Patrick’s Day—his annual “Perry Street festival” that shuts down the street, packs the rooftop deck, and unofficially kicks off spring. Reflecting on 20 years in the business, McCray still seems a little surprised. “I didn’t grow up dreaming about restaurants,” he said. “But once I opened my first place, I knew. It’s hard work, but I still love it. Every day.” 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 - GCPS STORY 4: GIVE East's Candice Richardson named GCPS Teacher of the Year Dr. Candice Richardson didn’t take the usual path to teaching. In fact, her journey started far from a classroom—in a doctor’s office in Nassau, Bahamas, where she worked as a physician. But life has a funny way of rerouting us. Fifteen years ago, she moved to the U.S. with her husband and began the long, grueling process of earning her medical license here. To make ends meet, she started substitute teaching. “I thought it’d just be temporary,” she said. “But when I walked into GIVE Center East, something clicked. I knew—this is where I’m supposed to be.” Fast forward to now: Richardson, who’s been teaching biology at GIVE for four years, was just named Gwinnett County Public Schools’ 2027 Teacher of the Year. It’s a rare honor for a teacher at an alternative school, and Richardson doesn’t take it lightly. At GIVE, Richardson works with students who’ve been written off by others. “These kids have been told they’re failures, that one mistake defines them,” she said. “But I believe in second chances. I want them to see they’re worth more than their worst moment.” Richardson’s passion for her students shines through in everything she does, from creating hands-on biology lessons to building relationships that show her students they’re valued. STORY 5: Republican state House leaders unveil plan to abolish homeowner property taxes Georgia Republicans are making a bold promise: no more property taxes for homeowners by 2032. Sounds great, right? But the details? Well, they’re complicated. House Speaker Jon Burns unveiled the plan Wednesday, calling it “historic tax relief” aimed at easing the financial strain on homeowners. Rising home values, he said, have made the current system “unsustainable.” The idea is to gradually phase out property taxes on primary residences, but here’s the catch—local governments rely on that money. A lot of it. Property taxes fund schools, police, fire departments—you name it. So, what happens when that revenue disappears? Burns’ plan would let cities and counties make up the difference by raising sales taxes or adding fees for specific services. But sales taxes are unpredictable, especially during economic downturns, and some areas might struggle to generate enough revenue. And then there’s the political hurdle. To make this happen, lawmakers need a constitutional amendment, which requires two-thirds approval in both chambers and a public vote. Oh, and the Senate? They’re focused on slashing income taxes instead. For now, the House hasn’t released all the details, but one thing’s clear: this proposal is ambitious—and it’s going to spark a lot of debate. We’ll be right back. Break 3: GCPL Passport STORY 6: TenMed Wound Care opening Lawrenceville office TenMed Wound Care & Hyperbaric Medicine is bringing its expertise to Lawrenceville, opening a new clinic at 696 Grayson Highway. For patients in Gwinnett County dealing with stubborn wounds—diabetic foot ulcers, surgical wounds, or other complex injuries—this is big news. The Lawrenceville location joins TenMed’s existing offices in Atlanta and Johns Creek, expanding access to advanced treatments like Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy. Dr. Joshua Behlmann, the clinic’s medical director, said he’s excited to serve the community. “Our goal is simple: to provide life-changing care for those who need it most.” From personalized wound care plans to cutting-edge therapies, the clinic is ready to help. For more info, visit tenmedhealth.com or call 470-508-0696. STORY 7: Test-run of outdoor classrooms in Georgia schools clears General Assembly Georgia students might soon trade desks for fresh air, thanks to a new outdoor learning pilot program. On Wednesday, the state Senate gave unanimous approval to a bill that would create outdoor classrooms at select K-8 schools. Next stop? Governor Kemp’s desk. State Sen. Bo Hatchett shared his own experience: “I had an outdoor classroom at North Habersham Middle, and it made a huge difference. Every kid should have that chance.” Sen. Sheikh Rahman added, “Kids are glued to screens. Getting them outside? It’s good for their bodies, their minds—everything.” The program will run for three years before lawmakers decide what’s next. We’ll have closing comments after this Break 4: SUGAR HILL ICE SKATING Signoff – Thanks again for hanging out with us on today’s Gwinnett Daily Post Podcast. If you enjoy these shows, we encourage you to check out our other offerings, like the Cherokee Tribune Ledger podcast, the Marietta Daily Journal, or the Community Podcast for Rockdale Newton and Morgan Counties. Read more about all our stories and get other great content at www.gwinnettdailypost.com Did you know over 50% of Americans listen to podcasts weekly? Giving you important news about our community and telling great stories are what we do. Make sure you join us for our next episode and be sure to share this podcast on social media with your friends and family. Add us to your Alexa Flash Briefing or your Google Home Briefing and be sure to like, follow, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Produced by the BG Podcast Network Show Sponsors: www.ingles-markets.com www.kiamallofga.com Ice Rink – Downtown Sugar Hill NewsPodcast, CurrentEvents, TopHeadlines, BreakingNews, PodcastDiscussion, PodcastNews, InDepthAnalysis, NewsAnalysis, PodcastTrending, WorldNews, LocalNews, GlobalNews, PodcastInsights, NewsBrief, PodcastUpdate, NewsRoundup, WeeklyNews, DailyNews, PodcastInterviews, HotTopics, PodcastOpinions, InvestigativeJournalism, BehindTheHeadlines, PodcastMedia, NewsStories, PodcastReports, JournalismMatters, PodcastPerspectives, NewsCommentary, PodcastListeners, NewsPodcastCommunity, NewsSource, PodcastCuration, WorldAffairs, PodcastUpdates, AudioNews, PodcastJournalism, EmergingStories, NewsFlash, PodcastConversations See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Guest: Anatol Lieven. Lieven of the Quincy Institute discusses breaking news that Vladimir Putin has agreed to a one-week ceasefire on Ukrainian cities following a request from Donald Trump. Lieven views this as a significant positive signal of Putin's desire to maintain good standing with the incoming administration, though he notes that major territorial disagreements remain unresolved.1855

Ramie & Anthony discuss the news that Bears Offensive Coordinator Declan Doyle will be heading to the Baltimore Ravens to become their play caller

During the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, the name Sarah Kellen surfaced again and again—more than 80 separate times—underscoring just how central she was to the machinery surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. Witnesses, prosecutors, and exhibits repeatedly described Kellen as one of Epstein's most trusted lieutenants: the scheduler, gatekeeper, and fixer who controlled access to Epstein, managed his calendars, arranged travel, and handled logistics for the properties where abuse occurred. The frequency of her name was not incidental; it reflected her deep integration into the daily operations of Epstein's network and her proximity to both Epstein and Maxwell during the years when abuse was alleged to be most rampant.What made Kellen's repeated mention especially striking was the contrast between her prominence in the testimony and her absence from the defendant's chair. Survivors described her as an active participant in maintaining the system that enabled exploitation—coordinating appointments, communicating with victims, and smoothing over problems—yet she was never charged in the Maxwell case. Prosecutors used her name to map the structure of Epstein's inner circle, showing how responsibility was distributed among multiple actors, while the defense attempted to minimize her role as merely administrative. Still, the sheer volume of references made one point unavoidable: Sarah Kellen was not a peripheral figure. The trial record cemented her as a key node in Epstein's operation, raising persistent questions about accountability and why some central figures were scrutinized in open court while others remained legally untouched.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein left wads of cash stuffed in envelopes for 'top recruiter' Sara Kellen raising new questions of why she was never charged | Daily Mail Online

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

Prince Andrew has long carried a reputation among former palace staff as arrogant, dismissive, and routinely rude, a pattern that multiple aides and insiders have described as ingrained rather than episodic. Former staff have said Andrew treated employees as beneath him, snapping over minor issues, refusing basic courtesies, and creating an atmosphere where deference was demanded rather than earned. Accounts describe tantrum-like behavior over uniforms, room arrangements, travel logistics, and perceived slights, with staff expected to absorb the abuse because of his status. This was not the occasional bad day attributed to stress; it was a consistent management style rooted in entitlement. Andrew reportedly expected instant compliance and bristled when protocol did not bend to his preferences, reinforcing a culture where staff learned to placate rather than challenge him. That behavior was quietly tolerated for years because confronting a senior royal carried professional risk. In practice, his rudeness became normalized as “just how he is,” a phrase that often serves as camouflage for sustained mistreatment.What makes these accounts more damning is how neatly they align with Andrew's broader public conduct once scrutiny intensified. The same arrogance former staff described privately became visible to the public during his disastrous interviews and defiant posture in the Epstein scandal. Insiders have suggested that his inability to grasp how he was perceived stemmed from decades of insulation from consequences, where staff absorbed the fallout and senior figures smoothed things over. The Palace's failure to address his behavior reinforced the idea that Andrew was untouchable, free to belittle subordinates without repercussion. Even as other royals faced internal reforms around workplace culture, Andrew's reputation followed him largely unchecked. These staff accounts are not petty grievances; they are indicators of a deeper problem within royal hierarchy, where power protects bad behavior until it becomes impossible to ignore. By the time Andrew's conduct was scrutinized publicly, the damage had already been done quietly behind palace walls for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In 2018, Ghislaine Maxwell—despite years of public allegations connecting her to Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation—was invited to and attended Jeff Bezos's elite and secretive literary retreat known as Campfire. The event, hosted by Bezos annually, brings together top authors, tech moguls, and media power players at a private location for a weekend of discussions, panels, and informal networking. Maxwell's presence at the retreat raised eyebrows, not only because of her reputation by that point, but also because it demonstrated how seamlessly she continued to move through the highest levels of elite society even after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Her attendance revealed a stunning level of normalization and acceptance within powerful circles, despite her growing notoriety.Maxwell reportedly arrived at the Campfire event alongside entrepreneur Scott Borgerson, a figure later revealed to be in a close relationship with her, though he denied any romantic involvement at the time. Attendees included influential figures from Silicon Valley, publishing, and entertainment—none of whom publicly objected to her presence. The revelation of her invitation has sparked renewed scrutiny into how the world's wealthiest and most influential people continued to welcome Epstein's known enablers into their inner circles long after the broader public became aware of their roles. It serves as yet another example of how elite spaces often insulate their own, regardless of the crimes that surround them.source:https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/01/jeffrey-epstein-friend-ghislaine-maxwell-was-guest-at-jeff-bezos-event.html

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

Epstein's operation has been explained as a sexual Ponzi scheme because it relied on the same core mechanics as a financial fraud: constant recruitment, layered incentives, and silence bought through perceived advancement. Young women were drawn in with money, housing, travel, or vague promises of mentorship, then pressured to recruit others beneath them to maintain their own position and income. Each new recruit reduced risk for those above them, creating a self-sustaining pipeline that insulated Epstein and his inner circle from direct exposure. Like a Ponzi scheme, it depended on continuous inflow; the moment recruitment slowed, the structure would collapse under scrutiny. Power, not just money, was the currency, with access to elites dangled as proof of legitimacy. The system normalized abuse by reframing it as opportunity, turning victims into reluctant intermediaries. The structure rewarded compliance and punished resistance through isolation or financial cutoff.What made it especially effective was how it mirrored legitimate social and professional networks, blurring exploitation into something that looked transactional rather than criminal. Epstein positioned himself at the top as the untouchable beneficiary, while Ghislaine Maxwell and others functioned as managers who enforced rules, managed expectations, and handled recruitment. Those at the bottom bore the harm, while those in the middle were trapped by sunk costs, fear, and complicity. Just as in a Ponzi scheme, early participants might initially believe they were benefiting, only to realize later that the system required perpetual harm to survive. Accountability was diffused across layers, allowing Epstein to claim distance while enjoying the spoils. The longer it ran, the harder it became for participants to speak without implicating themselves. That is why survivors and investigators describe it not as random predation, but as an organized, scalable abuse enterprise built on deception, dependency, and silence.to contact m e:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

Liquid Funding Ltd. didn't survive the 2008 financial collapse by skill or luck—it survived because the system bent itself into a pretzel to protect elite balance sheets with public money. Chaired by Jeffrey Epstein, Liquid Funding sat on billions in mortgage-linked liabilities just as the global economy imploded. When the government rushed in to stabilize failing institutions, those interventions didn't just rescue household-name banks—they quietly backstopped the opaque offshore machinery that fed off them. As emergency facilities and taxpayer-backed rescues absorbed toxic assets and restored liquidity, Liquid Funding's obligations were made whole. The end result was grotesque: a vehicle overseen by a known predator emerging intact from a crisis that annihilated ordinary people.What makes it sickening is the silence around it. While families lost homes and retirement savings evaporated, bailout architecture designed to “save the system” effectively covered the tab for Epstein's offshore empire—through the rescue of counterparties like Bear Stearns, its fire-sale to JPMorgan Chase, and the emergency actions of the Federal Reserve. No vote asked taxpayers if they were willing to underwrite the continued solvency of a man already accused of unspeakable crimes. No hearing explained why his structure deserved protection while the public absorbed the losses. It was a quiet, revolting transfer of risk upward—proof that when the system panics, it shields the worst actors first and sends the bill to everyone else.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein's Really Big Short: How US Taxpayers (And Big Bankers) Bailed Him Out - National Memo

Prosecutors responded to the defense who asked for a very, very light sentence of 4 1/2 to 5 years with their own opinion in new court filings. The prosecution believes that Ghislaine Maxwell should serve 30 to 55 years of her sentence and that the request by the defense is utterly ridiculous. With both sides making their arguments, it now falls to Judge Nathan to make a decision.(commercial at 8:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/feds-ghislaine-maxwell-deserves-30-years-prison-85577269