Podcasts about Corruption

A lot of noise out there. So we're adding to it. Breaking down the Jimmy Kimmel and the Charlie Kirk public discourse. Then Tom Brady is cheating (again). NFL and College Football talk. Baseball Playoffs too. Later, emails and tweets. And Dylan brings us the Degen of the Week Report. Roommate therapy (debate) Pod announcement too.  Get it in yall. Listen to Shea in Irving on the iHeart app or wherever you listen to podcasts.  

Synopsis:  As a bestselling author of 18 books, including "Aftershock" and "The System: Who Rigged It and How We Fix It", Robert Reich shares his insights on how to address growing income inequality and its impact on politics and economy.This show is made possible by you! To become a sustaining member go to LauraFlanders.org/donateDescription:  The crisis we're in was a long time coming. Now that we're here, what do we do about it? Returning to the show, former Labor Secretary and longtime professor Robert Reich joins Laura Flanders to discuss two bullies tormenting U.S. democracy: concentrated wealth and corporate power. As Reich shares, growing income inequality yields corruption in our politics and economy. No one election will change everything, but that's not a reason not to act, and act quickly to defeat the Trump administration — in Congress, and at the polls. Reich's latest Substack, “Should Democrats Shut Down the Government?” presents some ideas. Reich's latest book is “Coming Up Short: A Memoir of My America”. He  is also the subject of “The Last Class” about his final semester teaching at UC Berkeley's Goldman School. He's the author of eighteen books, including the bestsellers, “Aftershock” and “The System: Who Rigged It and How We Fix It,” and is co-founder of Inequality Media. Online, you can find Reich's viral video explainers and his widely-read newsletter on Substack. Join Reich and Flanders as they unpack how economic and political power intersect in American life – and catch Laura's two cents on “democratic capitalism.”“If the Republicans who now control Congress say, “‘We're not going to give you any role at all, and we are not even going to reassume our constitutional role as Congress,' then I think the Democrats have no choice but to say, ‘Forget it. That's it. The only way we bring attention to this crisis is we stop and shut the whole place down.'” - Robert Reich“More than a century ago, we had the first Gilded Age in the United States . . . We had the equivalent of billionaires, the equivalent of Elon Musk . . . Why would we not have another Progressive Era as a response to the Gilded Age? We are now in the second Gilded Age.” - Robert ReichGuest:  Robert Reich- Former Secretary of Labor; Professor Emeritus, University of California Berkeley; Author, Coming Up Short: My Memoir of AmericaWatch the special report on YouTube; PBS World Channel September 14th, and on over 300 public stations across the country (check your listings, or search here via zipcode). Listen: Episode airing on community radio September 17th  (check here to see if your station is airing the show) & available as a podcast.Full Episode Notes are located HERE.-Related Podcast: Robert Reich Full Uncut Conversation Support Laura Flanders and Friends by becoming a member at https://www.patreon.com/c/lauraflandersandfriendsMusic Credit:  'Dawn Smolders' by Bluedot Sessions, and original sound design by Jeannie Hopper RESOURCES:Related Laura Flanders Show Episodes:•  Democracy & Capitalism: A Failed Experiment?  Watch•  The Pandemic Economy-  Watch / Listen•  Naomi Klein & Astra Taylor: Are We Entering “End Times Fascism”?  Watch / Listen: Episode and Full Conversation  •  Masha Gessen & Jason Stanley: Is it Doomsday for U.S. Democracy? Watch / Listen: Episode and Full Conversation Related Articles and Resources:•  Documentary:  The Last Class with Robert Reich•  “The Jobs Crash” by Robert Reich, Substack•  Democrats Regain Advantage in Party Affiliation, by Jeffrey M. Jones, July 31, 2025, Gallup News•  Bessent hails new ‘Trump accounts' as ‘backdoor for privatizing Social Security, by Michael Stratford, July 30, 2025, Politico•  Co-founded by Robert Reich: Inequality Media and Inequality Media Civic Action•  Office Hours:  Who is MOST responsible for this catastrophe, other than Trump? By Robert Reich, September 3, 2025, SubStack• Schumer:  Democrats ‘will force votes' on Trump tariffs after disappointing jobs report, by Al Weaver, September 5, 2025, The Hill Laura Flanders and Friends Crew: Laura Flanders-Executive Producer, Writer; Sabrina Artel-Supervising Producer; Jeremiah Cothren-Senior Producer; Veronica Delgado-Video Editor, Janet Hernandez-Communications Director; Jeannie Hopper-Audio Director, Podcast & Radio Producer, Audio Editor, Sound Design; Sarah Miller-Development Director, Nat Needham-Editor, Graphic Design emeritus; David Neuman-Senior Video Editor, and Rory O'Conner-Senior Consulting Producer. FOLLOW Laura Flanders and FriendsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraflandersandfriends/Blueky: https://bsky.app/profile/lfandfriends.bsky.socialFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/LauraFlandersAndFriends/Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lauraflandersandfriendsYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFLRxVeYcB1H7DbuYZQG-lgLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lauraflandersandfriendsPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/lauraflandersandfriendsACCESSIBILITY - The broadcast edition of this episode is available with closed captioned by clicking here for our YouTube Channel

Ghislaine Maxwell's proffer session with the DOJ was less about truth and accountability and more about performance and deceit. The entire premise of a proffer is simple: you trade truth for a chance at leniency. But Maxwell didn't come to the table with intelligence, evidence, or leads that could help dismantle Epstein's far-reaching web. She came armed with a rehearsed script of lies and character assassinations. She weaponized her time in that room not to aid justice, but to smear survivors who had already borne the crushing weight of humiliation in courtrooms and the press. The newly released emails now strip away any doubt about what happened—they show that Maxwell didn't stumble or misremember. She perjured herself over and over, carefully contradicting her own sworn statements. This was deliberate, malicious dishonesty. And yet, instead of being dragged back to court with perjury charges and buried under the consequences, she was inexplicably rewarded with cushier accommodations. Sitting across from her during this travesty was none other than Deputy Director Todd “Baby Billy” Blanche, a man who should have cut the session short the moment the lies started, but who instead sat back, nodded, and let justice be mocked.The fallout from this disaster stretches far beyond Maxwell herself. For survivors, it was another betrayal layered on top of years of indifference and ridicule. They were once again slandered, this time under the very nose of the government agency tasked with protecting them. Their truth, earned through blood and tears, was tossed aside so Maxwell could preserve her own skin. For the public, the message couldn't be clearer: the Department of Justice is not an impartial arbiter of the law, but a stage where the rich and connected get to rewrite the script in their favor. Accountability was promised, but what America got instead was a rigged performance where lies were treated as cooperation, and perjury was treated as a perk. A real justice department would have treated her dishonesty as a direct assault on the rule of law, stacking charges on her until her arrogance collapsed. But instead, Blanche and his colleagues chose complicity over courage, shielding Maxwell from consequences and exposing to everyone watching that in America, justice isn't blind—it looks the other way when power is in the room.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mark Epstein, brother of Jeffrey Epstein, has consistently expressed skepticism regarding the official account of his brother's death. He has questioned the swift conclusion by authorities that Jeffrey's death was a suicide, pointing to initial death certificates listing the cause as "pending" and highlighting irregularities in the investigation. Mark has referenced observations from forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, who noted unusual fractures in Jeffrey's neck more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicide. These concerns have led Mark to believe that the investigation into his brother's death was insufficient and that the possibility of foul play was prematurely dismissed. Additionally, Mark Epstein has criticized statements from officials, such as then-Attorney General William Barr, who labeled the death a suicide shortly after it occurred. He argues that despite acknowledged lapses in prison protocols and the presence of irregularities, attributing the death solely to bureaucratic failures is inadequate. Mark's persistent doubts have been fueled by the lack of comprehensive answers from the Department of Justice and other authorities, leaving him and the public with unresolved questions about the true circumstances surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Prince Andrew came under scrutiny after documents revealed he told bankers to call Buckingham Palace when they questioned a £750,000 payment tied to him. The transaction raised compliance concerns, prompting officials to seek clarity on whether it was legitimate. Instead of offering a straightforward explanation, Andrew reportedly directed them to his Palace office, effectively leaning on his royal status to quell the inquiry.The payment's origins and purpose stirred suspicions, especially given Andrew's already controversial financial dealings and public scandals. The move highlighted how he allegedly relied on the prestige of the monarchy to shield himself from financial accountability, deepening concerns about his judgment and raising questions over whether he abused his royal position for personal protection.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Courtney Wild and Haley Robson, two women who say they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein, filed a defamation lawsuit against journalist Julie K. Brown in 2022. They argue Brown's book Perversion of Justice contained false claims that harmed their reputations. Wild says the book wrongly described her as having had intercourse with Epstein and being raped, allegations she denies. Robson, meanwhile, claims Brown portrayed her as complicit in Epstein's operations after she refused to be interviewed for the book.According to the lawsuit, Brown's reporting left both women branded in ways that distorted their roles in the Epstein saga, causing reputational damage and emotional distress. The plaintiffs allege that Brown pressured them and misrepresented facts for dramatic effect, leaving them to suffer fallout in their personal and professional lives. The case underscores the tensions between journalistic storytelling and survivor testimony in high-profile abuse investigations.Courtney Wild and Haley Robson, both survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse, wrote powerful letters to top executives at JPMorgan—among them CEO Jamie Dimon—accusing the bank of enabling Epstein's conduct by keeping him as a client for many years, despite knowing or having reason to know that there were serious abuse allegations. They ask JPMorgan to acknowledge that it benefited from the relationship (through transactions, accounts, etc.), to admit wrongdoing or mistakes, and to take steps to make amends—both to them and to other survivors. Wild and Robson frame their demand not just in moral terms but in legal and institutional accountability: that the bank should own up, not hide behind fine print or internal policies.They also stress that JPMorgan's public statements and depositions (including Jamie Dimon's) have downplayed or denied knowledge of Epstein's abuse or minimized the bank's role. In their letters, they challenge that narrative: they maintain that JPMorgan had ample warning of red flags and thus cannot claim complete ignorance. They call for transparency—release of internal documents, full cooperation, and concrete reforms—to ensure what happened with Epstein doesn't happen again under the bank's watch.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In his opening statement, Patel described what he called the “original sin” of the Epstein investigation as being how Alex Acosta handled the case back in 2006. He criticized the limited search warrants used then and said they did not seize as much investigative material as they should have. Patel argued that significant portions of the case were restrained by the original non-prosecution agreement, which included provisions protecting some documents via court orders and limiting later prosecutorial or investigative access.Patel also addressed whether there is credible evidence that Epstein trafficked underage girls to other individuals (i.e. beyond himself). He said there is no credible information that such trafficking to third parties has been proven. He asserted that if he had seen such evidence, he would have pursued those charges. He emphasized that under his administration, the FBI is working to release all “credible information … legally able to do so,” while acknowledging legal limits.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Kash Patel claims no evidence Jeffrey Epstein trafficked girls to anyone but himself | Daily Mail Online

In Britain, a state visit by Donald Trump was jolted when activists projected massive images of Trump and Jeffrey Epstein onto the walls of Windsor Castle. The stunt, which British police quickly shut down, resulted in four arrests on charges of “malicious communications.” Photos of the projection spread globally within minutes, hijacking the carefully staged optics of a royal ceremony and forcing Epstein's name back into headlines through spectacle and shock.Across the Atlantic, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled against unsealing the identities of two women once described as potential co-conspirators in Epstein's network. Prosecutors never charged the women, and the court argued disclosure would expose them to unnecessary harm. The decision reignited frustration among survivors and transparency advocates, who see secrecy as another barrier to accountability, ensuring that questions about who enabled Epstein remain unanswered.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Todd Blanche's CNN interview about his sit-down with Ghislaine Maxwell has been met with skepticism for good reason. Blanche framed his conversation with her as an exercise in transparency, but his insistence that it was “impossible” to determine if she was credible rang hollow, especially given the mountain of contradictions and lies Maxwell has already told under oath. Instead of pressing her on the details of Epstein's network, Blanche largely leaned into a narrative that it was up to the “public” to decide, effectively punting the DOJ's responsibility to establish facts. For someone in his position, such hedging looks less like neutrality and more like avoidance.What makes it worse is Blanche's background and the circumstances. As a former Trump lawyer, his presence raises red flags about conflicts of interest, and the softball nature of his questions only fuels suspicion that this interview was more about optics than accountability. Maxwell's transfer to a cushier, low-security facility right after this sit-down only adds to the perception that she is still receiving special treatment in exchange for selective cooperation. The entire spectacle looks less like a hard-nosed inquiry into one of the biggest sex-trafficking conspiracies of the modern era, and more like a carefully stage-managed charade designed to protect the powerful.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Blanche breaks silence on meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell: 'Impossible' to say if she was credible - ABC News

In this 2008 case, Jane Doe No. 1 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen, the plaintiff sought to have her lawsuit returned to state court after the defendants removed it to federal court. Epstein and his co-defendants argued for keeping the case at the federal level, while the plaintiff maintained that state jurisdiction was proper. The motion to remand, filed on August 18, 2008, was fully briefed with responses and replies from both sides, giving the court a complete record for review.After considering the arguments and reviewing the filings, the court issued its opinion and order remanding the matter back to state court. The judge determined that federal jurisdiction was not appropriate in this instance, meaning the claims against Epstein, Robson, and Kellen would proceed through the state court system rather than in federal court. This ruling ensured that the case would be handled under state-level legal procedures rather than federal oversight.to conctact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:USCOURTS-flsd-9_08-cv-80804-0.pdf (govinfo.gov)

Charlie Kirk Legacy: Free Speech  Robert Spencer, Islam Expert, Author of upcoming Intifada on the Hudson: The Selling of Zohran MamdaniKash Patel Testifying: FBI Corruption ExposedFollow Debbie Georgatos, America Can We Talk Show HostWebsite: http://americacanwetalk.orgTwitter: @DebbieCanWeTalkTruth: https://truthsocial.com/@AmericaCanWeTalkInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/debbiecanwetalkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/AmericaCanWeTalkRumble: https://rumble.com/user/AmericaCanWeTalkOBBM: https://www.obbmnetwork.tv/series/america-can-we-talk-207873America Can We Talk is a show with a mission — to speak up for the extraordinary and unique greatness of America. I talk about the top issues of the day facing America, often with insightful guests, always from the perspective of furthering that mission, and with the goal to inspire listeners to celebrate and embrace the liberty on which America was founded. #BecauseAmericaMatters #AmericaCanWeTalk, #DebbieGeorgatos, #DrKirkMoore, #Truth, #Freedom, #MedicalFreedom, #TuckerCarlson, #America, #America250, #Health, #Courage, #Pfizer, #Moderna, #PatientsRights, #Covid, #Covid19, #DonaldTrump, #DrMalone, #Texas, #Utah, #Doctors, #Midterms

Original Title: Free Speech/Hate Speech; TikTok; Corruption?; Fed; Russia; Gaza | Yaron Brook Show September 16, 2025What counts as “hate speech”—and who decides? From the battle over free speech to TikTok's influence, political corruption, the Fed's failures, and the chaos in Gaza and Russia—Yaron Brook dives deep into today's headlines with clarity and zero spin.Key Timestamps:03:10 – Free Speech/Hate Speech26:15 – Upcoming Events29:05 – TikTok36:40 – Corruption?46:50 – The Fed51:10 – Mangione54:10 – Russia59:30 – GazaLive Q&A Highlights:1:13:55 Can these morons realistically bypass the First Amendment?1:17:15 Why do people want mindlessness and outrage? They want to be animals? Being a human being is too hard?1:19:04 Do you think people can actually suffer from TDS? Is it not an anti-concept?1:21:07 Have you ever been to Iceland? Thoughts? Could we theoretically get enough Objectivist to invade it in the next 20 years due to their unsuspecting nature?1:22:59 How's the Thatcher show prep going? Or did your forget again?

The House Oversight Committee has received hundreds of pages of new material from Jeffrey Epstein's estate following congressional subpoenas. These include Epstein's will, the infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement, entries from his longtime address book, and a heavily redacted “birthday book” that Ghislaine Maxwell compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003. The book contained messages, photos, and drawings from associates, sparking scrutiny because of one note signed “Donald” alongside a crude sketch, which Democrats say points to Donald Trump. Trump has flatly denied it, calling the note fake and politically motivated.The estate said it redacted names and identifying details of minors and private individuals to protect victims. It also emphasized it does not possess a so-called “client list” of people involved in Epstein's sex-trafficking crimes, despite years of speculation. The handover reflects growing congressional pressure, led by Rep. James Comer and the House Oversight Committee, to uncover what Epstein's records reveal about his finances, associates, and possible political connections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein estate turns over more documents to House committee

Survivors and victims allege that 301 East 66th Street, a New York City condominium building tied to Jeffrey Epstein, was used as a hub in his trafficking network. Various witnesses say that people involved in coordinating, recruiting, or facilitating abuse—like Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, Adriana Ross, and others—had access to or worked out of units in that building. They've also claimed that underage girls were housed in multiple apartments there, sometimes several girls to a unit, and that the building served not merely as living quarters but as a location for parts of the abuse to take place.Victims also say the building was part of a broader system of control and deception. It's alleged the ownership structure was opaque, providing a way to obscure who precisely was responsible for what went on inside. Some have claimed they were brought there under false pretenses (job offers or modeling opportunities), groomed, and then coerced into sexual activity. The claims include that Epstein—or people in his orbit—used the building to conceal the scale of the abuse and maintain oversight (staff, security, transport) so that the trafficking could continue with fewer questions.Teresa Helm gave an exclusive interview the Mirror recently and in the interview she talks about the time she stayed at Jeffrey Epstein's building at 301 E. 66th street. This building has long been rumored to be a place where Jeffrey Epstein and Jean Luc Brunel house trafficked girls, but very little has been disclosed about the inner workings.to contact me:In our second article...Thersa Helm is one of the women who was abused by Jeffrey Epstein. She is also one of the most vocal when it comes to his associates getting away with their alleged crimes. Now, in the wake of the document dump she is once again speaking out.In this episode, we hear from Theresa Helm about the document dump and how this new found interest in Epstein and his horrible crimes could catapult us closer to justice.bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Sarah Ransome alleged that Jeffrey Epstein kept or claimed to keep sex tapes involving powerful men such as Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Richard Branson, and Donald Trump. In emails and exhibits later unsealed in court, she claimed that recordings existed of sexual acts on Epstein's properties, and that these tapes were used for leverage or blackmail. She suggested she either had access to some of this material or believed it existed, and pointed out that people in Epstein's orbit lived in fear that such videos could surface.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Republicans in Congress are intensifying pressure to fully expose the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein, with some now privately conceding that it is only a matter of time before legislation compels Attorney General Pam Bondi to release everything the DOJ holds. Lawmakers have already pushed through partial disclosures — including Epstein's “birthday book,” financial records, and his controversial non-prosecution agreement — but many argue these piecemeal releases fall short of true transparency. Behind closed doors, Republicans increasingly acknowledge that a complete unsealing is inevitable, even if it risks implicating powerful names and institutions.At the same time, Donald Trump has been trying to contain the fallout, publicly resisting demands from MAGA activists and members of his own party to make all Epstein materials public. For weeks he has dismissed the issue as a distraction, but GOP lawmakers admit privately that Trump is losing that argument. The pressure from inside his own ranks reflects not only the enduring political toxicity of Epstein's network, but also the calculation that continued stonewalling may damage the party more than full disclosure would.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GOP momentum grows to fore release of Jeffrey Epstein files

Jeffrey Epstein's operation cannot be understood through the lens of a traditional sex trafficking ring. Unlike figures such as Heidi Fleiss, Epstein wasn't in it for monetary gain or running a transactional enterprise. His network operated on two levels: the first was driven by his personal compulsions, where he targeted vulnerable high school girls in Palm Beach and New York to satisfy his own deviance. The second level was more strategic—trafficked women, often brought in by Ghislaine Maxwell or Jean-Luc Brunel, were used as leverage, positioned before powerful men in Epstein's properties to entangle them in compromise and silence.This dual structure transformed his crimes into something far more insidious than prostitution or trafficking-for-profit. Epstein weaponized abuse itself, turning victims not only into prey but into tools of influence. The men who participated weren't mere clients—they became co-conspirators, drawn into a system where their indulgence bound them to Epstein's web of secrecy and power. In this sense, Epstein's empire was less about sex as commerce and more about sex as control, creating a machinery of corruption that blurred every line between victim, perpetrator, and accomplice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Epstein scandal continues to resurface through new waves of headlines, each one pulling different corners of power back into the spotlight. Donald Trump has filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, accusing it of maliciously tying him to Epstein through disputed documents and reporting. At the same time, Melania Trump secured a rare retraction and apology from The Daily Beast after it published claims—based on Michael Wolff's commentary—that she was introduced to Donald through Epstein's world. Both stories underscore how volatile and litigious the Epstein narrative remains, especially when it brushes against the Trump family.Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Congressman James Comer has vowed to release any Department of Justice or Epstein estate documents tied to Prince Andrew, promising the American public full transparency. The files are said to include correspondence, travel logs, and testimonies that could reignite scrutiny of Andrew's dealings with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Buckingham Palace, which has spent years shielding Andrew from the worst fallout, is bracing for renewed scandal, while survivor advocates welcome the promise of sunlight after decades of secrecy. The potential publication of these files signals that the Epstein story remains unfinished and still capable of shaking global institutions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Theresa Helm has alleged that Epstein's estate has been uncooperative with survivors in terms of transparency, accountability, and compensation. She and other claimants have brought civil lawsuits against the estate, accusing it of rape, sexual battery, false imprisonment, and of perpetuating a system that allowed Epstein and his enablers to continue abusing and trafficker women and minors. Helm has called for the release of federal documents related to Epstein's cases, arguing that they are essential for understanding the full scope of what happened, who was involved, and how much oversight (or negligence) there was.She has also alleged that many survivors were recruited under false pretenses (e.g. “job interviews,” modeling, legitimate opportunities), and that the estate has not done enough to address the harms done or to compensate victims fairly. Some of the lawsuits in which she is involved (including Teresa Helm et al v. Epstein's estate) seek not only monetary damages but acknowledgment of wrongdoing, accountability for enablers, and public disclosure of records. Helm emphasizes that this is about more than money—it's about exposing structural wrongdoing and ensuring survivors' voices are heard.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DisplayFile.aspx (vicourts.org)

Many critics inside and outside Parliament argue that Starmer showed poor political judgment by appointing Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the US despite known associations with Jeffrey Epstein. Leaked emails revealed Mandelson had defended or supported Epstein after his 2008 conviction, and expressed views questioning that conviction. Although some of these connections had long been reported, additional content and its extent were only fully disclosed after Mandelson's appointment. Opponents say Starmer should have immediately known that such red flags made the appointment untenable. The delay in reacting — first defending Mandelson, then firing him once the media published further revelations — has amplified the accusations of weak oversight and lack of risk assessment.Within the Labour Party, there's growing frustration over what many see as Starmer's misreading of both optics and substance. Backbenchers and senior MPs have called for full transparency about the vetting process: what he was told, when, and by whom. Opposing parties are demanding apologies to Epstein's victims, and some suggest that if Starmer cannot adequately account for these failures, his position could become unsustainable — especially if the controversy damages Labour's standing in upcoming local elections. The controversy feeds into a broader narrative among critics that Starmer has repeatedly made questionable appointments, and lacks decisiveness and political sharpness when warning signs emerge.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Keir Starmer breaks silence over Mandelson sacking: ‘Had I known then what I know now, I'd have never appointed him' | The Independent

Welcome to Corruption, Loyalty, and Justice, the podcast about The Shield. In this episode, we discuss episode five of season four: T*r Baby.Twitter: @RatchetBookClub, @ThatCoolBlkNerd, @Scarfinger, @SpadesTableBecome a Patron at http://www.Patreon.com/singlesimulcastDonate to the show at http://www.buymeacoffee.com/sscast

In his opening statement, Patel described what he called the “original sin” of the Epstein investigation as being how Alex Acosta handled the case back in 2006. He criticized the limited search warrants used then and said they did not seize as much investigative material as they should have. Patel argued that significant portions of the case were restrained by the original non-prosecution agreement, which included provisions protecting some documents via court orders and limiting later prosecutorial or investigative access.Patel also addressed whether there is credible evidence that Epstein trafficked underage girls to other individuals (i.e. beyond himself). He said there is no credible information that such trafficking to third parties has been proven. He asserted that if he had seen such evidence, he would have pursued those charges. He emphasized that under his administration, the FBI is working to release all “credible information … legally able to do so,” while acknowledging legal limits.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Kash Patel claims no evidence Jeffrey Epstein trafficked girls to anyone but himself | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Haley Robson, one of Jeffrey Epstein's survivors, appeared on The Dr. Oz Show in 2020 and said she actually felt “happier” knowing Ghislaine Maxwell was behind bars than she did when Epstein was arrested. She explained that while Epstein was the abuser, Maxwell played a central role in recruiting and grooming girls, and that accountability for her actions was just as important. For Robson, seeing Maxwell finally face consequences offered a stronger sense of closure, because Maxwell had long been viewed as untouchable despite her deep involvement in Epstein's network.to contact mebobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein survivor says she's 'happier' Maxwell is behind barsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Alan Dershowitz made an appearance on News Nation this week where he attempted to defend the associates of Jeffrey Epstein who were about to be unmasked using the same old excuse that...nobody knew. Nobody had a CLUE who or what Jeffrey Epstein was. In this episode we take a look at what Dershowitz had to say in the interview about Jeffrey Epstein and the newly unsealed names and what we might expect as things continue to move forward. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Alan Dershowitz: Don't Blame Men on Jeffrey Epstein's List (mediaite.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The two guards on duty at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) the night Jeffrey Epstein died, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, claimed to have fallen asleep and failed to check on him for several hours, despite being required to conduct routine checks every 30 minutes. Instead, they falsified records to cover up their negligence, leading to widespread speculation about whether their inaction was due to incompetence or something more sinister. Adding to the controversy, the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) report from the scene raised further doubts, as first responders reportedly found Epstein in a condition inconsistent with immediate resuscitation efforts, with rigor mortis already setting in, suggesting he had been dead for longer than officially stated. The conflicting accounts, missing surveillance footage, and the guards' suspicious behavior have fueled theories that Epstein's death was not simply a suicide, but rather a silencing operation orchestrated to protect powerful individuals implicated in his crimes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the days leading up to his death, Jeffrey Epstein exhibited a complex and seemingly contradictory state of mind. Despite facing serious charges and the prospect of a prolonged prison sentence, Epstein reportedly denied having suicidal thoughts and appeared confident about his situation. He described his life as "wonderful" and expressed no intention of self-harm, even while under suicide watch.   So, how did he end up dead?Following Jeffrey Epstein's highly suspicious death in August 2019, Attorney General William Barr became the subject of intense scrutiny, with many alleging he played a role in a cover-up to protect powerful individuals linked to Epstein. As the head of the Justice Department, Barr oversaw the Bureau of Prisons, which was responsible for Epstein's detention at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC). Critics questioned how such a high-profile inmate, who had reportedly been on suicide watch just days prior, was able to die under such dubious circumstances, including the alleged malfunctioning of security cameras and the guards' failure to conduct routine checks. The rapid declaration of suicide as the official cause of death, despite forensic inconsistencies such as Epstein's hyoid bone fracture—a common indicator of strangulation—led to widespread skepticism. Given Barr's history, including his father's connection to Epstein through hiring him at the Dalton School, and his prior role in minimizing scrutiny over elite figures, suspicions grew that his Justice Department deliberately mishandled the investigation to suppress damaging revelations.In response to these allegations, Barr publicly condemned the failures at MCC, calling them a “perfect storm of screw-ups” rather than an orchestrated cover-up. He ordered internal investigations by the FBI and the Justice Department's Inspector General, which ultimately upheld the suicide ruling. However, many found Barr's explanation unconvincing, particularly given his previous role in facilitating leniency for powerful figures in legal matters. His insistence that Epstein's death was a result of incompetence rather than conspiracy did little to quell speculation, especially as key evidence, such as security footage, was either missing or unusable. Some critics pointed to the swift dismissal of the guards involved as a means to close the case without deeper scrutiny. Barr's handling of the case remains a subject of controversy, with many believing that his role was not just oversight but active damage control to protect Epstein's powerful associates from exposure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The House Oversight Committee has received hundreds of pages of new material from Jeffrey Epstein's estate following congressional subpoenas. These include Epstein's will, the infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement, entries from his longtime address book, and a heavily redacted “birthday book” that Ghislaine Maxwell compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003. The book contained messages, photos, and drawings from associates, sparking scrutiny because of one note signed “Donald” alongside a crude sketch, which Democrats say points to Donald Trump. Trump has flatly denied it, calling the note fake and politically motivated.The estate said it redacted names and identifying details of minors and private individuals to protect victims. It also emphasized it does not possess a so-called “client list” of people involved in Epstein's sex-trafficking crimes, despite years of speculation. The handover reflects growing congressional pressure, led by Rep. James Comer and the House Oversight Committee, to uncover what Epstein's records reveal about his finances, associates, and possible political connections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein estate turns over more documents to House committeeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Many critics inside and outside Parliament argue that Starmer showed poor political judgment by appointing Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the US despite known associations with Jeffrey Epstein. Leaked emails revealed Mandelson had defended or supported Epstein after his 2008 conviction, and expressed views questioning that conviction. Although some of these connections had long been reported, additional content and its extent were only fully disclosed after Mandelson's appointment. Opponents say Starmer should have immediately known that such red flags made the appointment untenable. The delay in reacting — first defending Mandelson, then firing him once the media published further revelations — has amplified the accusations of weak oversight and lack of risk assessment.Within the Labour Party, there's growing frustration over what many see as Starmer's misreading of both optics and substance. Backbenchers and senior MPs have called for full transparency about the vetting process: what he was told, when, and by whom. Opposing parties are demanding apologies to Epstein's victims, and some suggest that if Starmer cannot adequately account for these failures, his position could become unsustainable — especially if the controversy damages Labour's standing in upcoming local elections. The controversy feeds into a broader narrative among critics that Starmer has repeatedly made questionable appointments, and lacks decisiveness and political sharpness when warning signs emerge.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Keir Starmer breaks silence over Mandelson sacking: ‘Had I known then what I know now, I'd have never appointed him' | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein was reportedly terrified of his former cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione, a former police officer facing charges for multiple murders. Epstein's fear stemmed from an alleged violent encounter between the two while they were housed together at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York. Shortly before Epstein's first apparent suicide attempt in July 2019, he was found injured in his cell, and he reportedly accused Tartaglione of assaulting him. However, Tartaglione denied any involvement, claiming that he had actually tried to help Epstein and refuted allegations that he had harmed him. Given Tartaglione's background—charged with killing four men in a drug-related crime—Epstein's fear of him fueled speculation that his life was in danger behind bars, adding to the broader concerns and theories surrounding his eventual death.​Documents obtained by the Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act reveal detailed insights into Jeffrey Epstein's final days at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) before his death in August 2019. These records indicate that Epstein was increasingly distressed, experiencing difficulty sleeping, and expressing fears about his safety within the facility. Despite a prior suicide attempt, he was removed from suicide watch and placed in a regular cell, a decision now scrutinized for its appropriateness. The documents also highlight significant lapses in protocol, including guards failing to perform routine checks and falsifying records to cover their negligence. Additionally, there were reports of malfunctioning surveillance cameras outside Epstein's cell, further complicating the circumstances surrounding his death. These revelations have intensified public skepticism and fueled ongoing debates about the adequacy of the measures taken to prevent Epstein's suicide.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this 2008 case, Jane Doe No. 1 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen, the plaintiff sought to have her lawsuit returned to state court after the defendants removed it to federal court. Epstein and his co-defendants argued for keeping the case at the federal level, while the plaintiff maintained that state jurisdiction was proper. The motion to remand, filed on August 18, 2008, was fully briefed with responses and replies from both sides, giving the court a complete record for review.After considering the arguments and reviewing the filings, the court issued its opinion and order remanding the matter back to state court. The judge determined that federal jurisdiction was not appropriate in this instance, meaning the claims against Epstein, Robson, and Kellen would proceed through the state court system rather than in federal court. This ruling ensured that the case would be handled under state-level legal procedures rather than federal oversight.to conctact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:USCOURTS-flsd-9_08-cv-80804-0.pdf (govinfo.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former CEO of Barclays, saw roughly £22 million in bonuses and deferred compensation frozen in 2022 as regulators dug into his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The freeze included unvested share payouts and long-term incentive plans that Staley had been promised but had not yet received. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) launched their review after concerns emerged over how Staley characterized his personal relationship with Epstein, a man whose reputation was already well-tarnished by his 2008 sex-offense conviction. The decision marked a significant step for Barclays, signaling just how seriously the bank's board and regulators were taking any whiff of reputational risk tied to Epstein.The matter didn't end with the freeze. In 2023, the FCA moved to ban Staley from holding senior positions in the UK financial industry, citing his misleading accounts of the Epstein connection. Alongside the ban, regulators initially proposed a £1.8 million fine, which was later reduced to about £1.1 million. Staley ultimately forfeited around £18 million in bonuses and deferred pay. For a man who had once been a Wall Street heavyweight, it was a public and financial fall from grace that demonstrated the long shadow Epstein's scandal continues to cast over those in his orbit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.wsj.com/articles/barclays-profit-falls-on-slowdown-in-investment-banking-11645603658Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein was more than just the wealthy financier with a knack for elite connections—his ascent was shadowed by serious financial fraud. In the late 1980s, he was hired as a consultant at Towers Financial Corporation, a company run by his mentor Steven Hoffenberg. That firm turned out to be one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history, defrauding investors of over $450 million. Hoffenberg later claimed Epstein was “intimately involved,” even calling him the “architect” and “mastermind” behind complex schemes and manipulations, despite Epstein escaping legal charges. Those stolen funds allegedly served as seed capital for Epstein's later financial ventures—his own hedge fund, foundations, and private empire. That's not rumor—it's his legacy in plain sight.What's worse, Epstein's role wasn't ancillary. Court documents and Hoffenberg's testimony paint Epstein as a central player who helped design and scale the scheme using his network. He may have walked free, but make no mistake: his wealth, influence, and the veneer of legitimacy he built were built on the bones of investor ruin. It wasn't clean money; it was stolen. And those shadowy beginnings illuminate the true cost of his rise—not just in dollars lost, but in the destruction of trust, victims, and the systems he exploited so ruthlessly.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://radaronline.com/p/jeffrey-epstein-ponzi-scheme-money-book-dead-man-tell-no-tales/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Welcome to Corruption, Loyalty, and Justice, the podcast about The Shield. In this episode, we discuss episode five of season four: T*r Baby.Twitter: @RatchetBookClub, @ThatCoolBlkNerd, @Scarfinger, @SpadesTableBecome a Patron at http://www.Patreon.com/singlesimulcastDonate to the show at http://www.buymeacoffee.com/sscast

Listen to Christian Esguerra's discussion with Usec. Claire Castro.

A conversation with Ronald Liamas.

ohn Maytham speaks to Dr Simon Howell, criminologist, to help us understand what we can expect from the Madlanga commissions, as it is set to start this week. Presenter John Maytham is an actor and author-turned-talk radio veteran and seasoned journalist. His show serves a round-up of local and international news coupled with the latest in business, sport, traffic and weather. The host’s eclectic interests mean the program often surprises the audience with intriguing book reviews and inspiring interviews profiling artists. A daily highlight is Rapid Fire, just after 5:30pm. CapeTalk fans call in, to stump the presenter with their general knowledge questions. Another firm favourite is the humorous Thursday crossing with award-winning journalist Rebecca Davis, called “Plan B”. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Afternoon Drive with John Maytham Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 15:00 and 18:00 (SA Time) to Afternoon Drive with John Maytham broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/BSFy4Cn or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/n8nWt4x Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hello my friends! This random show comes to you live from turkey and our group trip. Want to travel with me? Check out the links below Travel to Greece with me here Travel to Thailand with me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Check out our sister podcast the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mystery of Everything⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Coffee Collab With The Lore Lodge ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠COFFEE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Bonus episodes as well as ad-free episodes on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Find us on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Join us on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Discord⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Submit your relatives on our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Podcast ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Youtube Channel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Your daily news in under three minutes. At Al Jazeera Podcasts, we want to hear from you, our listeners. So, please head to https://www.aljazeera.com/survey and tell us your thoughts about this show and other Al Jazeera podcasts. It only takes a few minutes! Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on X, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube

The feud between Prince Andrew and King Charles III has been a long-standing and complex issue, rooted in personal, financial, and public relations matters.Key Points of the Feud:Differing Personalities and Roles:Prince Andrew, the younger brother of King Charles III, has always had a more flamboyant and controversial personality compared to Charles, who has been more reserved and focused on his duties as heir to the throne. Their differing approaches to royal life have often put them at odds.Disputes Over Roles and Titles:After Charles became King, tensions rose regarding the roles and titles within the royal family. Andrew, who had been stripped of many of his public roles due to his association with Jeffrey Epstein and the ensuing scandal, reportedly felt sidelined and sought to retain certain privileges and positions, which Charles was unwilling to grant.Financial Issues:Financial disputes have also been a significant source of tension. As King, Charles controls the purse strings of the royal family, and there have been reports of Andrew seeking financial assistance, which has been met with resistance. The issue of funding Andrew's lifestyle has been a point of contention, especially given his diminished public role.Public Scandals:Prince Andrew's involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal significantly damaged his reputation and, by extension, that of the royal family. King Charles III, along with other senior royals, has been keen to distance the monarchy from this controversy, leading to further estrangement between the brothers.Family Dynamics:Beyond their public roles, the feud is also fueled by longstanding family dynamics, with reports suggesting that Andrew feels overshadowed by his elder brother and resentful of his reduced status within the family hierarchy.Recent Developments:Since Charles became King, he has been focused on slimming down the monarchy, which has further alienated Andrew. The King has reportedly been firm in his stance that Andrew should not return to public duties, leading to a cold relationship between the brothers.(commercial at 9:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:King Charles, Prince Andrew had 'desk-pounding shouting match' over monarch's idea to downgrade nieces: author | Fox News

Nadia Marcinkova's role in Jeffrey Epstein's world is complicated, and her story is more nuanced than the headlines often suggest. Recruited as a teenager, she was quickly absorbed into Epstein's circle and presented to some victims as his “sex slave” — even referred to by Epstein as his “Yugoslavian sex slave” in a disturbingly casual way. Multiple survivors alleged that she both participated in and facilitated abuse, which paints her as a perpetrator in some accounts. Yet at the same time, the age at which she was first brought under Epstein's influence raises serious questions about whether she was herself a victim — manipulated, groomed, and coerced into normalizing abuse until she became part of the machinery.This dual role — simultaneously appearing as both a survivor of exploitation and, later, as someone implicated in perpetuating it — has made her story one of the most difficult to untangle. Unlike others who were clearly in positions of power, Marcinkova's trajectory blurs the line between agency and coercion. After Epstein's death, she reinvented herself professionally, founding an aviation company, distancing her public image from the scandal. But the unresolved questions about her early recruitment, her complicity, and whether her actions were those of a willing participant or someone shaped by years of grooming highlight the tragic complexity of Epstein's network, where victimhood and culpability were often forced to coexist.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Sarah Kellen Vickers has long been described as one of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's closest lieutenants, playing a role that survivors say went far beyond that of an assistant. Court testimony and depositions portray her as the gatekeeper at Epstein's Palm Beach home — the person who scheduled appointments, ushered girls in and out, and kept meticulous records of who was coming and going. Several survivors alleged that she not only arranged their encounters but also prepared massage tables, handed out oils, and sometimes participated in abuse herself. This has led many to view her as a key facilitator in Epstein's operation, someone who knew exactly what was happening and actively smoothed the process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Queen Elizabeth II's unwavering loyalty to Prince Andrew became one of the most glaring blind spots of her reign. Even as the Epstein scandal engulfed her son, forcing him out of royal duties and dragging the monarchy into global humiliation, she continued to shield him with public and private support. From quietly allowing him to keep privileges to reportedly helping fund legal settlements, her steadfastness toward Andrew stood in sharp contrast to the measured distance the palace often kept with other family controversies. For many observers, it was a sign of maternal instinct overriding political judgment — the Queen's deep affection for her son blinding her to the damage his behavior inflicted on the Crown's reputation.This loyalty, however, created friction within the family, especially with then-Prince Charles. Charles, ever mindful of the monarchy's survival and public image, saw Andrew as a liability who needed to be sidelined swiftly and decisively. His push for a tougher line clashed with the Queen's reluctance to cast her son adrift, causing a rift between mother and heir. The tension revealed an underlying difference in their approaches to the institution: the Queen led with loyalty to family, while Charles prioritized protecting the Crown at any cost. The fallout from Andrew's disgrace exposed not only Andrew's recklessness but also the strain it placed on the monarchy's leadership during a critical moment of transition.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Richardson's ties to Jeffrey Epstein highlight the grotesque double standard that protects the powerful. Despite being named under oath by Virginia Giuffre as one of the men she was trafficked to, Richardson—former New Mexico governor, U.N. ambassador, and establishment insider—faced almost no scrutiny. His denials were delivered with the bland, calculated tone of a man confident that his reputation and connections would shield him. The media, which treats lesser figures with endless outrage, politely buried his name, turning what should have been a career-ending scandal into a forgotten footnote. That silence was not oversight—it was a deliberate choice by the same machine that has long protected Epstein's orbit of elites.Richardson's case is especially damning because Epstein's Zorro Ranch, rumored to be a hub of trafficking and secrecy, sat in New Mexico under his watch as governor. The coincidence is staggering, yet no questions were asked, no investigations launched, and no accountability pursued. His inclusion in Virginia's sworn testimony wasn't random—it fit a consistent pattern of Epstein surrounding himself with powerful, insulated men unlikely to face consequences. Richardson's polished career may remain intact in polite circles, but his name is forever entwined with the Epstein scandal, serving as a perfect example of how justice bends when it brushes up against the untouchables.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

George Mitchell, the former Senate Majority Leader and respected peace negotiator, was named under oath by Virginia Giuffre as one of the men Jeffrey Epstein trafficked her to. Despite the gravity of the allegation, Mitchell's name was quietly pushed aside, his denial accepted without serious challenge, and the story faded from public discourse. Unlike figures such as Prince Andrew or Donald Trump, who were relentlessly scrutinized, Mitchell received soft handling from the media and political class, his ties to Epstein treated as an uncomfortable detail best ignored. His presence at Epstein's townhouse and social connection to the disgraced financier raised obvious questions, but few dared to pursue them. The result was a glaring double standard that exposed how power and prestige protect certain names from accountability.This selective amnesia reveals how the Epstein scandal has been weaponized rather than fully exposed. Survivors' testimony is amplified when it serves partisan purposes, but buried when it implicates figures like Mitchell who belong to the establishment's “safe” circles. The hypocrisy is stark: those screaming about “the other team's” monsters go silent when their own are implicated. Mitchell's erasure from the mainstream narrative shows how survivors were betrayed not just by their abusers, but by a system that cherry-picks justice. His story underscores the bipartisan rot at the core of the Epstein saga—proof that truth has been traded for theater, and survivors' voices have been muffled in service of political convenience.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Peter Mandelson's removal as Britain's ambassador to the United States has become one of the most high-profile political casualties linked to Jeffrey Epstein in years. Newly surfaced emails showed Mandelson referring to Epstein as his “best pal” and encouraging him to fight his 2008 conviction, undercutting his earlier claims of minimal contact. The backlash was swift: Prime Minister Keir Starmer dismissed him within days, while his consultancy, Global Counsel, severed ties amid fears of reputational damage. Survivors and advocates say the emails highlight how elite figures defended and normalized Epstein even after his conviction, reinforcing concerns that political and business networks actively shielded him. The scandal left the UK scrambling to fill a key diplomatic post and reignited debate over how thoroughly Epstein's ties to power have been scrutinized.At the same time, Washington is battling over transparency around Epstein's records. The House Oversight Committee has released hundreds of estate documents, including Epstein's “birthday book,” while the Treasury Department has agreed to provide suspicious activity reports flagging his financial transactions. Survivors say only full disclosure will deliver accountability, but Senate Republicans blocked efforts to force wider releases, fueling accusations of ongoing protectionism. The disclosures coincide with renewed scrutiny of JPMorgan Chase, which processed more than $1 billion for Epstein despite repeated compliance warnings. While the bank has paid massive settlements, critics argue financial institutions and regulators enabled Epstein's operation by ignoring red flags. Together, Mandelson's downfall, the transparency fight, and JPMorgan's exposure illustrate how the Epstein saga continues to reverberate, forcing political, financial, and regulatory institutions to confront their roles in one of the most notorious scandals of modern times.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Prince Andrew is the ultimate cautionary tale of wasted privilege. He was born with every advantage imaginable—castles, titles, taxpayer-funded luxury, and a job description so easy it bordered on parody: wave, cut ribbons, attend parades, and stay out of scandal. That's all it would have taken to coast quietly into old age as a harmless relic of the monarchy. But instead, Andrew chose arrogance, sleaze, and stupidity. From clinging to Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction, to babbling about sweat conditions and Pizza Express alibis on Newsnight, to humiliating himself with excuses that became memes, he torched his reputation with breathtaking incompetence. Where A Bronx Tale's Sonny mourned wasted talent, Andrew embodies wasted privilege—proving that even the most cushioned life can collapse when handled by a fool.Now stripped of duties and titles, Andrew haunts royal estates like a ghost, exiled by the very institution built to protect him. He isn't remembered as a naval officer, a duke, or even “the Queen's favorite son”—he's remembered as a global punchline. His disgrace isn't Shakespearean tragedy but slapstick farce: a man who could have lived in effortless dignity but instead chose degeneracy and delusion. His legacy is forever tied to sweatless denials, pizza defenses, and the Epstein scandal—his crown of privilege melted down into a crown of mockery.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Woody Allen, a filmmaker whose personal history is already mired in controversy over his marriage to Soon-Yi Previn and long-standing abuse allegations, managed to sink his credibility even further when discussing Jeffrey Epstein. Instead of acknowledging the grotesque reality of Epstein's trafficking network, Allen bizarrely chose to describe Epstein as a “nice guy” and downplayed any evidence of underage girls in his presence. Coming from a man whose own personal life has been a lightning rod for accusations of exploitation, the comments land less like naïveté and more like willful denial—or worse, an attempt at reputation laundering for a known predator. The sheer tone-deafness of calling Epstein “nice” in any capacity betrays either a profound lack of moral clarity or an unsettling affinity for normalizing criminality among the elite.Allen's remarks are not just tasteless; they are revealing. They expose the insular world of celebrity and power where predators are granted the benefit of the doubt simply because of shared social circles and mutual interests. For Allen to stand behind Epstein, even in the softest terms, is to spit in the face of survivors who have spent years fighting to be heard. His choice of words reeks of privilege and self-preservation, signaling to the public that, in his view, the comfort and reputations of men like him matter more than the trauma inflicted on countless young women. These comments confirm what many critics already believe: that Allen remains indifferent, insulated, and dangerously dismissive of crimes that should never be excused, let alone minimized.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Inside Epstein's 'House of Depravity' dinner party with Prince Andrew and Woody Allen: Duke of York was 'a dullard' at star-studded event held after paedophile financier's release from jail | Daily Mail Online

Journalist Katarina Szulc has risked her life investigating the Mexican cartels, fentanyl pipelines, human trafficking, and government corruption on both sides of the border. At just 24 years old, she's reported from Culiacán after shootouts, confronted cartel figures, and exposed the ties between organized crime, China, and the United States.In this episode of The Resilient Show with Chad Robichaux, Katarina reveals what the mainstream media won't: how cartels operate as terrorist organizations, why fentanyl is chemical warfare, the role of corruption in Mexico and America, and the hidden cost of human trafficking.Follow Katarina: https://www.instagram.com/katarinaszulchttps://x.com/KatarinaSzulchttps://katarinaszulc.substack.com/Borderland: Dispatches with Katarina Szulc: https://open.spotify.com/show/7EvQ4S8NnDqqSdCRhZvPaI?si=8b6aeccaaf8f47ccRESILIENT:Live Resilient Store: https://shop.theresilientshow.comJoin Our Patreon: https://patreon.com/theresilientshowFollow Us On Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/resilientshowFollow Us On Twitter:⁠ https://twitter.com/resilientshowFollow Us On TikTok: ⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@resilientshowFollow Chad:⁠https://www.instagram.com/chadrobo_official⁠https://www.x.com/chadroboSPONSORS:Smith & Wesson: ⁠https://www.smith-wesson.com/⁠Vortex Optics:https://vortexoptics.comGatorz Eyewear: ⁠https://www.gatorz.com/⁠Allied Wealth:https://alliedwealth.comBioPro+: ⁠https://www.bioproteintech.com/CHAD30⁠BioXCellerator:https://www.bioxcellerator.comThe Holy Waters:https://theholywaters.comGet The Resilient Show x Uncharted Supply Co Bag: https://liveresilient.com/shopTRS is a proud supporter of military & first responder communities in partnership with Mighty Oaks Foundation.

In this message, Pastor Khalid teaches from 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, reminding us of the importance of confronting sin and distancing ourselves from corrupt influences—even within the church. As believers, we are called to pursue holiness and guard the integrity of the body of Christ.#TraumatizedSeries #ConfrontingCorruption #RedemptionChurchFW #Holiness #1Corinthians5Support the show

Danya Perry, a former federal prosecutor and now defense attorney, built her reputation handling high-profile cases and often siding with survivors in abuse scandals, including speaking out against powerful men like Andrew Cuomo and Eric Schneiderman. She now represents billionaire Leon Black, and has explained her decision as rooted in what she believes is a misuse of the legal system by accusers. Perry argues that some of the claims against Black are inconsistent with recordings, texts, and other evidence she's reviewed, framing her role as pushing back against allegations she sees as fabricated and harmful to the credibility of genuine survivor cases.Leon Black, meanwhile, faces multiple civil lawsuits accusing him of sexual misconduct, rape, and abuse, including cases brought by Guzel Ganieva, Cheri Pierson, and others. He has denied all wrongdoing, characterizing the allegations as false and defamatory, and has pursued aggressive counter-litigation. His legal team, including Perry, has fought attempts to disqualify them from his cases, arguing that their defense is legitimate and grounded in evidence that contradicts the accusations. Perry has been central to that defense, reinforcing Black's strategy of denying misconduct while casting doubt on his accusers' credibility.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.businessinsider.com/danya-perry-attorney-profile-leon-black-cuomo-cohen-schneiderman-2022-5Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.