Podcast appearances and mentions of Ghislaine Maxwell

OA1209 - Are you done with legal doomerism? Us too. Take some time away from doomscrolling and join Matt and Jenessa for Rapid Response Friday as we consider four stories of legal corruption and authoritarianism failing in the face of honest federal judges, and a footnote about how one brave prison nurse exposed even more corruption in Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's special treatment by the Trump administration. Complaint in United States v. State of New York, Northern Dist. of NY (7/9/25) New York's motion to dismiss in U.S. v. New York (8/4/25)  Judge Mae D'Agostino's order granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss in U.S. v. NY (11/17/25)  Indictment of James Comey, Eastern Dist. of VA (9/25/25) Judge William Fitzpatrick's order granting disclosure of grand jury materials in U.S. v. Comey (EDVA)(11/20/25) Judge Jeffrey Brown's order in LULAC v. Abbot, Western Dist. of TX (11/18/25) Decision on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's motion to dismiss in 9/11 litigation, Southern Dist. of NY (8/28/25) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Today, we're diving headfirst into the cesspool of corruption that defines the elite club you and I were never invited to join. President Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a 421-1 House vote forcing the Justice Department to unleash the unclassified horrors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's world—flight logs, trafficking networks, immunity deals, and the names of the powerful who danced with devils. But Mike Johnson's sudden “national security” excuse? Who's he protecting? Victims are screaming for justice, Trump flip-flopped from “hoax” to “nothing to hide,” and Larry Summers just quit OpenAI after admitting he's in the files. Megyn Kelly's calling out media complicity, and survivors like Jena-Lisa Jones are begging Trump to invite them to the Oval. This isn't transparency—it's a cover-up.Then there's Kristi Noem, the DHS secretary who allegedly funneled $220 million to a firm tied to her own campaign, bypassing every rule in the book. ProPublica's got the receipts, and Jasmine Crockett's not mincing words—corruption's the name of the game. Noem's not alone; the swamp is a hydra, and every head we cut off reveals another. It's the club of the elite, where money and power reign, and we're left holding the bill.Patriots, the Republic's on life support, and the stench of the swamp is choking us out. From Epstein's shadow to Noem's graft, it's everywhere, and they're not even trying to hide it anymore. George Carlin said it best: “It's a big club, and you ain't in it.” Well, today we're crashing the party. Lock in, bring the rage, or watch your country turn into their playground. This isn't a show—it's a declaration of war.

From the moment Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in 2020, there was widespread speculation that she would eventually cut a deal with federal prosecutors. Many observers believed she held explosive information about Epstein's most powerful associates—names that could devastate careers, shake institutions, and expose a sprawling web of enablers. The logic was simple: Maxwell was facing decades in prison, and prosecutors often rely on cooperation agreements to dismantle complex trafficking networks. The headlines, courtroom chatter, and legal commentators all echoed the same expectation—Maxwell would flip to save herself, and the public would finally learn the truth about who else participated, enabled, or benefited from Epstein's criminal operation.But that deal never materialized, leaving many to question why. Throughout her trial and sentencing, Maxwell never publicly cooperated, never named names, and never provided the kind of testimonial firepower that so many assumed she possessed. Whether this silence was self-preservation, pressure from powerful figures, fear for her personal safety, or belief she could survive her sentence without betraying anyone remains a point of fierce debate. Ultimately, instead of becoming the prosecution's star witness, Maxwell absorbed the full weight of her conviction and remains imprisoned without having triggered the broader reckoning many survivors, journalists, and the public expected. The absence of a cooperation deal has only intensified suspicion that the system was never truly willing to open that door.to contactme:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein's role as a benefactor to Stacey Plaskett has become a focal point as records show that he provided financial support to her political campaigns while she was serving as the congressional delegate for the U.S. Virgin Islands. Multiple donations were made by Epstein and individuals connected to him over several election cycles, reportedly totaling tens of thousands of dollars. These contributions have fueled criticism that Plaskett benefited directly from Epstein's wealth and influence at a time when many institutions and public figures were distancing themselves from him following his 2008 conviction.Beyond the money, Epstein's relationship with Plaskett raised questions of personal access and influence. Communications released in recent months show that Epstein texted Plaskett during the high-profile 2019 congressional hearing featuring Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen, suggesting talking points and strategy in real time as she questioned witnesses. That exchange has been widely interpreted as evidence that Epstein saw Plaskett not merely as a politician he supported, but as someone he could advise, confide in, and potentially influence on matters of national visibility. Plaskett has denied any improper relationship, characterizing Epstein as nothing more than a constituent, but the revelations have sparked intense scrutiny over how close the two actually were and why Epstein felt comfortable inserting himself into her congressional work.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

This week, the House and Senate voted nearly unanimously to release all of the files related to the investigation into sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, after President Trump pulled a complete 180 and signaled his support. So how and why did things change? Alex speaks to Marina Lacerda, a survivor of Epstein's abuse, about why the release is so important for both a sense of justice and her personal healing. Then, Alex is joined by attorney and political commentator George Conway to talk about what the bill in Congress requires, and how to read into the defections of MAGA politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene, which catalyzed the party's great reversal on the issue. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The battle over the investigation files of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has reached a new turn with the US Congress voting for the Department of Justice to release its information on the case. As the world waits for what the full files may reveal, what do we know about the rich and elite who surrounded Epstein? In this episode: Prem Thakker (@prem_thakker), political correspondent and columnist, Zeteo Episode credits: This episode was produced by Tracie Hunte, Sarí el-Khalili and Melanie Marich, with Phillip Lanos, Spencer Cline, Diana Ferrero, Fatima Shafiq, Farhan Rafid, Tamara Khandaker and our guest host Natasha del Toro. It was edited by Kylene Kiang. Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhem. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera’s head of audio. Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on X, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube

The estate of Jeffrey Epstein faced major hurdles in trying to sell Zorro Ranch, his massive and infamous New Mexico property. Initially listed for roughly $27.5 million, the ranch sat on the market without a buyer for more than a year as the price steadily dropped, eventually being reduced to around $18 million in an effort to attract interest. Beyond the financial challenges, a clouded title emerged when a small religious nonprofit claimed it owned the land through a deed reportedly transferred from Epstein for $200—an allegation the estate argued was fraudulent. That dispute triggered legal complications that stalled any potential sale while the ownership question was argued in court.Even once the legal issues began to resolve, Zorro Ranch remained a toxic asset. The property was widely associated with allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking tied directly to Epstein's network, and the public scrutiny made potential buyers reluctant to become involved. Questions surrounding how proceeds would be distributed, particularly as victim compensation processes were ongoing, added further uncertainty. After nearly two years on the market, the estate finally managed to sell Zorro Ranch, but the deal was disclosed at an undisclosed price and made through a newly formed corporation—hardly the clean, high-value transaction Epstein's estate had originally expected.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Stacey Plaskett was just saved from censure by Republicans — the same Republicans who have spent weeks pounding the podium about protecting children and holding Epstein-connected figures accountable. They backed off not out of principle, but to shield their own colleague Cory Mills, who is facing ethics violations of his own. It was a stunning collapse of supposed moral courage, with lawmakers folding like cheap lawn chairs when it came time to actually act. The GOP proved that all of their righteous fury was nothing more than stage lighting and sound effects. If they won't even take action against someone they call an enemy, the idea that they would ever go after their own donors or allies is laughable. Every Democrat who voted against censure is just as complicit, exposing the hypocrisy of claiming moral high ground while protecting one of their own. Both parties showed their hand: preserving power matters more than accountability or truth.Stacey Plaskett shouldn't just have been censured — she should be stripped of committees, cut off from party backing, and pressured to resign. Her actions and alliances are indefensible, and protecting her destroys any credibility either party claims to have in the fight for transparency and justice in the Epstein case. If Democrats want to be taken seriously in demanding full disclosure and real consequences for everyone tied to Epstein's network, they must abandon the practice of shielding “favorites” and clean their own house first. You cannot scream about Trump while ignoring Plaskett. You cannot claim to defend victims while protecting someone who served as an institutional shield for a predator's ecosystem. Until both parties stop rolling in the mud, neither can pretend to stand on higher ground. This isn't going away. Accountability starts now — not when it's convenient.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the Epstein Files Transparency Act (H.R. 4405), the small-print language in Section 2(c)(1)(C) allows the Department of Justice (DOJ) to withhold or redact “segregable portions of records … that would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary.” On its face this sounds reasonable, but in practice it gives the DOJ the ability to declare many documents “ongoing investigation” materials and thereby delay or avoid disclosure—even if the broader investigative posture is dormant, tangential or long past its active phase. Because the bill does not define strict deadlines or require the DOJ to demonstrate why the “ongoing investigation” exception remains valid in each case, the phrase becomes a flexible escape hatch for non-release.Additionally, while the Act mandates public availability of all unclassified records within 30 days of enactment (Section 2(a)), the exception language appears to give the Attorney General the power to claim that large swaths of documents remain subject to an active or future proceeding, thereby deferring release indefinitely. Advocacy analyses note this creates a “loophole” enabling executive branch discretion to deny transparency despite the bill's intent.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Harvard has announced that it is launching a fresh review of its connections to Epstein after new emails and documents were released showing long -standing ties between Epstein and former Harvard president Lawrence Summers. The released materials show that Summers maintained communications with Epstein well after Epstein's 2008 conviction for solicitation of prostitution of a minor, including advice-seeking messages and email exchanges in 2017-2019. The university's statement says the review will look into “information concerning individuals at Harvard included in the newly released Epstein documents to evaluate what actions may be warranted.”This comes on the heels of a previous investigation (completed circa 2020) which found that Epstein had made sizeable donations to Harvard (about $9 million between 1998–2008) and had access to Harvard campus facilities — including an office — even after his conviction. The new probe focuses not only on Summers but also on other Harvard affiliates named in the documents (including Summers's wife, Harvard professor Elisa New). The scandal is reopening questions about how institutions handled Epstein's donations, access and post-conviction privileges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein's story has long been framed as a failure of the Department of Justice, but the emerging picture suggests something far larger, deeper, and more strategically protected than bureaucratic incompetence. While the DOJ files may eventually expose mid-level accomplices and enablers—from recruiters to financial fixers—those records are widely seen as the leftovers, not the main course. The patterns surrounding Epstein's rise, protection, wealth, connections, plea deals, and death point toward a man operating not as an independent criminal, but as an intelligence asset whose true handlers operated far above prosecutors and judges. The extraordinary legal shielding he enjoyed for decades, the global scope of his operation, and the immediate clampdown on information following his arrest and death align more with a covert intelligence compromise operation than with the actions of a rogue financier.Increasingly, investigators and observers argue that the CIA, not the DOJ, holds the real archive—tapes, testimonies, leverage files, operational memos, and the materials that could explain how a former prep-school math teacher became the center of a multinational blackmail network involving presidents, billionaires, royalty, and corporate and scientific elites. The stakes are not embarrassment, but system collapse: public acknowledgment that Epstein was a U.S.-built intelligence tool used to manufacture leverage over global power figures would undermine the myth of democratic control and reveal the extent of unelected power inside American governance. The pressure to release DOJ documents is important, but the real battlefield is Langley, where the answers to the central question—who built Jeffrey Epstein, and why—remain sealed behind national-security justifications. Until that vault opens, the truth remains incomplete, and accountability remains impossible.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

Sean "Diddy" Combs has collaborated with many influential figures in the music industry over the years. Here's an update on some of his closest music industry associates:L.A. Reid: The music executive and co-founder of LaFace Records has been accused of sexual assault by former music executive Drew Dixon. Despite denying the allegations, Reid's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied in 2024, allowing the case to move forward.Russell Simmons: The Def Jam co-founder has faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, including a lawsuit filed in late 2022. Simmons has denied these claims and has been living in Bali, Indonesia, amid ongoing legal battles.Suge Knight: Co-founder of Death Row Records, Knight has been imprisoned since 2018 after a fatal hit-and-run. While serving his sentence, he continues to speak out about the music industry, often criticizing other executives and artists.Jay-Z: A prominent figure in the music and business worlds, Jay-Z has faced criticism for remaining silent about Combs' legal troubles. He has not commented publicly on the allegations.In this episode, we take a look at what some of the other moguls in the music indsutry who acted as mentors to Diddy are up to these days and how they are all facing their own legal issues.(commercial at 12:52)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Powerful pals – where is Sean 'Diddy' Combs' music industry inner circle now? | Fox NewsAccording to a lawsuit, Combs allegedly sexually assaulted a Los Angeles businessman during a Cîroc Vodka party in 2022. The businessman claimed that Combs made inappropriate advances and assaulted him during the event. An athlete, who was present at the party, reportedly intervened during the alleged assault.This allegation is part of a series of accusations against Combs, with multiple individuals coming forward with claims of sexual assault and misconduct. Combs has denied these allegations, and his legal team has stated that he intends to defend himself against these claims..Let's dive in!to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'Well known' athlete intervened as Diddy groped young man at Ciroc vodka party, lawsuit claims | Daily Mail Online

Adriana Ross, Sarah Kellen Vickers, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova were four of the women long described in court filings, survivor testimony, and investigative reporting as central figures within Jeffrey Epstein's inner orbit—often referred to as his “core four.” Each played a different role in the machinery that enabled Epstein's trafficking operation to function across multiple properties and jurisdictions. Ross, a former model from Poland, was accused in depositions of helping arrange encounters and recruit new girls inside the Palm Beach network. Kellen Vickers was repeatedly described by survivors as the gatekeeper who scheduled “massages,” organized travel, and prepared rooms—allegedly escorting underage girls into Epstein's private quarters and instructing them on how to behave. Groff functioned as Epstein's long-time executive assistant, handling logistics like flights, schedules, and household coordination that allowed the operation to run smoothly and discreetly. Marcinkova, a Slovak-born pilot and former model who lived within Epstein's residence network, was alleged to have been both a sexual participant and a recruiter, and was later named as one of the individuals who received immunity under Epstein's 2008 sweetheart deal.Together, the roles of Ross, Kellen Vickers, Groff, and Marcinkova illustrate how Epstein's criminal empire operated like a corporate structure—complete with scheduling, logistics, recruitment, transportation, and internal management that shielded Epstein from direct exposure. They formed a protective layer between Epstein and the victims, helping sustain a system designed to normalize abuse, silence resistance, and minimize the risk of interruption. The fact that none of these women have ever faced criminal prosecution, despite repeated accusations and extensive naming in legal proceedings, underlines the depth of systemic failure surrounding the Epstein case and raises the question of how an operation of this scale could have persisted for decades without intervention. These four figures remain emblematic of how Epstein did not act alone; he relied on a network that operated with precision—and that network has largely escaped accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

The Epstein Files bill blasted through Congress with numbers you almost never see anymore—427-1 in the House, and then it slid through the Senate with unanimous consent like it was greased. On paper, that looks like a triumph of transparency and a rare moment of unity. But let's not kid ourselves: Washington doesn't suddenly grow a conscience overnight. When politicians from both parties lock arms this tightly, it's usually because they believe it protects them rather than exposes them. The speed of the vote and the lack of debate feel less like courage and more like a calculated move—an attempt to get ahead of a tidal wave they know is on the horizon.Now the bill sits on Trump's desk, waiting for his signature, and everyone in D.C. is acting like this is the final step before sunlight floods the entire Epstein network. But the truth is, nothing is guaranteed. Signing a bill is not the same as releasing the records, and this administration has already signaled that “national security” and “ongoing investigations” will be used like bulletproof shields. If this turns into another stall tactic, another reroute, or another sanitized dump of heavily blacked-out PDFs, then this near-unanimous vote will go down not as a victory for transparency—but as the largest bipartisan cover-your-ass maneuver in modern political history. The real test isn't the vote. It's whether the files actually see daylight without being shredded, scrubbed, or neutered beyond recognition.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Senate expected to send Epstein files bill to Trump - ABC News

Prince Andrew's continued evasion of accountability has transformed him into a central figure in the fallout surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's criminal empire. Born into one of the most privileged positions on earth, he repeatedly placed himself in Epstein's inner circle even after Epstein's conviction, including reportedly staying at his home in New York after the scandal was public. A widely criticized BBC interview intended to clear his name instead became a defining moment of public collapse, in which Andrew offered implausible explanations involving a Pizza Express alibi and a medical claim that he could not sweat—responses that significantly damaged his credibility. The now-iconic photograph of Andrew with Virginia Giuffre and Epstein's documented pattern of exploiting underage girls further intensified scrutiny, raising serious questions about the prince's judgment, integrity, and transparency.Andrew has repeatedly declined opportunities to speak with U.S. authorities and has now let multiple congressional deadlines pass without cooperation, retreating into royal seclusion as public pressure mounts. The royal family has since removed many of his public roles and military honors in an effort to contain the damage, but the strategy has only highlighted the seriousness of the allegations and the depth of Andrew's involvement with Epstein. His silence has become its own indictment, signaling fear rather than innocence, and reinforcing the perception that accountability is being avoided rather than confronted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

President Donald Trump abruptly reversed his longstanding opposition to public disclosure of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's network, telling House Republicans to back a measure requiring the Department of Justice to release Epstein-related files. He previously labelled the disclosure effort a “hoax” and actively resisted it, but as bipartisan and intraparty pressure mounted—including from conservative lawmakers—the tide shifted and he pledged to sign the bill if passed.The legislation mandates the DOJ to publish all unclassified records tied to Epstein's investigations within 30 days, with limited allowances for redactions only to protect victims or continuing probes; it explicitly bars withholding records on the basis of embarrassment or political sensitivity. The move comes amid growing scrutiny of Epstein's ties to powerful figures and renewed demands for accountability, even as questions linger about Trump's motivations for this pivot and whether it signals a genuine commitment to transparency or a tactical retreat under mounting pressure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How Trump reversed course on the Epstein files as his administration faces lingering suspicion about their release | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's story has long been framed as a failure of the Department of Justice, but the emerging picture suggests something far larger, deeper, and more strategically protected than bureaucratic incompetence. While the DOJ files may eventually expose mid-level accomplices and enablers—from recruiters to financial fixers—those records are widely seen as the leftovers, not the main course. The patterns surrounding Epstein's rise, protection, wealth, connections, plea deals, and death point toward a man operating not as an independent criminal, but as an intelligence asset whose true handlers operated far above prosecutors and judges. The extraordinary legal shielding he enjoyed for decades, the global scope of his operation, and the immediate clampdown on information following his arrest and death align more with a covert intelligence compromise operation than with the actions of a rogue financier.Increasingly, investigators and observers argue that the CIA, not the DOJ, holds the real archive—tapes, testimonies, leverage files, operational memos, and the materials that could explain how a former prep-school math teacher became the center of a multinational blackmail network involving presidents, billionaires, royalty, and corporate and scientific elites. The stakes are not embarrassment, but system collapse: public acknowledgment that Epstein was a U.S.-built intelligence tool used to manufacture leverage over global power figures would undermine the myth of democratic control and reveal the extent of unelected power inside American governance. The pressure to release DOJ documents is important, but the real battlefield is Langley, where the answers to the central question—who built Jeffrey Epstein, and why—remain sealed behind national-security justifications. Until that vault opens, the truth remains incomplete, and accountability remains impossible.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes transcended politics because the network he built operated far above the petty divides of left versus right. His circle of power drew from every corner of American and international influence — Democrats, Republicans, royalty, intelligence figures, billionaires, bankers, academics, scientists, and media executives. The ties to his operation spanned presidential administrations, global finance, elite philanthropy, celebrity culture, and the modeling world. Epstein wasn't loyal to any ideology; he was loyal to leverage. His world functioned on access, compromise, and mutual protection, using connections and shared secrets as currency. That's why so many powerful people were comfortable around him even after his 2008 conviction — because they believed they were insulated by the same system that protected him.The aftermath of Epstein's downfall proved even more clearly that his crimes superseded partisan identity. Every institution that should have enforced accountability — prosecutors, the intelligence community, federal agencies, the press, and political leadership — failed in ways that appeared coordinated rather than accidental. His death in federal custody united the country in one rare moment of agreement: nobody believed the official story. The rage and distrust cut across traditional political lines because Epstein exposed a truth Americans already sensed — the powerful protect their own, and when the stakes are high enough, the system will bend reality to shield them. His case wasn't a left or right scandal; it was a ruling-class scandal, a blueprint for how the elite operate above consequences and expect the public to swallow the lie.to contact me:  bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's role as a benefactor to Stacey Plaskett has become a focal point as records show that he provided financial support to her political campaigns while she was serving as the congressional delegate for the U.S. Virgin Islands. Multiple donations were made by Epstein and individuals connected to him over several election cycles, reportedly totaling tens of thousands of dollars. These contributions have fueled criticism that Plaskett benefited directly from Epstein's wealth and influence at a time when many institutions and public figures were distancing themselves from him following his 2008 conviction.Beyond the money, Epstein's relationship with Plaskett raised questions of personal access and influence. Communications released in recent months show that Epstein texted Plaskett during the high-profile 2019 congressional hearing featuring Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen, suggesting talking points and strategy in real time as she questioned witnesses. That exchange has been widely interpreted as evidence that Epstein saw Plaskett not merely as a politician he supported, but as someone he could advise, confide in, and potentially influence on matters of national visibility. Plaskett has denied any improper relationship, characterizing Epstein as nothing more than a constituent, but the revelations have sparked intense scrutiny over how close the two actually were and why Epstein felt comfortable inserting himself into her congressional work.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Photos showing Jean-Luc Brunel and Ghislaine Maxwell together on Jeffrey Epstein's private island, Little Saint James, function as damning visual evidence of their direct presence inside the epicenter of Epstein's operation. These images don't show distant acquaintances or innocent vacationers — they show two of Epstein's closest and most active enablers relaxing comfortably in the middle of the Caribbean paradise that survivors have described as a hub of industrial-scale sexual exploitation. Maxwell appears seated poolside, casual and at ease, while Brunel stands nearby, smiling, moving freely around the property as if he belonged there. These are not images of people merely passing through; they depict the inner circle, enjoying the spoils of a predator's empire, positioned exactly where countless victims say the abuse occurred.Taken together, the photos strip away decades of denial and PR spin designed to portray Epstein's network as a loose association of wealthy socialites. Maxwell — the convicted trafficker — and Brunel — the modeling agent long tied to supplying girls through his agency connections — stand shoulder-to-shoulder on the very ground where survivors say horrors unfolded behind closed doors. Their presence on Little Saint James confirms what so many already understood: Epstein's island was not a rumor or a conspiracy theory, but a fully operational center of power, protected by money, influence, and silence. The images lock Maxwell and Brunel permanently into the geography of Epstein's crimes, proving that their roles were not distant or theoretical — they were right there, in the sun, enjoying the view.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

President Donald Trump abruptly reversed his longstanding opposition to public disclosure of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's network, telling House Republicans to back a measure requiring the Department of Justice to release Epstein-related files. He previously labelled the disclosure effort a “hoax” and actively resisted it, but as bipartisan and intraparty pressure mounted—including from conservative lawmakers—the tide shifted and he pledged to sign the bill if passed.The legislation mandates the DOJ to publish all unclassified records tied to Epstein's investigations within 30 days, with limited allowances for redactions only to protect victims or continuing probes; it explicitly bars withholding records on the basis of embarrassment or political sensitivity. The move comes amid growing scrutiny of Epstein's ties to powerful figures and renewed demands for accountability, even as questions linger about Trump's motivations for this pivot and whether it signals a genuine commitment to transparency or a tactical retreat under mounting pressure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How Trump reversed course on the Epstein files as his administration faces lingering suspicion about their release | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

From the moment Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in 2020, there was widespread speculation that she would eventually cut a deal with federal prosecutors. Many observers believed she held explosive information about Epstein's most powerful associates—names that could devastate careers, shake institutions, and expose a sprawling web of enablers. The logic was simple: Maxwell was facing decades in prison, and prosecutors often rely on cooperation agreements to dismantle complex trafficking networks. The headlines, courtroom chatter, and legal commentators all echoed the same expectation—Maxwell would flip to save herself, and the public would finally learn the truth about who else participated, enabled, or benefited from Epstein's criminal operation.But that deal never materialized, leaving many to question why. Throughout her trial and sentencing, Maxwell never publicly cooperated, never named names, and never provided the kind of testimonial firepower that so many assumed she possessed. Whether this silence was self-preservation, pressure from powerful figures, fear for her personal safety, or belief she could survive her sentence without betraying anyone remains a point of fierce debate. Ultimately, instead of becoming the prosecution's star witness, Maxwell absorbed the full weight of her conviction and remains imprisoned without having triggered the broader reckoning many survivors, journalists, and the public expected. The absence of a cooperation deal has only intensified suspicion that the system was never truly willing to open that door.to contactme:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Stacey Plaskett, the U.S. Virgin Islands delegate to the U.S. House, has called the civil lawsuit filed against her by six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking scheme “frivolous.” In her motion seeking sanctions against the plaintiffs' attorney, she described the accusations as “outright untruth, fiction and misrepresentation,” stating the attorney persisted with what she characterized as unfounded claims even after her legal team warned that continuing would trigger a Rule 11 motion.The lawsuit, originally filed in November 2023 and amended twice, alleged that Plaskett and other U.S. Virgin Islands officials helped facilitate Epstein's trafficking operations, including through tax-break programs, fundraising, and other support.   Plaskett denied all the allegations, and by August 2025 the case against her alone was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Les Wexner's name appeared more than 45 times across previously unsealed court documents, depositions, and evidence connected to Jeffrey Epstein, placing him among the most frequently referenced figures in Epstein's orbit. Those filings included references to his financial relationship with Epstein, the power of attorney he granted him, and Epstein's control over significant assets tied to Wexner, including real estate. Survivors and witnesses named Wexner as part of Epstein's network, identifying him as a key figure in the businessman's rise and positioning within elite circles. The sheer volume of references across unsealed records emphasizes how deeply intertwined the two men were, particularly during the years in which Epstein built the infrastructure that enabled his crimes.Despite appearing repeatedly in sworn depositions and court materials, Wexner has never faced criminal charges connected to Epstein, and he publicly maintains ignorance of Epstein's abuse and trafficking operation. However, the persistence of his name in legal filings continues to raise questions about how Epstein could have moved with such power and protection for decades without the awareness of those closest to him. The repeated mentions make it harder to sustain the narrative of distance or detachment and instead reinforce the perception that Epstein's empire was built with the help of individuals who benefitted from his presence — and who have largely avoided accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In her filings and public statements, Ghislaine Maxwell asserted dire and inhumane conditions during her pre-trial detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center Brooklyn and later facilities. She claimed she was subject to excessive strip-searches, extremely poor food, sleep deprivation via constant lighting, raw sewage in her cell, missing legal paperwork, confiscation of attorney communications, and suffered weight loss and hair loss because of these conditions. These complaints were used to argue for her release or improved conditions, painting a picture of a woman under oppressive and degrading incarceration.However, prosecutors and facility records challenge many of Maxwell's claims, labeling some as “falsehoods” advanced to generate public sympathy. They note that, unlike most detainees in her situation, she had access to a desktop computer, regular lawyer visits, phone and television access, and was housed in a special unit separate from the general population. Observers say the contrast between her allegations and documented privileges has raised doubts about the credibility of her narrative and suggests a strategic attempt to portray herself as a victim of unjust treatment rather than a convicted conspirator.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A persistent misconception continues to circulate around the Epstein case: the belief that survivors have never identified individuals involved. In reality, numerous names have already been publicly stated in sworn testimony, court filings, and interviews. Among those named are former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, former Senate majority leader George Mitchell, financier Glenn Dubin, scientist Marvin Minsky, billionaire retail magnate Les Wexner, investor Leon Black, Hyatt executive Thomas Pritzker, and Prince Andrew. These are not obscure figures; they are individuals of immense political and financial influence. Yet the public response has largely been silence, shaped by partisan distractions and misinformation that shifted attention away from real testimony in favor of viral conspiracy narratives. The issue is not that names have not been provided — it is that society has not acted on them.Survivors face intense pressure and legal intimidation when they come forward, including the threat of financially ruinous lawsuits from powerful defendants with vast legal resources, which has historically deterred additional testimony. This environment of fear has shielded the accused for decades, enabling them to operate without accountability. Many advocates and journalists have become increasingly vocal in rejecting that silence and calling for immediate action — demanding investigations, subpoenas, and legal consequences for the names already publicly identified. The question should no longer be, “Why aren't survivors naming names?” but rather, “Why are the named individuals not being investigated?” Until there is movement on the existing record, continued calls for additional names serve only as a distraction from the urgent need for accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

It's a landmark victory for victims and transparency: the Epstein Files Transparency Act has passed the Senate and is now headed to the President's desk. In this episode, we break down the bipartisan bill that will force the Justice Department (DOJ) to unseal all unclassified files, communications, and investigative materials related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell within 30 days. We discuss the unprecedented pressure on the administration, the fight for accountability, and what new details these unsealed documents could reveal about the powerful people connected to the case. This is the deepest look yet at the bill designed to bring the truth to light.

Join Radell Lewis on the Purple Political Breakdown as we dive deep into the explosive Epstein files release that has both parties scrambling. After months of MAGA promises to release everything, why did Trump suddenly go quiet about his "best friend" Jeffrey Epstein?In this eye-opening episode, Radell and returning guest Elijah break down: The Epstein Files Bombshell: What's actually in the newly released documents and what's being redacted by Pam Bondi and the Trump administration Trump-Epstein Connection: Examining their documented "best friendship," Mar-a-Lago connections, and why Epstein claimed to have blackmail material on Trump Bipartisan Corruption: Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and other high-profile names appearing in the files - why Democrats aren't sweating while Republicans panic Government Transparency Crisis: How Mark Epstein (Jeffrey's brother) exposed the ongoing redaction process targeting Republican names The Prison "Suicide" Mystery: Breaking down the suspicious circumstances - failed cameras, missing guards, and isolated cells Political Weaponization: How both parties use transparency as a tool for power, not principleWe expose the hypocrisy of MAGA's campaign promises versus their current silence, analyze why Trump's administration is desperately trying to control the narrative, and discuss what this means for government accountability moving forward.Whether you're team red, blue, or purple, this nonpartisan analysis cuts through the spin to deliver the uncomfortable truths both parties don't want you to hear about the Epstein scandal, political corruption, and the real reason these files took so long to see daylight.Keywords: Epstein files, Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Ghislaine Maxwell, government transparency, political corruption, MAGA, Epstein list, Trump Epstein relationship, redacted documents, Pam Bondi, political scandal, bipartisan corruption, Epstein island, government cover-up, political hypocrisy, Purple Political Breakdown, Radell Lewis, nonpartisan political analysis New episodes every week | Subscribe for unfiltered political analysis Watch LIVE panels Wednesdays at 6:30 PM ESTStandard Resource Links & RecommendationsThe following organizations and platforms represent valuable resources for balanced political discourse and democratic participation: PODCAST NETWORKALIVE Podcast Network - Check out the ALIVE Network where you can catch a lot of great podcasts like my own, led by amazing Black voices. Link: https://alivepodcastnetwork.com/ CONVERSATION PLATFORMSHeadOn - A platform for contentious yet productive conversations. It's a place for hosted and unguided conversations where you can grow a following and enhance your conversations with AI features. Link: https://app.headon.ai/Living Room Conversations - Building bridges through meaningful dialogue across political divides. Link: https://livingroomconversations.org/ UNITY MOVEMENTSUs United - A movement for unity that challenges Americans to step out of their bubbles and connect across differences. Take the Unity Pledge, join monthly "30 For US" conversation calls, wear purple (the color of unity), and participate in National Unity Day every second Saturday in December. Their programs include the Sheriff Unity Network and Unity Seats at sports events, proving that shared values are stronger than our differences. Link: https://www.us-united.org/ BALANCED NEWS & INFORMATIONOtherWeb - An AI-based platform that filters news without paywalls, clickbait, or junk, helping you access diverse, unbiased content. Link: https://otherweb.com/ VOTING REFORM & DEMOCRACYEqual Vote Coalition & STAR Voting - Advocating for voting methods that ensure every vote counts equally, eliminating wasted votes and strategic voting. Link: https://www.equal.vote/starFuture is Now Coalition (FiNC) - A grassroots movement working to restore democracy through transparency, accountability, and innovative technology while empowering citizens and transforming American political discourse. Link: https://futureis.org/ POLITICAL ENGAGEMENTIndependent Center - Resources for independent political thinking and civic engagement. Link: https://www.independentcenter.org/ GET DAILY NEWSText 844-406-INFO (844-406-4636) with code "purple" to receive quick, unbiased, factual news delivered to your phone every morning via Informed (https://informed.now) ALL LINKShttps://linktr.ee/purplepoliticalbreakdownThe Purple Political Breakdown is committed to fostering productive political dialogue that transcends partisan divides. We believe in the power of conversation, balanced information, and democratic participation to build a stronger society. Our mission: "Political solutions without political bias."Subscribe, rate, and share if you believe in purple politics - where we find common ground in the middle! Also if you want to be apart of the community and the conversation make sure to Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/ptPAsZtHC9

The Epstein files are a vast cache of documents which include legal files, witness testimonies and flight logs, collected during an extensive US Justice Department investigation into the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his now jailed associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein died in prison while awaiting trial having been charged with running a network of underage girls for sex.President Donald Trump could have released them to the public at any time – it was a presidential campaign promise of his – but he fought for months to stop lawmakers voting through a bipartisan petition to release the files.That finally happened on Tuesday – Trump issued “permission” to Republicans to vote in favour of the release. Hours later the Senate reached a unanimous agreement to pass the measure, which would clear it for the president's signature. He has said he will sign the release. But when might that happen? And what will be released? And why did he give up the fight to keep the files secret?Scott Lucas, political analyst and professor at UCD's Clinton Institute, explains.Presented by Bernice Harrison. Produced by Suzanne Brennan and Andrew McNair. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Late victim advocate Virginia Giuffre shared more disturbing truths about the abuse she endured at the hands of predator Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell in her posthumously released memoir, Nobody's Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice. Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe people of the UK now see that the generosity of welfare makes it that people do not support themselves. The Fed is right on schedule, they are using the shutdown and lack of data to create the narrative of no rate cut in Dec. GDP is now off the charts. Trump says the Fed does nothing, translation we do not need it. The economy is about to shift. Trump played the D's, they tried to set him up using the Epstein files, the tried to divide the movement, it backfired. Trump needed the D's to push the files narrative, optics are important so he could start the real investigation, most likely the document will implicate the D's on some level but not what people expect. The D's are now planning the color revolution, they are telling the military to disobey the Commander in Chief, remember your oath. Trump has the leverage, this leads to panic.   Economy https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1991138641087955359?s=20 https://twitter.com/Geiger_Capital/status/1991200888480797001?s=20   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Stephen Miller Reveals Shocking Statistic- 40% of Rent-Controlled Housing in NYC Occupied is By Foreign Born Population (Video) White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller   shared a shocking statistic regarding rent-controlled housing in New York City. Miller shared, “40% of the population of rent-controlled housing in New York City are foreign-born.” “Think about that.” “In one of the largest Metropolitan areas in the world, 40% of rent-controlled properties are being lived in by people who weren't even born in the country. What kind of system is this?” “We bring in people from foreign countries, and then we pay to lower the cost of their housing while people who were born have to pay higher prices?” “So President Trump is reducing net migration, that is what's going to ultimately, along with all these other steps, deregulation, historic tax cuts, is going to bring down the cost of housing.” Watch: Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1991166902354268474?s=20  advanced chips for AI here in the US. All of this started with President Trump wanting to re-industrialize the US. His tariffs were a pressing agent in making this possible." 3. “We are manufacturing in America because of President Trump.” Nvidia reports earnings in less than 6 hours. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1991141379838255220?s=20 https://twitter.com/Geiger_Capital/status/1991168211942019257?s=20 https://twitter.com/RealEJAntoni/status/1991163760195567968?s=20 https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1991195608615367120?s=20 TAKE A LISTEN https://twitter.com/SecScottBessent/status/1991179870907379944?s=20 returning to the United States in record amounts. Political/Rights https://twitter.com/joma_gc/status/1990866006714266065?s=20  always move the goalpost by making up unsubstantiated nonsense. Protecting their grift is their top priority. Plaskett Delivers Jaw-Dropping Explanation of Why She Texted Jeffrey Epstein During Congressional Hearing Democrat Del. Stacey Plaskett (VI-At Large) continued her whirlwind public tour in which she's tried to convince anyone who will listen that texting sex predator Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing is totally normal. https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1990901876276027581?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1990901876276027581%7Ctwgr%5Eac2f6a2c78cd6d4359fa04dfc99c2d4a4b998c16%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2025%2F11%2F19%2Fplaskett-delivers-jaw-dropping-explanation-of-why-she-texted-jeffrey-epstein-during-congressional-hearing-n2196340 First, it's not exactly common for members of Congress to wantonly text with constituents mid-hearing. Second, referring to Epstein as little more than a "constituent" is like referring to Bill Cosby as just a "Pudding Pop salesman" while neglecting his other obvious history. https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1991175194908782619?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1991175194908782619%7Ctwgr%5Eac2f6a2c78cd6d4359fa04dfc99c2d4a4b998c16%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2025%2F11%2F19%2Fplaskett-delivers-jaw-dropping-explanation-of-why-she-texted-jeffrey-epstein-during-congressional-hearing-n2196340 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1991167379791917155?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1991167379791917155%7Ctwgr%5Eac2f6a2c78cd6d4359fa04dfc99c2d4a4b998c16%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2025%2F11%2F19%2Fplaskett-delivers-jaw-dropping-explanation-of-why-she-texted-jeffrey-epstein-during-congressional-hearing-n2196340 Source: redstate.com https://twitter.com/RealSLokhova/status/1990992088872190189?s=20   of impeaching the President. Vote to Censure Democrat Stacey Plaskett over Epstein Relationship Fails The vote to censure Virgin Islands delegate Stacey Plaskett (D) for her relationship with sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein failed in the House on Tuesday night, with three Republicans siding with Democrats.   https://twitter.com/RepLuna/status/1991138953211097540?s=20   Source: breitbart.com Rep. Jasmine Crockett's Effort to Smear Republicans Over Epstein Donations Blows Up in Her Face When Conservative Journalist Unearths the Damning Truth (VIDEO) Crockett took to the House floor and accused the GOP of a double standard by asserting without evidence that the likes of Mitt Romney, Lee Zeldin, John McCain, and George W. Bush had once taken money from Epstein. https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1990889556774903965?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1990889556774903965%7Ctwgr%5Efa2c16edf43fdb59f07185608efa8c11f7864c0d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F11%2Frep-jasmine-crocketts-effort-smear-republicans-epstein-donations%2F   https://twitter.com/LeeMZeldin/status/1990993148244312175?s=20 https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1990996259721588838?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1990996259721588838%7Ctwgr%5Efa2c16edf43fdb59f07185608efa8c11f7864c0d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F11%2Frep-jasmine-crocketts-effort-smear-republicans-epstein-donations%2F   Here's a better look:   Jeffrey Epsteins middle initial is E for Edward Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1991142109324185937?s=20 https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1991183118502686819?s=20   Epstein coached Summers on a romance in 2018. Summers was married at the time. The men exchanged a trove of messages between 2013 and 2019, according to the emails. "The university is conducting a review of information concerning individuals at Harvard included in the newly released Jeffrey Epstein documents to evaluate what actions may be warranted," Harvard said in a statement. Video: nalgene_queen / tt. SHOCKER: Numerous Members of Bill Clinton's Administration Were Visitors at Epstein's Island Bill Clinton's Administration was infested with creeps who reportedly visited Epstein Island. President Trump is right.  It is time to investigate the Clintons and the entire Democrat Party for their connections to Jeffrey Epstein.    We reported in 2019 that investigative reporter Conchita Sarnoff, the author of “Trafficking” on the Jeffrey Epstein case, joined Shannon Bream and said Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's plane 27 times and ALMOST EVERY TIME that Clinton was on the plane there were underage girls on the plane. Sarnoff also said Bill Clinton was lying about his flights with Jeffrey Epstein. The Clintons were also regular visitors at Epstein's ranch in New Mexico. Al Gore We also learned in 2019 after a release of files from the first Epstein case that one woman claimed Al Gore was at Epstein's Island. A woman who claims she was a sex slave for billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein says she met former vice president Al Gore, according to documents unsealed on Friday. The documents were made public Friday after a U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision to make public more than 2,000 pages of court filings in a since-settled 2015 defamation case brought by Virginia Roberts against Epstein confidant and aide Ghislaine Maxwell. Larry Summers We uncovered in 2019 that Larry Summers, the creepy former President of Harvard and President Clinton's Secretary of Treasury, flew numerous times on Jeffrey Epstein's jet and even flew to Epstein's so called ‘Orgy Island'.   Source: joehoft.com https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1990869778764910819?s=20 https://twitter.com/RealSLokhova/status/1991114085724033393?s=20  squeaky clean. Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman and co visited the island, plus possible financial ties to Epstein. So they devised an op to make it look like Pres Trump is compromised when he is not. Now Dems are going down. Senate Passes Epstein “Shiny Thing” Bill,

This past weekend — after months of deflection from the Trump administration — came a sudden tone shift from President Trump himself, who urged House Republicans to support a measure compelling the Justice Department to release the Epstein files. Mary and Andrew begin here, noting that Trump could just as easily release the files himself without a vote. Next, they review an order to release all grand jury material in James Comey's case, after the judge blasted the Justice Department for potential misconduct. And before wrapping up, Mary and Andrew head to the latest in the JGG case and Judge Boasberg's contempt proceeding, after a district court ruled to allow the case before him to proceed.  Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

I came back from the UK expecting to ease into the week, and instead I walked straight into one of the wildest legislative twists I have seen in years. The Epstein files bill (HR 4405) cleared the House by way of a discharge petition and did so with only a single vote against it. I'll admit — did not take this seriously when it first appeared. I assumed it would stall in committee or die somewhere between the House and Senate. And now that I'm holding the text of the bill in my hands, it is obvious that this is very real and very close to becoming law. Donald Trump has already said he will sign it, and with a nearly unanimous House vote, it's hard to imagine the Senate blocking it.This portion of our story really begins last Tuesday when House Democrats released a new batch of Epstein related emails. The headline was an email in which Epstein told an associate that Donald Trump knew about his behavior and had spent time at his house with a girl later identified as Virginia Giuffre, though crucially, this email did not accuse Trump of participating in abuse. However, with the House reopened and Adelita Grijalva finally sworn in as its newest member, the discharge petition managed to mass on the exact same day — despite reports that Trump immediately called people like Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace urging them to pull their signatures.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Trump's reaction also says a lot here. On Thursday, Trump was furious, calling allies to warn them that he would rescind endorsements if they voted for the petition. The White House framed the anger as frustration that Republicans had given Democrats a politically useful victory. But by Friday, Trump reversed himself and said everyone should support the release since there was nothing to hide. Late Sunday, he doubled down again, telling reporters the files were long overdue and that Pam Bondi should open new investigations into Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, and Reid Hoffman. It was at that point that it became obvious that the bill was going to sail through. Even Speaker Mike Johnson voted for it — an unusual action considering discharge petitions are mechanisms designed to bypass the Speaker.The bill itself is sweeping. It orders the Attorney General to turn over internal DOJ communications related to charging decisions, investigations, destruction of records, detention details, and Epstein's death. It blocks the government from withholding records due to embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity. Only material that qualifies as child sexual abuse imagery or details an active investigation can be withheld.The winners in all of this are obvious. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna get enormous credit for pushing the discharge petition from the beginning. They stared down the White House and they won. The losers are just as clear. Trump took the biggest political hit because this never needed to become a fight in the first place. If he wanted the files released he could have released them. The notion that people like Kash Patel and Pam Bondi were acting on their own is nonsense. They do not freelance on something this sensitive. Trump might be trying to rewrite the narrative, but the timeline speaks for itself.Personally, I think the files have never been released because the conclusion reached is messy rather than clean. We know Epstein abused underage girls. We know Ghislaine Maxwell helped facilitate it. The open question is whether other powerful people committed crimes that can be clearly proved. If the files contain only partial hints or ambiguous associations, releasing them will satisfy no one. People will assume something is missing, especially considering just how conspiratorial this entire story feels. People build their own conclusions in the absence of official clarity, as we've seen since the death of Epstein himself.Still, the fact remains that this administration took an enormous and unnecessary political loss by fighting transparency that it had promised during the campaign. They went from inviting influencers to the White House for binders labeled Phase One to issuing a one page memo suggesting there was nothing further to see. We do not know what will emerge when the full set of records is released. We do know that the political consequences of this episode are locked in place. Everyone who pushed for transparency won. Everyone who resisted it lost. And once the documents are public nobody will be able to put the lid back on whatever comes next.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:38 - Epstein Files00:20:44 - Update00:22:36 - Saudi Crown Prince00:26:51 - Texas Maps Blocked00:28:09 - Tariff Checks00:31:10 - UK Politics, AI, and More with Tom Merritt01:09:36 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Editor-In-Chief of National Review Rich Lowry calls in for his weekly Wednesday morning appearance to offer insight into controversial discussions about figures like Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump, and Ghislaine Maxwell, and debates around the alleged misconduct of the elite. Finally, the dialogue shifts to contemporary political discourse, addressing antisemitism, the GOP, influential political figures like Tucker Carlson, JD Vance, and Marco Rubio, exploring their relationships, public perceptions, and future political implications. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The House vote to release the Epstein files passes, now headed for the Senate. Some early bad news for Democrats, Hakeem Jeffries' campaign actually asked Epstein for money after they knew he was a convicted sex offender. Even worse, Democrat Stacey Plaskett was texting and seeking advice from Epstein as late as 2019 in regards to former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. Jessica Reed Kraus, the brilliant mind behind mega successful substack House In Habit has thoroughly documented the Epstein case. Kraus was present during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell and came to a very different conclusion than the mainstream media narrative. The Epstein timeline is messy and the facts surrounding the case are even messier. One truth the media refuses to tell is how some of the Epstein 'victims' were actually the ones grooming young women. The Epstein Victims Fund has also been allegedly taken advantage of in the way funds are allocated. One thing that is conclusive is that Alan Dershowitz was innocent and had the receipts to prove it. You don't want to miss this fascinating conversation on Epstein that the media simply won't tell you. Jessica has been team Bobby Kennedy from day one and is here to update us on MAHA. Bobby has notched up some big wins already as the champion of America's health and wellness. Featuring: Jessica Reed Kraus House in Habit | Substack https://substack.com/@houseinhabit Follow Jessica and all her great work here: https://substack.com/@houseinhabit Also fighting for the truth in the Epstein case is Jay Beecher, you can find hs work here: https://jaybeecher.substack.com/ Keksi Cookies Keksi is a gourmet cookie company known for making cookies so good, people actually talk about them. Keksi cookies are both grandma approved and social media worthy. These cookies are so good you will want to post about them and tell all your friends. These are the kind of cookies you'd expect at Grandma's house on Christmas morning. Perfect for sharing, gifting, or honestly… keeping for yourself. Keksi's Christmas Box is available now! It's packed with limited-edition holiday flavors and makes the perfect gift. But don't wait — these always sell out fast. Order your Christmas box today at ⁠https://www.keksi.com/⁠⁠ use code: SEAN15 at checkout for 15% OFF! Firecracker Farms Everything's better with HOT SALT. Firecracker Farms hot salt is hand crafted on their family farm with Carolina Reaper, Ghost and Trinidad Scorpion peppers. This is a balanced, deep flavor pairs perfect with your favorite foods. Whether it's eggs, steaks, veggies or even your favorite beverage, Firecracker Farms hot salt is what you've been missing. Just head to https://firecracker.farm/ use code word: SEAN for a discount. Unlock the flavor in your food now! ------------------------------------------------------------- 1️⃣ Subscribe and ring the bell for new videos: https://youtube.com/seanmspicer?sub_confirmation=1 2️⃣ Become a part of The Sean Spicer Show community: https://www.seanspicer.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In his recent remarks about the Jeffrey Epstein files, Mike Johnson shifted from publicly demanding transparency to cautioning that the disclosure could “publicly reveal the identity … of undercover law-enforcement officers” and “chill” whistle-blowers. He argued that releasing the full files might weaken future investigations and endanger informants, effectively invoking national‐security style protections for evidence he suggested could have implications beyond the usual criminal records.By repeatedly emphasizing the danger of exposure — without detailing what those dangers are — Johnson appears to signal that Epstein's case may not merely be a private criminal network but intertwined with intelligence or covert operations. His insistence on protecting sources, methods, and “sensitive” information aligns more with the language used when classified intelligence assets are involved than when standard prosecution files are at issue. Combined with longstanding rumors that Epstein might have functioned as an intelligence asset, Johnson's position implicitly buttresses the theory: that some of the Epstein documents may sit in a realm where disclosure truly threatens national-security interests.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Epstein Files bill blasted through Congress with numbers you almost never see anymore—427-1 in the House, and then it slid through the Senate with unanimous consent like it was greased. On paper, that looks like a triumph of transparency and a rare moment of unity. But let's not kid ourselves: Washington doesn't suddenly grow a conscience overnight. When politicians from both parties lock arms this tightly, it's usually because they believe it protects them rather than exposes them. The speed of the vote and the lack of debate feel less like courage and more like a calculated move—an attempt to get ahead of a tidal wave they know is on the horizon.Now the bill sits on Trump's desk, waiting for his signature, and everyone in D.C. is acting like this is the final step before sunlight floods the entire Epstein network. But the truth is, nothing is guaranteed. Signing a bill is not the same as releasing the records, and this administration has already signaled that “national security” and “ongoing investigations” will be used like bulletproof shields. If this turns into another stall tactic, another reroute, or another sanitized dump of heavily blacked-out PDFs, then this near-unanimous vote will go down not as a victory for transparency—but as the largest bipartisan cover-your-ass maneuver in modern political history. The real test isn't the vote. It's whether the files actually see daylight without being shredded, scrubbed, or neutered beyond recognition.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Senate expected to send Epstein files bill to Trump - ABC News

For years, there have been predictions that the eventual release of the Epstein files will be nothing short of explosive—an earth-shaking moment that shatters the carefully crafted narratives protecting the powerful. The expectation is that once the full scope of Epstein's network, communications, travel records, financial flows, and visitor logs are uncensored, the American public will see an unfiltered view of how deeply embedded Epstein was among global elites. People believe the documents could expose the complicity of politicians, billionaires, intelligence figures, media executives, royalty, and corporate titans who have been shielded by redactions, legal maneuvering, sealed settlements, and a bipartisan effort to control the narrative. Many predict it will rewrite modern political history and reveal a system of influence peddling and blackmail that operated in plain sight while the public was lied to.These predictions also suggest that the reaction will be existential—that when people finally see the unredacted truth, trust in institutions will collapse. The files are expected to demonstrate that authorities deliberately protected Epstein for decades, that intelligence agencies may have used him as leverage, and that the cover-ups were coordinated at the highest levels. Supporters of full transparency argue that the reason the files have been delayed, redacted, or buried behind claims of “ongoing investigations” is because the material is too damning, and too many influential figures have something to lose. The belief is that once the files are fully revealed, it will crack open a hidden architecture of power and exploitation that many Americans have suspected but never been allowed to see.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Exclusive | Rep. Ro Khanna pushing for release of full Epstein files predicts contents will 'shock the conscience of this country' | New York Post

A growing movement is calling out the decades-long failure of institutions to deliver justice in the Jeffrey Epstein trafficking scandal, arguing that the system has consistently protected powerful individuals instead of victims. After years of obfuscation, sealed records, shifting narratives, and political deflection, frustration has reached a breaking point. What was once treated as fringe or conspiratorial has become an unavoidable national and international reckoning, with visible cracks forming in the wall of silence that shielded influential figures across politics, finance, royalty, intelligence, media, and elite social circles. The tone of certainty that once accompanied official dismissals has shifted to defensiveness and unease, as public pressure intensifies and demands for transparency grow more forceful.At the heart of the movement is a unified push to transcend political divisions and focus on a shared objective: full accountability for those involved in Epstein's network and a complete, unredacted release of all related records. Advocates argue that this case is not partisan but moral, and that unity across ideological lines is the only force powerful enough to break through institutional resistance. The call is for the immediate publication of every flight log, email, deposition, and document connected to Epstein and his associates, with no redactions or procedural delays. Supporters maintain that anyone resisting transparency is signaling complicity, and insist that the era of silence, distraction, and protection of the powerful must end now, declaring that justice demands exposure rather than continued concealment.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

After Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his cell at the Federal Bureau of Prisons facility in Manhattan on August 10, 2019, several inmates and former inmates voiced serious doubts about the official narrative of suicide. One inmate who had previously been housed in the exact cell claimed that the architectural layout made a hanging suicide physically improbable—he cited lack of ceiling fixtures, low bunks, and other structural barriers. Others pointed to the absence of a cellmate, malfunctioning cameras, and alleged lapses in guard monitoring as factors that undermined the “alone in the cell” story.These inmate observations fuel persistent skepticism and speculation around Epstein's death. Their accounts intertwine with documented failures by prison staff—such as broken cameras and falsified check logs—and with broader concerns that the system allowed, or even facilitated, a scenario where a high-profile detainee died under murky circumstances. Together, these statements from inside the prison ecosystem continue to drive debate over whether the official determination of suicide reflects the full reality of what happened that night.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Scotland Yard has come under intense scrutiny for repeatedly opening and then quietly closing inquiries into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. When allegations involving Virginia Giuffre and potential UK-based trafficking surfaced years ago, the Metropolitan Police declined to pursue a full investigation, claiming it was outside their jurisdiction and not the “appropriate authority” to handle the matter. Even as mounting media coverage, survivor testimony, and public pressure demanded action, the force appeared determined to distance itself rather than confront the implications of a high-profile trafficking network operating on British soil. Critics argue that closing the case so quickly—despite the gravity and credibility of the accusations—looked less like a procedural decision and more like an intentional effort to avoid political and institutional fallout.Years later, when Scotland Yard announced it was reviewing new allegations against Maxwell related to grooming and trafficking in the UK, there was a brief sense of hope that justice might finally be taken seriously. But the review ultimately stalled without becoming a full investigation, igniting outrage from advocates who accused the force of protecting the powerful rather than defending victims. The pattern is unmistakable: initiate interest only under pressure, then retreat the moment attention shifts. To many, it feels like a choreographed performance meant to pacify public outrage rather than uncover the truth—a police institution more concerned with shielding reputations than exposing the depth of a criminal enterprise tied to elite circles.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

It strains credulity to believe that the world around Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell—filled with elite elites in finance, tech, entertainment, and fashion—was completely unaware of what was going on. For example, Ellen Pao, former Reddit CEO and one-time partner at venture firm Kleiner Perkins, publicly stated that Maxwell was invited to a Silicon Valley holiday party in 2011 despite existing reports that she was supplying underage girls for sex. Pao wrote that “we knew about her supplying underage girls for sex” and yet “that was fine with the ‘cool' people who managed the tightly controlled guest list.” This confession suggests that circles of power didn't just “miss” what was happening—they arguably chose to ignore it.Similarly, the modeling industry had whispered about the predatory nature of agents like Jean‑Luc Brunel long before the Epstein-Maxwell drama exploded. Brunel was a longtime model scout and agency boss who received millions from Epstein to expand his business, and his name repeatedly came up in allegations of sexual misconduct dating back decades. The fact that such warnings were circulating in fashion—well before the mainstream reckoning—raises the question: how could so many people connected to these men claim no knowledge, no signs, no suspicion? When one entire industry quietly signals something is rotten, it becomes much harder to swallow wholesale claims of unaware innocence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl