Podcast appearances and mentions of Ghislaine Maxwell

Jack Smith's testimony so far. Donald's insane Davos remarks. Donald confused Greenland and Iceland, then Karoline Leavitt mixed them up in her response. Donald can't pronounce nation involved in a war he allegedly solved. Donald's Greenland/NATO deal is yet another re-brand of something that already existed. Prediction markets are ripe with insider trading. The bruise is back – but on his left hand. ICE memo says agents can enter homes with warrants. Some Democrats refuse to support funding bill that doesn't include restrictions on ICE. The Epstein story isn't going away. Ghislaine Maxwell will testify to Congress. With Jody Hamilton, David Ferguson, music by The Burnt Pines, Elijah Bone, and more! Brought to you by Russ Rybicki, SharePower Responsible Investing. Support our new sponsor and get free shipping at Quince.com/bob! Sign up for Buzz Burbank's Substack.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Howie Kurtz on ICE agents in Minnesota detaining a 5-year-old boy and his father, the testimony of Jack Smith and the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, and the Supreme Court hearing on President Trump's attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board. Follow Howie on Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@HowardKurtz⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠For more #MediaBuzz click here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In its letter to Judge Paul Engelmayer, the Department of Justice argued aggressively against the appointment of a special master, framing the request as unnecessary, disruptive, and legally unjustified. DOJ claimed it was already fulfilling its obligations to review, process, and release Epstein-related materials in accordance with court orders, established procedures, and internal safeguards. The department leaned heavily on institutional deference, insisting that prosecutorial discretion and executive-branch authority over evidence review should not be second-guessed by an outside overseer. DOJ further warned that inserting a special master would slow the process, create confusion, and risk improper disclosure of sensitive materials, including grand jury information, law-enforcement techniques, and third-party privacy interests. In essence, the letter positioned DOJ as both referee and scorekeeper, arguing that the court should simply trust that the same institution that mishandled Epstein for years was now acting in good faith.What makes the letter striking is how completely it sidesteps the core reason a special master was proposed in the first place: DOJ's own credibility problem. Rather than directly addressing documented delays, redactions, contradictions, and shifting explanations surrounding the Epstein files, the department defaulted to procedural defensiveness and abstract warnings about efficiency and separation of powers. The letter reads less like a transparent explanation and more like a preemptive shield against scrutiny, treating oversight itself as the threat rather than the history of secrecy and failure that prompted it. DOJ did not meaningfully grapple with the public interest at stake or the extraordinary circumstances of a case involving systemic non-prosecution, political sensitivity, and proven institutional breakdowns. Instead, it asked the court to accept assurances at face value, effectively arguing that accountability would be more dangerous than opacity—an argument that, given the Epstein record, lands with all the credibility of a pinky swear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:opposition-letter-ghislaine-maxwell-khanna-massie.pdf

Prince Andrew has reportedly been cut off by his daughter Princess Eugenie as the fallout from his Epstein scandal continues to metastasize inside the royal family. According to multiple UK press reports citing royal insiders, Eugenie has ended regular contact with her father and deliberately distanced herself from him both privately and publicly. This represents a sharp reversal from earlier years, when she was widely seen as Andrew's most loyal defender and emotional support, even as the rest of the family froze him out. The shift reportedly became unavoidable as Andrew's refusal to fully accept responsibility and the renewed attention on Epstein-related disclosures made continued proximity untenable.For Prince Andrew, the estrangement is particularly devastating because it underscores how completely he has been isolated. Financially cut off, barred from public royal duties, and sidelined by senior family members, Eugenie had been his last meaningful personal connection within the monarchy. Her decision to sever ties is widely understood as an act of self-preservation, protecting her own family and future from being permanently tethered to a scandal that refuses to die. In practical terms, the message is unmistakable: Andrew's disgrace is now so toxic that even paternal bonds have collapsed under its weight, leaving him not just institutionally disgraced, but personally abandoned.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Devastated Princess Eugenie has 'cut off all contact' with disgraced father Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor over Epstein scandal | Daily Mail Online

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

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

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

In her Washington Post op-ed, Sarah Ransome recounts how surviving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's trafficking operation did not end with their convictions but instead marked the beginning of another battle: being disbelieved, dismissed, and blamed because she was an adult when she was trafficked. Ransome explains that media coverage often centers on underage victims while overlooking the many women who, like her, were legally adults yet manipulated, coerced, and abused over prolonged periods. She describes the pervasive “gaslighting” she faced from society, friends, family, and authorities who questioned her credibility, branded her with derogatory labels, and minimized the horrors she endured simply because she was not a minor at the time. For years, this skepticism compounded her trauma, making recovery even more difficult and isolating her from support.Ransome also reflects on the catharsis of hearing Ghislaine Maxwell's shackles at sentencing and finally reading her impact statement in court, which she views as a significant step toward reclaiming her voice and self-worth. She emphasizes that justice remains incomplete while powerful enablers and institutions that allowed Epstein and Maxwell to operate with impunity have not been fully held accountable. Ransome urges broader recognition of all survivors — regardless of age at the time of abuse — and calls for societal change in how adult trafficking victims are understood and supported.to contact me:bobbyapucci@protonmail.com

James Michael Austrich—identified in deposition documents as a former boyfriend of Virginia Roberts (now Virginia Giuffre)—testified about their relationship in the late 1990s. He offered insights into Roberts' employment at Mar-a-Lago and detailed her interactions with Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein during that time period. Austrich corroborated key aspects of Giuffre's testimony, including how she came into contact with Maxwell and was subsequently introduced to Epstein. His hearing provides supporting context for Giuffre's allegations about recruitment, travel, and grooming, reinforcing the broader narrative of Epstein's network beyond Giuffre's own accountAustrich's deposition also addressed logistical details—dates, movements, and living situations—that helped frame the timeline of Giuffre's experiences. While he did not testify about sexual abuse directly, his recollections bolster Giuffre's broader claims that Maxwell facilitated Roberts' entry into Epstein's orbit. By corroborating aspects of Giuffre's presence at Epstein-linked locations and confirming Maxwell's involvement in arranging those introductions, Austrich's testimony added credibility to the factual foundation of the case—and further undermined Maxwell's defamatory denials.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has repeatedly denied any meaningful knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal behavior, portraying himself as distant from the relationship despite Epstein being a longtime, high-profile client of the bank. Dimon has claimed he was unaware of Epstein's sex-trafficking activities and has suggested that responsibility lay with lower-level compliance staff rather than senior leadership. Critics argue this position strains credibility, given Epstein's 2008 federal conviction, his well-known reputation in elite circles, and the sheer volume of internal red flags tied to his accounts. Under Dimon's leadership, JPMorgan continued to bank Epstein for years after his conviction, processing transactions that later became central to allegations that the bank enabled or ignored obvious signs of trafficking and abuse.Dimon's denials have come under sharper scrutiny as internal emails, testimony, and court filings have suggested that Epstein's risk profile was widely known inside JPMorgan and that concerns reached far beyond rogue employees. Survivors and regulators argue that the bank's leadership cannot plausibly claim ignorance while simultaneously benefiting from Epstein's wealth, connections, and influence. Dimon's insistence that he personally knew little or nothing about Epstein has been criticized as a calculated effort to firewall executive accountability, shifting blame downward while preserving the myth of corporate ignorance. To critics, his statements exemplify a broader pattern in which powerful institutions acknowledge “mistakes” in the abstract but resist admitting that profit and prestige outweighed moral and legal responsibility when it mattered most.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

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

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

After the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, Juror 50, Scotty David, gave a controversial interview in which he openly discussed jury deliberations and revealed that his own personal experience as a survivor of sexual abuse influenced how he evaluated testimony. He stated that during deliberations he encouraged other jurors to rely on their “common sense” and personal experiences to understand why victims might delay reporting or struggle with memory. While David framed his comments as an effort to help jurors empathize with survivors, the interview immediately raised alarms because jurors are explicitly instructed not to introduce outside experiences or undisclosed biases into deliberations. His remarks appeared to contradict assurances given during jury selection, where jurors are required to disclose experiences that could affect their impartiality. The interview transformed what should have been a closed chapter of the trial into a new flashpoint, shifting attention from Maxwell's conviction to the integrity of the verdict itself.The fallout was swift and serious. Maxwell's legal team seized on David's comments, filing motions arguing that his failure to disclose his abuse history tainted the jury and violated her right to a fair trial. Courts were forced to hold post-trial hearings to determine whether juror misconduct had occurred and whether David intentionally withheld material information during voir dire. Although the conviction ultimately stood, the episode handed Maxwell's defense a procedural lifeline and injected avoidable uncertainty into an otherwise decisive outcome. Critics argued that David's decision to speak publicly was reckless, providing ammunition to a convicted trafficker while retraumatizing survivors who feared the verdict could be undone.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Ghislaine Maxwell pleaded with the court for a lighter sentence by casting herself as a peripheral figure rather than a central architect of Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation. In her sentencing submission, she emphasized personal hardship, age, and family circumstances, portraying herself as someone who had already suffered enough through incarceration and public vilification. Her lawyers argued that she was being unfairly scapegoated for Epstein's crimes, stressing that she was not the primary beneficiary of the abuse and did not deserve a punishment that mirrored his notoriety. The plea leaned heavily on mitigation, urging the court to view her conduct as limited in scope and influence. It was a strategy aimed at shrinking her role, reframing years of recruitment and grooming as overblown or mischaracterized. The underlying message was clear: punish her, but gently.The court, however, was presented with a record that clashed sharply with that narrative. Prosecutors laid out evidence showing Maxwell's sustained, hands-on involvement in identifying, grooming, and delivering minors to Epstein, arguing that without her, the operation would not have functioned as it did. Her plea for leniency rang hollow against testimony from survivors who described coercion, manipulation, and lasting trauma. The attempt to recast herself as marginal only underscored the lack of accountability that defined her role for years. In asking for mercy, Maxwell avoided acknowledging the depth of harm or her abuse of power, focusing instead on her own discomfort and future prospects. The court ultimately rejected the premise of her appeal for leniency, concluding that the severity and duration of her conduct demanded a substantial sentence, not a reduced one.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdf

Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, has always been synonymous with scandal, but her letter to Jeffrey Epstein crowned her the Duchess of Disgrace. In it, she didn't just thank him—she anointed him her “supreme friend,” as though a convicted predator deserved reverence rather than revulsion. This wasn't naivety; the whole world knew who Epstein was. It was desperation dressed up as loyalty, a duchess groveling at the altar of depravity for money, favors, and relevance. She didn't stumble into disgrace; she volunteered, turning gratitude into complicity and writing herself permanently into Epstein's sordid legacy.Her words weren't a slip, they were a statement—every phrase deliberate, every flourish intentional. And the optics were catastrophic. Instead of salvaging her reputation, Sarah immortalized herself as an apologist for one of history's most notorious predators. History will not remember her as misunderstood or maligned. It will remember her as the duchess who chose disgrace over decency, the woman who bowed to Epstein and called him supreme. That's her legacy now: not royalty, not resilience, but permanent ridiculeto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

NORD: Get 4 months extra on a 2 year plan here: https://nordvpn.com/attwood It's risk free with Nord's 30 day money-back guarantee! In this livestream, attorney Robert Gouveia, Esq. joins us to break down the unsealed Ghislaine Maxwell indictment and the recently released Epstein-related files now circulating publicly.

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein utilized the high-end art market as a financial fog machine, a place where enormous sums can move with minimal scrutiny and subjective valuations do most of the work. Art provided him a perfect vehicle to park money, shift value, and obscure income because prices are flexible, private sales are common, and provenance questions are often treated as inconveniences rather than red flags. Epstein reportedly bought, sold, and traded expensive artwork through intermediaries and shell structures, allowing him to convert cash into “assets” that could appreciate quietly while remaining largely invisible to tax authorities. Unlike traditional income streams, art transactions often escape standardized reporting, especially when handled through private dealers, offshore entities, or discreet auctions. This allowed Epstein to maintain the appearance of immense wealth without clearly defined revenue sources. Art wasn't just decoration for Epstein; it was a financial strategy.The art market also helped Epstein reinforce legitimacy while masking criminal proceeds. Hanging valuable works in his homes signaled sophistication and status, making his wealth appear organic rather than suspicious. At the same time, art could be used as collateral, transferred between entities, or quietly sold to generate liquidity without triggering the same scrutiny as financial accounts. This opacity is exactly why art has long been attractive to money launderers, oligarchs, and criminals, and Epstein exploited those weaknesses to the fullest. The lack of transparency benefited not just Epstein, but the institutions and individuals who preferred not to ask hard questions about where his money came from. In this way, the art world functioned as both shield and accomplice, providing Epstein a culturally respectable way to hide income, move value, and maintain the illusion of untouchable wealth.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In a combative letter to Republican Rep. James Comer, former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejected congressional subpoenas tied to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, dismissing the Oversight Committee's effort as a “partisan” attack rather than a bona fide search for truth. They called the subpoenas “invalid and legally unenforceable,” accusing Comer of seeking to “harass and embarrass” them and of prioritizing political theater over genuine accountability for Epstein's crimes. The Clintons insisted they had already provided “the little information we have” in written statements and portrayed the push for in-person testimony as a distraction from more substantive work Congress could—and should—be doing.Critically, their letter sidestepped the broader questions that prompted the subpoenas in the first place, including Bill Clinton's well-documented social and travel connections to Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s, which have fueled public demands for transparency. Rather than addressing why those interactions and related records deserve scrutiny, the Clintons framed the entire inquiry as illegitimate, weaponizing claims of partisanship to shut down scrutiny without offering meaningful cooperation. By focusing on political grievance instead of clarifying the full extent of their knowledge or engagement with Epstein, their response has been perceived by critics as defensive and dismissive at a time when survivors and investigators are urgently seeking accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:01-12-26-dek-ltr-to-chairman-comer.pdf

Steven Hoffenberg, Jeffrey Epstein's former business partner in the Towers Financial Ponzi scheme, repeatedly claimed that Epstein presented himself as connected to U.S. intelligence and foreign intelligence services, particularly as a way to intimidate, impress, and shield himself from scrutiny. Hoffenberg said Epstein openly bragged that he was an intelligence asset, telling people he worked with “the government” and hinting that his role involved compromising powerful figures. According to Hoffenberg, these claims were not whispered rumors but part of Epstein's persona, used to explain his unexplained wealth, his access to politicians, financiers, academics, and royalty, and his apparent immunity from consequences. Hoffenberg argued that Epstein's lifestyle, travel patterns, and proximity to intelligence-linked figures were inconsistent with the narrative of a lone, rogue predator operating without protection.Hoffenberg went further, stating that Epstein learned early on that intelligence affiliation, real or exaggerated, functioned as a shield, discouraging questions from law enforcement, regulators, and potential adversaries. He described Epstein as someone who deliberately cultivated ambiguity, never fully clarifying who he worked for, but constantly reinforcing the idea that he was untouchable because he was “connected.” Hoffenberg maintained that this aura of intelligence backing helped Epstein survive scandals that would have destroyed ordinary criminals, including the collapse of Towers Financial and later sex-trafficking allegations. While Hoffenberg acknowledged he could not prove formal intelligence employment, he insisted that Epstein's consistent behavior, confidence in evading accountability, and access to sensitive circles made the intelligence narrative impossible to dismiss and critical to understanding how Epstein operated for decades without serious interference.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ponzi schemer claims Jeffrey Epstein moved in intelligence circles | Daily Mail Online

In a highly criticized letter to two federal judges overseeing the release of the Justice Department's Jeffrey Epstein files, Attorney General Pam Bondi acknowledged that the ongoing document review process had encountered “glitches” but insisted that the DOJ was making “substantial progress” toward compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Bondi framed the delays and technical issues as inevitable given the “voluminous materials” and the need to protect victim privacy, highlighting a massive review effort involving hundreds of personnel and a centralized platform to process and redact documents. Her letter, however, offered no clear timeline for completing the statutorily required disclosures and emphasized only that the department was working “as expeditiously as possible” without compromising sensitive information.Critically, Bondi's letter has been condemned by survivors, lawmakers, and transparency advocates as a thinly veiled excuse for failing to meet the law's clear deadlines and for mishandling one of the most consequential releases of government documents in recent memory. Observers have pointed out that the “glitches” have ranged from a malfunctioning search function on the public document site to missing files and excessive redactions that render swaths of material nearly useless, raising questions about whether the problems are truly technical or instead reflect evasiveness and lack of urgency. Critics argue that calling these systemic failures mere “glitches” trivializes real legal obligations and victims' demands for accountability, suggesting that Bondi's leadership has been more defensive than transparent and that she has repeatedly failed to provide the court or the public with a credible plan to fulfill the law's requirements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Files Update as Pam Bondi Admits ‘Glitches' - Newsweek

The Metropolitan Police (London) have opened an active investigation into allegations that Prince Andrew, Duke of York in 2011 asked one of his taxpayer-funded protection officers to dig up personal information on Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of sexual abuse when she was under 18. According to reports, the bodyguard was allegedly given Giuffre's date of birth and U.S. Social Security number by the prince, with the aim of finding a criminal record or other damaging material. The police have stated they are “actively looking into” the claims, though so far it is not publicly confirmed whether the officer complied with the request.These revelations come amid wider turmoil for Prince Andrew and the monarchy: he has recently stepped back from some royal titles, including giving up the “Duke of York” style. The allegations raise serious questions about misuse of police resources and the role of protection officers in alleged smear campaigns. The family of Virginia Giuffre (who died by suicide earlier this year) and campaigners are calling for further action, including stripping the prince of his remaining titles, and for parliamentary scrutiny of how the settlement he made with Giuffre and his relationship with convicted sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein have been handled.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:London police investigating report Prince Andrew asked officer to dig up "dirt" on Virginia Giuffre - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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 OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has repeatedly denied any meaningful knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal behavior, portraying himself as distant from the relationship despite Epstein being a longtime, high-profile client of the bank. Dimon has claimed he was unaware of Epstein's sex-trafficking activities and has suggested that responsibility lay with lower-level compliance staff rather than senior leadership. Critics argue this position strains credibility, given Epstein's 2008 federal conviction, his well-known reputation in elite circles, and the sheer volume of internal red flags tied to his accounts. Under Dimon's leadership, JPMorgan continued to bank Epstein for years after his conviction, processing transactions that later became central to allegations that the bank enabled or ignored obvious signs of trafficking and abuse.Dimon's denials have come under sharper scrutiny as internal emails, testimony, and court filings have suggested that Epstein's risk profile was widely known inside JPMorgan and that concerns reached far beyond rogue employees. Survivors and regulators argue that the bank's leadership cannot plausibly claim ignorance while simultaneously benefiting from Epstein's wealth, connections, and influence. Dimon's insistence that he personally knew little or nothing about Epstein has been criticized as a calculated effort to firewall executive accountability, shifting blame downward while preserving the myth of corporate ignorance. To critics, his statements exemplify a broader pattern in which powerful institutions acknowledge “mistakes” in the abstract but resist admitting that profit and prestige outweighed moral and legal responsibility when it mattered most.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The lawsuit filed by Epstein's survivors against the U.S. Virgin Islands accuses the territorial government of enabling, protecting, and materially benefiting from Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation for decades. The survivors allege that Epstein could not have operated his trafficking network on Little St. James and throughout the USVI without the knowing cooperation or willful blindness of government officials. According to the complaint, Epstein received extraordinary tax breaks, regulatory exemptions, and political access while simultaneously importing underage girls, operating private aircraft, and maintaining compounds that functioned as crime scenes. The lawsuit asserts that repeated warnings, tips, and red flags were ignored, and that the USVI failed to investigate, enforce laws, or intervene even as evidence of abuse mounted over years.The survivors further argue that the USVI's conduct went beyond negligence and crossed into active facilitation. They claim Epstein's businesses were used as a financial shield to launder money, avoid scrutiny, and legitimize his presence in the territory, while local officials allegedly enjoyed campaign donations, prestige, and economic benefits tied to Epstein's investments. The lawsuit seeks accountability not just for Epstein's crimes, but for the institutional failures that allowed them to continue unchecked, asserting that government complicity turned the USVI into a safe haven for exploitation. By naming the territory itself as a defendant, the survivors are attempting to force a reckoning with how power, money, and corruption combined to silence victims and protect a serial trafficker operating in plain sight.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The lawsuit filed by Epstein's survivors against the U.S. Virgin Islands accuses the territorial government of enabling, protecting, and materially benefiting from Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation for decades. The survivors allege that Epstein could not have operated his trafficking network on Little St. James and throughout the USVI without the knowing cooperation or willful blindness of government officials. According to the complaint, Epstein received extraordinary tax breaks, regulatory exemptions, and political access while simultaneously importing underage girls, operating private aircraft, and maintaining compounds that functioned as crime scenes. The lawsuit asserts that repeated warnings, tips, and red flags were ignored, and that the USVI failed to investigate, enforce laws, or intervene even as evidence of abuse mounted over years.The survivors further argue that the USVI's conduct went beyond negligence and crossed into active facilitation. They claim Epstein's businesses were used as a financial shield to launder money, avoid scrutiny, and legitimize his presence in the territory, while local officials allegedly enjoyed campaign donations, prestige, and economic benefits tied to Epstein's investments. The lawsuit seeks accountability not just for Epstein's crimes, but for the institutional failures that allowed them to continue unchecked, asserting that government complicity turned the USVI into a safe haven for exploitation. By naming the territory itself as a defendant, the survivors are attempting to force a reckoning with how power, money, and corruption combined to silence victims and protect a serial trafficker operating in plain sight.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In an interview for her podcast series Broken: Jeffrey Epstein, journalist Tara Palmeri recounts a conversation Brad Edwards—who represented several of Epstein's victims—had with Igor Zinoviev, Epstein's bodyguard of approximately five years. Edwards described how Zinoviev issued a chilling warning: “‘You don't know who you're messing with and you need to be really careful. You are on Jeffrey's radar… you don't want to be on Jeffrey's radar',” to which Edwards asked, “Who am I messing with?” Zinoviev quietly responded with three letters: “C‑I‑A.”Digging deeper, Palmeri reports that, according to Edwards, Zinoviev said that in 2008—while Epstein was serving his work‑release sentence—he was sent to the CIA headquarters in Virginia. Allegedly, Epstein attended some kind of private class there as the only civilian, during which he was handed a book containing a handwritten note. Zinoviev said he was instructed not to read it, only to deliver it to Epstein behind bars. The nature of the message, and any follow‑up, remains unclear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Was 'Protected' By CIA and Trump, Former Bodyguard ClaimsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In her Washington Post op-ed, Sarah Ransome recounts how surviving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's trafficking operation did not end with their convictions but instead marked the beginning of another battle: being disbelieved, dismissed, and blamed because she was an adult when she was trafficked. Ransome explains that media coverage often centers on underage victims while overlooking the many women who, like her, were legally adults yet manipulated, coerced, and abused over prolonged periods. She describes the pervasive “gaslighting” she faced from society, friends, family, and authorities who questioned her credibility, branded her with derogatory labels, and minimized the horrors she endured simply because she was not a minor at the time. For years, this skepticism compounded her trauma, making recovery even more difficult and isolating her from support.Ransome also reflects on the catharsis of hearing Ghislaine Maxwell's shackles at sentencing and finally reading her impact statement in court, which she views as a significant step toward reclaiming her voice and self-worth. She emphasizes that justice remains incomplete while powerful enablers and institutions that allowed Epstein and Maxwell to operate with impunity have not been fully held accountable. Ransome urges broader recognition of all survivors — regardless of age at the time of abuse — and calls for societal change in how adult trafficking victims are understood and supported.to contact me:bobbyapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The lawsuit filed by Epstein's survivors against the U.S. Virgin Islands accuses the territorial government of enabling, protecting, and materially benefiting from Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation for decades. The survivors allege that Epstein could not have operated his trafficking network on Little St. James and throughout the USVI without the knowing cooperation or willful blindness of government officials. According to the complaint, Epstein received extraordinary tax breaks, regulatory exemptions, and political access while simultaneously importing underage girls, operating private aircraft, and maintaining compounds that functioned as crime scenes. The lawsuit asserts that repeated warnings, tips, and red flags were ignored, and that the USVI failed to investigate, enforce laws, or intervene even as evidence of abuse mounted over years.The survivors further argue that the USVI's conduct went beyond negligence and crossed into active facilitation. They claim Epstein's businesses were used as a financial shield to launder money, avoid scrutiny, and legitimize his presence in the territory, while local officials allegedly enjoyed campaign donations, prestige, and economic benefits tied to Epstein's investments. The lawsuit seeks accountability not just for Epstein's crimes, but for the institutional failures that allowed them to continue unchecked, asserting that government complicity turned the USVI into a safe haven for exploitation. By naming the territory itself as a defendant, the survivors are attempting to force a reckoning with how power, money, and corruption combined to silence victims and protect a serial trafficker operating in plain sight.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

C dans l'air du 17 janvier 2026 - ICE : les cow-boys de Trump qui sèment la terreurDes hommes masqués, en treillis militaires, fusil au poing. Voilà désormais le cauchemar des habitants de Minneapolis, aux Etats-Unis. Cette ville du Minnesota, bastion démocrate, est devenu ces derniers jours l'épicentre de la contestation contre les méthodes de l'ICE, la police anti-immigration de Donald Trump, et ses méthodes ultra violentes. Le 7 janvier, Renee Good, une mère de famille américaine de 37 ans, a été abattue au volant de sa voiture par un policier de l'ICE, alors qu'elle essayait de s'enfuir. La scène, filmée, a mis le feu aux poudres et les habitants de certains quartiers tirent désormais au mortier sur les policiers, qui ripostent à l'aide de gaz lacrymogène. Jeudi, Donald Trump a menacé de recourir à l'Insurrection Act, qui permet de déployer l'armée sur le territoire américain pour contenir des émeutes, et qui n'a plus été employé depuis les émeutes de Los Angeles en 1992.Pendant ce temps, Donald Trump continue de provoquer la controverse. Cette semaine, le président américain a été filmé à Détroit en train d'adresser un doigt d'honneur à une personne qui l'aurait qualifié de « protecteur de pédophiles ». Le directeur de la communication de la Maison Blanche a défendu un geste « tout à fait adéquat et dénué d'ambiguïté ». Depuis que le Congrès américain a publié, mi-décembre, une partie du dossier Epstein, Donald Trump ne commente plus l'affaire en public. Est-ce parce qu'il se sent de plus en plus fragilisé ? Ces derniers jours, le président s'est plaint auprès de ses conseillers du travail de la procureure générale Pam Bondi, qu'il aurait qualifiée de « faible » et qu'il considère « incapable de mettre en œuvre son programme ».En Géorgie, swingstate qui a basculé côté républicain lors de la dernière élection présidentielle, la base MAGA est de plus en plus déçue par un président qui ne tient pas ses promesses de campagne. Certains électeurs lui reprochent sa guerre commerciale qui pèse lourd sur l'économie américaine. D'autres l'accusent de ne pas vouloir faire toute la lumière sur le dossier Epstein, et même d'avoir lâché leur élue MAGA locale Marjorie Taylor Greene. Ancienne fervente du président, l'élue complotiste s'était attirée les foudres de la Maison Blanche après avoir critiqué les revirements de Donald Trump sur le sujet. Elle a finalement démissionné du Congrès début janvier. Un lâchage qui pourrait couter cher au camp républicain lors des élections de mi-mandat en 2026.Que cherche Donald Trump en promouvant les rafles de sa police anti-immigration ? Le président américain est-il affaibli sur le dossier Epstein ? Et sa base d'électeurs MAGA va-t-elle se fragiliser à deux ans des élections de mi-mandat ?Nos experts :- David THOMSON - Journaliste spécialiste du mouvement MAGA, auteur du documentaire « J.D Vance : la revanche d'une Amérique »- Laurence HAÏM - Ancienne correspondante aux États-Unis, auteure de « Ghislaine Maxwell, une femme amoureuse »- Elisa CHELLE - Professeure de science politique à l'Université Paris-Nanterre- Corentin SELLIN - Professeur d'histoire en classe préparatoire, spécialiste des Etats-Unis et chroniqueur pour le média « Les Jours »

C dans l'air du 17 janvier 2026 - ICE : les cow-boys de Trump qui sèment la terreurNos experts :- David THOMSON - Journaliste spécialiste du mouvement MAGA, auteur du documentaire « J.D Vance : la revanche d'une Amérique »- Laurence HAÏM - Ancienne correspondante aux États-Unis, auteure de « Ghislaine Maxwell, une femme amoureuse »- Elisa CHELLE - Professeure de science politique à l'Université Paris-Nanterre- Corentin SELLIN - Professeur d'histoire en classe préparatoire, spécialiste des Etats-Unis et chroniqueur pour le média « Les Jours »

In the defamation lawsuit Giuffre v. Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell submitted a Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as part of her motion for summary judgment. This statement aimed to establish that there were no genuine disputes over key facts, thereby justifying a judgment in her favor without proceeding to trial. Maxwell's Rule 56.1 statement outlined her version of events, countering Virginia Giuffre's allegations that Maxwell had defamed her by denying involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking activities. The statement sought to demonstrate that Maxwell's public denials were not defamatory but rather responses to unfounded accusations.However, the court found that genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly concerning the truth or falsity of Maxwell's statements and her role in Epstein's activities. As a result, Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was denied, allowing the case to proceed to trial. This decision underscored the complexities involved in defamation cases, especially when intertwined with serious allegations of sexual misconduct and trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloud

CIA Director Bill Burns' past meetings with Jeffrey Epstein have raised serious concerns about the extent of Epstein's influence over powerful government figures. At the time of their encounters in 2014, Burns was serving as Deputy Secretary of State, while Epstein had already been a registered sex offender for six years following his 2008 conviction. Despite Epstein's criminal record and widely known reputation, Burns reportedly met with him multiple times, including at Epstein's townhouse in Manhattan. The alleged purpose of these meetings was to seek career advice on transitioning to the private sector—an explanation that only deepens the discomfort surrounding such a relationship. For a high-ranking diplomat to consult a convicted sex offender for professional guidance signals either shockingly poor judgment or a normalization of Epstein's continued access to the elite.What makes the situation even more troubling is the lack of transparency from government institutions. The CIA has issued vague assurances that the meetings were harmless and limited, but they have not explained why a senior U.S. official would be turning to Epstein for any form of counsel in the first place. Meanwhile, the White House has refused to comment. These evasions come at a time when public trust in the Epstein investigation is already eroded, and they only reinforce the perception that Epstein's true reach into the halls of power is being deliberately downplayed. Rather than distancing themselves, powerful figures like Burns engaged with Epstein long after it was publicly indefensible to do so—a pattern that continues to cast a shadow over the entire investigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein's Private Calendar Reveals Prominent Names, Including CIA Chief, Goldman's Top Lawyer (msn.com)

During his interview with House Oversight Chair James Comer, Sean Hannity floated the bogus claim that Donald Trump was never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane, presenting it as settled fact rather than a disputed assertion. Hannity didn't hedge, qualify, or frame it as an open question. He stated it confidently, knowing full well that flight logs are incomplete, contested, and only part of a much larger evidentiary picture. The problem wasn't just that the claim was misleading, it was that it functioned as narrative laundering in real time. Hannity used his platform to preemptively absolve Trump while discussing an investigation that is supposedly about transparency and accountability. By doing so, he turned what should have been a probing oversight conversation into a defensive media maneuver. It was less journalism than message control, dressed up as certainty.What made the moment especially telling was Comer's silence. As the chair of an oversight committee tasked with following evidence wherever it leads, Comer had an obligation to correct the record or at least clarify the limits of what is known. He did neither. His failure to push back signaled political convenience over factual precision, reinforcing the perception that this investigation has guardrails depending on whose name comes up. Comer's non-response allowed Hannity's claim to harden into implied truth for the audience, despite the fact that flight logs are not exhaustive proof of absence and never have been. The silence spoke louder than a correction would have. In a scandal defined by selective scrutiny and protected figures, that moment exposed how quickly oversight can bend when media allies set the tone.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Fox's Sean Hannity claims Trump never flew on Epstein plane despite numerous flight log entries | The Independent

Jamie Raskin sent a pointed letter to Columbia University demanding answers about the institution's historical ties to Jeffrey Epstein and whether the university had fully disclosed the extent of his involvement, influence, and access. The letter pressed Columbia on how Epstein was able to associate himself with the university, cultivate relationships with faculty and administrators, and leverage the institution's prestige long after serious allegations about his conduct were widely known. Raskin questioned whether Columbia conducted adequate due diligence, whether any donations or benefits were accepted directly or indirectly, and how Epstein's presence may have been normalized or concealed within academic circles. The tone of the letter made clear that this was not a casual inquiry but an accountability demand, rooted in the concern that elite institutions repeatedly failed to erect meaningful barriers against Epstein despite ample warning signs.Raskin's letter also framed Columbia as part of a broader pattern in which powerful institutions insulated themselves with silence, procedural ambiguity, and selective memory. He emphasized that universities are not passive victims of association, but active gatekeepers whose decisions can legitimize predators and marginalize survivors. By demanding records, explanations, and transparency, Raskin signaled that Epstein's academic enablers should not be treated as incidental footnotes to his crimes. The letter underscored that reputational laundering through academia was a key component of Epstein's power and protection, and that Columbia's answers would speak volumes about whether elite institutions are willing to confront their own role in that system. It was a warning shot that the era of “we didn't know” defenses is no longer acceptable.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mother Jones filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Bureau of Prisons after the BOP stonewalled basic questions surrounding Ghislaine Maxwell's abrupt and unusually opaque transfer following her conviction. The magazine sought records explaining why Maxwell was moved, who authorized it, what security assessments were conducted, and whether any deviations from standard BOP transfer protocols occurred. Instead of transparency, the BOP responded with heavy redactions, delays, and categorical refusals, even though Maxwell is one of the most high-profile federal inmates in modern history and her custody directly implicates public confidence in the system after Jeffrey Epstein's death. Mother Jones argued that the BOP's secrecy was not about safety, but about insulating itself from scrutiny after years of documented failures, incompetence, and credibility collapse tied to Epstein and his network.The lawsuit highlights how the BOP reflexively treats accountability as a threat rather than an obligation, especially when the case touches Epstein-related fallout. Mother Jones made clear that this was not a fishing expedition, but a narrow request aimed at understanding whether Maxwell received preferential treatment, whether political or institutional pressure influenced her placement, and whether the BOP was quietly rewriting its own narrative to avoid further embarrassment. The BOP's resistance only reinforced suspicions, because routine transfers are normally documented, logged, and explainable. By forcing the issue into federal court, the lawsuit underscored a broader pattern in the Epstein-Maxwell saga: when transparency is most warranted, federal agencies choose silence, obstruction, and delay, daring the public to forget rather than proving they have nothing to hide.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Mother Jones Sues the Bureau of Prisons for Ghislaine Maxwell Records – Mother Jones

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

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

In the defamation lawsuit Giuffre v. Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell submitted a Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as part of her motion for summary judgment. This statement aimed to establish that there were no genuine disputes over key facts, thereby justifying a judgment in her favor without proceeding to trial. Maxwell's Rule 56.1 statement outlined her version of events, countering Virginia Giuffre's allegations that Maxwell had defamed her by denying involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking activities. The statement sought to demonstrate that Maxwell's public denials were not defamatory but rather responses to unfounded accusations.However, the court found that genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly concerning the truth or falsity of Maxwell's statements and her role in Epstein's activities. As a result, Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was denied, allowing the case to proceed to trial. This decision underscored the complexities involved in defamation cases, especially when intertwined with serious allegations of sexual misconduct and trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloud

After the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, Juror 50, Scotty David, gave a controversial interview in which he openly discussed jury deliberations and revealed that his own personal experience as a survivor of sexual abuse influenced how he evaluated testimony. He stated that during deliberations he encouraged other jurors to rely on their “common sense” and personal experiences to understand why victims might delay reporting or struggle with memory. While David framed his comments as an effort to help jurors empathize with survivors, the interview immediately raised alarms because jurors are explicitly instructed not to introduce outside experiences or undisclosed biases into deliberations. His remarks appeared to contradict assurances given during jury selection, where jurors are required to disclose experiences that could affect their impartiality. The interview transformed what should have been a closed chapter of the trial into a new flashpoint, shifting attention from Maxwell's conviction to the integrity of the verdict itself.The fallout was swift and serious. Maxwell's legal team seized on David's comments, filing motions arguing that his failure to disclose his abuse history tainted the jury and violated her right to a fair trial. Courts were forced to hold post-trial hearings to determine whether juror misconduct had occurred and whether David intentionally withheld material information during voir dire. Although the conviction ultimately stood, the episode handed Maxwell's defense a procedural lifeline and injected avoidable uncertainty into an otherwise decisive outcome. Critics argued that David's decision to speak publicly was reckless, providing ammunition to a convicted trafficker while retraumatizing survivors who feared the verdict could be undone.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein utilized the high-end art market as a financial fog machine, a place where enormous sums can move with minimal scrutiny and subjective valuations do most of the work. Art provided him a perfect vehicle to park money, shift value, and obscure income because prices are flexible, private sales are common, and provenance questions are often treated as inconveniences rather than red flags. Epstein reportedly bought, sold, and traded expensive artwork through intermediaries and shell structures, allowing him to convert cash into “assets” that could appreciate quietly while remaining largely invisible to tax authorities. Unlike traditional income streams, art transactions often escape standardized reporting, especially when handled through private dealers, offshore entities, or discreet auctions. This allowed Epstein to maintain the appearance of immense wealth without clearly defined revenue sources. Art wasn't just decoration for Epstein; it was a financial strategy.The art market also helped Epstein reinforce legitimacy while masking criminal proceeds. Hanging valuable works in his homes signaled sophistication and status, making his wealth appear organic rather than suspicious. At the same time, art could be used as collateral, transferred between entities, or quietly sold to generate liquidity without triggering the same scrutiny as financial accounts. This opacity is exactly why art has long been attractive to money launderers, oligarchs, and criminals, and Epstein exploited those weaknesses to the fullest. The lack of transparency benefited not just Epstein, but the institutions and individuals who preferred not to ask hard questions about where his money came from. In this way, the art world functioned as both shield and accomplice, providing Epstein a culturally respectable way to hide income, move value, and maintain the illusion of untouchable wealth.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A memoir titled Nobody's Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, written by Virginia Roberts Giuffre with journalist Amy Wallace, is scheduled for posthumous release on October 21, 2025, from Alfred A. Knopf (with Penguin Random House involved in audio and ebook editions). The 400‑page manuscript was completed prior to Giuffre's death by suicide in April 2025, and she had conveyed—via an email to Wallace dated April 1—that it was her “heartfelt wish” for the book to be published regardless of the outcome. Publishers describe the memoir as an unsparing and powerful narrative of trafficking, abuse, and survival, rigorously fact-checked and legally vetted, aimed at spotlighting systemic failures in human trafficking enforcement and championing justice and awareness.Of particular note, Nobody's Girl includes “intimate, disturbing, and heartbreaking new details” about Giuffre's experiences with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and other high-profile individuals—including Britain's Prince Andrew. This marks her first public discussion of Andrew since their 2022 out-of-court settlement, which reportedly involved a multi-million‑dollar payment. In doing so, the memoir is expected to reignite scrutiny and media attention on the allegations Andrew has long denied, resurrecting his central role in a scandal many believed had faded from the headlines.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Prince Andrew struggling as Virginia Giuffre memoir set for release: expert | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.