Podcast appearances and mentions of Ghislaine Maxwell

Michael Wolff and Joanna Coles unravel a week in Trumpworld that veers from grotesque to outright dangerous, starting with Donald Trump's late-night Truth Social spiral and the racist meme depicting the Obamas that even members of his own party scrambled to disown. They dig into what aides privately describe as Trump “going over the edge,” why the media still struggles to describe these moments honestly, and how this behavior is no longer an exception but the operating system. From there, the conversation turns to Trump's jaw-dropping demand to rename Penn Station after himself—holding billions in federal infrastructure funding hostage in exchange for another monument to his name—and what that reveals about power, domination, and his obsession with owning physical and psychological space. The episode also explores the next weaponized phase of the Epstein files, Ghislaine Maxwell's looming testimony, and how conspiracy, grievance, and raw racism are colliding at the center of Trump's presidency—so is this just another scandal to scroll past, or a warning sign of something far more unstable still to come? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Maureen Comey, a federal prosecutor and daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, was recently removed from her position following a series of high-profile prosecutorial failures, most notably her handling of the Sean “Diddy” Combs case and the ongoing fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. In the Diddy case, despite mounting public allegations, corroborating testimony, and a sprawling federal investigation, Comey failed to secure a conviction on key charges—prompting criticism from within the DOJ and from the public, who viewed it as yet another instance of the wealthy and powerful skirting justice. Her role in the Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell matters had already drawn skepticism, particularly over the slow pace of disclosures and missing evidence. Combined, these failures painted a picture of a prosecutor either unwilling or unable to push cases against elite defendants across the finish line.Comey's dismissal is being viewed by many as symbolic of a broader institutional failure. For years, she was positioned as a central figure in prosecutions that promised accountability for Epstein's network of enablers, yet few meaningful outcomes followed. The fact that she is now gone—without fanfare, without accountability, and without explanation—only fuels suspicions that her presence was more about containment than prosecution. Her firing doesn't feel like justice—it feels like an after-the-fact cleanup, a quiet reshuffling meant to relieve pressure while continuing to protect the same circles that have evaded consequences all along.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ fires Maurene Comey, daughter of James Comey and a prosecutor in Sean Combs' and Ghislaine Maxwell's cases

Congress, specifically the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform led by Robert Garcia and signed by 13–16 Democratic members, has formally written to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (formerly known as Prince Andrew) requesting that he provide a transcribed interview about his “long-standing friendship” with Jeffrey Epstein and his possible knowledge of Epstein's co-conspirators, enablers and criminal operations. The letter points to flight logs, financial records (including notations such as “massage for Andrew”), an email from 2011 in which Andrew allegedly wrote “we are in this together”, and the fact that he traveled with Epstein to several locations. The committee asks for Andrew's response by 20 November 2025.However, the request is not a binding subpoena: because Andrew is a foreign national no longer holding British royal immunity, Congress cannot compel his testimony in the same way it can U.S. citizens. He therefore may choose to decline without facing the usual legal penalties for ignoring a congressional subpoena. Congress and the committee stress that his cooperation is sought in the interest of justice for Epstein's victims and to shed light on potential further misconduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Ghislaine Maxwell refusing to answer questions at her deposition to help Trump's cover up of his dark past and Meiselas discusses why she should not be allowed to make a blanket Fifth Amendment Assertion. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Even from behind bars, Ghislaine Maxwell has remained a steadfast and vocal defender of Prince Andrew, clinging to a narrative of innocence that defies the mountain of public scrutiny and survivor testimony. In interviews and through intermediaries, Maxwell has repeatedly insisted that the infamous photo of Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre—his arm around her bare waist, Maxwell herself grinning in the background—is either doctored or misrepresented. This denial comes despite the fact that the image has been widely authenticated and corroborated by multiple individuals, including Giuffre. Maxwell's unwavering defense appears less about truth and more about protecting a shared past—one steeped in elite privilege, mutual secrets, and potentially incriminating knowledge. Her loyalty to Andrew reads not as moral conviction, but as a desperate act of preservation for a world that once protected them both.What stands out about Maxwell's continued defense of Prince Andrew is how consistent it has remained, even after her own conviction. Rather than expressing any accountability or reflecting on the damage caused by the trafficking ring she was convicted of helping to run, Maxwell has chosen to double down on denying Andrew's involvement. She's made repeated claims that the photo of Andrew with Virginia Giuffre is fake, despite no credible evidence to support that. Her stance seems rooted less in legal strategy and more in loyalty to past allies. It suggests that, even in prison, Maxwell is still protecting the network of high-profile individuals connected to Epstein, perhaps in the hope that continued silence or allegiance might one day benefit her.

Federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff has accelerated litigation brought by a woman who says she was abused by Jeffrey Epstein, ordering the case against Bank of America (BofA) and The Bank of New York Mellon (BNY) onto a fast track. The plaintiff (referred to as “Jane Doe”) alleges the banks knowingly facilitated Epstein's trafficking operation, pointing to an account opened at BofA at Epstein's direction and alleging BNY processed around $378 million in payments to trafficking victims. The judge set November deadlines for motions to dismiss, demands full discovery by late February 2026, and indicated trials could begin in May or June 2026.The lawsuits bring fresh scrutiny to how major financial institutions may have turned a blind eye—or worse—to red flags around Epstein's operations. In the BofA complaint, the claim is made that the bank failed to file required Suspicious Activity Reports despite multiple warning signs, and profited from Epstein's business. The BNY suit accuses the bank of giving credit lines and processing vast sums tied to Epstein's model-agency front used in trafficking. Both banks say they will defend vigorously. The move follows earlier suits against JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank that settled for hundreds of millions of dollars without admissions of liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsources:Epstein Victim Lawsuits Against Bank of America and BNY Moving Quickly - Business Insider

Clayton Howard, a former male escort and frequent participant in Diddy's private sex parties known as “freak-offs,” has filed a lawsuit accusing both Sean “Diddy” Combs and Cassie Ventura of sex trafficking, coercion, and abuse. According to his claims, he was recruited to perform sex acts under the guise of high-end parties, only to find himself drugged, manipulated, and transported across state lines for increasingly degrading and violent encounters. He alleges that Diddy exercised complete control over the events, orchestrating who did what and with whom, often while recording the acts without consent. Howard describes a world of intimidation, where refusal meant exile, and participation meant surrendering autonomy and dignity.What makes his allegations even more explosive is his assertion that Cassie wasn't just a victim of Diddy's abuse—but an active participant in his exploitation. He accuses her of knowingly infecting him with an STD, coercing him into sexual acts, demanding he masturbate for hours while she filmed him, and ultimately pressuring him into an abortion. Howard paints a picture of Cassie as someone who embraced the power dynamic created by Diddy, allegedly using it to dominate and humiliate others in turn. His lawsuit portrays the entire environment as a sadistic, hierarchical structure of abuse where both Diddy and Cassie held power and used it to break down and control those beneath them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Howard v Combs Ventura

The government of the U.S. Virgin Islands launched a sweeping civil investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to expose how he used the territory as a hub for sex trafficking, money laundering, and regulatory capture. The USVI lawsuit accused Epstein of operating a criminal enterprise from Little St. James with the knowledge, cooperation, or willful blindness of banks, service providers, and wealthy associates who enabled his operations. Investigators focused on Epstein's financial networks, travel logistics, staffing pipelines, and the flow of cash that sustained years of abuse far from mainland scrutiny. The case sought accountability not only for Epstein's crimes but for the ecosystem that protected him, arguing that his island operation could not have functioned without elite facilitators. While the USVI ultimately settled with Epstein's estate, the investigation cracked open the mechanics of impunity that allowed him to thrive. It reframed Epstein not as a lone monster, but as the beneficiary of systemic indulgence by powerful people.Within that context, Glenn Dubin emerges as a deeply troubling figure whose proximity to Epstein went far beyond casual acquaintance. Dubin and his family maintained a long-standing relationship with Epstein, including documented social interactions and connections that overlapped with the period of Epstein's known trafficking activity. While Dubin has denied wrongdoing, the USVI's investigative posture placed pressure on individuals like him precisely because their wealth and access helped normalize Epstein's presence in elite circles long after his crimes were public. Dubin's continued association with Epstein, even after the 2008 conviction, reflects the moral bankruptcy the investigation sought to expose: powerful men choosing convenience and influence over basic human decency. The criticism is not about legal guilt alone, but about judgment, responsibility, and complicity by silence. In the USVI's accounting, figures like Dubin represent how Epstein stayed protected—by people who knew enough to walk away, but didn't.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Alan Dershowitz has become a lightning rod for criticism because of his longstanding defense of Jeffrey Epstein, including his prominent role on Epstein's legal team during the controversial 2008 non-prosecution agreement and his public efforts to defend Epstein well after the seriousness of the crimes became undeniable. Critics point out that Dershowitz didn't just serve as an attorney; he embraced Epstein personally, describing him as a “good person who does many good things,” even as evidence mounted about widespread sexual abuse of minors — a stance that looks indefensible in hindsight and deeply harmful to survivors. Dershowitz also reportedly spearheaded efforts to discredit young accusers, including hiring investigators and sending personal details from an accuser's social media to law enforcement in ways that many view as victim-blaming rather than legitimate defense.Beyond his legal work, Dershowitz's critics argue that his public posture has repeatedly protected powerful individuals instead of truth and accountability. He has claimed to “know the names” of people connected to Epstein's circle and suggested alleged suppression of information — statements that feed conspiracy theories rather than clarify facts, all while insisting on his own innocence and the rights of the accused over the voices of victims. This has compounded outrage because many see it as another layer of elite insulation, where a famed lawyer uses his platform to cast doubt on systemic abuse rather than confront it, and in doing so, perpetuates the same culture of power and privilege that enabled Epstein for decades.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

For years, Queen Elizabeth II chose preservation of the Crown over accountability, and nowhere was that failure clearer than in her handling of Prince Andrew and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Despite Epstein's 2008 conviction, Andrew continued to enjoy royal protection, status, and access, with no meaningful intervention from the monarch who ultimately controlled the institution's response. The Queen allowed Andrew to remain a working royal for years after Epstein's crimes were public knowledge, signaling that proximity to power outweighed the gravity of trafficking allegations. Even as public scrutiny intensified, the Palace defaulted to silence, denial, and delay, a pattern that insulated Andrew rather than confronting the moral rot of his associations. This was not ignorance; it was willful avoidance, a deliberate decision to treat Epstein as an embarrassment to be managed instead of a warning demanding decisive action. By prioritizing stability optics over ethical leadership, the Queen enabled a culture in which Andrew faced no immediate consequences.That failure reached its nadir after Andrew's disastrous 2019 interview, when the Palace response was reactive and begrudging, not principled. Only after overwhelming backlash did the Queen strip Andrew of military titles and patronages, and even then, the measures felt calculated to quiet outrage rather than acknowledge wrongdoing or institutional complicity. There was no transparent reckoning, no apology to survivors, and no clear admission that the monarchy had protected one of its own at the expense of justice. The Queen's refusal to act sooner sent a message that royal blood conferred immunity from scrutiny, reinforcing a hierarchy where victims' voices mattered less than preserving the façade of dignity. History will not remember this as quiet restraint; it will remember it as abdication. In shielding Andrew for as long as she did, Queen Elizabeth II didn't merely overlook his Epstein ties—she normalized the idea that power excuses proximity to predation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

There is nothing unclear about Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, and anyone pretending otherwise is not confused, they are cowardly. The files are explicit and repetitive, documenting a system of abuse built on recruitment, payment, silence, and protection, not isolated misconduct. Minimization does not require denial, only dilution: urging people to “move on,” reframing accountability as obsession, or shaming anger as irrational. That behavior slows momentum, protects power, and preserves the same structures that shielded Epstein for decades. Many doing this now once demanded transparency and justice, but their courage vanished when accountability threatened their own political tribe. The facts did not change; their loyalties did. This is surrender disguised as restraint, and it actively enables a predator's legacy.What makes this especially vile is the erasure of victims in real time. Former advocates don't dispute the evidence; they simply stop amplifying it, redirect attention, and fall silent when pressure appears. That silence is tactical, and it mirrors the discretion Epstein relied on to operate. Anger and disgust are not excess here—they are the appropriate response to industrialized abuse and institutional failure. Claims that continued scrutiny “helps Epstein” invert reality; silence, deference, and respectability helped him, while exposure damaged him. Ending scrutiny protects enablers, not survivors. This moment is a moral sorting: comfort versus courage, tribe versus truth. Those minimizing the record are not being nuanced—they are enabling abuse, even now, even after death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Recent, publicly released documents from the Epstein files show that French politician Jack Lang had a documented personal relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein that extended over several years. Lang's name and correspondence appear numerous times in Department of Justice files, including emails thanking Epstein for hospitality and evidence that Lang and his family accepted favors such as use of Epstein's vehicles. Epstein also made donations and financial contributions tied to Lang's circle, including to a French nonprofit and film projects linked to Lang's daughter; those connections have already prompted professional consequences for her. Lang has maintained that he did not know about Epstein's criminal activities at the time and has denied wrongdoing, but the documented correspondence and interactions are now a significant part of the broader scrutiny of how Epstein cultivated relationships with influential figures.Similarly, former Norwegian prime minister and Thorbjørn Jagland appears in the Epstein archives with documented contact and communications. Emails published from the files show repeated exchanges between Jagland and Epstein, including plans discussed regarding trips and requests involving contacts overseas, and interactions that span years. Norwegian authorities have now opened a formal criminal investigation into Jagland for gross corruption related to these ties, focusing on whether he received improper benefits such as paid travel, medical bills, or other financial advantages during his time in prominent positions like head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. Jagland has acknowledged the contacts and described them in diplomatic terms, but the emerging evidence and ongoing investigations mean his relationship with Epstein is under active legal and public scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsourceFrance's former culture minister Jack Lang summoned over Epstein links - France 24Norway investigates former prime minister over Epstein ties - ABC News

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

Ian Maxwell's Spectator article reads less like a defense of justice and more like a tone-deaf PR memo from a family desperate to rewrite history. Cloaked in pseudo-sympathy and self-pity, Maxwell portrays his sister Ghislaine as some tragic heroine—a misunderstood victim of “media persecution” and an “inhumane” justice system. He spares no ink reminding readers that she was strip-searched, isolated, and treated unfairly, yet offers not a single ounce of genuine accountability for the teenage girls she groomed, exploited, or delivered into the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. The piece reeks of entitlement—the idea that the daughter of Robert Maxwell should be exempt from the consequences of her own actions simply because she's “suffered enough.” It's manipulative, self-serving, and deeply insulting to survivors who endured far worse.Rather than confronting the crimes or showing remorse, Ian Maxwell doubles down on the family's trademark arrogance, spinning a narrative that his sister is a scapegoat for Epstein's sins. He blames the justice system, the media, and public opinion—anyone and everyone except the person who trafficked minors across continents under the guise of philanthropy and power. His framing suggests that wealth and pedigree should shield one from public outrage, as if accountability were some vulgar thing reserved for commoners. What emerges isn't a defense of due process—it's the whining of a man unwilling to accept that his sister wasn't “targeted” by the system; she was caught by it. And the only “injustice” here is the insult of pretending otherwise.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Don't take Virginia Giuffre's memoir at face value - The Spectator World

February 5, 2026; 6pm; MS NOW's Ari Melber reports on the DOJ's final batch of Epstein files and what they reveal about government failures. Former federal prosecutor John Flannery joins the discussion. Plus, Melber reports on the new fallout after Jeff Bezos slashed a third of The Washington Post's staff. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A new tranche of Jeffrey Epstein's emails makes one thing painfully clear: Epstein was a central figure in the lives of a lot of big names in tech, and had influence on a surprising number of companies and executives. David and Nilay talk through what we've learned from the new emails so far. Then they turn to Anthropic's spicy new Super Bowl ads about... ads, which caused a big reaction from OpenAI (which is betting big on ads). They also discuss this week's antitrust hearing about Netflix's purchase of Warner Bros., the latest in Brendan Carr is a Dummy, Google Home's big buttons upgrade, and much more. Further reading: Here's how Epstein broke the internet Former Windows 8 boss recruited Epstein to help negotiate his messy Microsoft exit Jeffrey Epstein arranged a meeting with Tim Cook for the former head of Windows The Epstein files  Google co-founder Sergey Brin visited Epstein's private island and traded emails with Ghislaine Maxwell. It turns out Elon Musk didn't exactly ‘refuse' the invite to Jeffrey Epstein's island.  Will Elon Musk's emails with Jeffrey Epstein derail his very important year?  Bill Gates says accusations contained in Epstein files are ‘absolutely absurd' Jeffrey Epstein was permanently banned from Xbox Live  ‘We've basically funded an elite global pedophile ring since 2015.'  Anthropic says ‘Claude will remain ad-free,' unlike an unnamed rival Anthropic's blog post: Claude is a space to think Sam Altman responds to Anthropic's ‘funny' Super Bowl ads  OpenAI's CMO on X Nvidia CEO denies he's ‘unhappy' with OpenAI Netflix lands in the middle of a culture war during Senate hearing Everyone is stealing TV  Disney says Josh D'Amaro will replace Bob Iger as CEO  FCC aims to ensure “only living and lawful Americans” get Lifeline benefits Elon Musk is merging SpaceX and xAI to build data centers in space — or so he says  Peloton's gamble on expensive new hardware has yet to pay off Google Home finally adds support for buttons  Raspberry Pi is raising prices again as memory shortages continue  Valve's Steam Machine has been delayed, and the RAM crisis will impact pricing  Aluminium: Why Google's Android for PC launch may be messy and controversial Subscribe to The Verge for unlimited access to theverge.com, subscriber-exclusive newsletters, and our ad-free podcast feed.We love hearing from you! Email your questions and thoughts to vergecast@theverge.com or call us at 866-VERGE11.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In which we deep dive into Bravo's The Real Housewives franchises and their numerous connections to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell over the years. JOIN US ON PATREON +2 VIDEO BONUS EPISODES EACH WEEK GIRL ON GAY - WHAT WE'RE WATCHING/READING/PLAYING LEFTOVERS - EXTRA HOLLYWOOD GOSSIP WE CAN'T SHARE ON THE MAIN FEED About Eating For Free: Hosted by journalists Joan Summers and Matthew Lawson, Eating For Free is a weekly podcast that explores gossip and power in the pop culture landscape: Where it comes from, who wields it, and who suffers at the hands of it. Find out the stories behind the stories, as together they look beyond the headlines of troublesome YouTubers or scandal-ridden A-Listers, and delve deep into the inner workings of Hollywood's favorite pastime. The truth, they've found, is definitely stranger than any gossip. You can also find us on our website, Twitter, and Instagram. Any personal, business, or general inquires can be sent to eatingforfreepodcast@gmail.com  Joan Summers' Twitter, Instagram Matthew Lawson's Twitter, Instagram

Los Archivos Epstein no solo hablan de un criminal, sino de un sistema que permitió su impunidad durante años. Documentos oficiales, nombres influyentes y una justicia que parece operar con doble moral. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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 Politics

The phrase “Epstein didn't kill himself” began as gallows humor in the immediate aftermath of Jeffrey Epstein's death in August 2019, when the official narrative of suicide inside a federal jail collapsed almost instantly under the weight of contradictions, failures, and institutional embarrassment. Two guards asleep, cameras malfunctioning, cell checks skipped, a high-profile inmate left unmonitored — the circumstances were so absurd, so improbably negligent, that public disbelief hardened into a catchphrase. What started as an expression of suspicion quickly mutated into a meme, spreading across social media, late-night television, sports broadcasts, and even corporate marketing. The phrase became a punchline, a slogan, a cultural reflex — a shorthand for institutional incompetence, corruption, and the sense that powerful systems had once again failed in spectacular fashion while asking the public to accept it quietly.But the meme did more than mock the official story — it permanently altered how Epstein's death is remembered. By turning skepticism into a viral joke, it kept the case alive in the public imagination long after news cycles moved on, embedding doubt into popular culture in a way formal investigations never could. At the same time, it flattened a complex and disturbing event into a catchphrase, often stripping away the victims, the legal stakes, and the unanswered questions beneath the humor. The irony is that the meme's power came from a truth the government could never fully repair: even after internal reports, prosecutions of guards, and official conclusions of suicide, the combination of procedural collapse and Epstein's extraordinary value as a potential witness made disbelief not fringe, but mainstream. The joke worked because too many people understood exactly what it implied — that in a system built to protect power, some deaths are never going to feel accidental, no matter how often they're labeled that way.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

Keir Starmer is increasingly on the defensive as the Epstein scandal widens and scrutiny turns toward the political class that benefited from years of selective blindness. While Starmer has not been accused of direct involvement in Epstein's crimes, the pressure comes from his positioning as a moral reformer while presiding over a system now exposed as having repeatedly failed victims and protected powerful men. Critics argue that his leadership has coincided with evasive answers, cautious language, and an instinct to manage optics rather than confront the full scale of institutional rot revealed by the Epstein disclosures. For a prime minister who built his brand on legality, integrity, and prosecutorial seriousness, even the perception of hedging or delay has proven politically toxic.What has put Starmer “on the ropes” is not a single revelation but the cumulative effect of public anger: survivors demanding accountability, advocates calling out transatlantic protection networks, and voters increasingly intolerant of leaders who appear more concerned with reputational containment than justice. The Epstein scandal has become a litmus test for whether Starmer will meaningfully challenge entrenched power or default to the same cautious establishment instincts he once criticized. Each non-answer, each procedural dodge, and each appeal to process over accountability feeds the narrative that he is out of his depth—or unwilling—to confront elites implicated by proximity, silence, or prior association. In a moment defined by moral clarity for the public, Starmer's careful lawyering is being read not as prudence, but as weakness.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Secret texts with PM's chief aide, what PM knew about Epstein links, and huge 'golden goodbye'... the grim trove of Mandelson papers due for publication that could end Starmer | Daily Mail Online

Newly released emails from Ghislaine Maxwell appear to confirm the authenticity of the infamous photograph showing Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor with his arm around Virginia Giuffre — a photo long disputed by both Maxwell and Andrew. In a 2015 draft statement sent to Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell wrote that in 2001 she was in London when Giuffre met several of her friends, including Andrew, and that a picture was taken “as I imagine she wanted to show it to friends and family,” effectively acknowledging the image was real and that she had introduced them. Maxwell's email also stated Andrew visited her home, although she continued in the correspondence to claim she had no knowledge of “anything improper” occurring between Giuffre and Andrew.The release of these messages comes as part of a massive tranche of documents tied to Epstein that the U.S. Department of Justice disclosed recently. The emails contradict longstanding denials by both Maxwell and Andrew about the meeting and undercut Andrew's past arguments that the photo might have been doctored. Giuffre, who died by suicide in 2025, had maintained the photograph supported her allegations that she was trafficked and abused; her family has described the new emails as vindicating her claims. Andrew settled a civil lawsuit with Giuffre in 2022 without admitting liability and has repeatedly denied wrongdoing. Buckingham Palace declined to comment, and UK police have so far not launched a full criminal investigation based on these revelations.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:That photo of Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre IS REAL and I introduced them, admits Ghislaine Maxwell in damning emails that blow Pizza Express alibi apart | Daily Mail Online

Federal prosecutors have released a massive  tranche of documents connected to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as part of a transparency law, and those files show his extensive ties to powerful figures in tech and beyond. The documents include emails and correspondence involving prominent tech leaders such as Elon Musk and Bill Gates, among others, discussing social plans, personal matters, and interactions with Epstein long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution involving a minor. Though appearing in the files does not imply criminal wrongdoing, the records show Musk asked Epstein about boat and holiday plans and expressed interest in visiting Epstein's private Caribbean island, while Epstein drafted unsent emails containing unverified and salacious allegations about Gates. Both tech figures have publicly denied impropriety, with spokespersons and social media posts rebutting any misconduct and characterizing their connections as limited or misinterpreted.Beyond individual interactions, the broader batch of more than three million pages paints a picture of Epstein's enduring access to elite social and business circles, including Silicon Valley and philanthropic networks. Documents suggest that Epstein remained welcome at exclusive dinners and gatherings with billionaire tech and finance leaders, and he even invested in early cryptocurrency ventures like Coinbase alongside major venture capital firms despite his criminal past. While the Justice Department has stated that the material does not establish a basis for new criminal charges, the release has reignited scrutiny of Epstein's relationships with influential people and sparked political and public calls for fuller accountability for those whose names appear in the files.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein files reveal deep tech ties, from Musk to Gates

Jeffrey Epstein operated as a free agent in the information market, not as a loyal asset of any single government, intelligence service, or political faction, but as a broker who understood that information itself was currency. He cultivated access to powerful people across finance, academia, politics, intelligence, and royalty, positioning himself as the connective tissue between elites who otherwise would not openly associate. Epstein gathered kompromat not just through sexual abuse, but through proximity—private flights, secluded residences, off-the-books meetings, and social environments where guardrails disappeared. He traded in favors, introductions, secrets, and silence, making himself useful to multiple parties simultaneously. That usefulness is what insulated him for so long: he was not owned, but leased—temporarily valuable to anyone who needed discretion, leverage, or deniability. In that ecosystem, Epstein's power came not from allegiance, but from optionality.At the core of it all, Epstein's only loyalty was to himself. He did not operate as a patriot, an ideologue, or a true intelligence operative in the traditional sense; he operated as a survivalist within elite power structures. He provided information where it benefited him, withheld it when it didn't, and shifted alliances as needed to maintain protection. This is why he could simultaneously assist different governments, ingratiate himself with rival power centers, and still remain untouchable for decades. Epstein's genius—if the term can be used—was recognizing that being indispensable to everyone meant being accountable to no one. His operation was built on mutual exposure and shared risk, ensuring that when the walls finally began to close in, there were too many people with too much to lose for the system to act swiftly. In the end, Epstein wasn't a pawn—he was a freelance operator who sold access, secrets, and silence, always in service of preserving his own power and immunity.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein's entanglement with Leon Black and Larry Summers runs through the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation and its flagship project, the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), born out of the wreckage of the 2008 financial crisis. Black, the billionaire Apollo founder, bankrolled INET with roughly $25 million and installed himself as its chief patron, while Summers — fresh off his controversial presidency at Harvard and a career bouncing between Wall Street and Washington — became one of its intellectual faces. Epstein, already a convicted sex offender by 2008, quietly emerged as a financial conduit and behind-the-scenes broker for INET and its affiliates, using donor networks, shell foundations, and elite access to move money and cultivate influence. Through Epstein's foundation, funds were routed into academic projects, conferences, and research hubs that placed him back inside elite academic circles that had supposedly shut him out, laundering his reputation through economics, philanthropy, and intellectual respectability.What makes the IPI/INET web so corrosive is how thoroughly it fused money, power, and reputational cover. Black would later admit paying Epstein $158 million for “tax advice,” an explanation so implausible it collapsed under its own weight, while Summers maintained institutional ties to projects and donors connected to Epstein long after his 2008 conviction was public record. Epstein was not a peripheral donor — he was a facilitator, recruiter, and fixer who connected hedge-fund money, Ivy League legitimacy, and political access in a closed loop that insulated all participants from scrutiny. The IPI ecosystem gave Epstein exactly what he needed after Florida: proximity to young academics, international travel, visa sponsorships, and an elite shield that made him look like a disgraced financier turned reformed intellectual benefactor. It wasn't an accident, and it wasn't ignorance — it was a deliberate system where billionaires, former Treasury secretaries, and a convicted predator all found mutual benefit inside the same polished academic machine.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

According to newly reported emails between Jeffrey Epstein and Leon Black, Epstein pressed Black with aggressive financial demands for years, particularly around 2015 to 2016. Epstein repeatedly insisted on annual payments of roughly US$40 million for providing tax-and-estate-planning services, seeking an upfront US$25 million plus multiple US$5-million bi-monthly installments. He chastised Black's children and financial advisers, calling them incompetent and saying that their actions had created a “really dangerous mess.”While Black had engaged Epstein for advisory services and reportedly paid over US$150 million over a period of time, the correspondence underscores how Epstein sought to impose unusually high compensation and used personal attacks and pressure tactics. Black maintains that Epstein's role was limited to legitimate financial work, and investigations (such as the independent review by law firm Dechert LLP) found no conclusive wrongdoing by Black, though substantial payments and tax-planning strategies remain under scrutiny from the U.S.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein sent nasty emails to Apollo founder Leon Black demanding millions of dollars

In her deposition on March 15, 2010, Ross was questioned extensively about her relationship with Epstein and individuals in his orbit, including the role of recruiting young women for massages and possible sexual contact. She was asked whether she ever used the term “massage” as a euphemism, whether she personally arranged for young women (including minors) to meet Epstein, and whether she benefited financially or materially from such arrangements. Ross repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked substantive questions about her own conduct in connection with Epstein's sexual-abuse network, declining to answer many questions about the details of her involvement.Ross was also asked about her knowledge of Epstein's associates and activities, including whether she was aware of certain flights, properties, and contacts used by Epstein's organization for transporting, lodging or grooming associates. The deposition records show that many of these questions were met with silence or non-responses, as Ross declined to answer on advice of counsel or invoked the Fifth. The lack of direct testimony from Ross thus left significant gaps in the civil case's ability to pin down the full details of her role.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

I spent years digging into the Jeffrey Epstein situation when almost nobody wanted to touch it. During that time, speaking publicly about what was really happening came with actual consequences—jobs vanished, relationships fell apart, and people distanced themselves fast. I dealt with intimidation attempts, anonymous calls, and pressure meant to get me to stop. Instead of backing off, I drove to Zorro Ranch to make it clear that fear wasn't going to dictate anything I did. I grew up around real danger, and those tactics didn't land the way they expected. What mattered then, and still matters now, is staying focused on the truth and pushing for accountability when powerful people would prefer silence.The landscape now is filled with new voices talking like authorities, even though most weren't around when this subject was treated like insanity instead of fact. Watching that happen is frustrating, not because of competition, but because accuracy gets lost when people chase attention instead of understanding the depth of what's involved. My work isn't about popularity or validation. It's about consistency, honesty, and refusing to drop something just because it's difficult or uncomfortable. I'm still here, still digging, and still committed, because the people who were harmed deserve more than another wave of performative outrage. The job isn't done, and I'm not stepping back.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

On the night Jeffrey Epstein died, two Bureau of Prisons guards assigned to monitor him did not simply make a minor mistake or lapse in judgment; they abandoned their most basic responsibility. Despite Epstein being on suicide watch only weeks earlier and housed in a unit that was supposed to be under heightened supervision, the guards failed to conduct required checks and instead fell asleep for hours. They later admitted to falsifying logs to make it appear they had performed their duties when they had not. This was not confusion or a misunderstanding of protocol. It was outright dereliction, compounded by dishonesty after the fact. Epstein was one of the highest-profile detainees in federal custody, a man whose death would inevitably trigger global scrutiny, and yet he was effectively left alone in a federal facility overnight. The idea that this happened by accident strains credibility. At best, it reflects staggering incompetence. At worst, it reflects a system where rules are treated as optional until disaster makes that negligence impossible to hide.The Bureau of Prisons bears even greater responsibility because the guards' behavior did not occur in a vacuum. The BOP had already stripped Epstein of his cellmate, failed to ensure functioning cameras, allowed chronic understaffing, and placed exhausted, undertrained personnel in a situation that demanded maximum vigilance. When the guards fell asleep, they were operating inside a culture of decay the BOP itself created and tolerated. Yet the response was telling: minor charges, plea deals, and a swift effort to close the books rather than confront the systemic failure head-on. No senior leadership meaningfully paid a price. No transparent accounting followed that restored public trust. Instead, the narrative was reduced to “two tired guards,” as if that explanation could possibly account for the collapse of multiple safeguards at once. What happened at MCC was not a one-off failure; it was the predictable outcome of an agency that cut corners, ignored warnings, and then acted surprised when the most catastrophic outcome imaginable occurred on its watch.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Reese Jones is living every San Fransico tech guy's wet dream. Create a company, sell it to Motorola for $205 millions dollars, and meet a hot, blonde girlfriend who doesn't hold back in the bedroom. A lifestyle some would be jealous of even after Reese gets kidnapped. Three men jump out, blindfold him, force him into a car at gunpoint. Next thing he knows, Reese is being led through seven different rooms, representing the seven deadly sins. One is lust. Another is gluttony. Then, envy. Reese is bound to a chair while his girlfriend has intercourse with what is described as ‘a buffet of people.' After all seven rooms, all seven sins, Reese is reborn. Which just means he's now cloaked in white, standing on a rooftop deck while his blonde girlfriend waits for him in the distance: “Happy Birthday.” That's what you get as a present when you're worth $200 million dollars and your girlfriend is the founder of One Taste, a company that helps women meditate and reach an orgasm. Every tech guy's wet dream right? That's until Reese gets wrapped up in one of the strangest, potential trafficking cases, and his girlfriend, Nicole Daedone, wellness company CEO ends up in the same prison as none other than Ghislaine Maxwell.    Full show notes available at RottenMangoPodcast.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Melania Trump shutdown down a press conference as she asked about the Epstein Filed and her former friend Ghislaine Maxwell as Melania's past comes back to haunt her. Soul: Go to https://GetSoul.com and use code: MEIDAS to get 30% OFF your order! Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Fresh DOJ/FBI docs unleash nightmare: Epstein's trafficked teens strangled by Robin Leach during taped orgies, with bodies sold to cartels via Ghislaine Maxwell and buried at Trump's LA golf resort. EJ Prior tears apart Utah's sham trial: Rifle DNA hits 5 strangers (not Tyler), prosecutor's daughter is an eyewitness, and Erika Kirk's Epstein-linked lawyer rams fake speedy trial.

Conway kicks things off by decorating the studio, including an absinthe flower that quickly proves to be a bad idea as it gives everyone a headache. Reporter Michael Monks joins the show as officials call for the L.A. Olympics leader to step down following the release of emails with Ghislaine Maxwell, raising serious questions and backlash. A warning for homeowners: lock your ladders. An elderly man recounts the terrifying moment he came face-to-face with a burglar who had snuck into his West Hollywood condo. An incredible comeback story — Lindsey Vonn plans to ski in the Winter Olympics after tearing her MCL, defying the odds once again. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today we go through some conspiracy theories in the Epstein files that were 'proven' right...WELCOME TO CAMP!

The letter urges immediate judicial intervention by Judges Berman and Engelmayer after what the authors describe as a serious failure by the Department of Justice in releasing Epstein-related records. According to the letter, on January 30, 2026, the DOJ released more than 3.5 million documents while failing to properly redact victims' names and other personally identifying information in thousands of instances. This occurred despite repeated assurances from the DOJ that redaction was the sole reason for delaying the release and explicit acknowledgments that failure to redact would cause extraordinary harm to victims. The letter outlines a long paper trail showing that concerns about victim protection were raised well before the mass release. The authors note that warnings were first directed to Attorney General Pam Bondi in February 2025 following the release of “The Epstein Files: Phase 1,” and later escalated to Judge Berman in August 2025 to ensure compliance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Despite these efforts, the DOJ proceeded with flawed releases as public and congressional interest intensified, including a November 2025 release of 20,000 documents by the House Oversight Committee. The letter argues that the DOJ's conduct reflects a pattern of mismanagement and disregard for victim safeguards, and it asks the court to step in to prevent further harm and enforce lawful redaction obligations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.518649.102.0_1.pdf

In this episode, we tear apart the delusion that anyone in power is coming to save us from the rot at the center of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. No mysterious hero, no hidden plan, no 4D chess. Just a government and media machine built to protect predators while survivors fight alone. We break down how Donald Trump's decision to call the Epstein case a hoax was not ignorance but a calculated act of cruelty, a full scale assault on more than a thousand victims, and a desperate attempt to smother the truth before it burns down the people who benefitted from Epstein's empire. We dig into the cult-like loyalty that fuels the denial, the circus of rage and slogans substituting for thought, and the grotesque hero worship that turned politics into a personality cult at the expense of actual justice.This is not a story about left versus right. It is a story about power versus everyone else. About survivors fighting uphill against billionaires, institutions, and a president who mocks their trauma and enables predators by pretending their suffering never happened. We expose how broken the system truly is, how the powerful protect each other while the public is distracted with memes and rage bait, and why nothing changes until regular people stop waiting for cavalry and pick up their own weapons: truth, persistence, and refusal to shut up. If you are tired of the lies, tired of the gaslighting, tired of watching monsters get protected while the wounded get buried, this episode is for you. This is the storm they keep pretending is coming. We are it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

If the congressional oversight committee into Jeffrey Epstein is serious about finding the truth, then Les Wexner needs to be subpoenaed and put under oath—no excuses, no polite letters, no “he's cooperating privately” nonsense. Wexner wasn't some bystander who accidentally bumped into Epstein at a fundraiser—he bankrolled him, empowered him, and gave him access to obscene wealth and influence. For years, Epstein wasn't just Wexner's “financial adviser”—he had full power of attorney over the billionaire's empire, access to his private jets, mansions, and inner circle. Epstein even lived in one of Wexner's homes for free, the same mansion in New York where some victims later said they were assaulted. If this committee can call low-level bureaucrats and media figures, but can't drag in the man who gave Epstein the keys to his financial kingdom, then it's not a real investigation—it's a stage play.Wexner's fingerprints are all over Epstein's rise, and yet he's managed to slither through every official inquiry untouched. He has never been forced to answer, under oath, how much he knew about Epstein's activities, how much money flowed between them, and why Epstein continued to represent himself as part of the “Wexner Foundation” years after their supposed split. Multiple victims have alleged sexual encounters or trafficking ties linked to Wexner's properties. And still, the so-called oversight committee tiptoes around him like he's untouchable. If Congress is truly about justice, it's time to stop pretending the architect of Epstein's legitimacy was just another “duped billionaire.” Drag him in, swear him in, and make him answer. Anything less is another cover-up.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

After Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his federal detention cell on August 10, 2019, official authorities ruled his death a suicide by hanging, but the autopsy findings and circumstances leading up to his death sparked intense skepticism and criticism from forensic experts, medical analysts, and segments of the public. Independent pathologists — including Dr. Michael Baden, who was retained by Epstein's defense team — pointed to neck injuries, including fractures to the hyoid bone and other structures, that they argued are more commonly associated with homicidal strangulation than self-inflicted hanging, especially in older individuals. Critics argued that the nature and pattern of these injuries were inconsistent with the simple ligature hanging scenario described by the Bureau of Prisons, particularly in the absence of clear evidence of a suspension point or the kind of force typically required to produce such fractures in a suicide hanging. These discrepancies were seized upon by commentators and some experts as evidence that the official explanation did not fully account for the physical evidence.The controversy was magnified by the extraordinary context of Epstein's death: he was a high-profile prisoner with connections to powerful figures, and his death occurred under the supervision of a notoriously dysfunctional federal jail system, with malfunctioning cameras and poorly supervised cells. This combination of unexpected forensic findings and procedural failures led many to conclude that the injuries observed did not match the government's narrative and therefore raised questions about possible foul play, cover-ups, or at minimum gross negligence. Critics argued that the government's explanation relied on assumptions rather than a full accounting of the forensic evidence, and that the contradictions between the autopsy findings and the official story should have triggered a far more rigorous independent investigation. However, subsequent official reviews reaffirmed the suicide ruling, which only deepened distrust among skeptics who believe the physical injuries and surrounding circumstances remain unexplained by the publicly presented narrative.to contact mebobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdf

In 2011, Cantor Gaming stormed into Las Vegas with the swagger of Wall Street, led by Howard Lutnick at the helm of the parent company Cantor Fitzgerald and Lee Amaitis running the Nevada operation. Known for pioneering mobile sports wagering and accepting unprecedented high-limit bets—sometimes as large as $500,000—Cantor positioned itself as the cutting edge of sports gaming. To many, it looked like a revolution: bettors flocked to its books at the M Resort and beyond, drawn by the promise of action other operators wouldn't touch. But behind the gloss of innovation, Cantor became entangled in one of the largest illegal betting scandals in modern history. The so-called “Jersey Boys,” an East Coast ring with deep ties to organized bookmaking, infiltrated the operation through Cantor executive Michael “The Computer” Colbert. With Colbert as their insider, the crew laundered millions through Cantor's system, exploiting the company's appetite for volume and its disregard for traditional risk limits.The scheme collapsed in 2012 when Colbert and more than two dozen associates were arrested in a sweeping FBI crackdown. Nevada regulators soon levied one of the largest fines in state history—$5.5 million—citing Cantor's lack of oversight. Amaitis stepped down in 2016, his reputation scarred, while the Cantor brand itself was rebranded as CG Technology in a failed attempt to shed its baggage. By 2020, the company was sold to William Hill, its ambitions of dominating Las Vegas reduced to a cautionary tale. The Jersey Boys scandal not only crippled Cantor but reshaped the entire sports gaming industry, ushering in stricter compliance, tighter wagering oversight, and a lasting reminder that unchecked ambition and Wall Street arrogance could topple even the flashiest of innovators.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The release of the Epstein files triggered immediate outrage from survivors after the U.S. Department of Justice disclosed identifying details that should never have seen daylight. For many victims, the files were not a moment of transparency but a fresh violation—names, contextual clues, and personal information surfaced in a way that made them identifiable to the public. Survivors and their advocates accused the DOJ of recklessness, arguing that the government had been warned repeatedly about the risks and still chose speed and optics over basic victim protection. The result was renewed trauma for people who had already endured years of abuse, silencing, and institutional neglect.That outcry quickly hardened into a broader indictment of how the Epstein case has been handled from start to finish. Survivors said the exposure confirmed their worst fears: that the system remains more focused on document dumps and procedural box-checking than on the human beings harmed by Jeffrey Epstein. Advocates stressed that anonymity is not a courtesy but a safeguard, especially in a case involving global attention and powerful interests. By failing to protect it, the DOJ not only endangered survivors' privacy and safety but also deepened the mistrust that has long defined this case—turning what was billed as accountability into yet another chapter of institutional failure.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Thousands of Epstein files taken down after some survivors' names and nude photos found | CBC News

Lord Conrad Black, a controversial media magnate and convicted felon pardoned by former President Trump, entered the Prince Andrew controversy with a highly defensive stance that framed the royal as a victim of disproportionate post-Epstein scrutiny rather than someone whose conduct merited accountability. In opinion pieces, Black insisted it was “a disgrace” that Prince Andrew was isolated and stripped of honors over a civil lawsuit tied to allegations about his association with Jeffrey Epstein, arguing that the withdrawal of titles by Queen Elizabeth II was unjustified given there had been no criminal conviction or definitive finding of wrongdoing against the Duke of York. Black leaned heavily on the presumption of innocence and cast the legal and media pressure on Andrew as a kind of “frenzied assault” fueled by a sensationalist system that targets powerful men, rather than focusing on survivor testimony or the deep entanglement between Epstein's network and elite figures.Critics of Black's defense have argued that his position misses the core issue — not whether Andrew was criminally convicted, but whether his behavior and associations with Epstein were reckless, harmful, and deserving of vigorous scrutiny. By minimizing the severity of allegations and focusing on perceived procedural unfairness, Black's commentary was seen by many as protective of privilege rather than supportive of truth or justice, particularly given the emerging documentary evidence showing Andrew's ongoing contact with Epstein even after public backlash. His framing also glossed over the substantive harm experienced by survivors and the pattern of evasive responses from Andrew himself, reducing a complex reckoning over power, influence, and alleged sexual exploitation to a narrative about misplaced outrage — a stance that critics say aligns with a long tradition of elites defending elites at the expense of victims' voices and accountability. Strictly public sources do not confirm every claim made here; Black's commentary focused on defending reputation and criticizing the backlash, but the broader context includes documented serious allegations and responses from royal and legal authorities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In this episode, we are taking a close look at a harrowing account attributed to an Epstein victim, drawn from a personal diary that surfaced as part of the DOJ's latest Epstein files release. According to public reporting, the document reads not like a legal affidavit, but like a private record of trauma—written in the first person, in plain language, and filled with fear, confusion, and resignation. The writer describes being abused while still a minor and living under constant control by powerful adults, with no meaningful ability to refuse, escape, or seek help. What makes this account especially disturbing is its intimacy: this is not testimony crafted for court, but a young person trying to process what was being done to her in real time, without the protection of hindsight or distance.The most chilling portion of the diary, as described in reporting, centers on a claimed pregnancy and birth in the early 2000s, followed by the immediate removal of the child. The writer describes being treated not as a person, but as something functional—valued only for what her body could produce.  commentary has linked these passages to previously reported claims that Epstein spoke openly about genetics, reproduction, and creating offspring, raising deeply unsettling questions about whether this account reflects a broader, more calculated dimension of his abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA02731361.pdf

Todd Blanche said publicly that “it is not a crime to party with Jeffrey Epstein,” framing his remarks around a narrow legal distinction rather than a moral one. In interviews discussing the release of Epstein-related documents, Blanche argued that merely attending parties, socializing, or exchanging emails with Epstein does not automatically constitute criminal behavior under the law. His position was that inclusion in documents or social proximity alone is insufficient for prosecution unless there is concrete evidence of criminal conduct.However, Blanche's comments were widely criticized for what they emphasized and what they omitted. While his statement is legally accurate in the strictest sense, critics argue it minimizes the significance of repeated social association with a known sexual predator and ignores the broader context in which Epstein's social world operated. Blanche did acknowledge that individuals who actively participated in or facilitated crimes would be prosecutable if evidence supports it, but by focusing almost exclusively on legality, his remarks were seen as reinforcing a pattern of elite deflection—reducing meaningful associations to harmless social contact and sidestepping deeper questions of knowledge, complicity, and accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Analysis: New files deepen a critical mystery about those who partied with Jeffrey Epstein | CNN Politics

The Justice Department's latest release of Epstein-related files has only reinforced suspicions that transparency is being managed, not delivered. While the DOJ claims it complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act by publishing more than three million pages, victims' advocates and attorneys argue this disclosure is incomplete by design. The government previously acknowledged that roughly six million pages of material were potentially responsive, yet has offered no credible, document-by-document accounting for why nearly half never saw the light of day. Instead, the DOJ has leaned on vague explanations about “duplicates” and “non-responsive” material—language that critics say has long been used to quietly bury politically inconvenient or institutionally embarrassing records, particularly when powerful interests are implicated.What has angered advocates most is not just the volume gap, but the pattern: delayed deadlines, sweeping redactions, missing correspondence, and an apparent reluctance to expose how Epstein's protection actually functioned inside federal systems. Survivors and their lawyers argue that the DOJ continues to frame secrecy as victim protection while simultaneously shielding officials, prosecutors, and well-connected associates who failed—repeatedly—to intervene. Lawmakers pushing for further disclosure have accused the department of treating transparency as a public-relations exercise rather than a legal and moral obligation. Taken together, the delays, omissions, and shifting explanations have fueled the perception that the DOJ is still policing the narrative of the Epstein scandal, not reckoning with its own role in enabling it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New Epstein files fail to quell outrage as advocates claim documents are being withheld | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have accused his estate and its attorneys — including the estate's executors who handled his financial and legal affairs after his death — of engaging in aggressive tactics aimed at intimidating, belittling, and discouraging survivors from pursuing their claims rather than supporting accountability and transparency. According to media and survivor advocates, lawyers working on behalf of the estate used procedural maneuvers, confrontational language, and dismissive strategies in responses to civil claims, effectively positioning survivors as nuisances rather than victims seeking justice. These actions included challenging every substantive point of survivors' lawsuits, minimizing the legitimacy of their accounts, and attempting to undercut their credibility in court filings and negotiations, conduct critics describe as reflective of a defensive, bullying posture rather than a genuine engagement with victims' harm.Critics argue that such behavior from the estate — which controlled Epstein's remaining assets and influence — perpetuated the same power imbalances that enabled his abuse in the first place, making survivors relive trauma through hostile legal processes instead of offering redress or empathy. Rather than facilitating meaningful resolution, the estate's tactics have been portrayed by survivors and advocates as attempts to protect the interests of Epstein's financial legacy and minimize payouts, even while victims sought recognition of the scale and severity of the crimes committed against them. This conduct has fueled broader outrage about how institutions linked to Epstein have treated survivors, reinforcing perceptions that the justice system and powerful interests are still aligned against those who were harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Is the truth about the unsealed Epstein files being suppressed by a protected elite? On this episode of Eyes Wide Open, we're joined by Kit Cabello of Hard Lens Media to dismantle the dark networks of power, systemic corruption, and the global manipulation used to control the narrative. In this investigative deep dive, we explore the intersection of blackmail, child trafficking, and political influence found within the 2026 DOJ document releases.  We analyze the specific roles of individuals like Ghislaine Maxwell and the documented connections involving high-profile figures such as Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Elon Musk.  Kit Cabello provides expert insight into how mainstream media narratives act as a shield for these networks and what grassroots actions are necessary for societal change. Key Takeaways & Revelations Unsealed Documents: A breakdown of the 2026 Epstein file releases and their global implications. Elite Blackmail Networks: How trafficking is used as a tool for political and celebrity control. Media Deception: The specific tactics used by Hollywood and mainstream news to distract from systemic abuse. Symbolism in Culture: Understanding the real-world parallels in Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. Systemic Solutions: Why the legal system may not deliver justice and why grassroots activism is the answer. Our Mission Eyes Wide Open is a space for honest communication. Our goal is to remove the stigmas around mental health, holistic lifestyles, culture, and free speech so you can show up as your authentic self with your eyes wide open. By having real conversations about difficult truths, we move toward collective healing.   Chapters: 00:00 - Introduction to Epstein files and societal implications 02:15 - Major revelations from the recent file release 05:30 - Celebrity and political involvement in trafficking networks 08:45 - The Wayfair and Pizza Gate investigations – new insights 12:00 - Authenticity of claims and confirmation through leaked documents 15:20 - Systemic cover-ups and the role of Hollywood and media 18:41 - Exploring symbolic meanings in Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut 22:50 - Notorious figures on the Epstein list: Clinton, Trump, Jay-Z, Musk, Chomsky, and more 26:15 - The role of fear, complicity, and victim silence in elite circles 30:00 - Distractions like ICE, Iran conflicts, and geopolitical maneuvers 33:20 - The evidence of missing children and underground facilities 37:10 - The rise of whistleblowers and potential vigilante justice 40:00 - The importance of grassroots activism and voter apathy in systemic change 43:03 - Why the legal system likely won't deliver justice - real solutions? 47:00 - How to stay aware and uncompromised amidst deception 50:10 - The societal trauma of uncovering these truths and healing 55:03 - Personal stories of trafficking, manipulation, and covert operations 58:45 - The significance of media control and distraction tactics 61:00 - Final thoughts: what's next for society and the importance of unity 62:30 - Resources for further research and avenues for activism Find Kit Cabello here:   Instagram: instagram.com/hardlensmedia | https://www.instagram.com/kitcabello/  Twitter: twitter.com/HardLensMedia  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HardLensMedia99  Rumble: rumble.com/c/HardLensMedia  Patreon: patreon.com/HardLensMedia  GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-kit-daniel-fight-unfair-lawsuits    Find Nick Thompson here:   Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nthompson513/  |  https://www.instagram.com/the_ucan_foundation/  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@EyesWideOpenContent   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickthompson13/     UCAN Foundation: https://theucanfoundation.org/  Website: https://www.engagewithnick.com/

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Buck's NASA Visit Buck Sexton shares firsthand insights from his visit to NASA and Blue Origin, transitioning the discussion into national security, defense manufacturing, and the future of American military power. He describes what he calls a renaissance in U.S. defense and aerospace innovation, emphasizing the growing importance of advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, drone warfare, hypersonic weapons, and rapid production capabilities. Buck explains that modern warfare increasingly depends on technological superiority and scale, warning that the ability to manufacture advanced systems quickly may determine future conflicts more than traditional troop strength. Clay and Buck also discuss how Silicon Valley’s relationship with the U.S. military has evolved, crediting the Trump administration with pushing major technology companies to reengage with national defense efforts. They highlight concerns about China’s manufacturing capacity and argue that American tech companies have a responsibility to support U.S. national security. The hosts draw historical parallels to World War II–era industrial mobilization, suggesting that today’s defense challenges require similar cooperation between private industry and government. The final segment of Hour 1 explores the rapid commercialization of space and the growing influence of companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin. Buck Sexton describes space exploration as entering a new era driven by private enterprise, faster launch capabilities, and long‑term ambitions such as low‑Earth‑orbit infrastructure and lunar missions. Clay Travis connects these developments to broader trends in media, technology, and artificial intelligence, noting how formerly separate industries are rapidly converging into a single interconnected ecosystem. Have You Noticed this About Epstein? Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show is anchored by an extended, in‑depth discussion of the latest Jeffrey Epstein document release, with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton analyzing the significance of more than three million pages of emails and records made public. The hosts argue that the Epstein story has effectively reached its endpoint, contending that the newly released materials do not reveal criminal evidence against additional high‑profile figures. They frame Epstein primarily as a wealthy facilitator who leveraged access to attractive, of‑age women to ingratiate himself with powerful, older men, rather than uncovering a broader, prosecutable conspiracy. The conversation includes discussion of reputational damage suffered by public figures named in the emails, distinctions between criminal conduct and morally questionable behavior, and why federal investigators typically do not release non‑criminal but embarrassing communications. Clay and Buck also address listener skepticism, calls into the show, and questions surrounding Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction, emphasizing that her charges centered on trafficking for Epstein specifically, not a wider group of clients. Where is Nancy Guthrie? A major developing news story involving the disappearance of Savannah Guthrie’s mother, Nancy Guthrie, in Arizona. Clay and Buck carefully walk through the known facts, including her age, physical limitations, and the troubling indicators surrounding the case, such as reports of blood at the scene. They caution against assuming the incident is connected to Savannah Guthrie’s celebrity, drawing comparisons to other tragic but random crimes involving relatives of famous individuals, including the murder of Michael Jordan’s father. The hosts stress that, based on available information, the case appears to be a serious and concerning missing‑person investigation rather than a targeted kidnapping, while urging listeners in Arizona to stay alert as law enforcement updates emerge. The tone shifts as Hour 2 moves into cultural commentary, beginning with a critique of the Grammy Awards and what Clay and Buck describe as its overtly political and “woke” messaging. They focus in particular on Billie Eilish’s statement that “no one is illegal on stolen land,” which sparks a broader discussion about celebrity activism and perceived hypocrisy. Clay highlights the response from the Tongva tribe, which publicly asserted that Billie Eilish’s Los Angeles mansion sits on their ancestral land and suggested she return the property if she truly believes her statement. The hosts use the moment to question performative politics in Hollywood and whether celebrities are willing to apply their rhetoric to their own personal wealth and property. Clay's Controversial Music Take Buck Sexton reports that the United States has shot down a suspected Iranian drone approaching a U.S. aircraft carrier, using the development to discuss the evolving nature of modern naval warfare. Buck explains how drone technology, hypersonic missiles, and ship‑killing capabilities are reshaping global military strategy, potentially turning aircraft carriers into high‑value targets in future conflicts. This segment underscores broader geopolitical tensions involving Iran, U.S. military readiness, and the changing balance of power in international security. The hour then pivots back to urgent domestic news, with continued updates on the disappearance and apparent abduction of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of Today Show co‑host Savannah Guthrie. Clay and Buck relay that the FBI is now involved, there is no surveillance footage, and authorities believe she was taken against her will in Tucson, Arizona. Emphasizing that this is one of the top stories on national newscasts, the hosts urge listeners—especially those in Arizona—to contact the FBI with any tips. They stress that there is limited verified information available and avoid speculation, framing the situation as a troubling and unresolved missing‑person case. Following the serious news, Hour 3 takes a sharp tonal turn into what becomes the most talked‑about and interactive segment of the entire program: Clay Travis’s declaration that Taylor Swift is the “modern‑day Beatles.” Clay doubles down on his cultural take, arguing that Taylor Swift’s songwriting catalog, longevity, and stadium‑selling power will endure for decades, much like The Beatles, while Buck Sexton strongly disagrees. The debate quickly ignites a flood of listener reaction, with calls, emails, and talkbacks pouring in from across the country. Listeners challenge the comparison, propose alternative analogies—such as Taylor Swift being more akin to Elvis or Madonna—and passionately defend or reject Clay’s argument. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Recent revelations from Jeffrey Epstein's files have reignited scrutiny of Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor's relationship with the disgraced financier, including new details surrounding a Russian woman that Epstein allegedly offered to set him up with. Newly released emails show that Epstein described this woman — identified in some reports as a model — as “beautiful” and “trustworthy” and proposed introducing her to Andrew in 2010, shortly after Epstein's release from house arrest, a period when Andrew had publicly claimed to have ended his association with him. Correspondence also suggests that Andrew continued to maintain some level of contact with Epstein, even inviting him to Buckingham Palace for dinner and appearing open to arrangements that blurred personal, social, and potentially exploitative boundaries amid a broader climate of scandal.These revelations come on top of longstanding allegations from other women that they were trafficked by Epstein to meet or engage sexually with Andrew — most notably Virginia Giuffre, who claimed Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell forced her into sexual encounters with Andrew on multiple occasions in the early 2000s, beginning when she was a minor; that claim was settled out of court in 2022 without his admitting wrongdoing. Additionally, a new accuser has come forward, asserting she was sent to the UK for a sexual encounter with him at his former residence, Royal Lodge, further deepening public concern and criticism of his prolonged ties to Epstein's network. These developments have compounded the reputational damage to Andrew, contributing to his loss of royal titles and ongoing calls for transparency and accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'Beautiful' young Russian who Epstein set up for date with Andrew revealed as model who said UK trip was an 'adventure'