Podcast appearances and mentions of Ghislaine Maxwell

Nicolle Wallace on Ghislaine Maxwell's luxurious prison conditions revealed by Rep. Jamie Raskin.For more, follow us on Instagram @deadlinewhTo listen to this show and other MSNBC podcasts without ads, sign up for MSNBC 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.

Episode 1834 - brought to you by our incredible sponsors: Better Help - BetterHelp therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the US. Our listeners get 10% off their first month at BetterHelp.com/HARDFACTOR. Lucy - Let's level up your nicotine routine with Lucy.  Go to Lucy.co/HARDFACTOR and use promo code (HARDFACTOR) to get 20% off your first order. Lucy has a 30-day refund policy if you change your mind. DaftKings - Download the DraftKings Casino app, sign up with code HARDFACTOR, and spin your favorite slots! The Crown is Yours - Gambling problem? Call one eight hundred GAMBLER 00:00:00 Timestamps 00:03:00 Happy Veteran's Day & Happy Birthday Marines!  00:05:00 What happened in the year 1835 & 1834? 00:05:55 Hot and fast sperm discussion 00:09:05 The dangerous game of online sperm donation groups 00:28:30 Construction company pranks homeless man “Jackass” style 00:37:00 Ghislaine Maxwell is receiving some pretty favorable treatment at her new prison 00:42:00 Which Ones Worse: Expensive Water, Expensive Beers, OR Being Declared DEAD?? Thank you for listening! Go to patreon.com/hardfactor to join our community, get access to bonus pods, discord chat, and much more - but Most Importantly: HAGFD!! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With the Queen so brazenly showing her support in a public manner for Prince Andrew, royal writers and experts are wondering if she is paying attention to the big picture. With the crown set to pass on to Charles, who is not the most well liked person in the royal family, the royal family as a whole is in for some shaky times and with the queens recent behavior, the question has to be asked, how will it impact the royal family in the future?(commercial at 12:37)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.newsweek.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-sticking-prince-andrew-royal-problem-prince-william-charles-1693712

Now that that the civil proceedings are moving forward against Andrew, we hop in the time machine and head back to 2019 to a time before Andrew was being held accountable. A time when Andrew thought his name and his breeding would protect him. As we know now, he was wrong. (Commercial at 10:30)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/could-prince-andrew-testify-in-jeffrey-epstein-case-2019-12

The House Judiciary committee sent a letter to President Trump today demanding answers about special treatment of Ghislaine Maxwell after receiving what they call “whistleblower” information about Maxwell’s time at FPC Bryant, aka “Club Fed.” The letter accuses Trump of a quid pro quo agreement with Maxwell and urges the president not grant any form of clemency to “an unrepentant sex offender.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The House Judiciary committee sent a letter to President Trump today demanding answers about special treatment of Ghislaine Maxwell after receiving what they call “whistleblower” information about Maxwell’s time at FPC Bryant, aka “Club Fed.” The letter accuses Trump of a quid pro quo agreement with Maxwell and urges the president not grant any form of clemency to “an unrepentant sex offender.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

'The View' co-hosts weigh in as eight Senate Democrats break with the party and align with Republicans to advance a vote that could end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. Then, the co-hosts react to the Supreme Court denying a bid from former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis to revisit the landmark 2015 ruling on same-sex marriage. The co-hosts discuss Congressman Jamie Raskin demanding an investigation into a whistleblower's claim about the prison perks that convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell is receiving. Plus, the co-hosts react to Kim Kardashian putting a positive spin on the bad reviews she receiving for her new series, 'All's Fair.' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The House Judiciary committee sent a letter to President Trump today demanding answers about special treatment of Ghislaine Maxwell after receiving what they call “whistleblower” information about Maxwell’s time at FPC Bryant, aka “Club Fed.” The letter accuses Trump of a quid pro quo agreement with Maxwell and urges the president not grant any form of clemency to “an unrepentant sex offender.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ghislaine Maxwell has asked President Trump to commute her sentence. Plus, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected a call to overturn its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jeffrey Epstein's alleged connections to intelligence agencies remain one of the most enduring and controversial aspects of his story. Former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta famously told investigators that he was instructed to back off Epstein's original prosecution because Epstein “belonged to intelligence,” a remark that fueled speculation that the financier's crimes were protected for reasons beyond money or influence. Over the years, Epstein cultivated close ties with figures tied to intelligence and geopolitics—hosting former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at his Manhattan mansion, meeting with former CIA Director William Burns, and maintaining relationships with high-level financiers and scientists who had security clearance. His vast network, offshore structures, and inexplicable access to classified-adjacent individuals led many to theorize that Epstein operated as an asset—either for the U.S., Israel, or both—leveraging sexual blackmail to secure leverage over powerful men.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

When it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, the world's most powerful people all seem to suffer from a highly selective strain of amnesia. Presidents, princes, professors, and billionaires who once took his calls, rode his planes, and cashed his checks suddenly can't recall how they knew him or why. Bill Clinton can't quite remember how many times he flew on Epstein's jet. Prince Andrew claims he doesn't remember that infamous photo with Virginia Giuffre. Les Wexner “doesn't recall” signing over his mansion. Ehud Barak “barely knew the man.” Even Alan Dershowitz, who was practically Epstein's legal shadow, insists any contact was purely academic. It's like the entire upper crust of global power suddenly developed synchronized memory loss the moment the cameras turned on.This “collective amnesia” isn't accidental—it's a survival mechanism. The same people who built and benefited from Epstein's network now pretend they barely knew the guy who managed their money, funded their projects, and connected them to each other. Their stories always change, their timelines blur, and their denials sound like rehearsed lines from the same crisis-management manual. When it comes to Epstein, the elite don't just forget—they professionally unremember.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

State legislators in New Mexico have proposed the establishment of a “truth commission” to investigate what occurred at Epstein's sprawling desert property, known as Zorro Ranch, located approximately 35 miles south of Santa Fe. The public proposal, led by State Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe) and cosponsored by Rep. Marianna Anaya (D-Albuquerque), sought a preliminary budget of about $2.5 million and would include a bipartisan oversight body with subpoena power. The aim: to reconstruct what officials knew (or didn't know), how possible crimes (including alleged sex-trafficking activities) were reported or suppressed, and how New Mexico might prevent similar abuse in the future. Survivors of Epstein's abuse have alleged trafficking extended to Zorro Ranch, yet there remains no full public account of what happened.Despite these serious allegations and investigations, Epstein never faced prosecution in New Mexico, though the Attorney General's office interviewed potential victims in 2019 and later examined financial institutions linked to Epstein's operations. The 2023 probe of financial services led to agreements involving $17 million tied to human-trafficking prevention. The proposed truth commission would therefore not simply revisit past crimes but also examine systemic failures in regulation, criminal investigation, and oversight—especially given New Mexico laws and policy may have allowed Epstein to avoid local sex-offender registration that he faced elsewhere. The initiative still needs approval when the legislature meets, and full findings are expected to take at least two years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New Mexico lawmakers propose 'truth commission' on Epstein, alleged sex abuse at his former Santa Fe County ranch | Local News | santafenewmexican.com

The newly released correspondence reveals Maxwell gushing that life at Bryan is “much, much happier,” describing the kitchen as “clean,” the staff as “polite,” and boasting she “haven't seen a single fight, drug deal, passed-out person or naked inmate running around”—in her words, “I feel like I have dropped through Alice in Wonderland's looking-glass.” In stark contrast, she painted her old facility, Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee, as so unsanitary that “possums falling from ceilings… frying on ovens” mingled with the food served. The tone is one of relief mingled with smugness, and it raises profound questions about how a person convicted of aiding a vast sex-trafficking scheme is enjoying conditions so clearly characterized as unusually comfortable.But the emails don't just stop at praise—they touch off a firestorm of claims from fellow inmates and corrections experts that Maxwell is receiving “VIP treatment.” Leaks argue that she gets meals delivered to her dorm, late-night showers when others are asleep, access to the warden for legal help, and in one alarming twist, some inmates say they were threatened or transferred for speaking out about her. Experts say such privileges are unheard-of for someone with Maxwell's conviction and sentence, suggesting she's been moved to a “country club” style prison camp despite federal rules that restrict sex-offender convicts from such facilities. The implications are explosive: favor or influence, justice subverted, and a system that seems to bow for big names while normal inmates rot under far harsher rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell praises cushy prison for cleanliness, lack of possums falling from ceiling

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

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

Donald Trump's ever-changing narrative about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein has grown increasingly incoherent, with his latest claim being that Epstein “stole” spa workers from Mar-a-Lago—including, allegedly, Virginia Giuffre. Instead of expressing outrage over Epstein's crimes or sympathy for the survivors, Trump framed the fallout like a staffing dispute, saying Epstein took people who worked for him and that Giuffre “had no complaints.” The shifting timelines—from calling Epstein a “terrific guy” to suddenly claiming moral indignation or workplace betrayal—don't inspire confidence in his account.Giuffre's family responded critically to Trump's comments, describing them as insensitive and reducing Virginia to an object rather than acknowledging her as a survivor. They emphasized that she was a person who endured serious trauma and should not be spoken about in such transactional terms. Their reaction raised broader concerns about the tone and framing of Trump's statements—particularly the absence of empathy toward those harmed by Epstein. By focusing on staffing disputes and loyalty rather than addressing the abuse itself, Trump's remarks were seen as overlooking the core human cost of the scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The state of New Mexico's handling of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes remains one of the most glaring examples of governmental negligence in recent memory. Despite Epstein owning the massive Zorro Ranch property near Stanley, where multiple survivors alleged they were trafficked and abused, state authorities failed to bring a single charge against him. Even after Epstein's 2008 Florida conviction, he was not required to register as a sex offender in New Mexico due to a technicality in the state's laws and the lack of proactive enforcement by local officials. Investigations launched by the New Mexico Attorney General's Office were sluggish, underfunded, and seemingly designed to avoid confrontation with the powerful interests connected to Epstein. The inaction effectively allowed one of the most notorious predators in modern history to operate with impunity on New Mexico soil.Now, amid mounting public anger and renewed scrutiny, New Mexico lawmakers are attempting to atone through the creation of a “truth commission” — a bipartisan investigative body designed to examine how the state's institutions failed. The commission would probe how Epstein was able to buy land, operate businesses, and allegedly abuse victims with no oversight. Its goal is to uncover which officials knew about Epstein's activities, why red flags were ignored, and how state systems can be reformed to prevent such catastrophic negligence in the future. Supporters describe it as a long-overdue reckoning with the failures of law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and political leadership, though critics warn that it may amount to little more than symbolic damage control unless it carries real investigative authority and public transparency.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Donald Trump's ever-changing narrative about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein has grown increasingly incoherent, with his latest claim being that Epstein “stole” spa workers from Mar-a-Lago—including, allegedly, Virginia Giuffre. Instead of expressing outrage over Epstein's crimes or sympathy for the survivors, Trump framed the fallout like a staffing dispute, saying Epstein took people who worked for him and that Giuffre “had no complaints.” The shifting timelines—from calling Epstein a “terrific guy” to suddenly claiming moral indignation or workplace betrayal—don't inspire confidence in his account.Giuffre's family responded critically to Trump's comments, describing them as insensitive and reducing Virginia to an object rather than acknowledging her as a survivor. They emphasized that she was a person who endured serious trauma and should not be spoken about in such transactional terms. Their reaction raised broader concerns about the tone and framing of Trump's statements—particularly the absence of empathy toward those harmed by Epstein. By focusing on staffing disputes and loyalty rather than addressing the abuse itself, Trump's remarks were seen as overlooking the core human cost of the scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In July 2007, Prince Andrew attended a lavish party in Saint-Tropez hosted by Anglo-French billionaire Tony Murray alongside his daughter Princess Beatrice (then around 18–19 years old). At the event, he was seen socializing closely with Canadian model and singer Pascale Bourbeau—photos reportedly show the Duke with his hand on her rear, and the pair in a “nose-to-nose” pose. The article highlights that while his daughter was present at the same event, Andrew appeared absorbed in the party atmosphere with younger women.Witnesses at the gathering described it as part of a wild streak for the Prince, who was divorced, in his late 40s and apparently embracing an attention-seeking social life. One observer said: “These were really crazy years for Andrew… He was clearly having a full-blown midlife crisis.” According to the report, Andrew and Bourbeau left the party by boat with other women while Beatrice departed separately. The article casts the episode as another illustration of the Duke's controversial nightlife and social conduct in the years before his later public scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Prince Andrew, Duke of York's so-called “Pizza Express alibi” during his 2019 interview about the Virginia Giuffre/Jeffrey Epstein scandal has become one of the most ridiculed moments of his public defence. In the sit-down with Emily Maitlis for the BBC's Newsnight, he stated that on the night Giuffre alleges sexual contact—with her claim involving dancing and sweating at a London nightclub—he was instead at a children's birthday party at a Pizza Express in Woking with his daughter, and then at home.He doubled down by offering another unlikely defence: that due to an “overdose of adrenaline” during his service in the Falklands War he was now incapable of sweating, which in his view invalidated Giuffre's description of him “profusely sweating”.   The combination of the chain-restaurant birthday party in Woking and the medical-condition claim struck many as tone-deaf and implausible, contributing heavily to the backlash and the erosion of his credibility in the wider scandal.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

0:00 Wow: Trump proposes $2,000 tariff check for every American: Robby Soave | RISING 9:44 Biden blasts Trump for taking 'wrecking ball' to WH, democracy | RISING 17:15 Ghislaine Maxwell preparing to ask Trump for commutation: House Dems | RISING 23:22 Sanders, Newsom slam 8 Dems who caved to GOP shutdown demands: Niall Stanage | RISING 34:05 James Talarico following adult film star, escorts on IG: AXIOS | RISING 41:13 Billy Bob Thornton bashes political speeches at award shows | RISING Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The House Judiciary committee sent a letter to President Trump today demanding answers about special treatment of Ghislaine Maxwell after receiving what they call “whistleblower” information about Maxwell’s time at FPC Bryant, aka “Club Fed.” The letter accuses Trump of a quid pro quo agreement with Maxwell and urges the president not grant any form of clemency to “an unrepentant sex offender.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For years, Queen Elizabeth II acted as Prince Andrew's unwavering shield against the fallout of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Even as allegations mounted, she reportedly resisted internal and external pressure to sideline her son, allowing him to retain royal privileges, honors, and public duties long after the public tide had turned. Her personal loyalty was said to eclipse political and institutional logic—Andrew remained a fixture at Balmoral and Windsor, even as palace staff urged the Queen to distance herself. Royal insiders and biographers have described her as deeply maternal in her defense of him, believing he was being unfairly vilified and refusing to entertain discussions about exile or disownment. This protective stance allowed Andrew to delay accountability for years while the rest of the royal household absorbed the reputational damage.But by early 2022, under overwhelming public and institutional pressure, even the Queen's protection could no longer hold back the storm. She reluctantly approved the removal of Andrew's military titles, royal patronages, and the use of his HRH style—a move seen as both a last resort and a symbolic cutting of ties to preserve the monarchy. Still, until her death later that year, she continued to privately support him, hosting him at Balmoral and reportedly helping fund parts of his legal settlement with Virginia Giuffre. It was the ultimate act of maternal loyalty—protecting her son from disgrace even as the monarchy fought to survive the wreckage his scandals had created.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sarah Kellen (also known as Sarah Vickers or Sarah Kensington) is widely described as one of the key assistants to Jeffrey Epstein during the 2000s — a role in which she allegedly managed and coordinated many of the logistical and operational elements of Epstein's sex-trafficking network. Court records, witness statements, and investigative reporting claim that Kellen was responsible for arranging “massages” (in many cases euphemisms for sexual encounters), scheduling flights on Epstein's private jets, keeping contact lists of girls, and effectively acting as a gatekeeper for victims who were transported to various propertiesDespite her deep involvement, Kellen has never faced criminal charges. Federal judges and prosecutors have described her as a “knowing participant” and a “criminally responsible” figure in Epstein's network, yet she remains free — claiming she was also a victim of Epstein's control. Many survivors reject that narrative, arguing that she had full agency and willingly helped enable the abuse of minors. Her story underscores a broader truth about the Epstein case: that key facilitators, assistants, and coordinators — often women — operated the machinery of exploitation with precision, and most have evaded accountability under the guise of victimhood.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When the U.S. Department of Justice filed a formal Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request with the U.K. Home Office in 2020 to question Prince Andrew as part of its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's network, the Duke's legal team immediately went on the defensive. They issued a statement claiming Andrew had “on at least three occasions offered his assistance” and accused U.S. prosecutors of violating confidentiality rules by publicly asserting that he had not cooperated. His lawyers framed the MLA request as unnecessary “political theater,” implying that the DOJ's statements were meant to pressure the Duke through media embarrassment rather than legitimate procedure. The legal team presented Andrew as a willing witness, not a suspect — arguing that any suggestion he was stonewalling the investigation was both “false” and “misleading.”However, U.S. officials directly contradicted those assertions, saying that Andrew had “zero cooperation” despite repeated outreach. The Southern District of New York prosecutors maintained that Andrew's team refused to schedule interviews or provide substantive assistance. Legal experts in both the U.S. and U.K. noted that while an MLA request could theoretically compel cooperation through formal channels, it was diplomatically sensitive and rarely used against a member of the Royal Family. The optics were terrible: while the Duke's lawyers publicly insisted on transparency, his continued silence and refusal to appear under oath only deepened perceptions that he was hiding behind privilege and procedure to avoid accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's alleged connections to intelligence agencies remain one of the most enduring and controversial aspects of his story. Former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta famously told investigators that he was instructed to back off Epstein's original prosecution because Epstein “belonged to intelligence,” a remark that fueled speculation that the financier's crimes were protected for reasons beyond money or influence. Over the years, Epstein cultivated close ties with figures tied to intelligence and geopolitics—hosting former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at his Manhattan mansion, meeting with former CIA Director William Burns, and maintaining relationships with high-level financiers and scientists who had security clearance. His vast network, offshore structures, and inexplicable access to classified-adjacent individuals led many to theorize that Epstein operated as an asset—either for the U.S., Israel, or both—leveraging sexual blackmail to secure leverage over powerful men.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Privately, the royal family had long been bracing for the inevitable fallout surrounding Prince Andrew's association with Jeffrey Epstein. Insiders described an atmosphere of quiet dread within palace walls—where the Duke of York's behavior, arrogance, and questionable friendships were seen as a ticking time bomb. His extravagant lifestyle, insistence on maintaining ties with Epstein even after the financier's first conviction, and tone-deaf interviews all fed the sense that scandal wasn't a matter of if, but when. Behind closed doors, senior royals were said to be exasperated, viewing Andrew as a liability whose judgment could one day drag the monarchy into the kind of moral quagmire it hadn't seen since the abdication crisis.When that shoe finally dropped, with Epstein's arrest and Virginia Roberts Giuffre's allegations thrusting Andrew's name into global headlines, the sense of inevitability inside the palace turned into damage control. The Queen reportedly struggled to balance maternal loyalty with institutional preservation, while Prince Charles and Prince William quietly pushed for exile to protect the crown's reputation. What followed wasn't just a family crisis—it was a confirmation of their worst fears. The royal family's careful machinery of silence, denial, and image management could no longer contain the scandal. Andrew's downfall wasn't sudden; it was the slow-motion collapse they had all seen coming for years.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The idea of commuting Ghislaine Maxwell's sentence is beyond disgusting—it's an insult to every survivor who suffered under the Epstein machine. This isn't some white-collar embezzler or a tax cheat; this is a woman convicted of trafficking children, grooming them, and serving them up to one of the most vile predators in modern history. To even whisper about leniency for her is to spit in the faces of those victims who were silenced, manipulated, and destroyed by a system that already failed them once. It's not just tone-deaf—it's moral rot at the highest level, a grotesque display of how the powerful still find ways to protect their own while pretending justice has been served.Entertaining this conversation at all makes a mockery of accountability. It confirms everything people like me have been shouting for years: the Epstein network was never dismantled—it was managed, protected, and slowly buried under “procedures” and “reports.” If this administration, or any administration, has the gall to let Maxwell walk free, it won't just be a betrayal—it'll be proof that the cover-up has come full circle. You don't commute the sentence of a predator's enabler; you keep her exactly where she belongs: behind bars, staring at the walls she helped build for others.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Queen Elizabeth's legacy is complicated — not one of villainy, but of restraint taken too far. She wasn't blind to the troubles surrounding her son or the company he kept. Decades on the throne, surrounded by intelligence briefings and advisors, make ignorance impossible. But her instincts, shaped by a lifetime of protecting the monarchy, led her to do what she'd always done: contain the damage, preserve the Crown, and keep the family's troubles behind palace walls. It wasn't malice — it was control. Yet that control, in moments like these, came at the cost of transparency and trust.She wasn't responsible for the crimes of others, but she bore responsibility for how the institution responded. Her silence  was a reflex born of a system that prizes dignity over honesty. And while that may have once seemed noble, the world changed, and silence began to look like complicity. In the end, she'll be remembered as both the monarch who held her nation together through eras of upheaval and the one who held too tightly when truth demanded release. Queen Elizabeth preserved the monarchy — but she also showed us the limits of what silence can protect.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The very idea of commuting Ghislaine Maxwell's sentence is an absolute disgrace — proof that America's justice system has rotted from the inside out. Maxwell wasn't some bystander; she was the architect, recruiter, and enabler of Jeffrey Epstein's child-trafficking empire. Survivors have said she was every bit as monstrous as Epstein, if not worse, and yet she's sitting in a “prison” that feels more like a wellness resort. Now the same establishment that promised transparency with the Epstein files — only to bury the truth under redactions and lies — wants us to believe this predator deserves leniency? It's a slap in the face to every victim who spoke out, every whistleblower who risked their career, and every ordinary person who still believes in the idea of justice.It's the system protecting its own, ensuring Maxwell stays quiet while the real power players keep their names out of the headlines. They'll dress it up as “compassion” or “reform,” but what it really means is: she knows too much, and they can't risk her breaking silence. If they actually let this woman walk, then the message is clear — the powerful are untouchable, and the rest of us are fools for expecting anything different. This isn't justice. It's theater. It's corruption wrapped in civility. And if this country really dares to free her, then it has no right to ever again claim it protects children, truth, or decency.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The entire OIG investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement was a government-produced illusion — a sham built to look like justice while serving as a protective shield for the very people who orchestrated one of the most corrupt plea deals in modern history. The report was never meant to uncover wrongdoing; it was crafted to contain it. Instead of shining light, it poured concrete over the truth, allowing the DOJ and figures like Alexander Acosta to point to it as “proof” of integrity whenever they're cornered. In reality, it's bureaucratic sleight of hand — the government investigating itself and declaring itself innocent. It's the institutional version of laundering guilt, a paper shield designed to keep powerful names untouched and the public pacified.From the beginning, the OIG report wasn't about accountability — it was about insulation. Every line of it was written to protect the Department of Justice, not the victims. It became the official firewall against scrutiny, the final word for anyone asking why Epstein and his network escaped real punishment. And what's worse is how easily people still buy it. Internal oversight in this country has turned into performance art, where the fox investigates the henhouse, stamps “no wrongdoing,” and walks away with a smirk. The OIG report didn't close the Epstein case; it buried it under bureaucracy and called it reform — the ultimate proof that protecting the institution will always matter more than protecting the truth.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

He was born into royalty — a man the world was taught to bow to. But behind the medals and the palace walls, Prince Andrew's life intersected with one of the darkest criminal networks in modern history. Virginia Giuffre was seventeen when she says Ghislaine Maxwell recruited her for Jeffrey Epstein — a man who used wealth and power to prey on young girls while the world looked the other way. And according to Virginia, one of the men she was trafficked to was Prince Andrew, Duke of York — the Queen's own son. In this episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski dives deep into Giuffre's account: how she met Andrew, the infamous photo, the alleged encounters in London, New York, and Epstein's private island — and how the royal family worked overtime to bury the fallout. From the BBC interview that imploded Andrew's reputation to the multimillion-dollar settlement that silenced the courtroom, this is the full story — the arrogance, the power, the protection, and the survivor who refused to stay quiet. Giuffre's new memoir, Nobody's Girl, exposes more than just one man's depravity — it reveals a network of enablers who made sure justice stopped where power began. This isn't tabloid gossip. This is a story about accountability — and what happens when a survivor dares to stand up to royalty.

In one of the most damning congressional letters in recent history, Rep. Jamie Raskin is demanding answers from Attorney General Pam Bondi after the Department of Justice quietly killed the ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirators. Until January 2025, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York was running an active case—interviewing survivors, issuing subpoenas, and pursuing leads on Epstein's vast network of abusers and enablers. Nearly fifty women provided names, timelines, and evidence connecting at least twenty powerful men to Epstein's operation. Then, overnight, everything stopped. The Trump DOJ ordered the files transferred to Washington, D.C. By July, the FBI and DOJ had closed the case, issuing a one-page memo claiming there was “no evidence” to continue. Raskin calls it what it is: a gigantic cover-up. In his letter, he accuses the DOJ of abandoning survivors, firing prosecutors, dismissing credible witnesses, and refusing to investigate over $1.5 billion in suspicious Epstein-linked transactions flagged by major banks. Even worse, FBI Director Kash Patel told Congress the victims were “not credible”—the same women whose testimony convicted Ghislaine Maxwell beyond a reasonable doubt. This episode breaks down Raskin's explosive letter line by line—how the DOJ buried one of the largest sex-trafficking investigations in U.S. history, what it means for survivors, and what Congress plans to do next. Because if the government can erase the Epstein files this easily, who will they protect next?

He was born into royalty — a man the world was taught to bow to. But behind the medals and the palace walls, Prince Andrew's life intersected with one of the darkest criminal networks in modern history. Virginia Giuffre was seventeen when she says Ghislaine Maxwell recruited her for Jeffrey Epstein — a man who used wealth and power to prey on young girls while the world looked the other way. And according to Virginia, one of the men she was trafficked to was Prince Andrew, Duke of York — the Queen's own son. In this episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski dives deep into Giuffre's account: how she met Andrew, the infamous photo, the alleged encounters in London, New York, and Epstein's private island — and how the royal family worked overtime to bury the fallout. From the BBC interview that imploded Andrew's reputation to the multimillion-dollar settlement that silenced the courtroom, this is the full story — the arrogance, the power, the protection, and the survivor who refused to stay quiet. Giuffre's new memoir, Nobody's Girl, exposes more than just one man's depravity — it reveals a network of enablers who made sure justice stopped where power began. This isn't tabloid gossip. This is a story about accountability — and what happens when a survivor dares to stand up to royalty.

In one of the most damning congressional letters in recent history, Rep. Jamie Raskin is demanding answers from Attorney General Pam Bondi after the Department of Justice quietly killed the ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirators. Until January 2025, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York was running an active case—interviewing survivors, issuing subpoenas, and pursuing leads on Epstein's vast network of abusers and enablers. Nearly fifty women provided names, timelines, and evidence connecting at least twenty powerful men to Epstein's operation. Then, overnight, everything stopped. The Trump DOJ ordered the files transferred to Washington, D.C. By July, the FBI and DOJ had closed the case, issuing a one-page memo claiming there was “no evidence” to continue. Raskin calls it what it is: a gigantic cover-up. In his letter, he accuses the DOJ of abandoning survivors, firing prosecutors, dismissing credible witnesses, and refusing to investigate over $1.5 billion in suspicious Epstein-linked transactions flagged by major banks. Even worse, FBI Director Kash Patel told Congress the victims were “not credible”—the same women whose testimony convicted Ghislaine Maxwell beyond a reasonable doubt. This episode breaks down Raskin's explosive letter line by line—how the DOJ buried one of the largest sex-trafficking investigations in U.S. history, what it means for survivors, and what Congress plans to do next. Because if the government can erase the Epstein files this easily, who will they protect next?

Send us a textJoin me for ep 260 Real Housewives of Salt Lake City Season 6 Episode 8 gossip drop where I'm investigating the origins of that explosive TikTok video about Seth Marks allegedly cheating on Meredith, and wait until you hear how Bravo presented it versus what actually happened. I tracked down the influencer who made the video and discovered it was crowd gossip from a comment section, not a firsthand account like Bravo made it seem, and there's a reason why none of the best sleuths in the Bravo landscape could find this video. Then Angie Katsanevis drops a bomb about Todd Bradley allegedly making out with someone in New York who said he smelled like beans, and we discuss my deep dive into Todd's entire history including his previous marriage, his time at Hewlett-Packard, a fraud scandal, and court documents that reveal he and Bronwyn were living in separate states for years. There's a pattern emerging about Todd's behavior and whereabouts that makes this cheating allegation seem very possible. I'm also breaking down the RHOBH trailer and the new girl Amanda Frances McKinney who may have a criminal background nobody knew about, plus I found her arrest details and I'm exposing what appears to be a massive course scam similar to RHOSLC indicted Jen Shah involving high-priced life coaching classes. People are saying they spent thousands and got information available free on YouTube, and Amanda's response to being called a scammer on the show is wild. Plus Denise Richards got her restraining order against Aaron Phypers and he's facing deportation, and I'm continuing my deep dive into Virginia Giuffre's book where she reveals how Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell tracked her down in Australia to threaten her, how her father was allegedly paid off by Epstein, and the legal strategy that finally allowed her case to move forward despite the settlement agreement.TIME CODE HIGHLIGHTS:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) reportedly informed congressional Republicans that the files tied to Jeffrey Epstein are “even worse” for Donald Trump than previously publicized, suggesting that evidence of Trump's connection to Epstein is more extensive and potentially more damaging than past reporting indicated. The leaks reflect mounting anxiety among GOP lawmakers, some of whom are reportedly preparing to back efforts to force the release of related investigative records.The piece also notes that the rumor mill—particularly an account from Michael Wolff stating Epstein had shown him photos of Trump with underage girls—has stirred serious concern. The silence and evasive behavior of key figures, such as the Attorney General, have further alarmed members of Congress who fear a cover-up, prompting a growing coalition of over 100 Republicans ready to confront what they anticipate is an escalating exposure of wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ Admits to Republicans That Epstein Files Are Even Worse for Trump | The New Republic

During the civil lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Prince Andrew, the Duke's legal team was widely mocked for appearing to scrape the bottom of the barrel in search of credible character witnesses. Instead of producing anyone with real moral weight or first-hand knowledge to vouch for him, Andrew's defense relied on weak, contradictory claims — including his infamous “I don't sweat” explanation and statements attempting to discredit Giuffre's recollection of events. His lawyers even sought broad discovery into Giuffre's past finances, social life, and mental health, a tactic viewed by many as desperate and irrelevant. The strategy looked less like a robust defense and more like an attempt to sling mud in the absence of evidence or credible allies willing to stand beside him.Observers noted that the Duke's inability to produce legitimate witnesses spoke volumes about his crumbling credibility and isolation. Instead of respected public figures, his legal team leaned on peripheral associates and technical arguments that only underscored how far he had fallen from royal grace. Even the court pressed for testimony from Giuffre's husband and psychologist — a clear sign that Andrew's side had failed to offer anyone of substance. By the time the case was heading toward trial, the optics were catastrophic: a once-powerful prince reduced to scavenging for defenders while the walls of public opinion and legal scrutiny closed in around him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Leaked emails between Jeffrey Epstein and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak reveal Epstein's involvement in brokering high-level security and intelligence deals across Africa, including Côte d'Ivoire, where his efforts coincided with the country's new cybercrime accord with Israel. Epstein appears to have acted as a shadow intermediary—opening doors between Barak and African officials while helping Israeli-linked security firms sell surveillance systems to governments later accused of repressing dissent. Ghislaine Maxwell's recent deposition adds another layer, with her claim that Epstein worked “with and for African warlords,” suggesting his role extended beyond business into covert operations tied to Western and Israeli interests.These revelations expose a darker truth: Epstein's global ventures were never just about wealth or depravity—they were about access, influence, and deniable statecraft. Through Barak, Epstein became a bridge between Western intelligence, Israeli cyber firms, and authoritarian regimes seeking control over their populations. If substantiated, these leaks suggest governments and intelligence networks used Epstein as a middleman for dirty work—outsourcing surveillance, political manipulation, and backchannel diplomacy through a convicted sex offender precisely because his involvement could be disavowed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Virginia Roberts Giuffre's unpublished memoir The Billionaire's Playboy Club recounts her recruitment into Jeffrey Epstein's world as a 16-year-old working at Mar-a-Lago, where she says Ghislaine Maxwell lured her in with promises of opportunity and travel. The manuscript describes how she became trapped in Epstein's orbit, allegedly forced into sexual encounters with powerful men, including Prince Andrew, and ferried across his properties in New York, Florida, and the Virgin Islands. Giuffre paints a detailed picture of coercion, psychological manipulation, and the disturbing normalization of exploitation within Epstein's high-society circle.In this episode, we conlcude our journey through that memoir.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Virgina Giuffre Billionaire's Playboy Club | DocumentCloud

In the year following his explosive Prince Andrew interview for the BBC's Newsnight, the prince transformed from a high-profile member of the royal family into a sidelined figure engulfed in scandal. His candid, but tone-deaf attempts at damage control—claiming a rigid alibi, failing to show sympathy to his alleged victims, and denying memory of key meetings—prompted the palace to strip him of official roles, revoke his security detail, remove his Buckingham Palace office and effectively erase him from public royal duties.During this time he also publicly offered to cooperate with investigators into Jeffrey Epstein's alleged trafficking network, but again fell short—US authorities declared he'd given “zero cooperation” to the FBI. Meanwhile his and his ex-wife's financial troubles mounted, with income streams drying up and assets such as their Swiss ski-chalet contract falling into dispute. All the while the queen reportedly kept contact, yet in public he became the visible face of the monarchy's worst PR nightmare.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

People like Prince Andrew live by a rule book that the rest of us don't even get to see. When ordinary people get accused of wrongdoing, they face real consequences — investigations, charges, public humiliation, the works. But when it's a royal, the system suddenly becomes very delicate, very cautious, and very secretive. Doors that slam shut for everyone else magically open for them. Andrew, for instance, managed to dodge law enforcement interviews, avoid depositions for years, and settle a major sexual abuse lawsuit without ever admitting guilt. Every step of the way, his titles, connections, and family name served as a kind of diplomatic armor — the privilege of being born above accountability.That's the true “Rule Book for Royals”: deny everything, hide behind tradition, and let the palace machinery manage the damage. The same institutions that claim moral leadership close ranks to protect their own, wrapping scandal in ceremony and silence. For men like Andrew, shame isn't career-ending — it's just an image problem to be managed by courtiers, PR consultants, and lawyers on retainer. The royal playbook isn't about justice or truth; it's about preservation. And as long as the crown still glitters, the rule book that governs them will always have different laws — and fewer consequences.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Prince Andrew's first major “cancellation” unfolded in November 2019 after his infamous BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis. The interview was meant to clear his name regarding his association with Jeffrey Epstein, but it instead became a public relations catastrophe. Andrew's demeanor — unapologetic, defensive, and tone-deaf — provoked massive backlash across Britain and beyond. Within days, the Duke of York announced he would be stepping back from public duties “for the foreseeable future,” admitting that his relationship with Epstein had become “a major disruption” to the work of the royal family. The Queen approved his withdrawal, and charities and corporate sponsors swiftly severed ties, effectively exiling him from public life.In the weeks following, more than 230 charities and organisations either dropped him as patron or distanced themselves. Buckingham Palace quietly confirmed he would no longer represent the Crown in any official capacity, marking the first time in modern royal history that a senior royal was effectively removed due to scandal rather than abdication or illness. The event became known as Andrew's first “cancellation” — a total collapse of public and institutional support triggered by his disastrous defense of an indefensible friendship. It also set the tone for the years of isolation, legal scrutiny, and humiliation that would follow.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In regard to Epstein's death, Kuvin has expressed strong skepticism that it was a straightforward suicide. He notes that in his mediations with Epstein the financier never displayed the mindset of someone considering ending his own life — Epstein was “overly self-confident” and apparently believed he would beat the system. In one interview he said the “evidence is circumstantial but overwhelming” that Epstein did not die by his own hand, pointing to protocol failures in the jail (absent cellmate, sleeping guards, camera failures) and Epstein's attitude as major red flags.On the question of Prince Andrew's connection to Epstein, Kuvin has been openly critical. He argues that the Prince's denials and limited admissions do not erase the years of association with Epstein and others in that orbit. He has labelled Andrew's 2019 interview and other statements as “despicable” for failing to fully acknowledge the breadth of the friendship and what it meant for victims, and has said that until Andrew transparently cooperates with U.S. authorities, his avoidance only reinforces the perception of guilt.Finally, on Epstein's estate, Kuvin has called attention to the rights of victims and the need for full transparency in how that estate is being managed. He has pointed out that he represents multiple claimants against the estate and lauded the establishment of the victims' compensation program as a “huge victory” for survivors. He has also underscored that the estate remains a critical vehicle not just for compensation, but for uncovering the scope of Epstein's network and financial dealings — something he says is far from finished.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

After her sentencing, Ghislaine Maxwell immediately began pushing for special treatment, arguing that her imprisonment should be served in the United Kingdom rather than in the U.S. federal system. Her legal team claimed she was being unfairly treated compared to other inmates and that she should be allowed to serve her time closer to her family. Maxwell cited her British citizenship, her alleged “difficult” prison conditions, and her supposed lack of fair treatment throughout the trial as grounds for leniency. In effect, she was attempting to frame herself as a victim of the system — not an enabler of Epstein's crimes — while using diplomatic channels and her powerful connections to petition for a transfer under international prisoner-exchange agreements.She also sought a drastically reduced sentence, claiming she was being punished for Epstein's sins and that her role was exaggerated. Maxwell's lawyers argued that her upbringing, reputation loss, and media scrutiny should be taken into account, painting her as a scapegoat for a man who could no longer be tried. This push for leniency and relocation was seen by victims' advocates as a continuation of the entitlement that defined her life — a refusal to accept accountability or face the same justice as ordinary offenders. Rather than remorse, her response after sentencing reflected the same privilege and arrogance that had protected her and Epstein for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The internal investigation by Victoria's Secret's parent company, L Brands, was launched after the resurfacing of longstanding ties between billionaire founder Les Wexner and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In July 2019 the board retained outside counsel to determine what role, if any, Epstein had within the company—despite L Brands stating that Epstein was “never employed by nor served as an authorized representative of the company.”The inquiry aimed to clarify whether Epstein's influence extended beyond his position as Wexner's personal money manager, including allegations that he posed as a talent scout for Victoria's Secret and might have leveraged access to young models. Former employees and journalists raised concerns that Epstein misrepresented his role, and that red flags from the 1990s went unaddressed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

A Newsweek poll conducted in mid-2020 revealed that a majority of Britons believed Prince Andrew should face extradition to the United States for questioning over his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. According to the survey, 59 percent of respondents said the Duke of York should be sent to the U.S. if requested by authorities, while 52 percent said he should also be stripped of his remaining royal titles. The poll reflected widespread public anger following Andrew's disastrous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview, in which his attempts to distance himself from Epstein backfired and intensified scrutiny over his conduct and associations.The findings underscored the severe reputational damage Andrew's scandal inflicted on the British monarchy, highlighting the growing public demand for accountability. Despite his insistence on cooperating with law enforcement “when required,” U.S. prosecutors at the time accused him of failing to respond to official requests for an interview, deepening frustration both in America and the U.K. The poll's results were seen as a clear signal that the public's patience had run out, with a majority viewing him as a liability to the royal family rather than a protected institution of it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

According to a former housekeeper at Epstein's New Mexico property (Zorro Ranch), during a stay by Prince Andrew at the ranch, he was allegedly accompanied by a “beautiful young and brilliant” woman — described as a neurosurgeon — whose role, the housekeeper claims, was to “keep him company.” The woman reportedly asked for herbal teas intended to make Andrew “more horny,” as the housekeeper recounted. The Sun reported that the woman was “given” to Andrew by Epstein for the duration of his visit.The story places Andrew at the ranch in a self-contained guest house, ostensibly unsupervised by Epstein, during which this woman allegedly stayed with him for three days, according to the housekeeper's testimony. The implication drawn is that Epstein orchestrated not just the location but the company and context for Andrew's stay. While the claim remains unverified in terms of independent evidence and has not been substantiated by publicly available official records, the tabloid narrative highlights how far the web of associations around Epstein extended — and how the involvement of high-profile individuals like Andrew continues to generate new, sensational allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

In the year following his explosive Prince Andrew interview for the BBC's Newsnight, the prince transformed from a high-profile member of the royal family into a sidelined figure engulfed in scandal. His candid, but tone-deaf attempts at damage control—claiming a rigid alibi, failing to show sympathy to his alleged victims, and denying memory of key meetings—prompted the palace to strip him of official roles, revoke his security detail, remove his Buckingham Palace office and effectively erase him from public royal duties.During this time he also publicly offered to cooperate with investigators into Jeffrey Epstein's alleged trafficking network, but again fell short—US authorities declared he'd given “zero cooperation” to the FBI. Meanwhile his and his ex-wife's financial troubles mounted, with income streams drying up and assets such as their Swiss ski-chalet contract falling into dispute. All the while the queen reportedly kept contact, yet in public he became the visible face of the monarchy's worst PR nightmare.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.