Podcast appearances and mentions of Ghislaine Maxwell

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.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe [CB] are trying to fight back, Trump continues to counter them by using tariffs. They will never learn. Blue states are feeling the economic pain, they are following the globalist plan and they will fail. Trump is changing the economic calculations. Inflation is below 1%. Trump nominates Kevin Warsh to restructure the Fed. The [DS] is panicking. They tried to trap Trump in the Epstein files, that did not work, the other part of the plan is to muddy the waters but this also failed. Trump is now preparing for mass round ups across the country. DHS is purchasing warehouses to hold the illegals. Trump is leading the [DS] down the path of no return. The insurrection is coming and Trump is preparing the counterinsurgency.   Economy   through this very same certification process. If, for any reason, this situation is not immediately corrected, I am going to charge Canada a 50% Tariff on any and all Aircraft sold into the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter! DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/2016988052317409756?s=20   like he did in my First Term. I am confident that Brett has the expertise to QUICKLY fix the long history of issues at the BLS on behalf of the American People. Brett Matsumoto is a Brilliant, Reputable, and Trusted Economist who will restore GREATNESS to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Congratulations Brett! https://twitter.com/USTradeRep/status/2017747044350280104?s=20      extensive research in the field of Economics and Finance. Kevin issued an Independent Report to the Bank of England proposing reforms in the conduct of Monetary Policy in the United Kingdom. Parliament adopted the Report’s recommendations. Kevin Warsh became the youngest Fed Governor, ever, at 35, and served as a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from 2006 until 2011, as the Federal Reserve’s Representative to the Group of Twenty (G-20), and as the Board’s Emissary to the Emerging and Advanced Economies in Asia. In addition, he was Administrative Governor, managing and overseeing the Board’s operations, personnel, and financial performance. Prior to his appointment to the Board, from 2002 until 2006, Kevin served as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and Executive Secretary of the White House National Economic Council. Previously, Kevin was a member of the Mergers & Acquisitions Department at Morgan Stanley & Co., in New York, serving as Vice President and Executive Director. I have known Kevin for a long period of time, and have no doubt that he will go down as one of the GREAT Fed Chairmen, maybe the best. On top of everything else, he is “central casting,” and he will never let you down. Congratulations Kevin! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP Warsh has compared Bitcoin favorably to gold as a “sustainable store of value,” indicating a positive view of gold’s role in the financial system.  However, his nomination led to sharp declines in gold and silver prices (e.g., silver fell up to 26% in one day), as markets interpreted him as an inflation hawk who might pursue tighter monetary policy, reducing the appeal of precious metals as inflation hedges.  This reaction stemmed from fears of less dovish Fed actions, which had previously driven gold’s rally amid uncertainty over Fed independence.  Warsh’s broader hawkish stance on inflation aligns with “hard money” principles that could indirectly support gold, but his emphasis on shrinking the Fed’s balance sheet and normalizing policy suggests he prioritizes institutional reform over promoting gold as a standard. Is Kevin Warsh Pro-Sound Money?Yes, Warsh is a strong advocate for sound money principles, emphasizing disciplined, anti-inflationary monetary policy. He views inflation as a “monetary phenomenon” and “a choice” driven by excessive government printing and spending.  As a former Fed Governor, he was often the most hawkish voice, opposing aggressive rate cuts during crises due to inflation risks.  He criticizes the Fed’s “mission creep,” oversized balance sheet, and reliance on quantitative easing (QE), arguing these enable fiscal irresponsibility and distort markets. Warsh calls for “regime change” at the Fed, shifting away from Keynesian models toward rules-based policy that incorporates money supply considerations and reduces interventionism. He stresses credibility, clear rules, and accountability to maintain sound money.   In a 2025 Hoover Institution paper, he advocated scrutinizing monetary policy under a framework that could include constitutional measures for prosperity and idea diffusion. Warsh has been vocal against Powell’s leadership, echoing Trump’s frustrations with high interest rates and calling for “regime change” at the Fed. He has moderated his hawkish stance to support lower rates, arguing AI-driven productivity allows growth without inflation. Credibility and Market Reassurance: Warsh is seen as a “traditional” pick with Fed experience, reassuring investors amid fears of a loyalist appointment that could undermine independence. Trump highlighted Warsh’s ability to deliver lower rates and growth, though some economists note Warsh’s independence could lead to tensions if he prioritizes data over demands. Analysts suggest the pick balances Trump’s desire for cuts with a credible figure. Political/Rights https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/2017774819823984722?s=20 Trump Administration Begins Suing Illegal Migrants Who Have Not Self-Deported The Trump administration has begun suing individual illegal migrants for ignoring removal orders and refusing to self-deport back to their home countries, a report says. The administration has filed suit against an illegal migrant living in Virginia, and is seeking $941,114 plus interest, alleging that Marta Alicia Ramirez Veliz has remained in the country despite being told her request for admittance was rejected by a Justice Department appeals panel in 2022, Politico reported. The filing notes that Veliz has refused to pay a $998 per-day fine for the 943 days since she was told to return to her home country, and reveals that Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent her an official notice of her total fine in April. The lawsuit describes Veliz as “an individual and noncitizen residing in Chesterfield County, Virginia,” and does not identify her nationality. source: breitbart.com https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/2017404446230323358?s=20 BREAKING: Disturbing photos in the Epstein files appear to show Prince Andrew on all fours over a woman lying on the ground. https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/2017792445979791448?s=20   for everyone, or is connected through some opaque web of professional and personal ties. A supposedly random figure from the squalor of Uganda rises all the way to mayor of New York, only for it to later emerge that his mother is deeply embedded in elite circles. The same pattern shows up again and again. James Comey's daughter just happened to be a lead federal prosecutor on the Epstein case. The judge who presided over the trial of Hillary Clinton's lawyer, the one who helped seed the Russiagate hoax, is married to Lisa Page's lawyer. Page, of course, was involved with Peter Strzok, who is one of the central figures in that same hoax. And to complete the circle, Merrick Garland officiated their wedding. None of this requires conspiracy theories. It requires only acknowledging how small, closed, and self-protecting these elite worlds are. Fix elite incestuousness, and a lot of other problems will disappear on their own. https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/2017734119334232544?s=20 https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/2017474860700877105?s=20   https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2017762585878069630?s=20 https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/2017694490614763591?s=20   written from Nikolic's perspective. At the time, Nikolic was Gates's top scientific investment advisor. The emails suggest Gates was firing Nikolic in response to marital problems with Melinda. In June 2013, Nikolic emailed Gates and asked if he wanted to go to the “legendary Crazy Horse in Paris” an erotic show, while they were in France. Gates declined, saying he would be too tired and didn't want to take the risk, adding that he might have done it when he was younger. On July 1, 2013, Gates emailed Nikolic: “We should meet on Wednesday to discuss your job. There is going to have to be a transition. I feel very bad about it but I don’t see a way around it.” Nikolic shared these emails with Epstein. Epstein later commented on the Paris erotic show email, writing: “This is pretty bad and might have been the cause of her bad mail in paris.”—apparently referring to Melinda. Nikolic appeared unhappy about being fired while potentially being used as a scapegoat, and he sought greater financial compensation as he prepared to leave and launch his own investment fund. In these emails, Epstein—writing as Nikolic—references alleged knowledge of Gates's extramarital affairs, STDs allegedly contracted from Russian women, and drug use as justification for why Nikolic deserved more money. Taken together, it appears Jeffrey Epstein was drafting or shaping a message for Boris Nikolic that effectively functioned as blackmail, pressuring Bill Gates for financial compensation. It remains unclear whether Nikolic ultimately sent these messages to Gates. However, later emails suggest Gates helped Nikolic launch his next investment fund and maintained a working relationship with him afterward. Epstein later listed Nikolic as a backup executor of his will, indicating the two were close confidants. https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/2017769194159210784?s=20 Billionaire Reid Hoffman, Who Bankrolled the E. Jean Carroll Lawsuit Against Trump, Is Featured Extensively in the New Epstein Files, Visiting Zorro Ranch and Pedophile Island  Hoffman went to the Island. A man who used his fortune to bankroll a lawsuit against President Donald J. Trump is now featured extensively in the new DOJ-released Jeffrey Epstein documents. The three and a half million documents from the latest – and apparently last – have been released by the DOJ following the approval of the House Resolution 4405, the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Documents from this massive release show the close ties between LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and the late pedophile. The pair ‘discusses visits to Epstein's infamous private island, his New Mexico ranch, and his New York apartment'. The New York Post reported: “'Reid will spend the night at 71st', according to one email from Hoffman's team included in the latest Justice Department dump of Epstein files, in reference to his Upper East Side townhouse.”   A 2014 memo states that Epstein hosted will have (venture capitalist) Joi Ito and Reid Hoffman on the infamous Zorro Ranch for a weekend. “An email Epstein penned to his assistant Saida Sapieva under the heading ‘Trip to the Island' states: ‘Reid will take a Virgin America Flight from SFO to Fort Lauderdale, departing at 8:20 am, landing at 4:40 pm'. In 2023, Hoffman visited to Epstein's former Caribbean private island, Little St. James, also known as ‘pedophile island', The Post previously reported.” Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2017106848311366064?s=20 https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/2017789344103145647?s=20   https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/2017772724093849926?s=20     https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2017930408650772495?s=20 https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/2017329765863039432?s=20       Israel had Trump by the balls so much that… Epstein was arrested? Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested? Jean Luc Brunel was arrested? Les Wexner stepped down? NXIVM sex cult ended? And now we're getting those files? These people don't think very hard https://twitter.com/JD_Cashless/status/2017349780922408973?s=20 https://twitter.com/TaraBunner2/status/2017619821634977889?s=20 https://twitter.com/Jordan_Sather_/status/2017399510809645263?s=20 https://twitter.com/TheStormRedux/status/2017789280693735748?s=20 politically. “I didn't see it myself but I was told by some very important people that not only does it absolve me, it's the opposite of what people were hoping – you know, the radical left. Wolff, who's a 3rd rate writer, was conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to hurt me politically or otherwise…” Don't fall for all the clickbait doomers pushing the anti-Trump narratives. It's all bullshit. Lots of people not looking good though after today's release. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. To muddy the waters is an idiom that means to make a situation, issue, or discussion more confusing, unclear, or complicated—often deliberately. For example: “The politician’s vague statements only muddied the waters during the debate.” It originates from the idea of stirring up mud in water, making it murky and hard to see through. DOGE Geopolitical War/Peace Iran Hits Back At EU: Designates European Armies As ‘Terrorist Entities’ Iran is saying two can play at the West’s game: on Friday the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council blasted the EU’s decision to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a “terrorist organization,” warning that Europe’s own militaries would now be viewed through the same lens. “The European Union certainly knows that… the armies of countries that have participated in the European Union’s recent resolution against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are considered terrorist entities,” Ali Larijani wrote in a post on X. He added bluntly: “Therefore, the consequences of that shall be borne by the European countries that undertook such an action.” However, there’s probably nothing in the way of European military assets for the Islamic Republic to sanction, so this ‘action’ by Tehran will remain largely symbolic. Iran does have assets held in various places of Europe though. EU foreign ministers agreed on Thursday to formally classify the IRGC as a “terrorist organization” and urged member states to implement the designation without delay – after a few longtime holdouts flipped. source: zerohedge.com [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/rhodeislander/status/2017361344018739231?s=20 https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2017331445195211254?s=20   at Place of Worship COUNT 2: 18 U.S.C. § 248(a) (b), § §2(a) – FACE Act: Injure, Intimidate, and Interfere with Exercise of Right of Religious Freedom at a Place of Worship. Full indictment in replies. https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2017755569097003394?s=20 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2017426372860190991?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2017426372860190991%7Ctwgr%5Efafd5c6b893c0c4815868b0fd8490482712f780e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Ft%2Fassets%2Fhtml%2Ftweet-5.html2017426372860190991 Maxine Waters Incites Violent Leftist Rioters in Los Angeles – Threatens ICE, “We're Going to Fight You Every Inch of the Way” (VIDEOS) Far-left Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) was in Los Angeles on Friday, inciting her radical left followers to riot against law enforcement before several were arrested.  Rioters were seen hurling objects at shielded federal agents who pushed back with pepper balls and nonlethal munitions. Via ABC 7: Anti-ICE Rioters Clash with Federal Agents and Local Police Outside Los Angeles ICE Facility Eventually, the rioters moved a dumpster toward the entrance of the ICE detention facility and set it ablaze. Over 100 Los Angeles Police officers reportedly responded in riot gear to quell the violence. Multiple videos circulating on social media show Maxine Waters at the front lines of the riot as leftists were told to disperse for surrounding the federal building, trespassing on federal property, and later assaulting federal officers. After pepper spray was deployed, Waters returned to the front of the riot with a mask and continued leading the insurrection. Waters was seen pulling up to the scene early in the day in a black SUV before stepping out to rally her troops, flailing her arms and leading chants of “ICE Out of LA.” Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/DOGEai_tx/status/2017736355665641700?s=20   Martinez's gang alliance pitch isn't just reckless; it's a calculated distraction from ICE's indiscriminate sweeps that tear families apart over paperwork. Federal law requires deportation for specific crimes, yet bureaucrats weaponize broad mandates to meet quotas. The solution? Enforce existing laws precisely, stop manufacturing crises, and end the performative politics that put both officers and communities at risk. President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2017769322723082564?s=20   constitutional dike, It is so ORDERED” – “Feb. 31” doesn’t exist – LinkedIn shows he liked a TDS post about ICE today – Includes a photo of the kid in the order – Unprofessionally antagonistic language WTF?! This is a JUDGE?! @ElonMusk and @NayibBukele were right all along. We can’t have a saved republic until we mass impeach the courts. H/t @BillMelugin_ https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2017574838143959310?s=20 https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2017636699157811696?s=20       one of the safest cities in America – Likewise, numerous other once very dangerous cities! Republicans, don't let these Crooked Democrats, who are stealing Billions of Dollars from Minnesota, and other Cities and States from all over the Country, push you around. They are using this aggressive protest SCAM to obfuscate, camouflage, and hide their CRIMINAL ACTS of theft and insurrection. They should all be in jail. I was elected on Strong Borders, and Law and Order, among many other things. Thank you to Secretary Kristi Noem. Remember, ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!!! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP     Federal Government Property. There will be no spitting in the faces of our Officers, there will be no punching or kicking the headlights of our cars, and there will be no rock or brick throwing at our vehicles, or at our Patriot Warriors. If there is, those people will suffer an equal, or more, consequence. In the meantime, by copy of this Statement, I am informing Local Governments, as I did in Los Angeles when they were rioting at the end of the Biden Term, that you must protect your own State and Local Property. In addition, it is your obligation to also protect our Federal Property, Buildings, Parks, and everything else. We are there to protect Federal Property, only as a back up, in that it is Local and State Responsibility to do so. Last night in Eugene, Oregon, these criminals broke into a Federal Building, and did great damage, also scaring and harassing the hardworking employees. Local Police did nothing in order to stop it. We will not let that happen anymore! If Local Governments are unable to handle the Insurrectionists, Agitators, and Anarchists, we will immediately go to the location where such help is requested, and take care of the situation very easily and methodically, just as we did the Los Angeles Riots one year ago, where the Police Chief said that, “We couldn't have done it without the help of the Federal Government.” Therefore, to all complaining Local Governments, Governors, and Mayors, let us know when you are ready, and we will be there — But, before we do so, you must use the word, “PLEASE.” Remember that I stated, in the strongest of language, to BEWARE — ICE, Border Patrol or, if necessary, our Military, will be extremely powerful and tough in the protection of our Federal Property. We will not allow our Courthouses, Federal Buildings, or anything else under our protection, to be damaged in any way, shape, or form. I was elected on a Policy of Border Control (which has now been perfected!), National Security, and LAW AND ORDER — That's what America wants, and that's what America is getting! Thank you for your attention to this matter.   PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP he will use DHS/ICE and, if necessary, the US MIL to protect federal property. It sounds like Trump knows something is coming. It sounds like the Dems want DHS/ICE to get caught up in policing these riots, hoping more of their deranged followers take it too far and get shot. Trump is instead going to hold and force local Democrat politicians to police their own riots, or agree to work with him. And if the Dems choose to not police these riots, they will force Trump to use the US MIL to suppress the chaos.  https://twitter.com/unseen1_unseen/status/2017334056292143173?s=20 https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/2017585812599087241?s=20   EXCLUSIVE: Atlanta Field Office Special Agent in Charge Allegedly Removed For Slow-Walking Election Fraud Investigation  Reports are emerging on social media that Paul Brown, the FBI Special Agent in Charge at the Atlanta Field Office, was “forced out of that job earlier this month,” according to MSNOW's Ken Dilanian. According to MSNOW, Brown “was forced out this month after questioning the Justice Department's renewed push to probe Fulton County's role in the 2020 election” after “expressing concern” about “unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud” in Fulton County. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/TheStormRedux/status/2017632517596045581?s=20      of evidence that the judge authorized us to collect. And what we're gonna do next is go through the voluminous amounts of information collected and continue our investigation. At this point there's not much more I can say publicly because we have to go through a lot more material. But it was predicated on a finding of probable cause by a judge in Georgia.” Time for people to go to jail! We all watched it stolen in real time, and we're all still pissed off about it! https://twitter.com/TheStormRedux/status/2017201516768026738?s=20  the election safe, and she's done a very good job. And as you know, they got into the votes. You've got a signed judges order in Georgia and you're gonna see some interesting things happening.” We've waited a long time for this. Let's get it. https://twitter.com/JoeLang51440671/status/2017668286196932654?s=20 https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/2017631484908024035?s=20     (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

The DOJ just dumped 3 million pages of Epstein files. Trump's name shows up over 1,000 times. Elon Musk wanted to know which night had the "wildest party" on Pedophile Island. The Commerce Secretary's wife RSVP'd to bring the kids to Little St. James. Steve Bannon was texting a child rapist about borrowing his plane. And the guy announcing all this? Trump's former defense attorney. You can't make this shit up. But here's the kicker: survivors got doxxed while their rapists hide behind black rectangles. Fifty percent of the files are still being withheld. And Ghislaine Maxwell remains the only person in prison. For this episode, Robin rips through the documents, names the names, and asks the questions your government hopes you're too distracted to ask. The receipts are here. The excuses are bullshit. Let's go.SOURCES & LINKS:DOJ Epstein Files Repository: justice.gov/epsteinCBS News Searchable Epstein DatabaseHouse Oversight Committee Document ReleasesSurvivors' Official Statement (January 31, 2026)KEYWORDS/TAGS: Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein files, Epstein documents, Trump Epstein, Donald Trump Epstein connection, Epstein files 2026, DOJ Epstein release, Epstein island, Little St. James, Ghislaine Maxwell, Virginia Giuffre, Elon Musk Epstein, Steve Bannon Epstein, Howard Lutnick Epstein, Bill Gates Epstein, Prince Andrew Epstein, Epstein co-conspirators, Epstein client list, Epstein cover-up, Epstein FBI, Epstein Mossad, Epstein intelligence, sex trafficking, true crime, political podcast, political commentary, Trump administration, Epstein survivors, Epstein victims, Todd Blanche, Pam Bondi, Epstein transparency act, Epstein redactions, conspiracy, elite pedophile ring, accountability, justice system, Epstein network, pedophile island, Epstein blackmailBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/we-saw-the-devil-crime-political-analysis--4433638/support.Website: http://www.wesawthedevil.comPatreon: http://www.patreon.com/wesawthedevilDiscord: https://discord.gg/X2qYXdB4Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeSawtheDevilInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/wesawthedevilpodcast.

Mrs. P tackles the gossip world that marries politics and pop culture. Our Villains for the night are Jessica Reed Kraus, Candace Owens, Tim Pool and so many more. We follow the mommy blogger/wellness pipeline to RFK, TRUMP, Defending ICE, Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Johnny Depp, Danny Masterson and so many more. JOIN OUR PATREON COMMUNITY -

Send us a text Ep 272 -- In this jam-packed gossip dump, I'm breaking down the Real Housewives of Salt Lake City reunion part 3 tea starting with Dan Cosby reaching out with exclusive information about Mary Cosby's TLC docuseries and exposing every single business that funded her money from church members. Then I'm getting into Bronwyn Newport being spotted alone and disheveled at Sundance—plus why I believe her Todd Bradley marriage storyline was fake from the start—and wait until you hear what I discovered about Todd's new investment firm Niobrara Capital where he's partners with Mike Pompeo, Trump's former Secretary of State and CIA Director. The reunion recap covers Heather Gay being outed for allegedly sharing pills, Whitney Rose's suspicious marriage troubles, Brittani Bateman's antisemitism drama with Meredith Marks, and why Meredith is having her Camille Grammer moment calling out production. I'm also revealing tea on Lisa Barlow and Heather both allegedly working with finsta accounts—so why is only Lisa getting called out? Then we dive into the massive Epstein files drop where Elon Musk got exposed asking about the "wildest party" on the island despite claiming he refused invitations, Ghislaine Maxwell calling Prince Andrew "sweet pea" and him using the email name "The Invisible Man," Steve Bannon's hundreds of texts with Epstein, and a shocking Bill Gates draft email. I'm also reading you the explosive Congressional letter to Pam Bondi about Ghislaine Maxwell's five-star prison treatment including a puppy, room service, private CNN viewing, and unsupervised laptop access—plus disturbing whistleblower allegations of sexual abuse and retaliation at FPC Bryan. Finally, I'm introducing you to the Colleen Ballinger scandal and how this Miranda Sings creator allegedly had inappropriate relationships with underage fans including Adam McIntyre—this rabbit hole goes deep and involves some truly disturbing allegations about her inner circle. Full episode only available at Dishing Drama Dana Patreon,it's only $6.00 a month, join the fun! https://www.patreon.com/cw/DishingDramaWithDanaWilkeySupport the showDana is on Cameo!Follow Dana: @Wilkey_Dana$25,000 Song - Apple Music$25,000 Song - SpotifyTo support the show and listen to full episodes, become a member on PatreonTo send Dana information, show requests and sponsorships reach out to our new email: dishingdramadana@gmail.comDana's YouTube Channel

Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn were not peripheral figures orbiting Jeffrey Epstein. They were structural supports, the load bearing pillars that allowed his criminal empire to function, survive scrutiny, and endure scandal. Darren Indyke, Epstein's longtime lawyer, was the gatekeeper. He controlled access, managed settlements, structured opaque trusts, and ensured that Epstein's money and secrets were insulated from exposure. Indyke was there through arrests, plea deals, civil suits, and reputational implosions, always positioning Epstein one legal step ahead of accountability. Without Indyke's legal architecture, Epstein's web of shell companies, offshore vehicles, and confidentiality agreements collapses under its own weight. He was not merely providing legal services. He was actively maintaining the machinery that allowed Epstein to keep operating in plain sight.And then there was Richard Kahn, the financial engineer who made the money move quietly and efficiently. Kahn handled Epstein's books, managed his finances, and kept the cash flowing through a maze designed to obscure origin, purpose, and beneficiaries. This was not passive bookkeeping. This was deliberate financial camouflage, the kind that allows illegal activity to be funded, sustained, and hidden behind layers of complexity. Together, Indyke and Kahn formed a firewall between Epstein and consequence. They didn't just serve a client, they preserved an ecosystem of abuse by protecting the money that powered it. Strip them away and Epstein is exposed, vulnerable, and limited. With them in place, he was untouchable for decades. That is what indispensability looks like, and it should haunt anyone who still pretends this was the work of a lone monster rather than a professionally maintained criminal enterprise.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Ghislaine Maxwell has stated in interviews that her biggest regret is ever meeting Jeffrey Epstein—a claim that, on the surface, might sound like remorse, but upon closer inspection feels more like an evasion of responsibility. Rather than expressing deep sorrow for the harm done to the victims she groomed and enabled, Maxwell frames her regret around how Epstein's downfall impacted her own life. It's a self-serving statement that conveniently positions her as a victim of circumstance rather than a key participant in a vast sex trafficking enterprise. By centering her regret on the personal consequences of their association, rather than the lives shattered by their actions, Maxwell continues to sidestep any meaningful acknowledgment of guilt.Critically, this so-called regret lacks any mention of the underage girls she recruited, manipulated, and, in some cases, directly abused. She doesn't express sorrow for the trauma inflicted, for the years stolen, or for the trust she violated under the guise of mentorship. Her regret is about proximity—not culpability. It's a statement crafted for image repair, not accountability. In the grand scheme of her crimes, saying she regrets meeting Epstein is like an arsonist lamenting the decision to light a match because they now have burn scars—not because the building went up in flames. It's hollow, calculated, and emblematic of Maxwell's continued refusal to face the full horror of what she did.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1683885/ghislaine-maxwell-interview-prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-spt

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

Writer Christopher Mason says that Ghislaine Maxwell commissioned him to write a birthday song for Jeffrey Epstein that included very lurid and sexualized references—specifically lyrics about “24-hour erections” and “schoolgirl crushes” when Epstein had taught at Dalton School. According to Mason, Maxwell gave him highly explicit instructions about what to include in the lyrics, but prevented him from contacting anyone else who might have known Epstein for background. Mason claims the song was performed at a dinner with wealthy men in attendance, and that the mood was celebratory, even mocking. The song apparently referenced Epstein's sexual behavior in front of guests like Leslie Wexner and others in his social circle.To contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12235042/ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-24-hour-erections/

Ghislaine Maxwell, a woman who has never wanted for a buck, is now at the mercy of her ex husband Scott Borgerson to pay her lawyers so that her attempt at an appeal can move forward. According to reports, Borgerson is hesitant to pony up the money and the lawyers for Maxwell are saying that he is dragging his feet.(commercial at 6:58)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11473189/Ghislaine-Maxwells-appeal-jeopardy-estranged-husband-refuses-pay-legal-bills.html

The release of the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's death was marked by a delay so drawn out that it raised more questions than it answered. Epstein died in August 2019, yet the OIG report—supposedly the definitive account of the failures at the Metropolitan Correctional Center—did not surface until mid-2023. That nearly four-year gap created an atmosphere of suspicion, where the public was left to speculate in the absence of transparency. For a case of such magnitude, involving one of the most notorious prisoners in U.S. custody, the government's inability—or unwillingness—to produce timely findings came across as stonewalling rather than due diligence. Each year that ticked by without answers only deepened the impression that the investigation was less about accountability and more about managing fallout.Critics have argued that the slow pace betrayed the very purpose of oversight. The OIG is meant to reassure the public that even the federal system can police itself, but when it takes nearly half a decade to confirm “errors” that were obvious within days of Epstein's death—broken cameras, sleeping guards, falsified logs—the credibility of the process collapses. Instead of restoring confidence, the delay reinforced the perception that the system was dragging its feet, hoping the public's outrage would fade. By the time the report finally arrived, many saw it as an afterthought: a bureaucratic box checked too late to matter, more a shield for officials than a search for truth.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein Death: Justice Department Still Hasn't Released Report (businessinsider.com)

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

The Department of Justice's declaration that Jeffrey Epstein was a "lone wolf" with no ties to intelligence and no involvement in kompromat is not just laughable—it's an insult to the intelligence of every American with a functioning frontal lobe. This isn't just a lie; it's a grotesque act of gaslighting. You don't amass blackmail material on billionaires, politicians, and royalty by accident. You don't operate an international sex trafficking ring out of mansions, private islands, and government-funded plea deals unless someone very powerful is holding the door open. For the DOJ to issue this absurd narrative in 2025, after years of irrefutable evidence and obvious patterns, is like spitting in the face of every survivor, whistleblower, journalist, and citizen who's been screaming the truth while being told they were delusional.What this memo really signals is institutional rot—an admission, cloaked in denial, that the system doesn't intend to clean up its mess. It's a grotesque pantomime of justice, hoping the public will grow tired, stop asking questions, and let the concrete dry over a grave full of secrets. But this isn't going away. You don't get to burn the files, wash your hands, and pretend the smell isn't still in the air. The Epstein operation was too big, too protected, and too damn obvious to be chalked up to one rogue predator. What we're witnessing is not closure—it's cover-up, and it reeks.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

Abbe Lowell, attorney for journalist Don Lemon, talks with Jen Psaki about Donald Trump's escalating war on the news media, and the pattern he sees among his clients who have been targeted by Donald Trump's Justice Department, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.Rep. Robert Garcia talks about the Justice Department's release of a new batch of Jeffrey Epstein files.Annie Farmer, Jeffrey Epstein accuser, shares the perspective of survivors of abuse by Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and their associates as Pam Bondi's Justice Department botches (or maybe sabotages) the job of redacting names as it releases files from the investigations of Epstein.Terry Moran, former senior national correspondent for ABC News, and Eugene Daniels, co-host of The Weekend on MS NOW, talk with Jen Psaki about the dubious accusations in the Trump Justice Department's indictments of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for reporting on a protest at a church, and what is really motivating the Trump administration to use such heavy-handed tactic against the news media.  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.

Streaming services played an outsized role in rekindling public interest and scrutiny in the Jeffrey Epstein case by making documentaries about his life, network, and crimes widely accessible. Projects like Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich on Netflix showcased survivors' stories alongside investigative reporting, exposing the broader systems of power and complicity that helped shield Epstein from accountability.  Other streaming platforms similarly offered exposés—such as Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein? on Hulu and Prince Andrew, Maxwell & Epstein on Discovery+/Prime Video—which helped sustain media momentum, push archival material into public view, and keep pressure on law enforcement and institutions tied to Epstein.The cultural influence of these streaming documentaries also amplified the voices of survivors and shifted public discourse, creating renewed demand for transparency and legal accountability. For example, Surviving Jeffrey Epstein on Lifetime reportedly triggered a 34 % jump in calls to a U.S. sexual‐assault hotline, showing how media exposure mobilized public attention to issues of sexual abuse and institutional failure.   In many ways, streaming allowed the Epstein story to transcend news cycles—embedding it into ongoing popular awareness and pressuring institutions and legal actors to respond more aggressively.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The United States Virgin Islands have made out quite well for themselves when it comes to collecting money from Jeffrey Epstein's estate and others involved in Epstein's crimes and activities and now we are learning that they have added another 62.5 million dollars to the pot after it was revealed that Leon Black paid them off so that he would be released from all Epstein related lawsuits moving forward.Meanwhile, nobody has been arrested in the USVI and there is no (known) criminal case working its way through the system.(commercial at 11:06)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Report: Billionaire Leon Black Paid V.I. $62.5 Million Over Epstein Ties | St. Thomas Source (stthomassource.com)

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

The U.S. Department of Justice has released more than 3 million pages of documents, images, and videos related to its long-running investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates, including court records, interview transcripts, call logs, and other materials, in the latest compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed by Congress and signed into law last year. The material — which also includes roughly 2,000 videos and 180,000 images — represents a significant expansion of the publicly available record, although portions of the roughly 6 million potentially responsive pages identified by the department remain under review or redaction due to legal protections, privacy concerns for victims, and other restrictions.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the release was aimed at fulfilling the statutory requirement for transparency, and stressed that redactions were applied to protect survivors and sensitive content, including explicit material and personal information, but denied that any files were withheld to protect specific public figures. The release comes after sustained public and bipartisan congressional pressure following earlier partial disclosures, and while it greatly expands access to internal DOJ and FBI records on Epstein's crimes and investigations, officials acknowledge that further review and possible future disclosures are likely as the process continues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ releases millions of pages of additional Epstein files

Gordon Gee framed his defense of Les Wexner as a matter of loyalty, philanthropy, and presumed ignorance, insisting that Wexner was blindsided by Jeffrey Epstein and had no meaningful awareness of the abuse orbiting his former confidant. Gee leaned heavily on Wexner's decades of charitable giving and institutional support, portraying him as a benefactor whose generosity and civic engagement should outweigh uncomfortable questions. In doing so, Gee treated proximity to Epstein as an unfortunate coincidence rather than a relationship that lasted years, involved extraordinary financial power, and raised obvious red flags long before the public reckoning.What makes Gee's defense so troubling is not just what he said, but what he refused to confront. By defaulting to character references and donation tallies, Gee sidestepped the basic issue of responsibility that comes with wealth, access, and sustained association. His comments implied that elite benefactors deserve the benefit of the doubt denied to everyone else, and that institutional gratitude can substitute for scrutiny. Instead of demanding accountability proportional to influence, Gee lowered the bar, effectively arguing that if someone gives enough money and claims shock afterward, the questions should stop. For critics, that posture doesn't protect the truth—it protects the donor class, and it reinforces the very culture of deference that allowed Epstein's network to operate in plain sight for so long.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Former OSU President Gee defends Les Wexner amid probe into billionaire's ties to Epstein | WOSU Public Media

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)This episode includes AI-generated content.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Jimmy Kimmel, like most of the loud mouths who know little to nothing about Jeffrey Epstein, thinks it's a good idea to bring Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes up and frame those crimes and the years of abuse as a conspiracy theory, all in order to try and score "points" against someone he doesn't like. Meanwhile, what exactly has Kimmel done to bring light to the situation? Has he ever invited any of the survivors on his show? Has he ever questioned his pals the Clintons for their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? You all know the answers to those questions. In this episode, we take a look at Kimmel's latest comments about Jeffrey Epstein and how he attempted to label Aaron Rodgers as a conspiracy theorist for bringing it up. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jimmy Kimmel takes aim at Aaron Rodgers over his comments on Jeffrey Epstein and UFOs | Daily Mail Online

Ghislaine Maxwell complained of guard misconduct by portraying herself as a victim of mistreatment inside federal custody, repeatedly alleging that guards were improperly watching her, disrupting her sleep, and violating her privacy. She claimed that routine checks amounted to harassment, arguing that guards were deliberately making noise, shining lights, and observing her in ways she said were unnecessary and punitive. Her legal team framed these complaints as evidence of a hostile detention environment, suggesting that the Bureau of Prisons was failing to respect her dignity and rights. The thrust of her argument was that standard suicide-watch style monitoring, implemented in the shadow of Jeffrey Epstein's death, crossed the line into abuse. What Maxwell cast as misconduct, however, closely mirrored the very safeguards the BOP put in place precisely because of her proximity to one of the most notorious custodial failures in modern history.The complaints landed poorly in the court of public opinion, given the gravity of the crimes she was accused of facilitating. Critics noted the stark contrast between Maxwell's grievances about personal discomfort and the years of exploitation suffered by Epstein's victims, whose privacy and bodily autonomy were systematically stripped away. Her allegations against guards read less like a serious civil rights claim and more like an attempt to reframe herself as persecuted rather than protected from self-harm. Judges and prosecutors largely treated her complaints as secondary to the overwhelming security concerns surrounding her detention. In the end, Maxwell's focus on guard behavior underscored a recurring pattern in her defense strategy: deflecting attention from her role in Epstein's operation by recasting herself as the one being wronged by the system.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Howie Kurtz on President Trump selecting Kevin Warsh to serve as the next chair of the Federal Reserve, Ghislaine Maxwell's claims about secret settlements involving Jeffrey Epstein's associates, and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreeing to halt attacks on Ukraine's capital due to brutal cold. Follow Howie on Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@HowardKurtz⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠For more #MediaBuzz click here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In 2018, Ghislaine Maxwell—despite years of public allegations connecting her to Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation—was invited to and attended Jeff Bezos's elite and secretive literary retreat known as Campfire. The event, hosted by Bezos annually, brings together top authors, tech moguls, and media power players at a private location for a weekend of discussions, panels, and informal networking. Maxwell's presence at the retreat raised eyebrows, not only because of her reputation by that point, but also because it demonstrated how seamlessly she continued to move through the highest levels of elite society even after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Her attendance revealed a stunning level of normalization and acceptance within powerful circles, despite her growing notoriety.Maxwell reportedly arrived at the Campfire event alongside entrepreneur Scott Borgerson, a figure later revealed to be in a close relationship with her, though he denied any romantic involvement at the time. Attendees included influential figures from Silicon Valley, publishing, and entertainment—none of whom publicly objected to her presence. The revelation of her invitation has sparked renewed scrutiny into how the world's wealthiest and most influential people continued to welcome Epstein's known enablers into their inner circles long after the broader public became aware of their roles. It serves as yet another example of how elite spaces often insulate their own, regardless of the crimes that surround them.source:https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/01/jeffrey-epstein-friend-ghislaine-maxwell-was-guest-at-jeff-bezos-event.html

Prince Andrew has long carried a reputation among former palace staff as arrogant, dismissive, and routinely rude, a pattern that multiple aides and insiders have described as ingrained rather than episodic. Former staff have said Andrew treated employees as beneath him, snapping over minor issues, refusing basic courtesies, and creating an atmosphere where deference was demanded rather than earned. Accounts describe tantrum-like behavior over uniforms, room arrangements, travel logistics, and perceived slights, with staff expected to absorb the abuse because of his status. This was not the occasional bad day attributed to stress; it was a consistent management style rooted in entitlement. Andrew reportedly expected instant compliance and bristled when protocol did not bend to his preferences, reinforcing a culture where staff learned to placate rather than challenge him. That behavior was quietly tolerated for years because confronting a senior royal carried professional risk. In practice, his rudeness became normalized as “just how he is,” a phrase that often serves as camouflage for sustained mistreatment.What makes these accounts more damning is how neatly they align with Andrew's broader public conduct once scrutiny intensified. The same arrogance former staff described privately became visible to the public during his disastrous interviews and defiant posture in the Epstein scandal. Insiders have suggested that his inability to grasp how he was perceived stemmed from decades of insulation from consequences, where staff absorbed the fallout and senior figures smoothed things over. The Palace's failure to address his behavior reinforced the idea that Andrew was untouchable, free to belittle subordinates without repercussion. Even as other royals faced internal reforms around workplace culture, Andrew's reputation followed him largely unchecked. These staff accounts are not petty grievances; they are indicators of a deeper problem within royal hierarchy, where power protects bad behavior until it becomes impossible to ignore. By the time Andrew's conduct was scrutinized publicly, the damage had already been done quietly behind palace walls for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Liquid Funding Ltd. didn't survive the 2008 financial collapse by skill or luck—it survived because the system bent itself into a pretzel to protect elite balance sheets with public money. Chaired by Jeffrey Epstein, Liquid Funding sat on billions in mortgage-linked liabilities just as the global economy imploded. When the government rushed in to stabilize failing institutions, those interventions didn't just rescue household-name banks—they quietly backstopped the opaque offshore machinery that fed off them. As emergency facilities and taxpayer-backed rescues absorbed toxic assets and restored liquidity, Liquid Funding's obligations were made whole. The end result was grotesque: a vehicle overseen by a known predator emerging intact from a crisis that annihilated ordinary people.What makes it sickening is the silence around it. While families lost homes and retirement savings evaporated, bailout architecture designed to “save the system” effectively covered the tab for Epstein's offshore empire—through the rescue of counterparties like Bear Stearns, its fire-sale to JPMorgan Chase, and the emergency actions of the Federal Reserve. No vote asked taxpayers if they were willing to underwrite the continued solvency of a man already accused of unspeakable crimes. No hearing explained why his structure deserved protection while the public absorbed the losses. It was a quiet, revolting transfer of risk upward—proof that when the system panics, it shields the worst actors first and sends the bill to everyone else.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein's Really Big Short: How US Taxpayers (And Big Bankers) Bailed Him Out - National Memo

The Department of Justice's long-standing claim that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell acted alone is contradicted by the government's own records. Federal prosecutors explicitly acknowledged the existence of multiple co-conspirators as early as the 2007–2008 Florida investigation, including in the Non-Prosecution Agreement that granted immunity to Epstein and unnamed others. Sworn testimony, sealed filings, and investigative activity confirm that Epstein's crimes required an organized network of recruiters, schedulers, transporters, financial managers, and legal fixers operating across jurisdictions for years. Despite this, the DOJ has consistently narrowed its framing to portray the case as a two-person operation, avoiding any comprehensive conspiracy prosecution. That decision was not driven by a lack of evidence, but by institutional restraint, selective inquiry, and an unwillingness to confront the broader implications of its own past decisions.The DOJ continues to justify secrecy by invoking victim privacy, even though survivors themselves were excluded from key prosecutorial decisions and have repeatedly called for transparency. Redactions, sealed documents, and the refusal to name co-conspirators function less as victim protection and more as insulation for the government and its prior conduct. A full accounting would expose prosecutorial failures, political interference, and decades of discretionary choices that allowed Epstein to operate with impunity. The continuity of this behavior across administrations—including during the Trump DOJ—demonstrates that the issue is structural, not partisan. At bottom, the DOJ is not merely protecting Epstein's associates; it is protecting itself and the institutional role it played in creating, enabling, and shielding one of the most consequential criminal enterprises in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

During the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, the name Sarah Kellen surfaced again and again—more than 80 separate times—underscoring just how central she was to the machinery surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. Witnesses, prosecutors, and exhibits repeatedly described Kellen as one of Epstein's most trusted lieutenants: the scheduler, gatekeeper, and fixer who controlled access to Epstein, managed his calendars, arranged travel, and handled logistics for the properties where abuse occurred. The frequency of her name was not incidental; it reflected her deep integration into the daily operations of Epstein's network and her proximity to both Epstein and Maxwell during the years when abuse was alleged to be most rampant.What made Kellen's repeated mention especially striking was the contrast between her prominence in the testimony and her absence from the defendant's chair. Survivors described her as an active participant in maintaining the system that enabled exploitation—coordinating appointments, communicating with victims, and smoothing over problems—yet she was never charged in the Maxwell case. Prosecutors used her name to map the structure of Epstein's inner circle, showing how responsibility was distributed among multiple actors, while the defense attempted to minimize her role as merely administrative. Still, the sheer volume of references made one point unavoidable: Sarah Kellen was not a peripheral figure. The trial record cemented her as a key node in Epstein's operation, raising persistent questions about accountability and why some central figures were scrutinized in open court while others remained legally untouched.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein left wads of cash stuffed in envelopes for 'top recruiter' Sara Kellen raising new questions of why she was never charged | Daily Mail Online

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Prosecutors responded to the defense who asked for a very, very light sentence of 4 1/2 to 5 years with their own opinion in new court filings. The prosecution believes that Ghislaine Maxwell should serve 30 to 55 years of her sentence and that the request by the defense is utterly ridiculous. With both sides making their arguments, it now falls to Judge Nathan to make a decision.(commercial at 8:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/feds-ghislaine-maxwell-deserves-30-years-prison-85577269

Liquid Funding Ltd. didn't survive the 2008 financial collapse by skill or luck—it survived because the system bent itself into a pretzel to protect elite balance sheets with public money. Chaired by Jeffrey Epstein, Liquid Funding sat on billions in mortgage-linked liabilities just as the global economy imploded. When the government rushed in to stabilize failing institutions, those interventions didn't just rescue household-name banks—they quietly backstopped the opaque offshore machinery that fed off them. As emergency facilities and taxpayer-backed rescues absorbed toxic assets and restored liquidity, Liquid Funding's obligations were made whole. The end result was grotesque: a vehicle overseen by a known predator emerging intact from a crisis that annihilated ordinary people.What makes it sickening is the silence around it. While families lost homes and retirement savings evaporated, bailout architecture designed to “save the system” effectively covered the tab for Epstein's offshore empire—through the rescue of counterparties like Bear Stearns, its fire-sale to JPMorgan Chase, and the emergency actions of the Federal Reserve. No vote asked taxpayers if they were willing to underwrite the continued solvency of a man already accused of unspeakable crimes. No hearing explained why his structure deserved protection while the public absorbed the losses. It was a quiet, revolting transfer of risk upward—proof that when the system panics, it shields the worst actors first and sends the bill to everyone else.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein's Really Big Short: How US Taxpayers (And Big Bankers) Bailed Him Out - National Memo

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

Epstein's operation has been explained as a sexual Ponzi scheme because it relied on the same core mechanics as a financial fraud: constant recruitment, layered incentives, and silence bought through perceived advancement. Young women were drawn in with money, housing, travel, or vague promises of mentorship, then pressured to recruit others beneath them to maintain their own position and income. Each new recruit reduced risk for those above them, creating a self-sustaining pipeline that insulated Epstein and his inner circle from direct exposure. Like a Ponzi scheme, it depended on continuous inflow; the moment recruitment slowed, the structure would collapse under scrutiny. Power, not just money, was the currency, with access to elites dangled as proof of legitimacy. The system normalized abuse by reframing it as opportunity, turning victims into reluctant intermediaries. The structure rewarded compliance and punished resistance through isolation or financial cutoff.What made it especially effective was how it mirrored legitimate social and professional networks, blurring exploitation into something that looked transactional rather than criminal. Epstein positioned himself at the top as the untouchable beneficiary, while Ghislaine Maxwell and others functioned as managers who enforced rules, managed expectations, and handled recruitment. Those at the bottom bore the harm, while those in the middle were trapped by sunk costs, fear, and complicity. Just as in a Ponzi scheme, early participants might initially believe they were benefiting, only to realize later that the system required perpetual harm to survive. Accountability was diffused across layers, allowing Epstein to claim distance while enjoying the spoils. The longer it ran, the harder it became for participants to speak without implicating themselves. That is why survivors and investigators describe it not as random predation, but as an organized, scalable abuse enterprise built on deception, dependency, and silence.to contact m e:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General conducted an unannounced inspection of the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Tallahassee, a low-security women's federal prison in Florida, and found alarming and serious operational deficiencies that raise questions about inmate safety, basic hygiene, and institutional competence. Inspectors documented rotting and unsanitary food storage, including moldy bread and insect-infested cereal, rodent droppings, and refrigerators containing spoiled vegetables, conditions that violated Federal Bureau of Prisons policies and posed clear health hazards to those incarcerated there. They also found chronic infrastructure decay, with frequent water leaks so severe that inmates resorted to using sanitary products to block drips, damaged ceilings and walls, worn bedding, inoperable showers and toilets, and pervasive black substance on bathroom surfaces — all reflecting deep neglect in basic living conditions. The facility scored as “high risk” under an OIG risk assessment tool, indicating systemic rather than isolated problems.Beyond physical conditions, the OIG report highlighted staffing shortages and security weaknesses that further undermined safety and order at FCI Tallahassee. Inspectors found ineffective and delayed investigations into staff misconduct, inconsistent search procedures that fueled mistrust among inmates, and procedures that left significant blind spots in camera monitoring, increasing opportunities for contraband and undetected problems. Many misconduct investigations had languished for more than two years, and staff repeatedly misgendered transgender inmates, demonstrating disrespectful and problematic conduct. Inmates reported fear of reprisals for raising complaints, underscoring a breakdown in trust between prisoners and staff. While the report predated Maxwell's transfer and did not focus on her individually, its revelations paint a distressing picture of the facility's conditions and operational failures during the period she resided there, contributing to public concern about the environment where a high-profile prisoner was held.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. Department of Justice has released more than 3 million pages of documents, images, and videos related to its long-running investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates, including court records, interview transcripts, call logs, and other materials, in the latest compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed by Congress and signed into law last year. The material — which also includes roughly 2,000 videos and 180,000 images — represents a significant expansion of the publicly available record, although portions of the roughly 6 million potentially responsive pages identified by the department remain under review or redaction due to legal protections, privacy concerns for victims, and other restrictions.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the release was aimed at fulfilling the statutory requirement for transparency, and stressed that redactions were applied to protect survivors and sensitive content, including explicit material and personal information, but denied that any files were withheld to protect specific public figures. The release comes after sustained public and bipartisan congressional pressure following earlier partial disclosures, and while it greatly expands access to internal DOJ and FBI records on Epstein's crimes and investigations, officials acknowledge that further review and possible future disclosures are likely as the process continues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ releases millions of pages of additional Epstein filesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell has filed new legal claims asserting that dozens of individuals connected to Jeffrey Epstein were shielded from prosecution through “secret settlements” with federal prosecutors. In her recent habeas corpus petition, Maxwell alleges that 29 men associated with Epstein—including 25 who reached undisclosed deals and four potential co-conspirators known to investigators—were never indicted or publicly identified. She argues these concealments violated her constitutional rights and undermined the fairness of her 2021 sex-trafficking trial, asserting that she would have called such individuals as witnesses had she known of them. Maxwell's filing presses that the Justice Department's handling of these agreements and the slow pace of releasing Epstein-related files under the Epstein Files Transparency Act warrant reconsideration of her conviction.A central piece of Maxwell's broader legal strategy also revisits the 2007 non-prosecution agreement that federal prosecutors made with Epstein in Florida, which she and her lawyers have argued should have extended immunity to co-conspirators like herself. Maxwell previously asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether that agreement legally barred her prosecution, but the Court declined to hear her appeal. Her latest claims blend allegations of secret deals with assertions that prosecutorial practices—particularly around the non-prosecution agreement and undisclosed co-conspirators—constitute new evidence of fundamental trial flaws, which she says justify vacating her sentence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Stunning Epstein twist as Ghislaine Maxwell claims 29 friends cut 'secret deals' with DOJ | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Gordon Gee framed his defense of Les Wexner as a matter of loyalty, philanthropy, and presumed ignorance, insisting that Wexner was blindsided by Jeffrey Epstein and had no meaningful awareness of the abuse orbiting his former confidant. Gee leaned heavily on Wexner's decades of charitable giving and institutional support, portraying him as a benefactor whose generosity and civic engagement should outweigh uncomfortable questions. In doing so, Gee treated proximity to Epstein as an unfortunate coincidence rather than a relationship that lasted years, involved extraordinary financial power, and raised obvious red flags long before the public reckoning.What makes Gee's defense so troubling is not just what he said, but what he refused to confront. By defaulting to character references and donation tallies, Gee sidestepped the basic issue of responsibility that comes with wealth, access, and sustained association. His comments implied that elite benefactors deserve the benefit of the doubt denied to everyone else, and that institutional gratitude can substitute for scrutiny. Instead of demanding accountability proportional to influence, Gee lowered the bar, effectively arguing that if someone gives enough money and claims shock afterward, the questions should stop. For critics, that posture doesn't protect the truth—it protects the donor class, and it reinforces the very culture of deference that allowed Epstein's network to operate in plain sight for so long.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Former OSU President Gee defends Les Wexner amid probe into billionaire's ties to Epstein | WOSU Public MediaBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn were not peripheral figures orbiting Jeffrey Epstein. They were structural supports, the load bearing pillars that allowed his criminal empire to function, survive scrutiny, and endure scandal. Darren Indyke, Epstein's longtime lawyer, was the gatekeeper. He controlled access, managed settlements, structured opaque trusts, and ensured that Epstein's money and secrets were insulated from exposure. Indyke was there through arrests, plea deals, civil suits, and reputational implosions, always positioning Epstein one legal step ahead of accountability. Without Indyke's legal architecture, Epstein's web of shell companies, offshore vehicles, and confidentiality agreements collapses under its own weight. He was not merely providing legal services. He was actively maintaining the machinery that allowed Epstein to keep operating in plain sight.And then there was Richard Kahn, the financial engineer who made the money move quietly and efficiently. Kahn handled Epstein's books, managed his finances, and kept the cash flowing through a maze designed to obscure origin, purpose, and beneficiaries. This was not passive bookkeeping. This was deliberate financial camouflage, the kind that allows illegal activity to be funded, sustained, and hidden behind layers of complexity. Together, Indyke and Kahn formed a firewall between Epstein and consequence. They didn't just serve a client, they preserved an ecosystem of abuse by protecting the money that powered it. Strip them away and Epstein is exposed, vulnerable, and limited. With them in place, he was untouchable for decades. That is what indispensability looks like, and it should haunt anyone who still pretends this was the work of a lone monster rather than a professionally maintained criminal enterprise.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice's declaration that Jeffrey Epstein was a "lone wolf" with no ties to intelligence and no involvement in kompromat is not just laughable—it's an insult to the intelligence of every American with a functioning frontal lobe. This isn't just a lie; it's a grotesque act of gaslighting. You don't amass blackmail material on billionaires, politicians, and royalty by accident. You don't operate an international sex trafficking ring out of mansions, private islands, and government-funded plea deals unless someone very powerful is holding the door open. For the DOJ to issue this absurd narrative in 2025, after years of irrefutable evidence and obvious patterns, is like spitting in the face of every survivor, whistleblower, journalist, and citizen who's been screaming the truth while being told they were delusional.What this memo really signals is institutional rot—an admission, cloaked in denial, that the system doesn't intend to clean up its mess. It's a grotesque pantomime of justice, hoping the public will grow tired, stop asking questions, and let the concrete dry over a grave full of secrets. But this isn't going away. You don't get to burn the files, wash your hands, and pretend the smell isn't still in the air. The Epstein operation was too big, too protected, and too damn obvious to be chalked up to one rogue predator. What we're witnessing is not closure—it's cover-up, and it reeks.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The release of the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's death was marked by a delay so drawn out that it raised more questions than it answered. Epstein died in August 2019, yet the OIG report—supposedly the definitive account of the failures at the Metropolitan Correctional Center—did not surface until mid-2023. That nearly four-year gap created an atmosphere of suspicion, where the public was left to speculate in the absence of transparency. For a case of such magnitude, involving one of the most notorious prisoners in U.S. custody, the government's inability—or unwillingness—to produce timely findings came across as stonewalling rather than due diligence. Each year that ticked by without answers only deepened the impression that the investigation was less about accountability and more about managing fallout.Critics have argued that the slow pace betrayed the very purpose of oversight. The OIG is meant to reassure the public that even the federal system can police itself, but when it takes nearly half a decade to confirm “errors” that were obvious within days of Epstein's death—broken cameras, sleeping guards, falsified logs—the credibility of the process collapses. Instead of restoring confidence, the delay reinforced the perception that the system was dragging its feet, hoping the public's outrage would fade. By the time the report finally arrived, many saw it as an afterthought: a bureaucratic box checked too late to matter, more a shield for officials than a search for truth.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein Death: Justice Department Still Hasn't Released Report (businessinsider.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Writer Christopher Mason says that Ghislaine Maxwell commissioned him to write a birthday song for Jeffrey Epstein that included very lurid and sexualized references—specifically lyrics about “24-hour erections” and “schoolgirl crushes” when Epstein had taught at Dalton School. According to Mason, Maxwell gave him highly explicit instructions about what to include in the lyrics, but prevented him from contacting anyone else who might have known Epstein for background. Mason claims the song was performed at a dinner with wealthy men in attendance, and that the mood was celebratory, even mocking. The song apparently referenced Epstein's sexual behavior in front of guests like Leslie Wexner and others in his social circle.To contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12235042/ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-24-hour-erections/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Federal prosecutors in New York confirmed that an active grand jury investigation into Ghislaine Maxwell and other potential Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirators is still underway, despite Maxwell's 2021 conviction. In court filings, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York revealed that the probe remains sealed, describing it as part of a broader effort to hold accountable anyone who participated in or enabled Epstein's trafficking network. The disclosure was made during legal arguments over unsealing additional materials from Maxwell's criminal case, with prosecutors warning that premature disclosure could interfere with “ongoing law-enforcement activity.”The revelation reignited public scrutiny over why, years after Epstein's death, no additional high-profile figures have been charged. It also underscored the enduring sensitivity of the case, as prosecutors continue to pursue evidence tied to Epstein's finances, logistics network, and associates. Legal experts noted that such a statement from federal authorities is rare, suggesting that investigators may still be gathering testimony or preparing potential indictments against individuals whose names surfaced during Maxwell's trial and related lawsuits.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Non Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein stands as one of the most controversial prosecutorial decisions in modern American legal history. Despite extensive, corroborated allegations that Epstein sexually abused dozens of underage girls over many years, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida declined to pursue federal charges and instead entered into a sweeping agreement that limited his exposure and shielded potential co-conspirators. At the time, officials justified the deal by citing evidentiary challenges and concerns about witness credibility, explanations that later appeared increasingly thin when contemporaneous emails revealed careful negotiation and strategic calculation rather than uncertainty. The agreement required Epstein to comply with specific conditions, including sex-offender registration and restrictions on contact with minors, yet records show he violated those terms repeatedly. Under normal circumstances, such breaches would have triggered revocation. In Epstein's case, they did not.The failure to revisit or void the agreement has remained a point of intense scrutiny for years, particularly as additional reporting and government reviews documented prosecutorial misconduct and violations of victims' rights. An Inspector General investigation found that prosecutors concealed the agreement from victims and coordinated closely with Epstein's legal team, undermining statutory protections meant to ensure transparency and participation. Despite those findings, the Department of Justice has largely treated the agreement as a closed chapter, framing it as a historical error rather than an active legal issue. Critics argue that this posture has allowed the agreement's immunity provisions to continue casting a shadow over unresolved questions about accountability for others involved. With the factual record well established and the legal authority to act undisputed, the central issue has shifted. It is no longer whether the deal was flawed, but whether federal authorities are willing to confront the consequences of leaving it intact.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.