Podcasts about Jeffrey Epstein

A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

"We told the truth back then. They just didn't care."Following his release from prison in 2009, Jeffrey Epstein set out to re-enter the inner circle of high society. Having been branded a sex offender by federal prosecutors, Epstein quickly found that there was little resistance to him moving around in the same crowd of wealthy and influential people he'd spent the past three decades cultivating. But still, the conviction threatened to complicate his life.So Epstein withdrew to Little Saint James, a private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands he'd purchased back in 1998. He'd spent years renovating it to suit his lavish lifestyle, and 2009 became the perfect time for Epstein to reshape his life around it. Unfortunately for him, though, the case against him refused to go away quietly. And in 2019, the Miami Herald began publishing a series of articles centered around that original case...Part 5/7Research & writing by Amelia White and Ira RaiHosting, production, and additional research & writing by Micheal WhelanLearn more about this podcast at http://unresolved.meIf you would like to support this podcast, consider heading to https://www.patreon.com/unresolvedpod to become a Patron or ProducerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/unresolved--3266604/support.

What a CreepSeason 31, Episode 5Marjorie Taylor GreeneHost Sonia Mansfield is joined by Margo Porras from the Book vs. Movie podcast to discuss former Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. They talk about her wild conspiracies, toxic rhetoric, defense of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and any possible road to redemption. Plus, they end the episode with non-creep, Bella Abzug.Sources for this episode:BBCBritanicaNew York TimesThe New YorkerRolling StoneSouthern Poverty Law CenterSnopesWikipediaBe sure to follow us on social media. But don't follow us too closely … don't be a creep about it! Subscribe to us on Apple PodcastsFacebook: Join the private groupBlueSky Instagram @WhatACreepPodcastVisit our Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/whatacreepEmail: WhatACreepPod@gmail.com We've got merch here! https://whatacreeppodcast.threadless.com/#Our website is www.whatacreeppodcast.com 

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild's identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein's representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case's factual recordto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1027.pdf

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild's identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein's representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case's factual recordto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1027.pdf

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild's identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein's representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case's factual recordto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1027.pdf

Nancy Pelosi's reaction to her own party voting to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt was less about principle and more about protecting power. Instead of defending the authority of Congress or the right of the Oversight Committee to enforce subpoenas, Pelosi reportedly scolded Democratic members for daring to treat the Clintons like any other witnesses. Her message was unmistakable: some people are simply too important to be subjected to the same rules as everyone else. By warning lawmakers that they should have waited and by dismissing the contempt vote as a mistake, Pelosi wasn't defending procedure — she was reinforcing the idea that the Clintons remain untouchable inside the Democratic hierarchy, even when they refuse lawful subpoenas tied to one of the largest sex-trafficking scandals in modern history.The episode exposed a deeper hypocrisy that Pelosi never addressed. For years, Democrats — including Pelosi herself — championed contempt proceedings against Trump officials as a sacred defense of congressional authority. But when that same authority was aimed at the Clintons, suddenly restraint, patience, and party unity became more important than accountability. Pelosi's scolding wasn't about fairness or law; it was about damage control, shielding legacy figures whose testimony could reopen politically explosive questions about Epstein, elite protection, and institutional failure. In doing so, she sent a clear signal to rank-and-file Democrats: accountability is mandatory for outsiders, but optional for the powerful, especially when their last name is Clinton.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Exclusive: Pelosi privately blasts Democrats for vote to hold Clintons in contempt in Epstein probe | CNN Politics

The Post editorial is not an argument, it is a tantrum disguised as analysis, built almost entirely out of contempt for the reader rather than engagement with the facts. Instead of explaining why the Epstein files should remain limited or why institutional handling has been sound, it opens by ridiculing curiosity itself, portraying transparency as hysteria and accountability as a nuisance. It repeatedly blames the public for prosecutors' workload while carefully ignoring the far more damning question of why millions of pages of sensitive material were allowed to accumulate in secrecy for years without resolution. The piece weaponizes the word “conspiracy” to dismiss any inquiry without ever confronting the actual record of non-prosecution agreements, sealed grand juries, immunity clauses, and documented institutional failures that made skepticism inevitable. By framing bipartisan concern as pathology and inquiry as obsession, the editorial tries to convert distrust — created by government misconduct — into a moral defect of the audience. Its constant appeals to SDNY's prestige function as a shield against scrutiny rather than evidence of competence. The article never once grapples with the known procedural irregularities that protected Epstein for decades, because acknowledging them would collapse its thesis. Instead, it replaces investigation with scolding and substitutes sneer for substance. The result is not journalism but narrative discipline, instructing readers that the real scandal is not trafficking, immunity, or protection, but the audacity of citizens to ask how power escaped consequence.More revealing than anything the piece says is what it refuses to say: nothing about the non-prosecution agreement, nothing about unnamed co-conspirators, nothing about sealed testimony, nothing about intelligence overlaps, nothing about the long record of deliberate suppression that made the Epstein case a legitimacy crisis in the first place. By insisting that “no evidence has ever surfaced” while ignoring flight logs, settlements, testimony, recruitment patterns, and financial trails, the editorial performs selective blindness in service of institutional self-defense. Its claim that Biden's access disproves Trump ties relies on naïve assumptions about leaks and ignores the legal architecture that prevents disclosure, while its mockery of “distraction” theories rings hollow in an article explicitly designed to redirect attention away from the files. The editorial's core fear is not conspiracy thinking but institutional exposure, because the danger of the Epstein archive is not salacious gossip but procedural truth — who intervened, who stalled, who authorized, and who buried. In the end, the piece is less a defense of reason than a plea for quiet, urging the public to abandon scrutiny so elites may remain undisturbed. It treats transparency as vandalism, victims as inconvenience, and curiosity as illness, revealing a worldview in which legitimacy is preserved not by accountability but by exhaustion. Far from debunking hysteria, the editorial demonstrates exactly why distrust persists: when institutions cannot answer questions, they try to shame people into stopping them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:You'll never guess what the new Epstein scandal is

Vicente Zambada Niebla, also known as "El Vicentillo," is a prominent figure in Mexican organized crime, specifically associated with the Sinaloa Cartel. Born on February 14, 1975, in Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico, he is the son of Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, one of the top leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel. Vicente Zambada rose through the ranks within the cartel and became one of its key operatives.Zambada was implicated in various drug trafficking activities, including coordinating the transportation and distribution of narcotics, primarily cocaine and marijuana, into the United States. His role within the cartel involved managing logistics, negotiating with other criminal organizations, and overseeing drug shipments.In February 2009, Vicente Zambada was arrested by Mexican authorities in Mexico City. His arrest was a significant blow to the Sinaloa Cartel, as he was considered one of its highest-ranking members at the time. Zambada's capture highlighted the ongoing efforts by law enforcement to dismantle the cartel's leadership structure.During his trial in the United States, Zambada provided extensive testimony against other members of the Sinaloa Cartel, including his own father, Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, as well as Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, the infamous former leader of the cartel. His cooperation with U.S. authorities led to the conviction of numerous cartel members and provided valuable insights into the inner workings of the organization.Throughout the trial, Zambada's testimony shed light on the violence, corruption, and vast network of drug trafficking that characterized the Sinaloa Cartel's operations. His insights were crucial in building cases against other cartel leaders and dismantling key aspects of their criminal enterprise.One notable quote from Vicente Zambada during his trial emphasized the pervasive influence of the cartel: "The organization has more power than the government because the government itself is corrupt." This statement underscores the extent to which organized crime has infiltrated various institutions in Mexico.In October 2019, Vicente Zambada was sentenced to 15 years in prison by a U.S. federal court for his involvement in drug trafficking. Despite his cooperation with authorities, Zambada still faced significant legal consequences for his criminal activities.Then in 2023, that cooperation with the United States Government came to an end after a visit from a known Sinaloan sponsored lawyer. In this episode, we begin our exploration of the case brought by the United States of America against Vicente Zambada and what has transpired since.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:show_temp-3.pl-1.pdf (wired.com)

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

This week Stacey tells us about Nicholas Tartaglione, a former Briarcliff Manor police officer turned drug dealer who was sentenced to life for the 2016 kidnapping and murder of four men and who briefly shared a jail cell with Jeffrey Epstein.Sources:nypost.comstorage.courtlistener.comstorage.courtlistener.comstorage.courtlistener.comstorage.courtlistener.comstorage.courtlistener.comstorage.courtlistener.comstorage.courtlistener.comstorage.courtlistener.comstorage.courtlistener.comstorage.courtlistener.comstorage.courtlistener.comstorage.courtlistener.comstorage.courtlistener.comstorage.courtlistener.comwbznewsradio.iheart.comcourtlistener.comdea.gov/press-releaseseviemagazine.com/justice.gov/epstein/files/justice.gov/epstein/files/justice.gov/epstein/files/justice.gov/epstein/files/justice.gov/usao-sdny/yahoo.com/news/yahoo.com/news/Support the show

The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him.   In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past.   Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones.   In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

In July 2019, following his arrest on federal sex trafficking and conspiracy charges, Jeffrey Epstein was formally ordered remanded to custody after a detention hearing before Judge Richard Berman. Prosecutors argued that Epstein's extraordinary wealth, private planes, offshore residences, and history of evading consequences made him an overwhelming flight risk. They also stressed that his release would pose a danger to the community, citing sworn testimony from multiple accusers and evidence that he had used money and influence to obstruct accountability in the past. Despite his defense offering an unprecedented bail package—including $100 million bond, house arrest under armed guard, and electronic monitoring—the court determined that no conditions could ensure his appearance in court or protect the public.Judge Berman's written order underscored the seriousness of the charges and the strength of the evidence, including testimony that Epstein had sexually abused underage girls and facilitated a broad trafficking network. The court rejected the defense's argument that strict bail conditions would suffice, ruling instead that the only way to guarantee community safety and secure Epstein's presence at trial was to deny release altogether. With that, Epstein was remanded to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, where he would remain in custody until his death a month later.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Prince Andrew has finally been stripped of every last royal title and honor he once clung to like a lifeline. King Charles III, evidently tired of cleaning up his brother's messes, used his royal prerogative to remove Andrew's styles, ranks, and knighthoods—everything from “His Royal Highness” to the Duke of York and beyond. The disgraced royal, now simply Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, has also been ordered to vacate the lavish Royal Lodge, marking a total fall from grace for the man who once strutted around as the Queen's favorite son. The move is being described as unprecedented, but in truth, it's been a long time coming. After years of scandal, arrogance, and shameless denial over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the crown finally decided that Andrew's dead weight was too heavy to carry any longer.For Prince Andrew, this wasn't just a fall from grace—it was a full-scale implosion of everything he thought made him untouchable. Even stripped of his titles, he's still clinging to denial like it's his last shred of nobility, pretending the world just “doesn't understand.” The man who once swaggered around royal circles with smug entitlement now stands exposed as the cautionary tale of what happens when arrogance meets consequence. His downfall isn't tragic—it's poetic justice. He built his own downfall one disastrous decision at a time, from his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein to his laughable denials and public meltdowns. The final insult isn't that he lost his titles—it's that the titles ever disguised what he really was: a spoiled, self-serving opportunist who mistook birthright for character.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'Boorish and entitled' Andrew is now an 'ordinary member of the public': King stripped his brother of his prince title and ordered him to leave Royal Lodge after being 'consistently embarrassed' | Daily Mail Online

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild's identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein's representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case's factual recordto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1027.pdf

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild's identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein's representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case's factual recordto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1027.pdf

At its core, this hypocrisy dovetails perfectly with the Epstein coverup because it reveals the same moral collapse that allows powerful institutions to operate without accountability while their defenders selectively invoke “law and order” only when it protects the state. The same voices who excuse a federal agent killing a legally armed citizen now are often the same ones who waved away the sweetheart plea deal, the sealed records, the missing cameras, the sleeping guards, and the vanishing evidence in Epstein's case. In both situations, the pattern is identical: when the federal government abuses power against ordinary people, the so-called defenders of liberty suddenly become apologists for authority. When Epstein was protected, the system closed ranks, hid documents, misled courts, silenced victims, and insulated its own. When Pretti was killed, the instinct was the same: suppress oversight, shape the narrative, block investigators, and demand blind trust in federal actors. The Constitution becomes decorative when power is at stake, and rights become conditional when they interfere with institutional protection. In both cases, the message is unmistakable: there are citizens, and then there are subjects, and the line between them is drawn by who the government decides to protect and who it decides to sacrifice.This is what an out-of-control federal government actually looks like, not tanks in the streets, but bureaucracies that operate above consequence while their defenders cheer them on in the name of security, borders, or order. Epstein was not an accident of justice, he was a product of a system that learned it could hide crimes, bury evidence, intimidate oversight, and survive public outrage if it waited long enough. The shooting of Pretti shows that the same machinery now feels comfortable exercising lethal force first and explaining later, knowing that a loyal political audience will rationalize anything so long as the target is politically convenient. This is how republics rot, not in dramatic coups, but in quiet normalization of unchecked power. When people who once screamed about jack-booted thugs now celebrate federal executions, they are not defending the Constitution, they are surrendering it. The Epstein coverup and this killing are not separate scandals, they are symptoms of the same disease: a federal apparatus that no longer fears oversight, no longer respects limits, and no longer believes the Constitution applies when its own authority is on the line.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him.   In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past.   Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones.   In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

In July 2019, following his arrest on federal sex trafficking and conspiracy charges, Jeffrey Epstein was formally ordered remanded to custody after a detention hearing before Judge Richard Berman. Prosecutors argued that Epstein's extraordinary wealth, private planes, offshore residences, and history of evading consequences made him an overwhelming flight risk. They also stressed that his release would pose a danger to the community, citing sworn testimony from multiple accusers and evidence that he had used money and influence to obstruct accountability in the past. Despite his defense offering an unprecedented bail package—including $100 million bond, house arrest under armed guard, and electronic monitoring—the court determined that no conditions could ensure his appearance in court or protect the public.Judge Berman's written order underscored the seriousness of the charges and the strength of the evidence, including testimony that Epstein had sexually abused underage girls and facilitated a broad trafficking network. The court rejected the defense's argument that strict bail conditions would suffice, ruling instead that the only way to guarantee community safety and secure Epstein's presence at trial was to deny release altogether. With that, Epstein was remanded to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, where he would remain in custody until his death a month later.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

BABBEL: Learn a new LANGUAGE & get up to 60% OFF  your subscription at  https://www.babbel.com/SHAUN

Sean "Diddy" Combs, a prominent music mogul and entrepreneur, has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault spanning several decades. One such allegation involves a woman identified as Jane Doe, who claims she was assaulted by Combs during an event related to the MTV reality show Making the Band.BackgroundIn 2004, Jane Doe, then 19 years old, was a college student in Brooklyn. She met Combs during a promotional event for Making the Band, a reality show he produced that aimed to form a new music group.According to Jane Doe's lawsuit:Invitation to Hotel Room: Combs invited her and a friend to his hotel room in Manhattan under the pretense of discussing potential opportunities in the music industry.Unwanted Advances: Once in the room, Combs allegedly made unsolicited sexual advances, including inappropriate touching and attempts to kiss her.Physical Resistance: Jane Doe resisted his advances, leading to a physical struggle where she was reportedly pushed onto the bed.Assault: She alleges that Combs then sexually assaulted her despite her protests.Following the alleged incident, Jane Doe states she experienced significant emotional distress, including feelings of shame and humiliation. She also claims to have faced professional setbacks as a result of the assault.Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Combs, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged assault. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkThis allegation is part of a series of accusations against Combs, with multiple individuals coming forward with claims of sexual assault and misconduct. Combs has denied these allegations, and his legal team has stated that he intends to defend himself against these claims.(commercial at 7:57)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:combs-da-band-photoshoot-complaint.pdf

The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him.   In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past.   Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones.   In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him.   In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past.   Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones.   In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him.   In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past.   Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones.   In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him.   In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past.   Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones.   In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild's identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein's representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case's factual recordto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1027.pdf

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild's identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein's representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case's factual recordto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1027.pdf

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild's identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein's representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case's factual recordto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1027.pdf

The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him.   In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past.   Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones.   In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Ken Starr's involvement on Jeffrey Epstein's legal team marked a decisive turning point in how Epstein was treated by the justice system. As a former U.S. Solicitor General and a figure deeply embedded in elite legal and political circles, Ken Starr brought instant credibility and institutional weight to Epstein's defense. His presence signaled to prosecutors that Epstein was not just another criminal defendant but someone backed by establishment power capable of applying pressure at the highest levels. Starr's role was not merely symbolic. He was instrumental in shaping the posture of Epstein's legal strategy, helping frame Epstein as a privileged offender deserving extraordinary consideration rather than a serial abuser running a trafficking operation. That framing mattered, because it subtly shifted negotiations away from accountability and toward accommodation.By lending his reputation to Epstein, Starr helped tilt the balance in negotiations with federal prosecutors in Epstein's favor, culminating in outcomes that defied normal prosecutorial standards. The now-infamous non-prosecution agreement did not emerge in a vacuum. It was the product of aggressive lawyering by figures like Starr who understood how to exploit discretion, personal relationships, and institutional risk aversion inside the Justice Department. With Starr involved, the case ceased to be about victims and evidence and became a political and reputational problem the government wanted to make disappear. His participation helped normalize a result that insulated Epstein from federal charges, protected unnamed co-conspirators, and ensured Epstein faced minimal consequences. In doing so, Starr did not just defend a client. He helped demonstrate how elite legal power can bend the justice system until it breaks in favor of the well-connected.to contacat me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Dr. Melanie Walker is a trained neurosurgeon who, in the late 1990s, served as a science advisor to Jeffrey Epstein. She reportedly met Epstein in the early 1990s and, in 1998, while completing post-doctoral work at Caltech, accepted that role—helping him identify and connect with academics whose work he might fund, thus facilitating his access to elite intellectual circles. Despite her advisory connection, Walker has not been accused of any wrongdoing or involvement in Epstein's criminal activities.In the 2000s, Walker transitioned into philanthropy and global development. She held significant roles at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—including deputy director of special initiatives—and was later placed at the World Bank under a secondment arrangement, ultimately becoming Senior Adviser to the President and Director of the Delivery Unit. She also serves in leadership roles within health and development policy spheres, such as co‑chairing the World Economic Forum's Future Council on neuro-technology and brain science.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/worldnews/10397210/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-neurosurgeon-ranch/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's entanglement with Leon Black and Larry Summers runs through the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation and its flagship project, the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), born out of the wreckage of the 2008 financial crisis. Black, the billionaire Apollo founder, bankrolled INET with roughly $25 million and installed himself as its chief patron, while Summers — fresh off his controversial presidency at Harvard and a career bouncing between Wall Street and Washington — became one of its intellectual faces. Epstein, already a convicted sex offender by 2008, quietly emerged as a financial conduit and behind-the-scenes broker for INET and its affiliates, using donor networks, shell foundations, and elite access to move money and cultivate influence. Through Epstein's foundation, funds were routed into academic projects, conferences, and research hubs that placed him back inside elite academic circles that had supposedly shut him out, laundering his reputation through economics, philanthropy, and intellectual respectability.What makes the IPI/INET web so corrosive is how thoroughly it fused money, power, and reputational cover. Black would later admit paying Epstein $158 million for “tax advice,” an explanation so implausible it collapsed under its own weight, while Summers maintained institutional ties to projects and donors connected to Epstein long after his 2008 conviction was public record. Epstein was not a peripheral donor — he was a facilitator, recruiter, and fixer who connected hedge-fund money, Ivy League legitimacy, and political access in a closed loop that insulated all participants from scrutiny. The IPI ecosystem gave Epstein exactly what he needed after Florida: proximity to young academics, international travel, visa sponsorships, and an elite shield that made him look like a disgraced financier turned reformed intellectual benefactor. It wasn't an accident, and it wasn't ignorance — it was a deliberate system where billionaires, former Treasury secretaries, and a convicted predator all found mutual benefit inside the same polished academic machine.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In December 2010, Prince Andrew was photographed taking a casual stroll through New York's Central Park alongside Jeffrey Epstein—just days after Epstein had completed a 13-month jail sentence for soliciting sex from a minor. The image, captured by a paparazzo and later published globally, showed the Duke of York walking shoulder-to-shoulder with a convicted sex offender, deep in conversation. The timing of the meeting and the relaxed nature of their interaction sent shockwaves through Buckingham Palace and ignited a public firestorm, as it contradicted any attempt to downplay the depth of Andrew's relationship with Epstein. Far from a mere social encounter, this post-prison rendezvous strongly implied that Andrew maintained ties with Epstein even after his crimes were widely known.The photograph became a defining symbol of the scandal surrounding Prince Andrew, undercutting any narrative that he had distanced himself from Epstein after the latter's conviction. The optics were damning: a senior member of the British royal family publicly associating with a man now globally recognized as a serial predator. What made it even more damaging was that the meeting wasn't a brief, unavoidable encounter—it reportedly took place over several days, during a stay at Epstein's $77 million Manhattan townhouse. That visit, combined with the Central Park stroll, cemented suspicions that Andrew either underestimated the gravity of Epstein's crimes or simply didn't care, both of which would later contribute to his disastrous BBC Newsnight interview and eventual withdrawal from royal duties.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/jeffrey-epstein-wanted-park-pic-28051494Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild's identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein's representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case's factual recordto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1027.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Netflix's Scoop, a high-profile dramatic film about Prince Andrew's disastrous BBC Newsnight interview — the 2019 broadcast in which he attempted to explain his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — was announced and released to significant attention as it revisits a moment that helped derail his public life. The film, based on Sam McAlister's memoir Scoops and starring roles by Gillian Anderson, Billie Piper, and Rufus Sewell, retells how BBC producers secured the interview and how that event unfolded on camera, showing the palace negotiations and Andrew's statements that were widely panned and mocked. Scoop dropped on Netflix on April 5, 2024 and has since generated discussion not just as entertainment but as a cultural recounting of one of the most consequential media moments involving the British royal family in recent memory.While this film drew interest from audiences and critics intrigued by the behind-the-scenes story of a globally infamous interview, Buckingham Palace did not publicly endorse or celebrate the movie — and its official reactions have been minimal to non-committal. When asked if the palace had reached out to producers or commented on the dramatization, Sam McAlister jokingly noted she hadn't heard from the institution, implying there was no formal engagement from royal spokespeople about the project. The lack of an official positive palace response — combined with the enduring sensitivity around Andrew's role in the Epstein scandal — suggests the establishment prefers to distance itself from dramatizations that revisit and potentially amplify a deeply embarrassing episode for the monarchy.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild's identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein's representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case's factual recordto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1027.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Tonight on The Last Word: Former special counsel Jack Smith publicly defends Trump prosecutions. And Donald Trump fixates on Greenland amid cost of living and Jeffrey Epstein woes. Professor Laurence Tribe, Andrew Weissmann, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse join Lawrence O'Donnell. 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.

OA1228 - On this week's Rapid Response Friday: we take on all of your legal questions about this whole Greenland thing--including how a 1916 diplomatic treaty with Denmark also enabled some of Jeffrey Epstein's worst crimes. Also discussed: what it took to finally force Lindsay Halligan to stop telling everyone that she was the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and how a Minnesota judge designed her unique order to protect Minneapolis protesters and observers from ICE's lawless violence. Finally, in today's footnote: is it enough that McDonald's can promise that their most elusive sandwich is “100% pork”? We dig into a recent lawsuit over the McRib to see if there is any meat on the bone. The US-Denmark Defense of Greenland Agreement (1951) “How Congress Can Preserve NATO and Greenland: Using 22 USC 1928f to Protect the Peace,” Alberto J. Mora,  Just Security (1/16/2026) Judge Novak's order officially striking Lindsay Halligan's appearance from the record and requiring that she stop “masquerading” as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (1/20/2026) Tincher v. Noem docket Judge Menendez's preliminary injunction in Tincher v. Noem (1/16/2026) Complaint in Lynch et al v. McDonald's, Eastern District of Illinois (12/25/2025) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Former special counsel Jack Smith says he has no real regrets about how he handled his indictments of Donald Trump. Really? Plus, the Justice Department gives a subpoena to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, as a House committee calls to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt for refusing to testify on Jeffrey Epstein. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today on Mea Culpa, Michael Cohen speaks candidly about truth, accountability, and what it means to stand by your lived experience in an era shaped by outrage and misinformation. Cohen addresses ongoing attacks on his credibility, clarifies the facts surrounding his knowledge of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, and draws a firm line between documented truth and deliberate falsehoods. He reflects on his journey through public reckoning, incarceration, and redemption, and explains why his advocacy for the millions of Americans living with the lifelong stigma of a felony conviction is personal. This is not about absolution or applause; it's about facts, responsibility, and refusing to let lies replace the record. Subscribe to Michael's Substack: https://therealmichaelcohen.substack.com/ Subscribe to Michael's YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheMichaelCohenShow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All 3 hours today dig into various people and organizations who have betrayed the trust of the American people. We start with the Clintons, who House democrats voted alongside Republicans to be held in Contempt of Congress for refusing to testify about their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Next, former special prosecutor Jack Smith sits before House Judiciary and is defenseless as Reps Jim Jordan, Harriet Hageman and Brandon Gill expose the many layers of the Deep State plan to destroy Donald Trump and how he played a vital role in it.

An ICE whistleblower reveals a secret memo where DHS lawyers say agents can arrest people in their homes without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment says otherwise! And the Supreme Court's conservatives were extremely unimpressed with Trump's plan to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook on Truth Social. We'll break down Wednesday's oral argument in detail but first, we've got approximately one million ...DOCKET ALERTS (Dun dun DUNNNN):Former Special Counsel Jack Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Watch it for yourself here.The Justice Department arrested three people in relation to the protest on January 18 at Cities Church in St. Paul. Nothing has appeared on the docket, but the DOJ claims to have charged them under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, meant to protect women seeking abortion care.The Eighth Circuit administratively stayed District Judge Katherine Menendez's preliminary injunction barring DHS goons from brutalizing protesters.A jury in Chicago took just three hours to acquit a man of trying to hire someone to murder CBP's head thug Greg Bovino. Don't drunk text! Donald Trump's latest trollsuit targets JP Morgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon. It's filed in state court in Miami and seeks $5 billion for tortious debanking.Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson secured a standstill order barring the government from looking at the computers and hard drives it seized from her house in Virginia as part of its investigation into classified leaks by government contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, reheard a challenge to Louisiana's HB71, which required every public school classroom to display the Ten Commandments. Background here.Judge Paul Engelmayer rebuffed a request by Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna to enforce the Epstein Files Transparency Act and order the government to disclose all materials on Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Remember this next time you hear some rightwing pundit railing against “activist judges.”And we bid a fond farewell to Lindsey Halligan, who finally quit trying to pass herself off as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Well … fond-ish. After getting benchslapped by a federal judge and seeing her job posted online by the chief judge in EDVA, she finally took the hint.Show Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Dave Rubin of "The Rubin Report" talks about "The View's" Sunny Hostin making her audience go eerily quiet after saying illegal immigrant should sue Donld Trump for defamation after he showed their faces, not realizing that they were all convicted criminals; Ben Ferguson's heated exchange with CNN's Abby Phillip and Leigh McGowen over citizens having to show their ID and the amount of immigrant crime; Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey admitting to NewsNation's Chris Cuomo that he is blocking ICE from arresting illegal immigrants held in Minneapolis' jails; Scott Jennings not letting CNN's Cameron Kasky get away with his false claim that Donald Trump was involved in an elaborate sex trafficking ring run by Jeffrey Epstein; Gavin Newsom being forced to respond to Scott Bessent's brutal insults at the World Economic Forum in Davos; Marco Rubio explaining to the World Economic Forum why Donald Trump is a unique force for bringing about peace; Donald Trump's announcement for his formation of his Board of Peace; and much more. Dave also hosts a special "ask me anything" question-and-answer session on a wide range of topics, answering questions from the Rubin Report Locals community. WATCH the MEMBER-EXCLUSIVE segment of the show here: https://rubinreport.locals.com/ Check out the NEW RUBIN REPORT MERCH here: https://daverubin.store/ ---------- Today's Sponsors: Tax Network USA - If you owe back taxes or have unfiled returns, don't let the government take advantage of you. Whether you owe a few thousand or a few million, they can help you. Call 1(800)-958-1000 for a private, free consultation or Go to: https://tnusa.com/dave Lean - A powerful weight loss supplement with remarkable results to help lower blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy, and curb your appetite. Rubin Report viewers get 20% off plus free rush shipping off their first order! Go to: https://TakeLean.com and enter promo code RUBIN for your discount

We were graced by the Deep Dive gods this week with Brooklyn Beckham's very public break up with his parents (including that BIZARRE wedding dance mention? We NEED to see the video!). Plus, Stephen Hawking carnival, Aaron Rodgers and his AI wife, and Jeffrey Epstein's weird ass masks. And P.S., we recorded this ep right before the Blake / Taylor texts dropped, so we'll be deep diving all of that next week!

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 world is continually paying the [CB]s more and more of their hard earned labor. In Germany the people are taxed 42%, almost half of their income. Fed inflation indicator reports no inflation, Truinflation reports inflation is at 1.2%.BoA and Citibank are in talks to offer 10% credit card. Trump says US will the crypto capital of the world. Globalism/[CB] system has failed, the power will return to the people. The patriots are sending a message, DOJ 2.0 is not like DOJ 1.0, same with the FBI, you commit a crime you will be arrested. The message is clear, the protection from these agencies are gone. Bondi arrest the Church rioters. Trump’s message at DAVOS is clear, the [DS] power and agenda is no more. Trump is now in control and the world will begin to move in a different direction, either you are on board or you will be left behind. The power belongs to the people.   Economy https://twitter.com/WallStreetMav/status/2014289396112011443?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Fed’s Favorite Inflation Indicator Refuses To Show Any Signs Of Runaway ‘Trump Tariff’ Costs The Fed’s favorite inflation indicator – Core PCE – rose 0.2% MoM (as expected), which leave it up 2.8% YoY (as expected), slightly lower than September’s +2.9%…   Bear in mind that this morning’s third look at Q3 GDP printed a +2.9% YoY for Core PCE. Under the hood, the biggest driver of Core PCE remains Services costs – not tariff-driven Goods prices…   In fact, on a MoM basis, Non-durable goods prices saw deflation for the second month in a row…   Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/truflation/status/2014322072286302619?s=20 – Food – mostly Eggs – Household durables – particularly housekeeping supplies – Alcohol & tobacco – mostly alcoholic beverages Our number is derived by aggregating millions of real-time price data points every day to calculate a year-over-year CPI % rate. It is comparable but not identical to the survey-based official headline inflation released monthly by the BLS, which was 2.7% for December. Bank Of America, Citigroup May Launch Credit Cards With 10% Rate Two weeks after Trump shocked the world by demanding lenders cap credit card interest rates at 10% for one year, Bank of America and Citigroup are exploring options to do just that in an attempt to placate the president.  Bloomberg reports that both banks are mulling offering cards with a 10% rate cap as one potential solution.  Earlier this week, Trump said he would ask Congress to implement the proposal, giving the financial firms more clarity about what exact path he's pursuing. Bank executives have repeatedly decried the uniform cap, saying it'll cause lenders to have to pull credit lines for consumers.  Source: zerohedge.com Trump sues JPMorgan Chase and CEO Jamie Dimon for $5B over alleged ‘political’ debanking The lawsuit claims JPMorgan’s decision ‘came about as a result of political and social motivations’ to ‘distance itself’ Trump and his ‘conservative political views’  President Donald Trump is suing JPMorgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon in a $5 billion lawsuit filed Thursday, accusing the financial institution of debanking him for political reasons. The president's attorney, Alejandro Brito, filed the lawsuit Thursday morning in Florida state court in Miami on behalf of the president and several of his hospitality companies.  “ Source: foxnews.com https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2013984082640658888?s=20  WEF Finance/Banking Panel – If Independent National Economies Continue Rising, Global Trade Drops and We Lose Control Globalism in its economic construct is a series of dependencies. If those dependencies are severed, if each country has the ability to feed, produce and innovate independently, then the entire dependency model around globalism collapses. Within the globalism model that was historically created there was a group of people, western nations, banks, finance and various government leaders, who controlled the organization and rules of the trade dependencies.  The action being taken for self-sufficiency, in combination with the approach promoted by President Trump that each nation state should generate their own needs, then the rules-based order that has existed for global trade will collapse. If nations are no longer dependent, they become sovereign – able to exist without the need for support from other nations and systems. If nations are indeed sovereign, then globalism is no longer needed and a threat of the unknown rises. How will nations engage with each other if there is no governing body of western elites to make the rules for engagement?  The need for control is a reaction to fear, and it is the fear of self-reliance that permeates the elitist class within the control structures.   If each nation of the world is operating according to its individual best interests, the position of Donald Trump, then what happens to the governing elite who set up the system of interdependencies. This is the core of their fear. If each nation can suddenly grow tea, what happens to the East India Tea Company.  Who then sets the price for the tea, and worse still an entire distribution system (ships, ports, exchanges, banks, etc.) becomes functionally obsolescent. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com  Political/Rights TWO-TIERED JUSTICE: Conservative Journalist Kaitlin Bennett Charged and Fined for Interviewing Democrats in Public — While Don Lemon Storms Churches With Zero Consequences The United States now operates under a blatantly two-tiered justice system, where conservative journalists are criminally charged for speech in public spaces, while left-wing media figures face zero consequences for harassing Americans and disrupting religious services. Conservative journalist Kaitlin Bennett revealed this week that she was charged with a federal crime and fined by the National Park Service in St. Augustine for the so-called offense of asking Democrats questions on public property. According to Bennett, federal agents targeted her while she was conducting on-the-street interviews, a form of journalism protected by the First Amendment. Despite being on public land, Bennett says she was cited and punished simply for engaging in political speech that the Left finds inconvenient. Bennett addressed the incident directly in a post on X, writing: https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/2014174254799958148?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2014174254799958148%7Ctwgr%5Ef4a6650cd0c60d38edfea018c5665c2cc2fe5199%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Ftwo-tier-justice-conservative-journalist-kaitlin-bennett-charged%2F When asked by another local journalist exactly what “lawful order” Bennett had disobeyed, the ranger reportedly could not provide a straight answer. WATCH: Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2014322865848406370?s=20   Alexander Conejo Arias, fled on foot—abandoning his child. For the child's safety, one of our ICE officers remained with the child while the other officers apprehended Conejo Arias.   Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children, or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates. This is consistent with past administration's immigration enforcement. Parents can take control of their departure and receive a free flight and $2,600 with the CBP Home app. By using the CBP Home app illegal aliens reserve the chance to come back the right legal way. https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2014049440911303019?s=20   inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant. An immigration judge issued him a final order of removal in 2019. In a dangerous attempt to evade arrest, this criminal illegal alien weaponized his vehicle and rammed law enforcement. Fearing for his life and safety, an agent fired defensive shots. The criminal illegal alien was not hit and attempted to flee on foot. He was successfully apprehended by law enforcement. The illegal alien was not injured, but a CBP officer was injured.  These dangerous attempts to evade arrest have surged since sanctuary politicians, including Governor Newsom, have encouraged illegal aliens to evade arrest and provided guides advising illegal aliens how to recognize ICE, block entry, and defy arrest. Our officers are now facing a 3,200% increase in vehicle attacks. This situation is evolving, and more information is forthcoming.   https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2014063905413177637?s=20  CNN Panelist Issues Retraction and Apology After Going Too Far in On-Air Trump Attack    footage of CNN's “Newsnight with Abby Phillip” was posted to social media platform X featuring 25-year-old leftist activist Cameron Kasky alongside panel mainstay Scott Jennings. A moment between the two went viral when Kasky casually declared that President Donald Trump had been involved in an international sex trafficking ring. Jennings wasn't going to let that remark go unchallenged by host John Berman. The topic of conversation had been Trump's interest in Greenland and the Nobel Peace Prize, but Kasky threw in a jab at Trump with an allusion to the president's relationship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — an allusion Kasky's now trying to walk back. “I would love it if he was more transparent about the human sex trafficking network that he was a part of, but you can't win 'em all,” he blurted out. https://twitter.com/overton_news/status/2013455047288377517?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2013455047288377517%7Ctwgr%5E20edbbd712c7076d1aafdac2d1e39d7eb8307263%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fcnn-panelist-issues-retraction-apology-going-far-air%2F   Berman asked Jennings a follow-up question about Greenland, but instead of addressing that, Jennings circled back to Kasky's remark. “You're gonna let that sit?” Jennings asked Berman. “Are we going to claim here on CNN that the president is part of a global sex trafficking ring or …?” After assuring Jennings that he would do the fact-checking, Berman asked Kasky to repeat what he'd said about the global sex-trafficking ring. “That Donald Trump was … probably … very involved with it,” the arrogant young man replied, with perhaps a touch less confidence. To Berman's credit, and the CNN legal team's, he immediately said, “Donald Trump has never been charged with any crimes in relation to Jeffrey Epstein.” https://twitter.com/camkasky/status/2013760245298864477?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2013760245298864477%7Ctwgr%5E20edbbd712c7076d1aafdac2d1e39d7eb8307263%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fcnn-panelist-issues-retraction-apology-going-far-air%2F Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2014189561002291385?s=20 DOGE Geopolitical https://twitter.com/brentdsadler/status/2014311942119137584?s=20  important as these agreements cover the entirety of the Chagos group of islands/features. Critical as future third party presence in those areas proximate Diego Garcia could in practical terms render those U.S. military facilities operationally impractical (ie useless). The current deal under consideration in the UK parliament in a rushed vote as soon as 2 February is ill advised. And it likely would break the decades long understanding with the U.S. government. See: Active U.S. treaties: https://state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Treaties-in-Force-2025-FINAL.pdf 1966 Foundational Understanding: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20603/volume-603-I-8737-English.pdf 1972 Understanding regarding new facilities on Diego Garcia: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20866/volume-866-I-8737-English.pdf 1976 Understanding and concurrence on new communications facilities on Diego Garcia and references as foundational the 1966 Understanding: https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1976-TS0019.pdf?utm_source https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/2014150131247874267?s=20 The EU-Mercosur deal is a major free trade agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur bloc (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay). Negotiated for over 25 years, it aims to create one of the world’s largest free trade zones, covering more than 700 million people and reducing tariffs on goods like cars, machinery, pharmaceuticals, and agricultural products.  It includes commitments on sustainability, labor rights, and environmental protections, but critics argue these are insufficient to address issues like Amazon deforestation and unfair competition for European farmers. The agreement was politically finalized in 2019 but faced delays due to environmental concerns and opposition from countries like France and Austria. It was formally signed on January 17, 2026, after EU member states (with a qualified majority, despite opposition from five countries including France) greenlit it on January 9.  The Stupidity of Davos Explained Using an Example of Their Own Creation China is manufacturing a product to create a carbon credit certificate in response to the demand for carbon credits from all the world auto-makers.  Any nation that has a penalty or fine attached to their climate goals is a customer. Those are nations with fines or quotas associated with the production of gasoline powered engines if the auto company doesn't hit the legislated target for sales of electric vehicles. In essence, EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies buy Chinese car company carbon credits, to avoid the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN fines.  The Chinese then use the carbon credit revenue to subsidize even lower priced Chinese EVs to the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car markets, thereby undercutting the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies that also produce EVs. China brilliantly exploits the ridiculous pontificating climate scam and has an interest in perpetuating -even emphasizing- the need for the EU/AU/RU/ASEAN countries to keep pushing their climate agenda.  China even goes so far as to fund alarmism research about climate change because they are making money selling carbon credit certificates on the back end of the scam to the western fear mongers.  This is friggin' brilliant.   The climate change alarmists are helping China's economy by pushing ever escalating fear of climate change.  You just cannot make this stuff up. What does the outcome look like? Well, in this example we see hundreds of thousands of unsold BYDs piling up in countries that emphasize climate regulations with no restrictions on the import of EVs (which most don't even manufacture), which is almost every country.  Big Panda doesn't care about the car itself; they care about generating the carbon credit certificate to sell in the various carbon exchanges. Put this context to the recent announcement by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney about his new trade deal with China to accept 49,000 EVs this year. Prime Minister Carney bragged about getting the Chinese to agree to only super low prices for the Canadian market.  Mark Carney was very proud of his accomplishment to get much lower priced vehicles for Canadian EV purchasers.   No doubt Big Panda left the room laughing as soon as Carney made his grand announcement. 1. China sells EV's in Canada, creating credits available on the carbon exchange scheme. Europe et al will purchase the carbon credits because Bussels has fines against EU car companies. 2. With a foothold already established in Europe, China will then take the money generated by the carbon credit purchases and lower the prices of the Chinese EV cars sold in Canada. It's gets funnier. 3. Carney bragged about forcing China to only sell low price EV's as part of the trade agreement. The low price of the EV's in Canada will be subsidized by Europe. China doesn't pay or lose a dime. But wait…. 4. Carney can't do anything about the scheme he has just enmeshed Canada into, because Canada has a Carbon Credit exchange in law.