Podcasts about Jeffrey Epstein

Virginia Roberts, passed away in April 2025 at her home in Western Australia, but her legal battles continue posthumously. Before her death, she and Rina Oh were locked in dueling lawsuits: Oh had filed a defamation suit accusing Giuffre of falsely portraying her as an Epstein recruiter and fraud, while Giuffre counter-sued alleging that Oh had physically and sexually abused her in Epstein's presence, leaving lasting scarsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

September 21, 2025; 8am: ABC's suspension of Jimmy Kimmel's show under pressure from the head of the FCC raised new fears about even more plans to silence critics. In response, Democrats announced new legislation to bolster free speech protections for people targeted by the President. Senator Alex Padilla, one of the senators who introduced this bill, joins “The Weekend” to discuss.For more, follow us on social media:Bluesky: @theweekendmsnbc.bsky.socialInstagram: @theweekendmsnbcTikTok: @theweekendmsnbcTo listen to this show and other MSNBC podcasts without ads, sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

Michael Reiter is the former Chief of Police for the Town of Palm Beach, Florida, and played a pivotal role in the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities. Under his leadership, the Palm Beach Police Department launched a probe into allegations that Epstein was sexually abusing underage girls at his Palm Beach mansion. Reiter's team gathered substantial evidence, including witness testimonies and physical evidence, exposing a pattern of exploitation. Frustrated by what he viewed as lenient treatment of Epstein by prosecutors, including the controversial plea deal brokered by federal attorneys, Reiter took the unprecedented step of bypassing local authorities and forwarding the case to the FBI. His efforts were instrumental in bringing national attention to Epstein's crimes, though they also highlighted systemic failures in the justice system. Reiter's actions are widely regarded as a courageous stand against powerful interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

During the interview, Kim Iversen pressed Dershowitz about his associations with Jeffrey Epstein and asked probing questions that he appeared taken off-guard by. One key moment came when Iversen asked whether Epstein “killed himself,” to which Dershowitz responded that Epstein did not die entirely of his own doing—suggesting involvement of others, particularly guards. Dershowitz seemed visibly frustrated with the line of inquiry, complaining about what he felt was being “sandbagged”—i.e. caught unawares on shifting topics. When Iversen tried to connect the conversation back to Donald Trump and broader current events, Dershowitz challenged the framing, appearing to assert that certain issues were being conflated unfairly.Dershowitz ultimately ended the exchange by telling Iversen it would be “the last time” he appeared on her show, indicating that he felt the interview had crossed implicit boundaries. The interaction made headlines largely because of that tension, the unexpected speculation about Epstein's death, and Dershowitz's claim that questions about unrelated topics had been sprung without warning.Also...Alan Dershowitz has publicly said that Prince Andrew made “a terrible mistake” by settling the lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre in 2022 rather than taking the case to trial. Dershowitz believes Andrew could have won in court, arguing there were legal grounds to challenge jurisdiction, statute of limitations, and credibility of Giuffre's claims. He suggests Andrew's legal team—and possibly Queen Elizabeth II—pressured him into settling to avoid the embarrassment of a public deposition and the full airing of allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein's so-called “black book” was less a contact list and more a grotesque monument to power shielding power. It wasn't filled with your everyday acquaintances; it was a who's who of billionaires, politicians, royalty, celebrities, and Wall Street heavyweights—names that had no business being in the same Rolodex as a convicted sex offender. The book exposed just how deep Epstein's tentacles reached, how many doors he could knock on, and how many influential people were willing to at least tolerate, if not outright embrace, his presence. Whether every name in there was complicit or simply embarrassed by association, the sheer scale of it laid bare how Epstein weaponized access to the elite as both shield and currency.The real stench of the black book wasn't just who was in it, but what it represented: a roadmap of complicity and cowardice. It proved that Epstein didn't thrive in isolation—he thrived because powerful people answered his calls, opened their homes, and boarded his planes. It's a reminder that the “Epstein problem” wasn't just Epstein; it was the system of enablers, gatekeepers, and opportunists who kept him socially viable long after his crimes were known. The black book is less a curiosity and more a ledger of shame, an artifact that shows how the elite protect each other, even when the cost is justice for survivors.to contact me:    bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/i-called-everyone-in-jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book/

Jeffrey Epstein's so-called “black book” was less a contact list and more a grotesque monument to power shielding power. It wasn't filled with your everyday acquaintances; it was a who's who of billionaires, politicians, royalty, celebrities, and Wall Street heavyweights—names that had no business being in the same Rolodex as a convicted sex offender. The book exposed just how deep Epstein's tentacles reached, how many doors he could knock on, and how many influential people were willing to at least tolerate, if not outright embrace, his presence. Whether every name in there was complicit or simply embarrassed by association, the sheer scale of it laid bare how Epstein weaponized access to the elite as both shield and currency.The real stench of the black book wasn't just who was in it, but what it represented: a roadmap of complicity and cowardice. It proved that Epstein didn't thrive in isolation—he thrived because powerful people answered his calls, opened their homes, and boarded his planes. It's a reminder that the “Epstein problem” wasn't just Epstein; it was the system of enablers, gatekeepers, and opportunists who kept him socially viable long after his crimes were known. The black book is less a curiosity and more a ledger of shame, an artifact that shows how the elite protect each other, even when the cost is justice for survivors.to contact me:    bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/i-called-everyone-in-jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book/

Alexander “Alex” Acosta served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in 2005-2009, during which time his office negotiated a highly controversial non-prosecution agreement in 2008 with Jeffrey Epstein. This deal allowed Epstein to plead guilty only to state charges (solicitation of prostitution), avoid federal prosecution, spend about a year in jail (with generous work release privileges), register as a sex offender, and receive restitution, rather than face broader trafficking charges that many believe were warranted. Acosta later served as Secretary of Labor under Donald Trump, resigning in 2019 amid public outcry over his role in the Epstein plea deal.On September 19, 2025, Acosta testified under oath in a closed-door deposition before the House Oversight Committee, answering questions about the 2008 agreement. He defended his actions by saying there were “evidentiary issues” at the time — for example, concerns about whether the witnesses would be consistent and whether the federal case could have been proven at trial. He also asserted he had received assurances that Epstein would not be granted work release, but said local authorities in Palm Beach nonetheless allowed it. Acosta expressed regret over how victims were treated and acknowledged that if today's knowledge had been available then, the deal likely would have been handled differently. He also emphasized that no documents he handled mentioned Donald Trump in relation to Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Barr's deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein's death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr's narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr's evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump's knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein's death but couldn't recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr's testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Barr-Transcript.pdf

Bill Barr's deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein's death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr's narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr's evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump's knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein's death but couldn't recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr's testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Barr-Transcript.pdf

Hay ciertos Gobiernos en Occidente que no pueden evitar la tentación de limitar la libertad de expresión cuando ésta les resulta incómoda. Son curiosamente los mismos que, cuando están en la oposición, defienden a ultranza la libertad de expresarse y, sobre todo, la que asiste a los periodistas para trabajar con tranquilidad sin miedo a que lo que publiquen moleste al Gobierno. Pero es pasar a ocupar el poder y se convierten en auténticos flagelos de todo aquel que pretenda decir lo que piensa, especialmente cuando quien lo hace tiene audiencia y posibilidad de influir en la opinión pública. Dos Gobiernos que se caracterizan por esto son el de Estados Unidos y el de España que, diciéndose en extremos opuestos del espectro ideológico, viven igualmente obsesionados por lo que se publica de ellos. El caso, muy reciente, de Jimmy Kimmel ilustra bien esta dinámica. Kimmel, presentador de ABC, criticó a los republicanos por intentar politizar el asesinato de Charlie Kirk. En un monólogo que no tuvo demasiada audiencia pero si mucho recorrido político, les acusó de oportunismo. Kimmel condenó el crimen y transmitió sus condolencias a la familia, pero sus comentarios sentaron muy mal al Gobierno de Donald Trump. Brendan Carr, presidente de la Comisión Federal de Comunicaciones, amenazó a la cadena ABC y a su propietaria, el Disney Television Group, con revisar sus licencias al tiempo que exigía el despido de Kimmel. Poco después el presentador se vio de patitas en la calle. Trump justificó la decisión atribuyéndola a la baja audiencia del programa. Es cierto que el Jimmy Kimmel Live no atravesaba su mejor momento de audiencia, pero aún retenía más de millón de espectadores por emisión. Trump se limitó a aprovechar su debilidad para silenciarle y acabar con una voz que siempre había sido crítica con él. La relación de Donald Trump con la prensa nunca ha sido buena. Acusa constantemente a los grandes medios de difundir noticias falsas contra él. Con ciertas cabeceras como el New York Times, el Washington Post o la CNN la tiene tomada desde hace tiempo. Al New York Times le ha interpuesto una demanda en la que pide a a la casa editora y a la editorial Penguin Random House la respetable cifra de 15.000 millones de dólares por difamación. Contra el Wall Street Journal y su empresa matriz, News Corp., ya se querelló en junio de este año tras la publicación de una carta de felicitación que Trump dedicó a Jeffrey Epstein en 2003 con motivo de su 50 cumpleaños. Al Wall Street Journal le pide una indemnización de 10.000 millones de dólares. Sin llegar a querellas de esas características (algo que en España sería improbable ya que nuestro marco legal es muy diferente en lo relativo a la difamación), el Gobierno de Pedro Sánchez lleva desde hace año y medio señalando a la prensa de forma concienzuda. Conforme los casos de corrupción y el desgaste político hacen mella en el Gobierno, Sánchez ha redoblado sus ataques contra la prensa crítica. Acusa a los periódicos que le son hostiles como “pseudo-medios” y les acusa de fabricar bulos en su contra. En la célebre carta a la ciudadanía de abril del año pasado denunció una supuesta persecución mediática y judicial contra él. De aquello nació el Plan de Acción por la Democracia, presentado como una medida para combatir la desinformación, pero que incluye reformas legales que penalizan con hasta 2,5 millones de euros publicaciones consideradas una amenaza para la seguridad nacional. Estas medidas, junto la manipulación irrestricta de medios estatales como RTVE y la presión sistemática sobre periodistas, han generado innumerables críticas. Tanto Trump como Sánchez, aunque con estilos diferentes, comparten una inclinación a restringir la libertad de expresión mediante amenazas, demandas o reformas legales. Mientras Trump actúa con una postura más directa y beligerante, Sánchez adopta una posición victimista, pero ambos tratan de imponer autocensura. Donald Sánchez y Pedro Trump son en este aspecto la misma persona. De eso vamos a hablar hoy con Rubén Arranz, que vuelve por La ContraCrónica y lo hace con más energía que nunca. · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra el pesimismo”… https://amzn.to/4m1RX2R · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM #FernandoDiazVillanueva #pedrosanchez #donaldtrump Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Jen Psaki reports on the negative reactions of some surprising Republicans to the Trump administration's use of political intimidation to silence Donald Trump's critics. Along with the few Republicans who have opposed Trump on covering up Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, the unquestioning obedience Trump enjoys from his party may be showing cracks. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

September 20, 2025; 9am:the U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of Virginia Erik Siebert resigned under pressure, after Trump said he wanted him "out" over his refusal to bring criminal charges related to alleged mortgage fraud against New York Attorney General Letitia James. It comes as the administration is also planning to take action against left-wing groups the president and his allies claim have contributed to political unrest and violence. Stacey Abrams joins The Weekend to discuss how the administration is conducting its retribution campaign and what it could mean for the president's political adversaries.For more, follow us on social media:Bluesky: @theweekendmsnbc.bsky.socialInstagram: @theweekendmsnbcTikTok: @theweekendmsnbcTo listen to this show and other MSNBC podcasts without ads, sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

September 20, 2025; 8am: The Senate recently rejected dueling Republican and Democratic bills that would have kept the government funded on a short-term basis, and now there are only 10 days left until the October 1st deadline. Party leaders on both sides of the aisle are blaming each other, claiming the other side isn't willing to negotiate. Congress will be in recess next week and the Senate will only have two days to agree on a plan when they come back. Former Office of Management and Budget director Shalanda Young joins “The Weekend” to discuss.For more, follow us on social media:Bluesky: @theweekendmsnbc.bsky.socialInstagram: @theweekendmsnbcTikTok: @theweekendmsnbcTo listen to this show and other MSNBC podcasts without ads, sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The two guards on duty at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) the night Jeffrey Epstein died, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, claimed to have fallen asleep and failed to check on him for several hours, despite being required to conduct routine checks every 30 minutes. Instead, they falsified records to cover up their negligence, leading to widespread speculation about whether their inaction was due to incompetence or something more sinister. Adding to the controversy, the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) report from the scene raised further doubts, as first responders reportedly found Epstein in a condition inconsistent with immediate resuscitation efforts, with rigor mortis already setting in, suggesting he had been dead for longer than officially stated. The conflicting accounts, missing surveillance footage, and the guards' suspicious behavior have fueled theories that Epstein's death was not simply a suicide, but rather a silencing operation orchestrated to protect powerful individuals implicated in his crimes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The two guards on duty at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) the night Jeffrey Epstein died, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, claimed to have fallen asleep and failed to check on him for several hours, despite being required to conduct routine checks every 30 minutes. Instead, they falsified records to cover up their negligence, leading to widespread speculation about whether their inaction was due to incompetence or something more sinister. Adding to the controversy, the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) report from the scene raised further doubts, as first responders reportedly found Epstein in a condition inconsistent with immediate resuscitation efforts, with rigor mortis already setting in, suggesting he had been dead for longer than officially stated. The conflicting accounts, missing surveillance footage, and the guards' suspicious behavior have fueled theories that Epstein's death was not simply a suicide, but rather a silencing operation orchestrated to protect powerful individuals implicated in his crimes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The two guards on duty at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) the night Jeffrey Epstein died, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, claimed to have fallen asleep and failed to check on him for several hours, despite being required to conduct routine checks every 30 minutes. Instead, they falsified records to cover up their negligence, leading to widespread speculation about whether their inaction was due to incompetence or something more sinister. Adding to the controversy, the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) report from the scene raised further doubts, as first responders reportedly found Epstein in a condition inconsistent with immediate resuscitation efforts, with rigor mortis already setting in, suggesting he had been dead for longer than officially stated. The conflicting accounts, missing surveillance footage, and the guards' suspicious behavior have fueled theories that Epstein's death was not simply a suicide, but rather a silencing operation orchestrated to protect powerful individuals implicated in his crimes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Alan Dershowitz filed a lawsuit against Netflix in 2021 over its docuseries Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, alleging defamation and breach of contract. He claimed the series unfairly presented Virginia Giuffre's allegations against him without including exculpatory evidence he provided, and argued that producers had promised to air his side of the story but failed to do so. Netflix denied the allegations and filed a countersuit, insisting the program was accurate and that Dershowitz's claims were meritless.Separately, Dershowitz became embroiled in a bitter legal fight with prominent attorney David Boies, who sued him for defamation after Dershowitz accused Boies of unethical conduct and pressuring Giuffre into making false statements. Dershowitz countered with his own claims that Boies had orchestrated a campaign to smear him. Both disputes—Dershowitz versus Netflix and Dershowitz versus Boies—ultimately ended in late 2022 when all parties agreed to dismiss their lawsuits with prejudice. Giuffre herself issued a statement acknowledging she may have misidentified Dershowitz, closing out the high-profile litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Barr's deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein's death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr's narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr's evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump's knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein's death but couldn't recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr's testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Barr-Transcript.pdf

Bill Barr's deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein's death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr's narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr's evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump's knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein's death but couldn't recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr's testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Barr-Transcript.pdf

Edward Bramson, through his investment vehicle Sherborne Investors, owned a ~5–6% stake in Barclays and repeatedly pushed the bank to address what he saw as governance failures tied to Jes Staley's past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Bramson publicly criticized Staley for not being sufficiently transparent about those links, particularly his time at JPMorgan, and demanded that the board take decisive action—either requiring Staley to be removed or revoking support for his reappointment as CEO. Bramson also raised questions about whether Staley had appropriately severed ties with Epstein, even after compliance/legal teams had urged him to do so.Over time, however, Staley managed to resist most of Bramson's pressure. By 2021 Bramson ended up selling Sherborne's entire stake in Barclays, backing down from his campaign to force structural changes to the investment banking division and leadership removal. While the regulatory investigations into Staley's Epstein connections continued and the issue caused reputational damage, Bramson was unable to gain enough shareholder or board support to force the changes he wanted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Barr's deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein's death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr's narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr's evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump's knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein's death but couldn't recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr's testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Barr-Transcript.pdf

Elon Musk has been loudly criticizing the DOJ and FBI over their handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, calling out what he sees as a disgraceful failure to hold powerful figures accountable. He presents himself as an outsider raging against the elite, demanding justice and transparency from the very institutions he claims are protecting predators. But there's a glaring contradiction that undercuts this entire performance: Musk himself once sat down at the same table as Jeffrey Epstein. At a private billionaire's dinner, years after Epstein's 2008 conviction was public knowledge, Musk broke bread with a man already known to be a convicted sex offender—making his current outrage feel more like calculated damage control than genuine moral concern.The hypocrisy is almost unbearable. You don't get to dine with a monster, stay silent for over a decade, and then pretend to be the loudest voice in the room demanding accountability. Musk's selective outrage reeks of self-preservation, not justice. He wasn't just in the same room—he was a participant in the same closed-door culture of wealth, access, and impunity that allowed Epstein to thrive. And now, as public pressure mounts, he wants to rewrite the past, cast himself as a truth-teller, and hope no one remembers where he was when it mattered. But history has receipts—and the dinner napkin still has his name on it.Elon Musk isn't the only one feigning moral outrage about Jeffrey Epstein while conveniently forgetting the dinner table they once shared. In 2011, at a private billionaires' dinner during a TED conference, Musk, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, and other tech titans sat shoulder to shoulder with Epstein—a man already convicted of soliciting sex from a minor. These weren't ignorant bystanders. Epstein's name was radioactive by then, his crimes well documented. Yet these men, who now pretend to be disgusted by the cover-up, saw no issue sharing wine and strategy with him over filet mignon and handshakes. It was a who's who of unchecked power pretending Epstein was just another quirky financier with connections.Fast-forward to now, and the same billionaires want to position themselves as the public's moral compass—demanding justice, accountability, and answers from the government while playing dumb about their own proximity to the rot. Musk rails against the DOJ, Bezos hides behind silence, and the rest of them act like their invitations got lost in the mail. But this wasn't some accident. They sat there. They talked. They mingled. And they helped normalize a predator. These men didn't just witness the corruption—they were part of the network that allowed it to keep operating in plain sight. Now they want to shout from the rooftops as if they weren't once whispering in the same room. That's not courage. That's cleanup.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:In 2011, Jeffrey Epstein Was A Known Sex Offender. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, And Sergey Brin Shared A Meal With Him Anyway

Jes Staley's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein wasn't just a lapse in judgment—it was a full-blown embrace of depravity dressed up as “networking.” Staley wasn't dragged into Epstein's orbit; he signed up for the frequent flyer program. He flew to the island, sent creepy “Snow White” emails, and played the role of banker, buddy, and image-launderer for a convicted sex offender. This wasn't ignorance—it was arrogance. He knew exactly who Epstein was and decided that power, money, and access were worth more than decency, truth, or his own reputation.In the end, Staley will never be remembered for his banking career or “leadership.” His legacy is sealed as Epstein's enabler, lapdog, and fool—the man who polished the monster's image while survivors were left fighting for justice. He represents everything rotten about high finance: greed over morality, image over truth, connections over humanity. Staley thought he could walk hand-in-hand with Epstein and still be respected. Instead, he's a permanent cautionary tale of complicity, corruption, and cowardice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein were quick to condemn Kash Patel's claim that there was “no credible evidence” of Epstein trafficking victims to anyone but himself. They pointed out that the public record alone undermines Patel's statement. Virginia Giuffre's sworn depositions, the Maxwell trial testimony, and multiple FBI interview summaries (FD-302s) make direct references to high-profile individuals. Survivors also reminded the public that members of Congress, including Rep. Thomas Massie, have already stated in hearings that victims named more than 20 powerful men—including billionaires, politicians, and a prince—to whom they were trafficked.They accused Patel of either ignoring or deliberately minimizing the mountain of corroborating evidence. Beyond official court documents and sworn testimony, survivors criticized him for deferring to prior DOJ conclusions without releasing the raw FBI reports or victim statements. They demanded transparency in the form of unsealed FD-302s, noting that nothing in Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement prevents their disclosure. Survivors said Patel's statement not only insults them but perpetuates the cover-up, and they called for immediate accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Survivors Blast FBI Director Kash Patel For Claiming 'No Credible Information' Financier Trafficked Women to Others

The story of Alexander Acosta and Kash Patel reveals how two different stages of the Jeffrey Epstein saga were managed by institutions more interested in containment than justice. Acosta, as U.S. Attorney in 2008, has long been portrayed as the architect of Epstein's sweetheart plea deal, but in reality he acted as a middleman executing a decision sanctioned by Main Justice. The immunity clause that protected Epstein's co-conspirators was not his invention; it was authorized at higher levels of the DOJ. Acosta ultimately became the convenient scapegoat, forced to resign years later and repeatedly grilled by Congress, while the true architects of Epstein's leniency remained untouched and hidden from public view.Patel's more recent denial before Congress that there was “no credible evidence” Epstein trafficked girls to others represents the next phase of institutional failure. His statement directly dismissed sworn survivor testimony and years of documented evidence, effectively signaling that the FBI had no interest in exposing Epstein's wider network. Instead of closing the book, Patel reignited demands for transparency, with lawmakers and survivors calling for the release of sealed FBI interview files. Together, Acosta and Patel's roles illustrate how the system managed Epstein's case: first by gutting prosecution, then by narrowing investigation, both times protecting the powerful while leaving survivors unheard.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The new wave of outrage from lawmakers over Jeffrey Epstein is less a moral awakening than a stage play. For years, these same politicians happily accepted his money, attended his events, and ignored survivors' pleas. Now, with the cameras rolling, they've reinvented themselves as crusaders for justice. Their speeches are choreographed performances — complete with dramatic pauses and crocodile tears — designed to look like courage but reeking of political survival. Survivors don't need applause lines or hashtags; they needed action years ago, when it might have made a difference.What we're really watching is hypocrisy in motion. The very people who enabled Epstein's influence machine now use outrage as a costume to launder their reputations. They hope the public will forget the donations, the fundraisers, and the Rolodex connections, but the record doesn't disappear just because they suddenly discovered empathy. This isn't justice, it's theater — and if they believe they can posture without being called out, they've underestimated how much the audience has been paying attention.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Washington has long perfected the art of political theater, where outrage is loudly paraded before cameras only to evaporate when accountability is required. On the campaign trail, fiery speeches about corruption and justice come easy—rhetoric designed for applause, not action. Yet when those same figures sit under oath, the fire dies out, replaced by carefully hedged statements and dismissive legal jargon. It's not about uncovering truth; it's about protecting power.That's the script Kash Patel followed to the letter. After crowing about Epstein's crimes for political gain, he turned around and downplayed survivor testimony as “not credible” when speaking before the Senate. The hypocrisy couldn't be clearer. What once served as an applause line became an inconvenient truth, quickly discarded in favor of denial. The mask slipped, the act collapsed, and what was revealed was not a defender of justice but yet another operator shielding the powerful under the guise of credibility.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mark Middleton, a former aide to President Bill Clinton, was found dead on May 7, 2022 at Heifer Ranch in Perryville, Arkansas. Authorities ruled his death a suicide, noting that he was discovered hanging from a tree with an extension cord around his neck and a shotgun wound to his chest. His family later confirmed that he had been battling depression, which had worsened in the months before his death. They also sought to have photos and videos from the scene sealed to protect their privacy.Despite the official ruling, Middleton's death sparked widespread speculation and conspiracy theories because of his political connections, particularly his past ties to Clinton. Questions were raised about the details of the scene, including conflicting reports about the presence of a weapon. Some used the case to fuel the so-called “Clinton body count” narrative, though investigators found no evidence of foul play. The controversy highlighted how high-profile political associations can transform personal tragedy into public suspicion, with unanswered questions and internet chatter overshadowing the official findings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Reports say that Musk once visited Epstein's New York residence for about 30 minutes one afternoon, along with Talulah Riley. Musk has said the meeting was at her request, because she was curious, and that nothing inappropriate was observed—just “weird art.” He also says Epstein invited him more than once to visit his private island, an invitation Musk declinedMusk has also been vocal in demanding that files related to Epstein be made more public. He has made claims—without presenting evidence—that Donald Trump is named in still-sealed “Epstein files,” and that this is a key reason they have not been released. Musk has criticized the Trump administration for withholding them and said such transparency is important for public trust.to contact me:bobbycapucci@Protonmail.com

Leon Black, billionaire co-founder of Apollo Global Management, maintained a direct and lucrative financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein long after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Records show Black paid Epstein roughly $158 million between 2012 and 2017 for what he characterized as tax, estate, and philanthropic advisory work. Despite Epstein's notoriety, Black said he relied on top law firms and accounting advisors to vet Epstein's services, insisting the payments were tied to legitimate advice.Beyond financial dealings, Black's inclusion in Epstein's 2003 “birthday book” underscored a social tie as well. He submitted a poem that alluded to Epstein's reputation for financial wizardry, suggesting familiarity beyond just business. Congressional investigators and Senate leaders have since questioned whether the scale of the payments was commensurate with the services Epstein claimed to provide, calling for deeper IRS scrutiny into whether Epstein was effectively a shadow fixer for Black's wealth.to  contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.crainsnewyork.com/finance/epstein-had-door-apollo-his-deep-ties-blackBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bill Barr's deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein's death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr's narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr's evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump's knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein's death but couldn't recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr's testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Barr-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

During the interview, Kim Iversen pressed Dershowitz about his associations with Jeffrey Epstein and asked probing questions that he appeared taken off-guard by. One key moment came when Iversen asked whether Epstein “killed himself,” to which Dershowitz responded that Epstein did not die entirely of his own doing—suggesting involvement of others, particularly guards. Dershowitz seemed visibly frustrated with the line of inquiry, complaining about what he felt was being “sandbagged”—i.e. caught unawares on shifting topics. When Iversen tried to connect the conversation back to Donald Trump and broader current events, Dershowitz challenged the framing, appearing to assert that certain issues were being conflated unfairly.Dershowitz ultimately ended the exchange by telling Iversen it would be “the last time” he appeared on her show, indicating that he felt the interview had crossed implicit boundaries. The interaction made headlines largely because of that tension, the unexpected speculation about Epstein's death, and Dershowitz's claim that questions about unrelated topics had been sprung without warning.Also...Alan Dershowitz has publicly said that Prince Andrew made “a terrible mistake” by settling the lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre in 2022 rather than taking the case to trial. Dershowitz believes Andrew could have won in court, arguing there were legal grounds to challenge jurisdiction, statute of limitations, and credibility of Giuffre's claims. He suggests Andrew's legal team—and possibly Queen Elizabeth II—pressured him into settling to avoid the embarrassment of a public deposition and the full airing of allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Alan Dershowitz filed a lawsuit against Netflix in 2021 over its docuseries Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, alleging defamation and breach of contract. He claimed the series unfairly presented Virginia Giuffre's allegations against him without including exculpatory evidence he provided, and argued that producers had promised to air his side of the story but failed to do so. Netflix denied the allegations and filed a countersuit, insisting the program was accurate and that Dershowitz's claims were meritless.Separately, Dershowitz became embroiled in a bitter legal fight with prominent attorney David Boies, who sued him for defamation after Dershowitz accused Boies of unethical conduct and pressuring Giuffre into making false statements. Dershowitz countered with his own claims that Boies had orchestrated a campaign to smear him. Both disputes—Dershowitz versus Netflix and Dershowitz versus Boies—ultimately ended in late 2022 when all parties agreed to dismiss their lawsuits with prejudice. Giuffre herself issued a statement acknowledging she may have misidentified Dershowitz, closing out the high-profile litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Edward Bramson, through his investment vehicle Sherborne Investors, owned a ~5–6% stake in Barclays and repeatedly pushed the bank to address what he saw as governance failures tied to Jes Staley's past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Bramson publicly criticized Staley for not being sufficiently transparent about those links, particularly his time at JPMorgan, and demanded that the board take decisive action—either requiring Staley to be removed or revoking support for his reappointment as CEO. Bramson also raised questions about whether Staley had appropriately severed ties with Epstein, even after compliance/legal teams had urged him to do so.Over time, however, Staley managed to resist most of Bramson's pressure. By 2021 Bramson ended up selling Sherborne's entire stake in Barclays, backing down from his campaign to force structural changes to the investment banking division and leadership removal. While the regulatory investigations into Staley's Epstein connections continued and the issue caused reputational damage, Bramson was unable to gain enough shareholder or board support to force the changes he wanted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The new wave of outrage from lawmakers over Jeffrey Epstein is less a moral awakening than a stage play. For years, these same politicians happily accepted his money, attended his events, and ignored survivors' pleas. Now, with the cameras rolling, they've reinvented themselves as crusaders for justice. Their speeches are choreographed performances — complete with dramatic pauses and crocodile tears — designed to look like courage but reeking of political survival. Survivors don't need applause lines or hashtags; they needed action years ago, when it might have made a difference.What we're really watching is hypocrisy in motion. The very people who enabled Epstein's influence machine now use outrage as a costume to launder their reputations. They hope the public will forget the donations, the fundraisers, and the Rolodex connections, but the record doesn't disappear just because they suddenly discovered empathy. This isn't justice, it's theater — and if they believe they can posture without being called out, they've underestimated how much the audience has been paying attention.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The story of Alexander Acosta and Kash Patel reveals how two different stages of the Jeffrey Epstein saga were managed by institutions more interested in containment than justice. Acosta, as U.S. Attorney in 2008, has long been portrayed as the architect of Epstein's sweetheart plea deal, but in reality he acted as a middleman executing a decision sanctioned by Main Justice. The immunity clause that protected Epstein's co-conspirators was not his invention; it was authorized at higher levels of the DOJ. Acosta ultimately became the convenient scapegoat, forced to resign years later and repeatedly grilled by Congress, while the true architects of Epstein's leniency remained untouched and hidden from public view.Patel's more recent denial before Congress that there was “no credible evidence” Epstein trafficked girls to others represents the next phase of institutional failure. His statement directly dismissed sworn survivor testimony and years of documented evidence, effectively signaling that the FBI had no interest in exposing Epstein's wider network. Instead of closing the book, Patel reignited demands for transparency, with lawmakers and survivors calling for the release of sealed FBI interview files. Together, Acosta and Patel's roles illustrate how the system managed Epstein's case: first by gutting prosecution, then by narrowing investigation, both times protecting the powerful while leaving survivors unheard.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein were quick to condemn Kash Patel's claim that there was “no credible evidence” of Epstein trafficking victims to anyone but himself. They pointed out that the public record alone undermines Patel's statement. Virginia Giuffre's sworn depositions, the Maxwell trial testimony, and multiple FBI interview summaries (FD-302s) make direct references to high-profile individuals. Survivors also reminded the public that members of Congress, including Rep. Thomas Massie, have already stated in hearings that victims named more than 20 powerful men—including billionaires, politicians, and a prince—to whom they were trafficked.They accused Patel of either ignoring or deliberately minimizing the mountain of corroborating evidence. Beyond official court documents and sworn testimony, survivors criticized him for deferring to prior DOJ conclusions without releasing the raw FBI reports or victim statements. They demanded transparency in the form of unsealed FD-302s, noting that nothing in Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement prevents their disclosure. Survivors said Patel's statement not only insults them but perpetuates the cover-up, and they called for immediate accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Survivors Blast FBI Director Kash Patel For Claiming 'No Credible Information' Financier Trafficked Women to OthersBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein wasn't just a lapse in judgment—it was a full-blown embrace of depravity dressed up as “networking.” Staley wasn't dragged into Epstein's orbit; he signed up for the frequent flyer program. He flew to the island, sent creepy “Snow White” emails, and played the role of banker, buddy, and image-launderer for a convicted sex offender. This wasn't ignorance—it was arrogance. He knew exactly who Epstein was and decided that power, money, and access were worth more than decency, truth, or his own reputation.In the end, Staley will never be remembered for his banking career or “leadership.” His legacy is sealed as Epstein's enabler, lapdog, and fool—the man who polished the monster's image while survivors were left fighting for justice. He represents everything rotten about high finance: greed over morality, image over truth, connections over humanity. Staley thought he could walk hand-in-hand with Epstein and still be respected. Instead, he's a permanent cautionary tale of complicity, corruption, and cowardice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

During the run up to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial there were more than a handful of bail attempts and each of them was less successful than the next. In this look back episode, we hear from Maxwell's lawyers, and they provide us with 8 reasons why she should be sprung. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ghislaine-maxwells-lawyers-came-up-with-8-reasons-alleged-jeffrey-epstein-accomplice-should-get-bail/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The cases of Jeffrey Epstein and Sean “Diddy” Combs highlight the complexities of holding powerful individuals accountable for systemic abuse and exploitation. Epstein, a financier with global connections, operated an international sex trafficking network for decades, leveraging his wealth and influence to evade scrutiny. Despite overwhelming evidence, a controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to escape significant consequences, sparking outrage and exposing flaws in the justice system. His 2019 arrest, fueled by survivor advocacy and public outcry, marked a turning point, but his subsequent death in custody left many questions unanswered and denied survivors the full justice they sought. Epstein's case exposed systemic failures, from complicit enablers to legal loopholes, and has since become a symbol of how privilege can distort accountability.Diddy's case, though distinct in scope, reveals similar dynamics of power and impunity within the entertainment industry. Accused of sexual abuse, physical violence, and intimidation, Diddy allegedly used his status as a music mogul to exploit and silence victims for decades. His remand to custody in 2023 reflects a growing cultural shift toward accountability in an industry often criticized for its culture of silence and complicity. Both cases underscore the systemic structures that enable abuse, challenging society to confront these power dynamics and demand reform. While their outcomes remain pivotal, Epstein and Diddy's cases serve as stark reminders that justice must be blind to status, and that societal complicity must be dismantled to protect the vulnerable.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Alan Dershowitz made an appearance on News Nation this week where he attempted to defend the associates of Jeffrey Epstein who were about to be unmasked using the same old excuse that...nobody knew. Nobody had a CLUE who or what Jeffrey Epstein was. In this episode we take a look at what Dershowitz had to say in the interview about Jeffrey Epstein and the newly unsealed names and what we might expect as things continue to move forward. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Alan Dershowitz: Don't Blame Men on Jeffrey Epstein's List (mediaite.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

AI slop shownotes as usual. Enjoy! Opening Segment (00:00 - 02:00)Personal catch-up between the hostsHong Kong Jack celebrates a major birthday in Macau with surprise family visitDiscussion of Hong Kong-Macau travel via new bridge/tunnel (1 hour 20 minutes door-to-door)Major Discussion TopicsAustralian Politics - Coalition Crisis (02:00 - 15:30)Key Points:Polling disaster: Coalition at 27% approval rating, Labor leads 58-42 two-party preferredElectoral wipeout: Liberal Party holds minimal metropolitan seats across major citiesParty structure collapse: Lack of grassroots organization compared to historical ALP branchesDemographic breakdown: Libs losing women, young people, multicultural communities (except 65+ voters)Leadership pressure: Susan Ley facing potential challenge, comparisons to "Brendan Nelson months"Policy tensions: Net zero commitments causing internal fracturesNotable Quote: Troy Bramston - "There is no guarantee the Liberal Party will survive"Climate Policy and Net Zero Debate (07:10 - 14:40)Key Points:National Climate Risk Assessment Report findings:400% increase in heat-related mortality in Sydney2.7 million work days lost by 2061 due to heatwaves$600 billion property value losses by 2050$40 billion annual natural disaster costsPublic opinion: 77% of Australians want government climate actionPolitical implications: Andrew Hastie threatens to quit front bench over net zero policyInternational context: UK Tories' experience with climate policy costsVictorian Politics - Liberal Party Internal Struggles (21:00 - 26:00)Key Points:Philip Davis survives challenge from Greg Mirabella for Liberal Party State DirectorDiscussion of Labor government vulnerabilities despite Liberal Party dysfunctionAnalysis of "machete bins" controversy and opposition messaging failuresUnited States - Charlie Kirk Assassination (26:50 - 33:00)Key Points:Tyler Robertson (22) charged with Kirk's murderDiscussion of political discourse breakdown in AmericaSocial media radicalization of young menCriticism of premature political speculation (Barry Cassidy example)International AffairsUS-Korea Relations Crisis (33:15 - 36:50)ICE raid on 300 South Korean workers in Georgia battery facilityOnly one Korean worker chose to stay after offered returnImplications for US foreign investment attractivenessUK Political Upheaval (40:25 - 58:15)Major Topics:Tommy Robinson Rally: 100,000+ protesters in LondonImmigration tensions: 50,000 asylum seekers annuallyStarmer's crisis: Peter Mandelson appointment controversy (Jeffrey Epstein connections)Leadership challenges: Calls for Starmer's resignation from both left and rightConservative Party collapse: Danny Kruger defects to Reform UKFrance - Government Instability (62:30 - 64:00)Sébastien Le Corneau named new PM after confidence voteBudget crisis and spending control issuesMiddle East - Israel-US Tensions (64:00 - 67:30)Netanyahu takes responsibility for Al-Yudid airbase incidentDiscussion of Arab neighbors' role in regional solutionsQatari investment commitments to US ($3.3 trillion over decade)Sports Coverage (67:30 - 79:00)Spring Racing Carnival PreviewDiscussion of Melbourne Cup preparation and "pagan fertility festival" atmosphereNRL Finals AnalysisRaiders vs Broncos "golden point" thriller described as exceptional rugby leagueMelbourne, Sharks, Panthers, and Brisbane assessment for finalsAFL Finals PredictionsPreliminary Finals Preview:Hawthorn vs Geelong (favor Geelong by 20 points)Collingwood vs Brisbane (favor Collingwood)Praise for Josh Weddle (Hawthorn) and Jai Newcombe's finals performancesClosing Segment - Literary Humor (79:00 - 82:30)H.L. Mencken Epitaph: "If after I depart this vale, you ever remember me and have thought to please my ghost, forgive some sinner and wink your eye at some homely girl"Spike Milligan Epitaph: "See, I told you I wasn't well"Proposed Episode Titles"Coalition Collapse: The Liberal Party's Existential Crisis""From Polls to Protest: Democracy Under Pressure""The Unraveling: Political Upheaval Across Three Continents""27% and Falling: When Political Parties Face Extinction""Net Zero, Net Loss: Climate Politics Reshaping the Right"Contact InformationTwitter: @JacktheInsiderEmail: ConditionerReleaseProgram@gmail.comEpisode Duration: 1 hour 22 minutes

Donald Trump was asked if he had sympathy for Peter Mandelson - the former UK ambassador to Washington - who was recently sacked for his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. Writer: Cat NeilanProducer: Amalie SortlandEpisode Photography: Joe MeeExecutive Producer: Rebecca MooreTo find out more about The Observer:Subscribe to TheObserver+ on Apple Podcasts for early access and ad-free contentHead to our website observer.co.uk Download the Tortoise app – for a listening experience curated by our journalists Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As the Jeffrey Epstein scandal has worsened, President Trump's story has been that it's all Democratic “hoax,” and that his signature on that lewd drawing in Epstein's birthday book is a “forgery.” But at a congressional hearing Wednesday, FBI director Kash Patel faltered under intense questioning from Democrats. Patel filibustered when asked whether Trump's name is in the Epstein files. He seemed to accidentally reveal that he does know how many times Trump's name appears. And he agreed to investigate whether Trump's birthday note to Epstein is indeed forged, which seems ill-advised. Patel badly undermined Trump's whole stance. So how much longer can Trumpworld keep the lid on this? We talked to Nicole Hemmer, a historian who has written books about the right and its media apparatus. She explains the schism Epstein has opened inside MAGA, how Patel exposed Trump's position as untenable, and how it all fits into the last half-century of right-wing deceptions and conspiracy theories.  Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump has been in the UK this week on an unprecedented second state visit – an honour that he said last night at a state dinner he ‘hopes' is reserved only for him, to much amusement in the room.Humility doesn't come naturally to the President, but he does seem genuinely humbled by the pomp and pageantry that comes with a state visit. Meanwhile, Trump-management and grandstanding on the world stage seem (bizarrely) to come naturally to the Prime Minister. Trump's visit – which threatened to be derailed by the sacking of the US ambassador Peter Mandelson over his association with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – has been a welcome reprieve from the tumult of domestic politics for Keir Starmer's Labour party.A tech deal has been agreed which involves investment from US tech companies in the UK to the tune of several billion pounds; there was some soft diplomacy between the Princess of Wales and the First Lady today, and this afternoon's press conference wasn't totally sidetracked by questions about Mandelson... although there are clearly some tensions bubbling under the surface, mainly on energy policy, Palestinian statehood and Ukraine. Was the visit a success?Oscar Edmondson speaks to Freddy Gray and Tim Shipman.Produced by Oscar Edmondson.Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts.Contact us: podcast@spectator.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We explore how Les Wexner, the billionaire behind Victoria's Secret and The Limited, became entangled with Jeffrey Epstein. We also talk about how Ghislaine Maxwell's role as Epstein's friend and employee added another layer of complexity. Click ‘Subscribe' at the top of the Infamous show page on Apple Podcasts or visit GetTheBinge.com to get access wherever you get your podcasts. Find more great podcasts from Sony Music Entertainment at sonymusic.com/podcasts Read Vanessa's book, Blurred Lines: Sex, Power and Consent on Campus, and check out Natalie on Instagram at @natrobe To connect with Infamous's creative team, join the community at Campsidemedia.com/join Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tommy & Ben start with Gaza: the UN Human Rights Council's finding that Israel has committed genocide, and Israel's ground operation into Gaza City. They discuss how Marco Rubio signaled that Trump has given up on brokering a peace deal in Gaza, and why the Netanyahu government is telling the press that Trump is lying about his knowledge of the IDF airstrike in Qatar. Also covered: Kash Patel's combative Senate hearing about the rampant dysfunction at the FBI, the global reaction to the murder of Charlie Kirk and the dark conspiracy theories that have emerged around it, the long-term harm to the US-South Korea relationship caused by the ICE raid on a Hyundai plant in Georgia, Nepal's democracy by Discord, Trump's UK state visit amid Jeffrey Epstein fallout and far-right protests, Trump's ultimatums to NATO, and Conor McGregor's aborted bid for the Irish presidency. Then, Tommy speaks to Tom Fletcher, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, about the humanitarian situations in Haiti, Sudan, and Gaza, the devastating effects of the gutting of USAID, and what's giving him hope right now. Check out Be Hope here.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast. Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Tonight on The Last Word: An investigation by The New York Times finds connections between the Trump family's cryptocurrency firm and an agreement granting United Arab Emirates access to A.I. chips. Also, Kash Patel testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Plus, the House Oversight Committee release more Epstein documents. And Donald Trump files a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times. Eric Lipton, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, and Andrew Weissmann join Lawrence O'Donnell. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

FBI Director Kash Patel had a tough week. He'd already been slated to appear before both the House and Senate judiciary committees – hearings at which he was sure to be peppered with questions about his leadership of the FBI, his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein saga, and allegations that the FBI had fired people over their political preferences.But his handling of the FBI investigation into the killing of Charlie Kirk has led even some in the conservative base to question his competence.Today on “Post Reports,” Jeremy Roebuck takes us through how Patel handled himself in the week's congressional hearings – which more than once erupted into shouting matches. And he shares his reporting on how Patel came to be President Donald Trump's pick to head the FBI in the first place. Today's show was produced by Rennie Svirnovskiy, with help from Sabby Robinson. It was edited by Reena Flores and mixed by Sean Carter. Thank you to Ted Muldoon and James Martinez. Subscribe to The Washington Post here.