Podcasts about Jeffrey Epstein

Virginia Giuffre's memoir, “Nobody's Girl,” is again shining a light on justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.The Department of Justice says Epstein died by suicide in his jail cell while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking. Over the summer, she was moved to a minimum security prison in Texas after meeting privately with Trump administration officials.In the book, Giuffre recounts how she was lured into Epstein's world after meeting Maxwell at Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago spa at the age of 16. She was then subjected to years of abuse where she was sex trafficked, including to England's former Prince Andrew, whose title was revoked last week in part due to these allegations.Giuffre took her own life earlier this year. Even before her memoir was released posthumously, she was one of Epstein's most outspoken accusers. We sit down with Giuffre's brother and sister-in-law about her story and their call for justice. We also speak with Marijke Chartouni, another Epstein survivor who says she was recruited in 2000 and was sexually assaulted by Epstein.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.  Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Prince Andrew is on borrowed time. When his brother takes the crown and has the power to control Andrew's fate, one could reasonably expect him to completely cut Andrew off. Without the Queen's favor, Prince Andrew is going to find out very quickly just how rough things can get.(commercial at 16:04)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/daniela-elser-prince-andrew-could-be-penniless-if-prince-charles-cuts-him-off/KWELSTYWRSUMO56TGDQ7ZMK4A4/

Prince Andrew's maneuvering to avoid a deposition in Virginia Giuffre's lawsuit was a masterclass in royal cowardice dressed up as legal strategy. Here was a man accused of sexual abuse, hiding behind the velvet ropes of privilege, while his legal team played a shell game with jurisdiction, paperwork, and technicalities. Instead of facing questions under oath — the bare minimum any honest man would do to clear his name — Andrew's camp leaned into delay tactics, hoping that exhaustion and settlement would erase the scandal. It wasn't courage, it wasn't truth-seeking; it was damage control at its most cynical, designed to keep him from ever having to look a lawyer in the eye and answer for his actions.And of course, it worked. Andrew wrote a check and bought silence, shielding himself from the humiliating spectacle of cross-examination that would have stripped away the thin veneer of his denials. This wasn't justice; it was aristocratic crisis management, where money spoke louder than accountability. For a man who once claimed he had nothing to hide, his frantic effort to dodge sworn testimony was deafening proof of the opposite. A deposition would have pinned him down, locked him into a version of events he could never wiggle out of — and Andrew, ever the entitled prince, wasn't about to risk that. So he paid, he preened, and he slithered back into the shadows, another powerful man escaping real scrutiny.to contact me:  bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Prince Andrew has managed to retain his residence at Royal Lodge in Windsor after securing funds from an undisclosed benefactor. This financial support emerged following King Charles III's decision to cut Andrew's £1 million annual allowance and discontinue payments for his private security. The legitimacy of these funds has been confirmed through a financial review led by Sir Michael Stevens, Keeper of the Privy Purse.The Duke of York's ability to maintain his 31-room estate has been a point of contention, especially given his diminished role within the royal family. Despite the financial challenges, Andrew's new source of income has enabled him to uphold his living arrangements, highlighting ongoing complexities within the House of Windsor regarding royal privileges and financial independence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Reveal who stumped up millions for stay at Royal Lodge, Prince Andrew told... as Duke says he can pay for Windsor home and avoid eviction by King | Daily Mail Online

Up Next:Nobody's Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice.

On this episode of Have a Seat with Chris Hansen, Chris is joined by Renée Williams, the CEO of the National Center for Victims of Crime, an organization dedicated to serving individuals, families, and communities harmed by crime. The two discuss the importance of the Center's work as well as with victims of high profile cases such as Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Cosby. Williams explains how to navigate the media in the wake of tragedy and the vital resources available to all victims through the National Center for Victims of Crime. victimsofcrime.org Donate now to the National Center for Victims of Crime This episode is brought to you by: Dupe: Stop wasting money on brand names and start saving with https://Dupe.com today! Home Title Lock: Go to https://hometitlelock.com/chrishansen and use promo code HANSEN to get a FREE title history report and a FREE TRIAL of their Triple Lock Protection! For details visit https://hometitlelock.com/warranty Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a clip from Raised By Giants! Get access to the full episode and all thier content on all podcast platforms or click the link below!Full episode here!https://www.spreaker.com/episode/jeffrey-epstein-case-closed--68407430Get access to every Raised by Giants episode! Podcasthttps://spreaker.page.link/Q1qN1M4A9Ve8QqaX8Forbidden Knowledge Network https://forbiddenknowledge.news/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/forbidden-knowledge-news--3589233/support.

Tonight, we're not summarizing — we're reading it. This is the full, unedited November 3, 2025, letter from Congressman Jamie Raskin to Attorney General Pam Bondi, demanding answers about what he calls a “gigantic cover-up” inside the Department of Justice surrounding the shutdown of the Epstein co-conspirator investigation. In this extraordinary letter, Raskin lays out a timeline that should shake every American who believes in justice.  He reveals that until January 2025, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York was actively investigating Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's co-conspirators, supported by testimony from nearly 50 survivors naming at least 20 men involved in the trafficking network. Then, suddenly, the investigation was transferred to DOJ headquarters in Washington, D.C. Six months later, the case was declared closed — “no evidence found.” Raskin's letter questions everything:  ⚖️ Why the DOJ shut down a live federal sex-trafficking probe.  

Tonight, we're not summarizing — we're reading it. This is the full, unedited November 3, 2025, letter from Congressman Jamie Raskin to Attorney General Pam Bondi, demanding answers about what he calls a “gigantic cover-up” inside the Department of Justice surrounding the shutdown of the Epstein co-conspirator investigation. In this extraordinary letter, Raskin lays out a timeline that should shake every American who believes in justice.  He reveals that until January 2025, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York was actively investigating Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's co-conspirators, supported by testimony from nearly 50 survivors naming at least 20 men involved in the trafficking network. Then, suddenly, the investigation was transferred to DOJ headquarters in Washington, D.C. Six months later, the case was declared closed — “no evidence found.” Raskin's letter questions everything:  ⚖️ Why the DOJ shut down a live federal sex-trafficking probe.  

This episode goes behind the polished words of Buckingham Palace to unpack the public relations machinery that managed the downfall of Prince Andrew.In October 2025, King Charles III formally removed all of Andrew's titles and evicted him from his Windsor residence.On the surface, it looked like accountability.But beneath the royal phrasing lay a carefully timed communications plan.We'll walk through the anatomy of that plan: how one resurfaced email reignited the scandal, how two precisely timed statements reframed it, and how the Palace's language turned a personal disgrace into an institutional act of duty.Want More Behind the Breakdown? Follow The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson on Substack for early access to podcast episodes, exclusive member chats, weekly lives, and monthly workshops that go deeper than the mic. It's the insider's hub for communicators who want strategy with spine—and a little side-eye where it counts.Follow Molly on Substack Subscribe to Molly's Weekly Newsletter Subscribe to Molly's Live Events Calendar. Need a Keynote Speaker? Drawing from real-world PR battles, Molly delivers the same engaging stories and hard-won crisis insights from the podcast to your live audience. Click here to book Molly for your next meeting. This podcast is supported by Muck Rack, the PR management platform I use to monitor media coverage, track journalist activity, and inform high-stakes strategy with real-time data. Click here to try Muck Rack for yourself. Follow & Connect with Molly: https://www.youtube.com/mollymcpherson https://mollymc...

Michael Jaco and Leo Zagami join forces to expose the dark truths behind Jeffrey Epstein's empire and the hidden sects that empowered him. From his connections to elite figures like Les Wexner and Steven Spielberg to the deeper links with the Illuminati, Mega Group, and Sabbatean Frankists, this discussion unpacks the hidden power networks that shaped one of the world's most sinister scandals. Leo draws from his extensive research and latest work to uncover the occult, political, and financial mechanisms that kept Epstein untouchable for years. Together, they trace these threads back to ancient secret societies, global corruption, and the ongoing manipulation of humanity through deception and control.

Caroline Kaufman is a woman who has publicly come forward as one of the alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein, asserting that in December 2010, when she was 17, she was invited to Epstein's Manhattan mansion under the pretext of a modelling interview and was assaulted there. In her lawsuit, Kaufman alleges that during her visit she encountered Prince Andrew in the mansion, although she does not claim he participated in the assault itself. Her complaint describes being escorted by an older woman she believes to be Ghislaine Maxwell to a private room where Epstein was nude on a massage table and then claims the assault occurred, with her being silenced and threatened afterwards.Kaufman has demanded that Prince Andrew speak to U.S. authorities about what he knows of Epstein's network and his own presence at Epstein's residence. Her legal filing and public statements argue that Andrew's cooperation is essential for law-enforcement investigating the broader Epstein scandal — she, and her legal team, contend that he possesses information that could assist in exposing others in Epstein's circle and in holding them accountable.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Three years after Jeffrey Epstein's death inside the Metropolitan Correctional Center, the public was still left in the dark. The Department of Justice's Inspector General had yet to release a full report, and most of the internal findings remained sealed or redacted. The official story — suicide by hanging — was backed by the New York City Medical Examiner, but contradicted by independent forensic experts like Dr. Michael Baden, who found Epstein's neck injuries to be “more consistent with strangulation than hanging.” Meanwhile, crucial evidence went missing or malfunctioned: security cameras outside his cell failed, logs were falsified, and the two guards on duty admitted to sleeping and browsing the internet instead of checking on him. No clear timeline of his final hours has ever been publicly established. For a man under the government's watch in one of the most secure facilities in America, the lack of transparency was staggering — and it left even the most rational observers suspicious.By the third anniversary of his death, the unanswered questions had hardened into national cynicism. The phrase “Epstein didn't kill himself” became a cultural punchline, a shorthand for public mistrust of institutions. Federal officials insisted accountability had been taken — the guards were charged and later released after a plea deal, and the prison itself was slated for closure — yet the broader inquiry into systemic negligence vanished from public view. Victims received settlements, but no comprehensive investigation ever detailed who enabled Epstein's empire, who protected him, or what really happened inside that cell. The silence from the Justice Department only deepened the perception that some secrets were too big to expose.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Two individuals who had accused Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse have dropped their civil lawsuits against his associate Ghislaine Maxwell — specifically, one being identified as Jennifer Araoz and another as “Jane Doe VII”. The timing and nature of their dismissals suggest that they may have accepted payments from a victim-compensation fund related to Epstein's estate rather than pursuing their full civil claims in court. The article notes this pattern of dismissals may indicate a broader expectation that claimants who opt into the fund must relinquish the right to sue Maxwell or others connected to Epstein's network.to  contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

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

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

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

Prince Andrew's future within the British Royal Family appears increasingly constrained due to his tarnished reputation and strained familial relationships. His association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the subsequent settlement of a civil lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre have led to his withdrawal from public duties and the stripping of his military titles and royal patronages. Despite these measures, Andrew has resisted efforts to relocate from the 30-room Royal Lodge, a property requiring extensive and costly maintenance. King Charles III has reportedly cut Andrew's annual allowance and security funding, leading the Duke to secure a mysterious £3 million lifeline to maintain his residence, raising concerns about the source of these funds and the propriety of his associations.Public opinion remains largely unfavorable toward Prince Andrew, with many viewing his attempts to retain royal privileges as emblematic of entitlement and a lack of accountability. His refusal to vacate the Royal Lodge, despite financial pressures and the property's deteriorating condition, has been criticized as a display of arrogance and detachment from public sentiment. Experts suggest that Andrew's chances of returning to public life are negligible, advising that he should focus on leading a quiet, private existence to avoid further damaging the monarchy's reputation.   The ongoing tensions within the royal family, particularly between Andrew and King Charles, underscore the complexities of managing personal relationships alongside public responsibilities and the imperative to uphold the integrity of the institution.(commercial at 7:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What does the future hold for Prince Andrew - with disgraced royal entrenched at Royal Lodge | Daily Mail Online

Prince Andrew's decision to host a party for Ghislaine Maxwell at Sandringham—where sex drugs like poppers were reportedly found—reads less like royal history and more like a bad dark comedy. The idea of a Queen's residence being turned into something resembling a low-rent Sopranos episode is almost surreal. The whole scene feels like parody: the Duke of York, standing beneath portraits of British monarchs, presiding over a soirée that sounds like Downton Abbey crashing headfirst into Trainspotting. It's especially grotesque given Epstein's reputation for avoiding drugs himself—he didn't need them, he used them on others. The thought of those same tools of control and exploitation making their way into a royal estate is equal parts absurd and revolting.What makes it worse is the total lack of accountability. The Palace still tries to frame these scandals as “private matters,” as though international sex trafficking and narcotics at royal residences can be brushed under the Windsor rug. Every new revelation cements Andrew as a man incapable of understanding—or even pretending to care about—the damage he's done to the Crown's image. Once considered a symbol of British decorum, Sandringham now sits as a monument to how far the monarchy has fallen, its history tainted by the stench of scandal and the arrogance of a prince who believed himself untouchable. In the end, Prince Andrew didn't just disgrace himself—he made royal scandal feel like a recurring sketch in a show that refuses to end.to contact me:source:Sex drugs 'found at party' disgraced Andrew hosted for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in Sandringham, new Royal book claims | Daily Mail Online

Host Jeff returns on Right On Radio to cut through the noise and outline a sweeping, controversial big-picture view of current events. In this episode (recorded on November 4), Jeff focuses on visible, real-world developments: the high-stakes election day in Virginia, New Jersey and New York City; alleged traps and ballot irregularities; and what he calls the “one big club” running both left and right politics. He opens with a removed AI campaign ad parody and uses it to frame the New York mayoral contest (Mamdani vs. Cuomo) as symptomatic of wider influence and dark-money backing. Jeff plays and dissects several clips and news reports, including an AI political ad, a CNBC segment about alleged "dark money" backing, and coverage of a high-profile federal sex-trafficking arrest. He shares eyewitness-style descriptions of viral police videos (a dangerous vehicle incident in Toronto and a bizarre seatbelt gag clip) to discuss policing, DEI hiring critiques, and cultural decline. The show also samples conservative media moments (Alex Jones on Tucker Carlson) and commentary by public figures to connect alleged elite networks and cover-ups. The episode delves into long-form conspiracy threads as well: Jeff revisits Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell ties, discusses claims about Bill Barr and elite prep-school networks, and plays clips tying together influential names. He moves from domestic scandal to international symbolism and institutions — exploring a historical claim about a Vatican–King of England contract, a rare joint public prayer by King Charles and the Pope, and a viral narrative about Trump, Britain and the monarchy — arguing these moments reveal a larger financial and geopolitical architecture dominated by banks, the City of London, and transnational elites. Throughout, Jeff asserts a narrative that the "old guard" is eroding and dramatic events may unfold in November. He points to apparent coincidences (satellite-image claims linking military formations to Fort Knox and a coded DJT address), dark-money influences (mention of Soros funding), and mainstream underreporting of elite criminality. The episode blends reportage, video clip reactions, historical anecdotes, and interpretive commentary to advance its thesis that power is concentrated in an exclusive club and that viewers should stay alert. Guests and sources referenced include CNBC reporting clips, a report on Howard Rubin's federal arrest, commentary segments from Patrick Bet-David, a short Alex Jones/Tucker Carlson excerpt, and several viral social-media videos. Jeff closes with announcements about upcoming shows, a promotional plug for his "Decoding the Power of Three" course on RightOnU, and a call to community, faith and awareness as the show invites listeners to decide how they want to live in the visible world. Want to Understand and Explain Everything Biblically?  Click Here: Decoding the Power of Three: Understand and Explain Everything or go to www.rightonu.com and click learn more.  Thank you for Listening to Right on Radio. Prayerfully consider supporting Right on Radio. Click Here for all links, Right on Community ROC, Podcast web links, Freebies, Products (healing mushrooms, EMP Protection) Social media, courses and more... https://linktr.ee/RightonRadio Live Right in the Real World! We talk God and Politics, Faith Based Broadcast News, views, Opinions and Attitudes We are Your News Now. Keep the Faith

A mum from Margate has died just three months after being diagnosed with cancer.53-year-old Michelle Bailey was told in July she had an incurable form of the disease after initially suffering what doctors thought was a stroke.Also in today's podcast, the leader of Kent County Council has hit back at the Chancellor, after she criticised the local authority during a speech at Downing Street.Rachel Reeves was speaking ahead of her Budget later this month. Hear what she had to say and the response from Reform UK's Linden Kemkaran. The boss of a Kent charity's admitted they got too big, too quickly.Gillingham Street Angels, which runs a number of shops and a food bank, announced at the start of the week it was going to close after supporting hundreds of homeless and vulnerable people since 2018.People living on Prince Andrew Road in Broadstairs have told the podcast the name is now embarrassing, and they want it changed.It's after Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was stripped of his Royal title over his links to disgraced financier Jeffery Epstein. Andrew has always denied any wrong doing.A campaign is underway to organise a Christmas dinner for young care leavers in north Kent.Many of those who grow up in foster homes are left with nowhere to go on the big day after they turn 18.An event is already held every year in Folkestone, and now volunteers want to put on a meal in the north of the county.And in sport, Gillingham manager Gareth Ainsworth has returned to oversee training this week following heart surgery.He's been absent from the club for a month after having an operation in early October. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Bill Clinton continues to dodge a formal deposition about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein despite having ample time for public appearances, marathons, and speeches. The same lawmakers who claim that “no one is above the law” have shown no urgency in questioning the former president who welcomed Epstein to the White House seventeen times, accepted his seed money for the Clinton Foundation, and invited Ghislaine Maxwell to his daughter's wedding. While they posture about accountability, their silence and inaction reveal a political double standard that shields their own. Clinton's carefully managed image — complete with polished smiles and “I don't recall” evasions — remains intact because those in power prefer the illusion of justice to the risk of truth.The spectacle has become political theater. Committees hold hearings, the media offers soft profiles, and the powerful continue to protect each other while victims are left waiting for real answers. Clinton's absence from the witness chair is more than an oversight — it's proof that justice in America operates on a sliding scale determined by status and influence. Every public event he attends is a reminder that accountability is optional for the elite, and every unasked question deepens the rot at the core of the system that claims to serve justice but exists only to preserve power.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein's financial relationship with JPMorgan Chase ran deep — and lasted far longer than it ever should have. From the late 1990s until 2013, JPMorgan acted as Epstein's primary bank, managing his wealth, routing payments, and processing more than $1 billion in transactions even after his 2008 sex-crime conviction. Internal compliance teams repeatedly flagged Epstein's suspicious activity — massive monthly cash withdrawals, wire transfers to foreign accounts, and payments to women listed as “assistants.” Yet those warnings were ignored or overridden by senior executives, including Jes Staley, who maintained close personal contact with Epstein and allegedly visited him multiple times at his Manhattan townhouse and private island. The bank only cut ties in 2013, years after regulators had already raised red flags and long after Epstein's name had become synonymous with criminality.Subsequent lawsuits exposed just how intertwined the relationship was. The U.S. Virgin Islands and Epstein's victims both accused JPMorgan of enabling his trafficking operation by providing unrestricted financial access, arguing the bank “knowingly facilitated” his crimes to retain a lucrative client. The bank settled for $290 million with Epstein's victims and $75 million with the USVI, while internal communications revealed that top leadership — including Mary Erdoes and Jes Staley — had authority to drop Epstein but didn't. Emails showed Staley referring to Epstein with familiar tone and discussing visits to his properties. Even after his conviction, Epstein remained a valued client, reflecting how profit and personal connections outweighed compliance or morality. The scandal didn't just tarnish JPMorgan's reputation — it exposed how the world's most powerful financial institutions became complicit in shielding a predator for the sake of money and influence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein did not operate in isolation—they relied on a network. Their crimes were made possible by a web of enablers, facilitators, fixers, and bystanders who either helped directly or looked the other way. From private pilots to personal assistants, house managers to recruiters, there were people in their orbit who scheduled, transported, housed, and in some cases, groomed young girls for abuse. These weren't random helpers—they were staff, associates, and colleagues who made Epstein and Maxwell's operation function like a well-oiled machine. Yet, most of them have never faced a single charge. Their silence, compliance, and active participation were just as essential as the actions of Epstein and Maxwell themselves.Equally complicit were the institutions that protected them. Wealth managers, elite schools, banks, law firms, and even prosecutors played roles—some by omission, others by design. Doors opened for Epstein and Maxwell that would have slammed shut on anyone without money and connections. Social circles embraced them long after rumors had become accusations, and long after accusations had become evidence. And still, they were given platforms, invitations, and cover. This wasn't a case of two people fooling the world—it was a case of the world choosing not to care. The myth of the “lone predator” serves power well, but the truth is always more uncomfortable: predators thrive in systems that help them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10332169/Underage-orgies-possible-pregnancy-key-moments-Ghislaine-Maxwells-sensational-trial.html

In the final weeks before his death, Jeffrey Epstein's state of mind was a chaotic blend of despair, denial, and defiance. Jail records show he was restless, sleepless, and visibly agitated — crouching in his cell with his hands over his ears to drown out noise, pacing aimlessly, and struggling to adjust from luxury to confinement. Guards noted his anxiety and mood swings, describing him as alternately withdrawn and frustrated. He reportedly called himself a “coward” and told staff he couldn't bear the isolation, yet insisted to psychologists that he wasn't suicidal, saying it would be “crazy” to kill himself and that he still had a “wonderful life.” The collapse of his empire — from private jets and palatial homes to a concrete cell — shattered the narcissistic image he'd built over decades. Psychologists later concluded that Epstein's entire sense of self was tied to control, power, and prestige — all of which had been stripped away, leaving him psychologically cornered and destabilized.However, his attorney David Schoen told a starkly different story. In a five-hour meeting just days before Epstein's death, Schoen said his client was “animated and energized,” focused on his legal defense, and adamant about fighting the charges in court. Epstein had reportedly asked Schoen to take over as lead counsel and appeared optimistic about his chances. That interaction led Schoen to firmly reject the idea of suicide, arguing that Epstein's mindset was far from hopeless. He cited forensic pathologist Michael Baden's findings that Epstein's neck fractures were “more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicidal hanging.” Between the prison records describing agitation and the lawyer's insistence on Epstein's resolve, the truth of Epstein's final state of mind remains contested — split between the image of a crumbling man at the edge of despair and that of a calculating manipulator who still believed he could talk his way out of hell.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

When asked about Prince Andrew's exile from royal life and the Epstein scandal that forced King Charles to strip his brother of his military titles and patronages, Donald Trump struck a tone of sympathy — not for the victims, but for the Windsors. Speaking aboard Air Force One, Trump said, “I feel very badly. It's a terrible thing that's happened to the family. That's been a tragic situation. It's too bad. I mean, I feel badly for the family.” In classic Trump fashion, the comments came off as tone-deaf, framing the ordeal as a misfortune that befell the royals rather than a reckoning for Andrew's own actions or associations. He offered no mention of Virginia Giuffre, the survivors, or the broader scandal surrounding Epstein's network — only sorrow for the House of Windsor's discomfort.The remarks were quickly criticized as another example of Trump's tendency to sympathize with power over accountability. Rather than condemning Andrew's behavior or the pattern of privilege that shielded him for years, Trump painted the royals as victims of circumstance — as if Andrew had simply stumbled into bad luck rather than disgrace of his own making. His comments echoed the same populist-elite paradox that defines his persona: railing against “the establishment” while showing deference to its crowned members when they fall. For many observers, the takeaway was clear — once again, Trump's empathy seemed to extend only upward, toward the powerful, not toward the people whose lives were destroyed by Epstein and the system that protected him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Trump says he feels 'badly' for royal family over Andrew-Epstein scandal

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

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

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

Three years after Jeffrey Epstein's death inside the Metropolitan Correctional Center, the public was still left in the dark. The Department of Justice's Inspector General had yet to release a full report, and most of the internal findings remained sealed or redacted. The official story — suicide by hanging — was backed by the New York City Medical Examiner, but contradicted by independent forensic experts like Dr. Michael Baden, who found Epstein's neck injuries to be “more consistent with strangulation than hanging.” Meanwhile, crucial evidence went missing or malfunctioned: security cameras outside his cell failed, logs were falsified, and the two guards on duty admitted to sleeping and browsing the internet instead of checking on him. No clear timeline of his final hours has ever been publicly established. For a man under the government's watch in one of the most secure facilities in America, the lack of transparency was staggering — and it left even the most rational observers suspicious.By the third anniversary of his death, the unanswered questions had hardened into national cynicism. The phrase “Epstein didn't kill himself” became a cultural punchline, a shorthand for public mistrust of institutions. Federal officials insisted accountability had been taken — the guards were charged and later released after a plea deal, and the prison itself was slated for closure — yet the broader inquiry into systemic negligence vanished from public view. Victims received settlements, but no comprehensive investigation ever detailed who enabled Epstein's empire, who protected him, or what really happened inside that cell. The silence from the Justice Department only deepened the perception that some secrets were too big to expose.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Prince Andrew's attempts to maneuver his way out of disgrace were always doomed, a tragic farce masquerading as strategy. From the moment the Epstein connection came to light, every move he made only dug the hole deeper. His insistence on maintaining innocence while refusing transparency, his ill-fated Newsnight interview, and his reliance on royal privilege rather than accountability painted him as a man utterly detached from reality. Andrew seemed to believe that royal insulation and denial could outlast public outrage, yet every deflection—every "no recollection" and every attempt to hide behind Buckingham Palace—only amplified his guilt in the court of public opinion. By the time he settled with Virginia Giuffre, his options were no longer strategic—they were survivalist.The truth is, Andrew's exile wasn't a punishment; it was an inevitability. His downfall wasn't the result of a single mistake, but a lifelong pattern of entitlement colliding with modern accountability. His efforts to cling to status—whether by trying to stage a “comeback,” whispering about new roles, or leaning on family ties—were like a drowning man grasping at fog. The monarchy, desperate to preserve itself, eventually realized that Andrew was a liability too radioactive to rehabilitate. His downfall was written the moment he mistook impunity for immunity. Now, stripped of titles, dignity, and relevance, Prince Andrew stands as the embodiment of how arrogance and denial can turn royal blood into social poison.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Newly unearthed BBC footage of Virginia Giuffre recounting her encounters with Andrew Mountbatten Windsor airs tonight, reigniting scrutiny of his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.Buckingham Palace has now wiped Andrew's biography from the royal website, fresh revelations link him to a cryptocurrency deal involving Sarah Ferguson, and insiders say his Royal Lodge payout may vanish amid disrepair claims.Experts warn this scandal marks a turning point for the monarchy — even as Ghislaine Maxwell's bizarre “Mary Poppins” prison routine keeps Epstein's shadow alive.Hear our new show "Crown and Controversy: Prince Andrew" here.Check out "Palace Intrigue Presents: King WIlliam" here.

Jeffrey Epstein's network went far beyond trafficking and exploitation—it also included a sophisticated campaign to discredit, intimidate, and obstruct those investigating him. From the mid-2000s through 2019, Epstein and his lawyers waged a relentless public relations and legal offensive designed to undermine victims, stall prosecutors, and silence the press. Court documents and leaked communications reveal that Epstein's inner circle—including Ghislaine Maxwell and his attorneys at firms like Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf—used intimidation tactics, private investigators, and smear campaigns to paint accusers as liars or gold diggers. In one series of emails revealed by Bloomberg, Maxwell and Epstein discussed deploying damaging personal rumors to discredit accusers as “unstable” or “untrustworthy,” while threatening defamation suits against media outlets that covered the story. This coordinated effort to manipulate public perception was part of a larger strategy to delegitimize investigations, protect powerful allies, and preserve his social status within elite circles.Epstein also relied on legal obstruction and financial manipulation to blunt scrutiny. He deployed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), secret settlements, and strategic donations to law enforcement-connected charities to curry favor. Defense teams repeatedly sought to seal or suppress evidence, arguing that revealing details would “prejudice ongoing investigations.” In some cases, Epstein's team even hired former intelligence and law enforcement officials to monitor reporters and intimidate witnesses. His influence extended into the judicial system through his now-infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement, which effectively shut down a federal probe and silenced dozens of victims. Even after his death, the DOJ and courts have continued to restrict access to key records, citing privacy or “ongoing investigations”—a fact many observers see as a continuation of Epstein's disinformation playbook, protecting those who benefited from his silence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

SEASON 4 EPISODE 30: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (2:30) SPECIAL COMMENT: If Andrew can no longer be PRINCE because of Jeffrey Epstein, Trump can no longer be PRESIDENT because of Jeffrey Epstein. I think Trump understands this. I have no doubt Mike Johnson understands this. I believe even large swaths of the otherwise imbecilic MAGA understand this. It is why Trump and Johnson and the others are starving the needy; dissolving Congress; destroying the domestic balance of power and gutting the work infrastructure at airports, government agencies, and services. It is why they are even cutting the legs out from under every Republican candidate in tomorrow’s handful of elections. Andrew has been convicted of nothing; Trump has been convicted of nothing. There are no astounding legal findings against Andrew; there are no astounding legal findings against Trump. There are probably no smoking guns about Andrew in the Epstein files; there are probably no smoking guns about Trump in the Epstein files. The status of their scandals is roughly identical. Just as importantly: the English monarchy wants to publicly atone for Andrew and based on heavy news reporting in the UK it is apparently pressing Andrew to reveal what he knows about Epstein – presumably about TRUMPStein. Meanwhile only Trump, would throw a Gatsby party with himself as Gatsby and scantily-clad women in giant Martini glasses, in the middle of his own sex ring crisis. In any event: If Andrew can no longer be PRINCE because of Jeffrey Epstein. Trump can no longer be PRESIDENT because of Jeffrey Epstein. B-Block (28:00) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: After O'Donnell flames him, Scott Jennings insists Lawrence O'Donnell, whose show is beating Jennings's CNN show in the ratings by 60%, is irrelevant. Karolyin Leavitt was appalled that there was a bathroom inside the White House. And before tomorrow's election, Andrew Cuomo has proclaimed himself "Mayor." C-Block (36:00) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: Well the World Series ended just as I told you it would: With everybody demanding Fox never again interview a manager during Game 7. I was a Fox TV Baseball Dugout Reporter: Here's Why We Don't Need Them (except for emergencies; in 40 games in which I filled that role, there were maybe three emergencies. I'll recount the best of them - the on-field dispute that came this close to turning into a riot involving the New York Yankees, the Boston Cops, and thousands of drunken Red Sox fans. And it ended with me being ordered to sit, essentially, on George Steinbrenner's lap).See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

FOLLOW RICHARD Website: https://www.strangeplanet.ca YouTube: @strangeplanetradio Instagram: @richardsyrettstrangeplanet TikTok: @therealstrangeplanet EP. #1275 EPSTEIN'S ROYAL BLACKMAIL: MONARCHY AS GLOBAL POWER PUPPET Unveil the shadowed synapses linking Jeffrey Epstein's depravity to the British Crown's gilded cage. Maggie's Hammer author Geoffrey Gilson—ex-Thatcher speechwriter—dissects Prince Andrew's Epstein entanglements, Sarah Ferguson's "supreme friend" emails, and charity purges as blackmail levers in elite power trades. As King Charles's health fades amid Islam conversion whispers and Windsor Iftar feasts, Gilson exposes royal succession as a scripted pivot for transnational networks—from Alaska summits to Ukraine's proxy wars. This isn't tabloid tittle-tattle; it's the raw wiring of global influence, where scandal shields deeper scripts steering nations. GUEST: Geoffrey Gilson, former speechwriter for Margaret Thatcher and author of Maggie's Hammer, has spent decades mapping covert elite networks—tracing money, intelligence, and personal ties binding royals, financiers, and governments. His work exposes monarchies as conduits for transnational power plays. WEBSITE/LINKS: https://www.facebook.com/geoff.gilson https://maggieshammer.com/ BOOK: Maggie's Hammer: How Investigating the Mysterious Death of My Friend Uncovered a Netherworld of Illegal Arms Deals, Political Slush Funds, High-Level Corruption and Britain's Thirty-Year Secret Role as America's Hired Gun SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS!!! FOUND – Smarter banking for your business Take back control of your business today. Open a Found account for FREE at Found dot com. That's F-O-U-N-D dot com. Found is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services are provided by Lead Bank, Member FDIC. Join the hundreds of thousands who've already streamlined their finances with Found. HIMS - Making Healthy and Happy Easy to Achieve Sexual Health, Hair Loss, Mental Health, Weight Management START YOUR FREE ONLINE VISIT TODAY - ⁠HIMS dot com slash STRANGE⁠ ⁠https://www.HIMS.com/strange⁠ MINT MOBILE Premium Wireless - $15 per month. No Stores. No Salespeople. JUST SAVINGS Ready to say yes to saying no? Make the switch at MINT MOBILE dot com slash STRANGEPLANET. That's MINT MOBILE dot com slash STRANGEPLANET ⁠BECOME A PREMIUM SUBSCRIBER!!!⁠ ⁠https://strangeplanet.supportingcast.fm⁠ Three monthly subscriptions to choose from. Commercial Free Listening, Bonus Episodes and a Subscription to my monthly newsletter, InnerSanctum. Visit ⁠https://strangeplanet.supportingcast.fm⁠ Use the discount code "Planet" to receive $5 OFF off any subscription. We and our partners use cookies to personalize your experience, to show you ads based on your interests, and for measurement and analytics purposes. By using our website and services, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Cookie Policy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit ⁠megaphone.fm/adchoice Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://strangeplanet.supportingcast.fm/

Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego believes that Speaker Mike Johnson is keeping the House of Representatives out of session, and refusing to swear in newly elected Arizona Rep. Adelita Grijalva, to avoid a vote on releasing files related to Jeffrey Epstein's clients and accomplices. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One of the most unusual moments in right wing media this year came when Tucker Carlson sat down with Nick Fuentes. The conversation is being called by some "a bold exchange of ideas" and by others, "a troubling sign of where the movement may be headed." After Fuentes recent debate with Dinesh D'Souza and now his appearance with Tucker, the Overton Window seems to be shifting rapidly within conservative circles.Topics that were once off limits are suddenly back on the table, and many are wondering if this marks a line in the sand, a moment where people must decide whether these ideas represent the future of the conservative movement, or a dangerous departure from it. Video Version Of This Episode Can Be Found Here: Nick Fuentes The Vile And Poisonous Rhetoric Influencing Millions The Clintons, Jeffrey Epstein, Trump & Sex Slaves https://youtu.be/ZvoZsxhFkGo?si=5TpXvETzm8hgshxv Follow Good Fight Ministries on: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/goodfightministries Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/goodfightministries Twitter/X: https://www.twitter.com/goodfightmin TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@goodfightministries We're on Rumble! https://rumble.com/GoodFightMinistries Support Us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/goodfight

The royal formerly known as "Prince" Andrew is only Andrew now. In what's being called 'the greatest crisis the royal family has faced in 100 years', the King has banished his brother after the distress and noise around his behaviour finally became too loud for even the insulated royals to ignore. So what now? Will it shut down critics and accusers, or just open the flood gates? Also, is it just plain embarrassing to admit to having a boyfriend now? The most viral essay of the past week says YES, so why's that? And: the politics of a pair of untethered breasts. Why Sydney Sweeney's new version of the naked dress has everyone confused. Plus: Celebrity Halloween hard launches and a not-so veiled dig at the super-rich from a superstar. Support independent women's media What To Listen To Next: Listen to our latest episode: The New Love Language & A Fitness Dating Test Listen: Mia, Nobody Wants This & A Robust Debrief Listen: Everything We Refuse To Spend Money On Listen: An Unevenly Open Marriage & ‘Likeable’ Kristen Bell Listen: Other People’s Marriages & Your New 'Shobby' Listen: The Precise Etiquette Of A 'Grudget' Listen: Kim K's Bush & An Office Politics Dilemma Listen: A 'Furious' King & The Rise Of The Barbie Waist Connect your subscription to Apple Podcasts Discover more Mamamia Podcasts here including the very latest episode of Parenting Out Loud, the parenting podcast for people who don't listen to... parenting podcasts. Watch Mamamia Out Loud: Mamamia Out Loud on YouTube What to read: The one question everyone's asking about Andrew. Only Andrew, just Sarah and a teenage 'nobody' who rewrote royal history. The real reason why we're obsessed with Sydney Sweeney's boobs. Nothing cures creative block like discovering your husband's secret sex lair. Katy Perry and Justin Trudeau just hard-launched their relationship. THE END BITS: Check out our merch at MamamiaOutLoud.com Mamamia studios are styled with furniture from Fenton and Fenton GET IN TOUCH: Feedback? We’re listening. Send us an email at outloud@mamamia.com.au Share your story, feedback, or dilemma! Send us a voice message. Join our Facebook group Mamamia Outlouders to talk about the show. Follow us on Instagram @mamamiaoutloud and on Tiktok @mamamiaoutloud Mamamia acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the Land we have recorded this podcast on, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation and the Jerrinja land of the Wandi Wandian People. We pay our respects to their Elders past and present, and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures. Become a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The fallout from the revelations about Leon Black's financial ties to Jeffrey Epstein ignited a bitter power struggle at Apollo Global Management. When it was revealed that Black had paid Epstein over $150 million for questionable “advisory services,” investors, regulators, and the public demanded accountability. That scrutiny forced Apollo's board to initiate a review, which ultimately led to Black stepping down earlier than planned. His departure cracked open rivalries among Apollo's co-founders, with Marc Rowan and Josh Harris maneuvering for influence. What should have been a smooth leadership transition instead turned into a test of Apollo's governance, reputation, and stability in the face of scandal.The struggle was not just about replacing Black—it was about cleaning up the mess his actions left behind. Senior leadership and board members clashed over why such extraordinary sums were paid to Epstein with little documentation or oversight, sparking deeper questions about Apollo's culture of accountability. Harris, once considered a top contender for the top role, pulled back from daily management amid the turmoil, leaving Rowan to step into leadership. The entire episode underscored how deeply Epstein's shadow reached into the highest levels of finance, destabilizing one of the world's most powerful private equity firms and forcing Apollo to reckon with reputational damage that money alone couldn't erase.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://nypost.com/2021/05/24/jeffrey-epstein-led-to-fallout-at-apollo-global-management/

Jeffrey Epstein's story isn't just about one predator—it's a brutal indictment of how the American justice system bends for the rich and breaks the poor. Despite years of credible accusations, dozens of underage victims, and a mountain of evidence, Epstein managed to evade real justice for decades. His 2008 Florida plea deal—engineered by powerful lawyers and signed off by then–U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta—gave him a sweetheart sentence that allowed him to leave jail six days a week on “work release.” The deal secretly immunized co-conspirators and denied victims the right to be heard, a direct violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. It was the ultimate display of privilege: a man who bought his freedom with money and influence while his victims were left to rot in silence. The system didn't fail by accident—it functioned exactly as it was designed to for people with Epstein's power.Even in death, the system continued its farce. Epstein's death inside a federal jail exposed staggering negligence—cameras malfunctioned, guards falsified logs, and evidence vanished. The Department of Justice's Inspector General confirmed “serious misconduct and negligence” but offered little accountability. No one higher up faced real consequences, and the network of enablers—financiers, lawyers, royals, and academics—walked away untouched. The courts offered settlements, not justice; hearings, not answers. Three years after his death, Epstein's case remains a mirror held up to a broken system—a system that shields the powerful, discards the vulnerable, and calls it due process.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The allegations surrounding Mary Erdoes, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase's Asset and Wealth Management division, focus on what she knew—and when—about Jeffrey Epstein's criminal conduct while the bank continued doing business with him. Epstein remained a JPMorgan client from the late 1990s until 2013, despite his 2008 sex crime conviction and repeated internal warnings about his activities. Internal compliance emails revealed that by 2006, Epstein's accounts were already raising red flags for suspicious activity, and by 2011, Erdoes was directly alerted to legal developments confirming his sex-offender status—she reportedly responded with a short “Oh boy.” Testimony and internal records suggest that Erdoes and then–general counsel Stephen Cutler held the authority to terminate Epstein's banking relationship but did not exercise it, even as other staff raised serious concerns. Multiple reports indicate she continued corresponding about Epstein's status and compliance reviews, demonstrating a level of awareness inconsistent with the bank's later public claims that knowledge of his misconduct was confined to lower levels.Critics argue this places Erdoes near the center of JPMorgan's failure to cut ties sooner, implying that the decision to keep Epstein as a client was not a mere oversight but a conscious choice by top management to preserve a lucrative relationship. During litigation brought by the U.S. Virgin Islands and Epstein's survivors, JPMorgan's internal communications were unsealed, showing that Epstein's financial activity had been reviewed annually and still cleared for continuation under Erdoes's division. Jes Staley, Epstein's primary contact within the bank, later testified that Erdoes “had full authority” to drop him but chose not to. Erdoes herself has denied any knowledge of Epstein's sex-trafficking operations, stating that her involvement was limited to compliance oversight and that Epstein was eventually off-boarded once risk assessments changed. Nevertheless, the accumulated evidence—from internal memos to executive testimony—has left a troubling picture of institutional willful blindness at the highest level of the world's largest bank.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Michael Wolff joins Joanna Coles to reveal how White House insiders are now dubbing the East Wing the “Epstein Ballroom.” From the persistent shadow of Jeffrey Epstein over Trump and Prince Andrew's dramatic fall from royal privilege, to the explosive crypto pardons benefiting the Trump family, Wolff's latest thorns to burrow into Trump's side. They discuss Rupert Murdoch's role, the birthday letter that exposed Trump's connections, and the intricate web of influence stretching from Norfolk to Washington. With the latest Trump polls tanking and the government shutdown nearing a record, this episode captures the tangled, high-stakes universe of Trump's presidency in real time. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.