Podcasts about Jeffrey Epstein

'The View' co-hosts react to the United States' capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and weigh in on its legality. Then, the co-hosts discuss the fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein files that were released last month and what still has yet to be made public. The co-hosts discuss artists cancelling their gigs after Pres. Trump added his name to the Kennedy Center. Josh Charles joins "The View" and discusses starring in the new comedy series about a big city doctor who starts practicing in a small town and looks back on his first feature film role in "Hairspray." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dive into the explosive world of elite predators with Shaun Attwood on Heretics! In this jaw-dropping episode, Shaun uncovers the latest bombshells from the Epstein files – from Bill Clinton's steamy hot tub encounter with a survivor, to Donald Trump's private flights with Ghislaine Maxwell and underage girls, and Prince Andrew's chilling emails begging for "inappropriate hookups." We break down the "demonic elite" scheming at the top of society, including politicians, royals, and billionaires.  SPONSORS: Earn up to 4 per cent on gold, paid in gold: https://www.monetary-metals.com/heretics/  Use my code Andrew25 on MyHeritage: https://bit.ly/AndrewGoldDNA  Grab your free seat to the 2-Day AI Mastermind: https://link.outskill.com/GOLDNOV4  Start fresh at tryfum.com/products/zero-crisp-mint . Over 500,000 people have already made the switch — no nicotine, no vapor, no batteries. Just flavor, fidget, and a fresh start. Get up to 45% off Ekster with my code ANDREWGOLDHERETICS: https://partner.ekster.com/andrewgoldheretics  Plaud links! Official Website: Uk: https://bit.ly/3K7jDGm US: https://bit.ly/4a0tUie  Amazon: https://amzn.to/4hQVyAm Get an automatic 20% discount at checkout until December 1st. Cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at https://mintmobile.com/heretics  Plus, shocking allegations of child abuse rings, reptilian conspiracies, and insider trading on 9/11 that profited from mass murder. If you thought Epstein's island was bad, wait until you hear about the cover-ups, unaliving theories, and why Trump won't release the full files. This is the unfiltered truth that will shatter your worldview – perfect for fans of true crime, conspiracies, and elite scandals like Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the royal family's dark side.Shaun Attwood, author of 19 books on Epstein, Clinton, and elite predators, joins host Andrew Gold for a no-holds-barred discussion. Don't miss this – hit play now and uncover the avalanche of evidence! Like, subscribe, and turn on notifications for more heretic revelations! Check out Shaun's books and channel in the links below. Shaun's YouTube: www.youtube.com/@shaunattwoodOFFICIAL Shaun's Books:  - Untouchable Jimmy Savile: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Untouchable-Jimmy-Savile-Reckoning-Netflixs/dp/1912885336/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0  - Clinton Bush and CIA Conspiracies: From The Boys on the Tracks to Jeffrey Epstein: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Clinton-Bush-CIA-Conspiracies-Jeffrey/dp/1912885069/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0  - Who Killed Epstein: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Killed-Epstein-Prince-Andrew-Clinton-ebook/dp/B093QK1GS1  Join the 30k heretics on my mailing list: https://andrewgoldheretics.com  Check out my new documentary channel: https://youtube.com/@andrewgoldinvestigates  Andrew on X: https://twitter.com/andrewgold_ok   Insta: https://www.instagram.com/andrewgold_ok Heretics YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@andrewgoldheretics Chapters: 00:00:00 Muslim Insider Exposes Grooming Gang Horror: "They Targeted White Girls!" 00:01:06 Why I Betrayed the Tories for Farage: Shocking Leadership Secrets Revealed 00:03:38 Deport Them All? Illegal Migrants' Dirty Tricks Exposed 00:07:05 Pakistani Vote Trap: Is Labour's Home Secretary Protecting Criminals? 00:10:08 Death Threats for a Muslim Heretic? My Fight Against Radical Islam 00:16:41 Egypt's Communist Nightmare: How My Family Fled to Save Britain 00:20:02 Farage in Power: Civil War or Mass Deportations? The Brutal Truth 00:25:26 Anti-White Racism Rampant: Why Muslims Hate the Groomers More Than Anyone 00:32:16 Flags, Pride, and Lost Britain: Reclaiming Our Culture from the Woke Elite 00:39:32 "Muslims Will Kill You": My Shocking Encounter with American Fear 00:45:21 Seven Kids in Chaos: How to Fix Britain's Baby Bust and Homeownership Crisis 00:49:03 Heretic Heroes: Who Inspires a Fearless Truth-Teller? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Waldman and Greg Dworkin don't need a hastily prepared PVC pipe and black draped tent to deliver the action KITM listeners crave.  Today's apocalyptic earth-shattering black-swan event is the abduction of the President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro. Nobody is really certain why we did it. Maybe Maduro is involved with Jeffrey Epstein, or the Nobel Prize committee? Maybe he just wanted to piss off Marjorie Taylor Green one last time? Maybe war with Venezuela was a campaign promise? Did a tariff payment check bounce? You know, Maduro was asking for it… a lot of people are asking for it... One thing is certain. It sure is fun to watch stuff blow up. Trump wanted Zero Dark Thirty and Delta Force delivered. Delivered clicks, that is, and what's more important than that? Everybody's wondering, "Where does this franchise go from here?" The possibilities are endless, but time is of the essence, as cheap overseas knockoffs are already in the works. Now, you are probably asking yourself, "Hey, remember Venezuela? What's happening with those guys?" Well, that's yesterday's news. Somebody down there surely has a handle on it. Marco or Stephen will check in later this week to look in on them or something. Right now, it's doing everything Trump needs it to.  If not, someone should expect to see a nasty email or drone arrive soon with their name on it. Of course, all of this is perfectly legal. In fact, it is illegal to say that it is illegal, that's how legal it is. Meanwhile, let's pretend that we still have a democracy. Tim Walz is taking time off from being an assassination target to spend more time with his family, opening the door for Amy Klobuchar to run for Governor. Amy has been preparing for this moment. California also still exists, and Matt Ortega is running for election to the U.S. House to represent California's 14th Congressional District. 

The Kirkland & Ellis response treats the May 19, 2008 letter from the Southern District of Florida's First Assistant U.S. Attorney not as a good-faith summary, but as a document that actively distorts the historical record of the Epstein investigation. The firm argues that the letter is riddled with contradictions, misleading framing, and outright falsehoods that cannot be chalked up to sloppy drafting or innocent error. Rather than accurately recounting investigative decisions, the letter is portrayed as a post-hoc justification designed to sanitize prosecutorial conduct after the fact. Kirkland & Ellis makes clear that the document attempts to reshape reality—presenting disputed actions as settled facts and glossing over decisions that directly benefited Epstein.Critically, the response emphasizes that the letter's defects are not marginal or technical, but foundational, calling into question the integrity of the government's entire narrative. By systematically comparing the letter's assertions with what actually occurred, Kirkland & Ellis suggests that the misrepresentations were deliberate and strategic, intended to create a paper trail that could withstand scrutiny rather than reflect truth. The firm characterizes the letter as emblematic of how the Epstein case was managed from start to finish: facts were selectively presented, inconvenient details were omitted or reframed, and the official record was bent to support an outcome already decided. In this view, the May 19 letter is not merely inaccurate—it is itself evidence of how the Epstein investigation was manipulated and why accountability was avoided.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00013801.pdf

The Department of Justice has displayed a clear inconsistency in how it has handled two allegedly fabricated Epstein-related documents. When the letter purportedly sent by Jeffrey Epstein to Larry Nassar surfaced, the Department of Justice responded swiftly and decisively. Officials publicly and unequivocally denied the letter's authenticity, leaving no room for ambiguity or extended review. That response demonstrated the DOJ's willingness to intervene forcefully when it believes a document is false and can confidently support that conclusion. The speed and certainty of that denial set a clear institutional benchmark for how the department handles dubious materials tied to Epstein.By contrast, the DOJ has remained conspicuously silent regarding the alleged Epstein birthday card reportedly sent by Donald Trump. Despite the availability of the same investigative tools and expertise used in the Nassar letter assessment, the department has not issued a similar categorical denial. This silence is notable given the far greater political and reputational implications of the birthday card. The uneven response suggests uncertainty rather than neutrality, implying that the DOJ may be unable to definitively disprove the card's authenticity. In the context of Epstein's broader history—marked by selective transparency and delayed accountability—the DOJ's inconsistent behavior has fueled skepticism and reinforced perceptions that politically sensitive material is treated with greater caution, even when public clarity would otherwise be expected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

During the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, Juan Alessi—Jeffrey Epstein's longtime estate manager—testified as a key insider who provided jurors with a ground-level view of how Epstein's properties operated on a daily basis. Alessi described his responsibilities managing Epstein's homes, particularly in Palm Beach, and explained how young girls were regularly brought to the residence for what were described as “massages.” He testified that this was not an occasional or hidden occurrence but a routine part of life at the house, with frequent visits by underage girls and systems in place to manage their arrivals and departures. Alessi also confirmed that payments were made to the girls, reinforcing the prosecution's argument that the abuse was organized and transactional rather than spontaneous or misunderstood.Alessi's testimony was especially damaging because it placed Ghislaine Maxwell directly inside the operational structure of Epstein's abuse. He told the jury that Maxwell was regularly present at the Palm Beach home, was aware of the girls coming and going, and at times interacted with them herself. His account undermined the defense's attempt to portray Maxwell as detached from Epstein's criminal conduct, instead depicting her as someone who knew exactly what was happening inside the house. By confirming the routine nature of the visits and Maxwell's proximity to them, Alessi's testimony helped establish knowledge, continuity, and intent—critical elements for the prosecution's case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Annie Farmer testified during Ghislaine Maxwell's federal trial that she was just 16 years old when Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein flew her to Epstein's ranch in New Mexico under the guise of an academic retreat. Farmer explained that she initially believed the trip was meant to provide her with educational and career opportunities. Instead, she said the experience quickly turned uncomfortable and exploitative. She recalled Maxwell giving her a massage during which Maxwell touched her breasts, an incident that left her feeling frozen and terrified. She also testified that Epstein had climbed into her bed unexpectedly and caressed her without consent. Farmer described feeling "panicked" and manipulated by two adults who had promised mentorship and safety.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

During Jeffrey Epstein's first prosecution in Florida, his legal team adopted an unusually aggressive and confrontational posture toward prosecutors and investigators in the Southern District of Florida. Rather than treating the case as a standard criminal matter, Epstein's lawyers pushed relentlessly on procedure, jurisdiction, and internal DOJ dynamics, applying pressure not just through formal filings but through behind-the-scenes maneuvering aimed at shaping the outcome before charges could fully crystallize. This approach went beyond zealous advocacy and veered into open hostility, with Epstein's attorneys repeatedly challenging investigators' motives, authority, and conduct, while seeking to box prosecutors into a narrow set of options favorable to their client.In this episode, we dig into a newly unsealed Epstein file that lays bare just how acrimonious that relationship truly was. The document shows a toxic, adversarial environment in which negotiations were marked by distrust, sharp exchanges, and constant friction between Epstein's defense team and the lawyers tasked with investigating him. Far from a collaborative or routine plea discussion, the record reveals a legal battlefield where Epstein's attorneys treated federal prosecutors as obstacles to be neutralized rather than partners in resolution—offering a rare, unfiltered look at how the groundwork was laid for one of the most controversial prosecutorial outcomes in modern criminal justice history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00013538.pdf

In her testimony at the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, “Jane Doe” described being recruited as a minor into Jeffrey Epstein's world through what initially appeared to be benign social contact and promises of money. She testified that she was drawn in at a young age, gradually groomed, and made to believe the abuse was normal or expected. According to her account, Epstein's homes functioned as controlled environments where rules were unspoken but rigid, and where fear, confusion, and dependence were deliberately cultivated. Jane Doe explained that she was repeatedly directed, pressured, and maneuvered into sexual encounters, often under circumstances that made refusal feel impossible, especially given her age and lack of power.Jane Doe's testimony also emphasized the long-term psychological impact of the abuse and the power imbalance that made resistance or escape feel impossible at the time. She explained how fear, confusion, and manipulation kept her compliant, and how the trauma followed her well into adulthood. Crucially, her account aligned with those of other accusers, strengthening the prosecution's argument that this was a coordinated system rather than a series of isolated acts. By the time Jane Doe testified, her words served not just as an individual story, but as part of a larger evidentiary mosaic showing that Ghislaine Maxwell knowingly participated in sustaining Epstein's abuse network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In this latest edition of The Epstein Files Unsealed we get a look at the sworn statement and recorded interviews of a teenage girl who became entangled in Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation after being recruited by another minor, identified in the records as “Haley.” The girl initially described being told she was simply going along to collect money and go shopping, with no clear explanation of what would occur. She recounted being taken to Epstein's Palm Beach home, passing through security, and being left alone upstairs with Epstein after Haley remained downstairs. Under pressure and confusion, she was instructed to undress and give Epstein a massage, during which he masturbated and made sexually explicit comments. She was then paid $300 and sent away, with Epstein acting casually afterward and encouraging her to return. The girl's testimony shows she did not understand the full nature of what was expected of her until she was already isolated and in the situation, a pattern consistent with grooming and coercion rather than informed consent.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Part 08 (Redacted).pdf

The Kirkland & Ellis response treats the May 19, 2008 letter from the Southern District of Florida's First Assistant U.S. Attorney not as a good-faith summary, but as a document that actively distorts the historical record of the Epstein investigation. The firm argues that the letter is riddled with contradictions, misleading framing, and outright falsehoods that cannot be chalked up to sloppy drafting or innocent error. Rather than accurately recounting investigative decisions, the letter is portrayed as a post-hoc justification designed to sanitize prosecutorial conduct after the fact. Kirkland & Ellis makes clear that the document attempts to reshape reality—presenting disputed actions as settled facts and glossing over decisions that directly benefited Epstein.Critically, the response emphasizes that the letter's defects are not marginal or technical, but foundational, calling into question the integrity of the government's entire narrative. By systematically comparing the letter's assertions with what actually occurred, Kirkland & Ellis suggests that the misrepresentations were deliberate and strategic, intended to create a paper trail that could withstand scrutiny rather than reflect truth. The firm characterizes the letter as emblematic of how the Epstein case was managed from start to finish: facts were selectively presented, inconvenient details were omitted or reframed, and the official record was bent to support an outcome already decided. In this view, the May 19 letter is not merely inaccurate—it is itself evidence of how the Epstein investigation was manipulated and why accountability was avoided.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00013801.pdf

Don and Steve are back with another round of Business & Bullsh*t, where real entrepreneurs break down wins, screwups, and what actually moves the needle, without the corporate fluff.It starts with a simple question. What is the most you would ever pay for a cup of coffee?That question gets real when a café in Dubai offers a $980 cup made from rare Nido 7 Geisha beans, with only 400 cups available worldwide. Absurd, or brilliant?From there, the conversation opens up into a deeper look at business reinvention, brand fatigue, and the real cost of change. Don and Steve unpack Panera's return to its “apex,” focusing on value, menu refreshes, and the decision to prioritize food over flashy tech. That leads into a broader discussion about innovation versus human connection, and what brands risk losing when they chase trends instead of trust. Don also shares firsthand challenges from the ongoing Clean Eatz rebrand.The episode wraps with sharp takes on skyrocketing Super Bowl ad costs, shifting brand loyalty among Gen Z, pop culture detours, bourbon mashups, and a fast-paced round of the Founderz Fast Five.Timestamps:[00:00] Trailer[01:03] Founderz Round Up: Panera[05:40] Super Bowl Commercials[08:17] Pop Culture: Nicki Minaj[10:05] Jeffrey Epstein[11:29] Social Media Update[11:56] Lululemon Stock[15:06] Strange News[17:07] Weekly Mashup[20:41] Hot Takes: Modern Heritage[26:18] Founderz Fast FiveKey Takeaways:  • Gen Z is cutting spending by 13% this year. Four out of five wait for sales. Brand loyalty is dead. 81% switched brands last year, not for something better, but because loyalty itself feels like they're getting played. ~Don Varady [12:26]• Rebranding a brand is very difficult, especially in the food space and even more so in a franchise system. ~Don Varady [24:52]Connect with Don and Steve…Don Varady:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/don.varady/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/donvarady/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/don-varady-450896145 Steve Bon:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenbon Instagram: https://instagram.com/stevebon8 Tune in to every episode on your favorite platform: Website: https://www.thefounderzlounge.com/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheFounderzLounge Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0Nurr4XjBE747qJ9Zjth0G Apple Music: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-founderz-lounge/id1461825349 The Founderz Lounge is Powered By:Clean Eatz:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CleanEatzLife/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cleaneatzlife/ Website: https://cleaneatz.com/Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJRGrE-Xv4IMW_DbxSOTGGA Bon's Eye Marketing:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bonseyemarketing Instagram: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bon's-eye-marketing/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bon's-eye-marketing/ Website: https://bonseyeonline.com/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@bonseyemarketing9477  

From Project Genesis of the White House, which held a special meeting with 33 technology heads in late 2025, to the Quantum Genesys music event in Egypt and Henry Kissinger's book titled “Genesis”; and from the Big Beautiful Bill's AI moratorium to Samsung's 6G Project and a recent White House report on “Winning the 6G Race,” the sudden explosion of an AI arms race has largely been obscured by the very people who once attempted to expose its dangers. Elon Musk and his desire to have a legion of children is suddenly acceptable because he crossed the political dividing line. Now if the richest man in the world wants to run the same breeding program Jeffrey Epstein was working on, or take away employment and money in exchange for automation and UBI, he is cheered a hero of team-humanity. Perhaps Musk wants you to have more children for the data, or perhaps the goal is to replace older generations with a new, and final, human generation that will be subservient to the technocratic monarchy of Curtis Yarvin, JD Vance, and Peter Thiel. Interestingly, Yarvin said the Trump administration had failed in its goals after the invasion of Venezuela, mostly was the president wasn't authoritarian enough; he fell into the trappings of checks and balances and allowed Democrats to remain in power. This is precisely the same argument Alex Jones made to “dismantle the deepstate.” Under the guise of defeating Democrats, the entire system must be collapsed so that it can be replaced by technocracy while people's minds are hijacked by Musk's brain implants. The goal seems to be a rebranding of the ultimate conspiracy, including the media, great resetting of society, secret societies, etc., and the production of a new man in the Omega generation. From Alpha to Omega, Revelation to Genesis. It's therefore no coincidence that the biggest names in genetics, including 23 and me and ancestry.com, are so connected to the church of Latter-day Saints, synagogues, and the Catholic Church along with companies like Google and Blackstone. The eschatological component of the new world and new man are as religious as they are anti-human, spiritual as they are dark occult. Andrew Clinton from 6G Agenda stops by for a chat.*The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, you can subscribe below underneath the show description.WEBSITEFREE ARCHIVE (w. ads)SUBSCRIPTION ARCHIVE-X / TWITTERFACEBOOKINSTAGRAMYOUTUBERUMBLE-BUY ME A COFFEECashApp: $rdgable PAYPAL: rdgable1991@gmail.comRyan's Books: https://thesecretteachings.info - EMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / rdgable1991@gmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise was not a local scandal that accidentally spiraled out of control—it was global by design. His operations spanned multiple countries, exploiting jurisdictional gaps, diplomatic sensitivities, and uneven enforcement to shield his activities from sustained scrutiny. From the United States to the Caribbean and across Europe, Epstein moved people, money, and influence with ease, using private aircraft, offshore accounts, shell foundations, and an international network of fixers, recruiters, and enablers. This global footprint was not incidental; it was a feature that allowed Epstein to fragment investigations, confuse authorities, and maintain plausible deniability while continuing to operate. The consistency of victim accounts across borders underscores that this was a coordinated, repeatable system rather than isolated misconduct.Within that broader ecosystem of influence, Epstein also positioned himself as a financial patron to powerful institutions and figures, including providing early financial support—often described as seed money or foundational backing—to initiatives connected to the Clinton orbit, most notably the Clinton Foundation. This financial involvement helped Epstein embed himself within elite political and philanthropic circles, granting him legitimacy and access that far exceeded his public business profile. By aligning himself with globally recognized institutions and leaders, Epstein effectively laundered his reputation while expanding his reach. Critics argue that this strategic philanthropy functioned less as altruism and more as a protective layer—one that blurred lines, discouraged scrutiny, and reinforced the perception that Epstein was untouchable. In the context of his worldwide operations, these financial relationships are viewed not as footnotes, but as integral components of how his empire sustained itself for so long.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sarah Kellen Vickers avoided indictment largely because of how the Epstein case was resolved at the federal level, not because of an absence of evidence placing her at the center of his operation. As Epstein's longtime assistant, she was repeatedly identified by survivors and referenced in investigative records as a key facilitator—handling scheduling, coordinating travel, managing access to Epstein, and overseeing day-to-day logistics that enabled the abuse. Under ordinary circumstances, that level of operational involvement would have triggered serious prosecutorial scrutiny. Instead, the 2007–2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement short-circuited that process by granting sweeping immunity not just to Epstein, but to unnamed “co-conspirators,” effectively insulating Kellen from federal charges before her role could ever be tested in court.That immunity created a permanent legal shield that prosecutors later relied on to justify inaction, even as more evidence surfaced. While lower-level employees like Juan Alessi faced state charges, figures closer to Epstein's core—Kellen included—were never indicted, questioned publicly under oath in a criminal proceeding, or forced to account for their conduct. The result is a stark example of how prosecutorial decisions, not evidentiary gaps, determined who faced consequences. Sarah Kellen's continued freedom has become one of the clearest symbols of how the Epstein deal didn't merely resolve a case, but erased entire avenues of accountability for those who helped keep the operation running.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell maintained a significant and unusually close relationship with JPMorgan Chase, largely through her direct connection to Jes Staley, one of the bank's most powerful executives at the time. Court filings and internal bank records show that Maxwell was not treated as a marginal or incidental figure, but as someone with meaningful access to JPMorgan's senior leadership. Her association with Staley—who had a long-standing personal and professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein—placed her within JPMorgan's orbit during the years Epstein remained a high-value client, despite his prior criminal exposure.That relationship mattered because it helped normalize Maxwell's presence within elite financial circles and insulated Epstein's network from scrutiny. Evidence revealed in Epstein-related litigation shows that Maxwell communicated directly with Staley on multiple occasions and was viewed by JPMorgan insiders as part of Epstein's inner circle, not an outsider. As JPMorgan continued to service Epstein's accounts, Maxwell's ties to Staley reinforced the perception that Epstein remained institutionally protected and trusted at the highest levels of the bank. The connection underscores how Epstein's operation was intertwined with powerful financial relationships—and how those relationships helped sustain access, credibility, and protection long after red flags were impossible to ignore.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's infamous Palm Beach mansion—where many of his alleged crimes took place—was ultimately sold off and demolished after years of controversy and legal battles tied to his estate. After Epstein's death, real estate developer Todd Michael Glaser bought the property, razed the existing house, and put the empty waterfront lot back on the market. That parcel, with about 170 feet of Intracoastal Waterway frontage, was then purchased by venture capitalist David Skok, a partner at Matrix Partners, for nearly $26 million—significantly more than what the developer paid. Skok acquired the land after the original structure was removed, turning a place associated with trauma and public outrage into a blank slate.While specific public plans for the property under its new owner haven't been fully detailed, the change in ownership and demolition itself signal a deliberate shift in vision: to erase the physical remnants of a site tied to abuse and transform the parcel into something entirely new. Initially, Glaser had hoped to build a large modern estate, but architectural board pushback led him to sell the lot instead. With Skok now in control, the focus appears to be on redevelopment rather than preservation of the notorious structure, marking a controversial but clear departure from the mansion's dark past.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sarah Kellen Vickers was one of Jeffrey Epstein's closest and most trusted associates, occupying a central operational role in his sex-trafficking enterprise. Formerly known as Sarah Kellen, she worked as Epstein's assistant and was responsible for managing his schedule, coordinating travel, and overseeing activities inside his residences, particularly in Florida and New York. Multiple survivors identified her as a gatekeeper figure who facilitated access to Epstein, handled logistics involving underage girls, and helped maintain the day-to-day structure of his operation. Her proximity to Epstein placed her at the nerve center of his activities rather than on the periphery.Despite being repeatedly named in victim statements, law-enforcement records, and court filings, Sarah Kellen Vickers was never federally charged. That outcome was largely the result of the 2007–2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement, which extended immunity not only to Epstein but also to his potential co-conspirators. While lower-level staff like Juan Alessi faced criminal consequences, Kellen Vickers avoided indictment, trial, or public accountability, later marrying and largely disappearing from public view. Her case has become emblematic of how the Epstein deal insulated key facilitators and foreclosed lines of prosecution that could have exposed the full scope of the trafficking network.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Elon Musk keeps finding new ways to cut waste out of the federal government. An American hostage returns home, and President Trump is there to greet him. Senate delays confirmation vote on Tulsi Gabbard. Trump meets with the king of Jordan and reiterates the claim that he wants the U.S. to run the show in Gaza. Warning! An asteroid is headed our way. Popular medication causing blindness? Fort Bragg is back!! Super Bowl ratings are in! Introducing the "retirement mine." "Which side are you on … which side are you on???" The Jeffrey Epstein files to be released within the next 10 days? How do politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) get so wealthy? Sorry, Uganda! You're cut off! DOJ drops charges against Mayor Eric Adams. The hypocrisy of the pope on immigration is stunning. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What happens when a system designed to uncover truth suddenly shuts its own lights off? In this gripping dual-segment episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski and former FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke dig deep into the psychology of institutional protection — and the escalating political pressure surrounding the Epstein network. In the first half, Robin Dreeke breaks down how organizations drift from accountability into silence. Drawing from decades in counterintelligence, he explains how fear, ambition, and self-preservation turn institutions into shields for the powerful. Using the DOJ's shutdown of the Epstein co-conspirator probe as a case study — based on concerns raised by Rep. Jamie Raskin in his congressional letter — Robin unpacks how “strategic ignorance,” internal pressure, and denial can override the pursuit of truth. This is not about partisanship; it's about psychology, and what happens when mission gives way to reputation. Then the story widens. In an unprecedented development, the U.S. House Oversight Committee has formally requested testimony from Prince Andrew regarding his historical association with Jeffrey Epstein. This request, signed by sixteen members of Congress, cites flight logs, financial entries, and survivor allegations — all of which Andrew has consistently denied. Tony breaks down what the congressional letter asks, why lawmakers say new information has emerged, and what cooperation or refusal could mean for Andrew and the monarchy's already fragile public standing. We analyze the survivor accounts, the alleged documents now in congressional hands, and how political bodies pursue answers when other institutions stand still. No conclusions — just the claims, the context, and the psychology behind why powerful systems protect themselves. If you've ever wondered why accountability stops at certain doorways, this episode lays bare the patterns. #HiddenKillers #EpsteinCase #InstitutionalPsychology #RobinDreeke #TonyBrueski #PrinceAndrew #CongressionalInquiry #DOJ #FBI #TrueCrimePodcast Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

What happens when a system designed to uncover truth suddenly shuts its own lights off? In this gripping dual-segment episode of Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski and former FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke dig deep into the psychology of institutional protection — and the escalating political pressure surrounding the Epstein network. In the first half, Robin Dreeke breaks down how organizations drift from accountability into silence. Drawing from decades in counterintelligence, he explains how fear, ambition, and self-preservation turn institutions into shields for the powerful. Using the DOJ's shutdown of the Epstein co-conspirator probe as a case study — based on concerns raised by Rep. Jamie Raskin in his congressional letter — Robin unpacks how “strategic ignorance,” internal pressure, and denial can override the pursuit of truth. This is not about partisanship; it's about psychology, and what happens when mission gives way to reputation. Then the story widens. In an unprecedented development, the U.S. House Oversight Committee has formally requested testimony from Prince Andrew regarding his historical association with Jeffrey Epstein. This request, signed by sixteen members of Congress, cites flight logs, financial entries, and survivor allegations — all of which Andrew has consistently denied. Tony breaks down what the congressional letter asks, why lawmakers say new information has emerged, and what cooperation or refusal could mean for Andrew and the monarchy's already fragile public standing. We analyze the survivor accounts, the alleged documents now in congressional hands, and how political bodies pursue answers when other institutions stand still. No conclusions — just the claims, the context, and the psychology behind why powerful systems protect themselves. If you've ever wondered why accountability stops at certain doorways, this episode lays bare the patterns. #HiddenKillers #EpsteinCase #InstitutionalPsychology #RobinDreeke #TonyBrueski #PrinceAndrew #CongressionalInquiry #DOJ #FBI #TrueCrimePodcast Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

During the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, testimony from a woman identified as “Carolyn” focused on the mechanics of recruitment and grooming that brought young girls into Jeffrey Epstein's orbit. Carolyn described how she was first approached as a teenager under the guise of legitimate work and easy money, only to find herself drawn into a world where sexualized behavior was quickly normalized. She testified that what began as vague or misleading promises escalated into explicit expectations, with little room to refuse once she was inside Epstein's environment. Her account highlighted how confusion, financial pressure, and authority dynamics were used to keep young girls compliant and silent.Carolyn's testimony also placed Ghislaine Maxwell within that environment, describing Maxwell as a visible and authoritative presence in Epstein's life and homes. She testified that Maxwell exercised control, gave instructions to staff, and appeared fully aware of the girls coming and going. According to Carolyn, Maxwell's behavior conveyed ownership and supervision over the household, undermining claims that she was detached from or unaware of Epstein's activities. By situating Maxwell inside the daily operations of Epstein's residences, Carolyn's account contributed to the broader narrative that Maxwell knowingly participated in maintaining the structure that enabled Epstein's abuse.After testifying, Carolyn gave an interview in which she emphasized that taking the stand was about setting the record straight rather than seeking attention or vindication. She described the experience as emotionally draining but necessary, explaining that she felt a responsibility to speak honestly about what she witnessed inside Jeffrey Epstein's household and the environment that staff were expected to accept as normal. Carolyn reiterated that the routine presence of young girls was never subtle and that staff were implicitly discouraged from questioning what was happening. She also made clear that, in her view, Ghislaine Maxwell was not a peripheral figure but someone who exerted authority and awareness within that world. In reflecting on her testimony, Carolyn framed it as a way to counter years of minimization and denial, underscoring that the abuse Epstein carried out was enabled by a system that many people saw—and chose not to stop.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In this latest edition of The Epstein Files Unsealed we get a look at the sworn statement and recorded interviews of a teenage girl who became entangled in Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation after being recruited by another minor, identified in the records as “Haley.” The girl initially described being told she was simply going along to collect money and go shopping, with no clear explanation of what would occur. She recounted being taken to Epstein's Palm Beach home, passing through security, and being left alone upstairs with Epstein after Haley remained downstairs. Under pressure and confusion, she was instructed to undress and give Epstein a massage, during which he masturbated and made sexually explicit comments. She was then paid $300 and sent away, with Epstein acting casually afterward and encouraging her to return. The girl's testimony shows she did not understand the full nature of what was expected of her until she was already isolated and in the situation, a pattern consistent with grooming and coercion rather than informed consent.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Part 08 (Redacted).pdf

In his October 2009 deposition, taken during the Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley Edwards defamation lawsuit, longtime Epstein pilot Larry Visoski described his decades of employment under Epstein and the routine nature of his work. Questioned by victims' attorney Bradley Edwards, Visoski confirmed that he had flown Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and numerous guests—some of them prominent figures—across Epstein's properties in New York, Florida, New Mexico, and the Virgin Islands. Represented by Critton & Reinhardt, Visoski repeatedly emphasized that his duties were strictly professional: piloting aircraft, maintaining schedules, and ensuring safe transport. When pressed about the ages of female passengers, he claimed he never knowingly flew minors and denied witnessing any sexual activity or misconduct aboard Epstein's planes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In his October 2009 deposition, taken during the Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley Edwards defamation lawsuit, longtime Epstein pilot Larry Visoski described his decades of employment under Epstein and the routine nature of his work. Questioned by victims' attorney Bradley Edwards, Visoski confirmed that he had flown Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and numerous guests—some of them prominent figures—across Epstein's properties in New York, Florida, New Mexico, and the Virgin Islands. Represented by Critton & Reinhardt, Visoski repeatedly emphasized that his duties were strictly professional: piloting aircraft, maintaining schedules, and ensuring safe transport. When pressed about the ages of female passengers, he claimed he never knowingly flew minors and denied witnessing any sexual activity or misconduct aboard Epstein's planes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In his October 2009 deposition, taken during the Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley Edwards defamation lawsuit, longtime Epstein pilot Larry Visoski described his decades of employment under Epstein and the routine nature of his work. Questioned by victims' attorney Bradley Edwards, Visoski confirmed that he had flown Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and numerous guests—some of them prominent figures—across Epstein's properties in New York, Florida, New Mexico, and the Virgin Islands. Represented by Critton & Reinhardt, Visoski repeatedly emphasized that his duties were strictly professional: piloting aircraft, maintaining schedules, and ensuring safe transport. When pressed about the ages of female passengers, he claimed he never knowingly flew minors and denied witnessing any sexual activity or misconduct aboard Epstein's planes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In his October 2009 deposition, taken during the Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley Edwards defamation lawsuit, longtime Epstein pilot Larry Visoski described his decades of employment under Epstein and the routine nature of his work. Questioned by victims' attorney Bradley Edwards, Visoski confirmed that he had flown Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and numerous guests—some of them prominent figures—across Epstein's properties in New York, Florida, New Mexico, and the Virgin Islands. Represented by Critton & Reinhardt, Visoski repeatedly emphasized that his duties were strictly professional: piloting aircraft, maintaining schedules, and ensuring safe transport. When pressed about the ages of female passengers, he claimed he never knowingly flew minors and denied witnessing any sexual activity or misconduct aboard Epstein's planes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In this latest edition of The Epstein Files Unsealed we get a look at the sworn statement and recorded interviews of a teenage girl who became entangled in Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation after being recruited by another minor, identified in the records as “Haley.” The girl initially described being told she was simply going along to collect money and go shopping, with no clear explanation of what would occur. She recounted being taken to Epstein's Palm Beach home, passing through security, and being left alone upstairs with Epstein after Haley remained downstairs. Under pressure and confusion, she was instructed to undress and give Epstein a massage, during which he masturbated and made sexually explicit comments. She was then paid $300 and sent away, with Epstein acting casually afterward and encouraging her to return. The girl's testimony shows she did not understand the full nature of what was expected of her until she was already isolated and in the situation, a pattern consistent with grooming and coercion rather than informed consent.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Part 08 (Redacted).pdf

In this latest edition of The Epstein Files Unsealed we get a look at the sworn statement and recorded interviews of a teenage girl who became entangled in Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation after being recruited by another minor, identified in the records as “Haley.” The girl initially described being told she was simply going along to collect money and go shopping, with no clear explanation of what would occur. She recounted being taken to Epstein's Palm Beach home, passing through security, and being left alone upstairs with Epstein after Haley remained downstairs. Under pressure and confusion, she was instructed to undress and give Epstein a massage, during which he masturbated and made sexually explicit comments. She was then paid $300 and sent away, with Epstein acting casually afterward and encouraging her to return. The girl's testimony shows she did not understand the full nature of what was expected of her until she was already isolated and in the situation, a pattern consistent with grooming and coercion rather than informed consent.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Part 08 (Redacted).pdf

The Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement functioned as a sweeping shield not just for Jeffrey Epstein, but for his named and unnamed co-conspirators—and that protection proved decisive for Sarah Kellen Vickers. The language of the agreement was unusually broad, extending immunity beyond Epstein himself to any potential co-conspirators identified during the investigation, even if they were never formally charged. As one of Epstein's closest associates and a central figure in managing his residences, scheduling girls, and facilitating travel, Kellen Vickers was squarely within the category of individuals who would have faced serious prosecutorial exposure absent that deal. Once the NPA was executed, federal prosecutors effectively tied their own hands, foreclosing the possibility of bringing charges against her in the Southern District of Florida.In practical terms, the agreement froze accountability in place at the top, ensuring that Epstein alone absorbed criminal liability while those beneath him were insulated from scrutiny. Despite years of survivor testimony and documentary evidence placing Sarah Kellen Vickers at the operational heart of Epstein's trafficking enterprise, the NPA became an impenetrable legal wall that prosecutors repeatedly cited as justification for inaction. The result was that Kellen Vickers avoided indictment, trial, and public accountability—not because evidence was lacking, but because the deal was deliberately constructed to bury co-conspirator liability. It stands as one of the clearest examples of how the Epstein NPA didn't merely resolve a case, but actively erased entire lines of prosecution that should have followed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice's release of the Ghislaine Maxwell transcripts is nothing but theater—a sham staged to protect the powerful and slam the door shut on the Epstein saga. Maxwell, a convicted trafficker, was granted immunity and a microphone to mock survivors, erase the notion of a client list, and cast doubt on Epstein's death, all while the DOJ used her denials as a shield. The scandal isn't that these transcripts were released—it's that the interview happened at all, that the government legitimized a predator's voice and tried to use it as “closure” for the most explosive trafficking scandal of our time.But this isn't closure—it's desperation. They want the public exhausted, numb, and willing to accept Maxwell's lies as the final word. Yet those who've been in the trenches since the beginning know better. This doesn't end because she says it ends. Every denial and every carefully managed release only proves the cover-up is alive, the names are still hidden, and the truth is still too dangerous to reveal. The DOJ can trot out Maxwell as their mouthpiece, but it won't work—this fight isn't over, and when the reckoning comes, it won't be Maxwell or the elites doing the laughing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Throughout its Epstein-related lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, the U.S. Virgin Islands adopted an openly aggressive litigation posture, repeatedly hammering the bank through a series of sharply worded motions. The USVI accused JPMorgan of enabling and profiting from Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation by ignoring obvious red flags, failing basic anti-money-laundering controls, and continuing to provide banking services long after Epstein's criminal conduct was widely known. Motion after motion, the territory framed JPMorgan not as a passive bystander, but as a sophisticated financial institution that chose profit and client retention over compliance, survivor safety, and the law.In this episode, we revisit those filings to show that the USVI was not merely posturing—it was methodically building a narrative of institutional failure and moral bankruptcy. By dissecting the government's repeated attacks, we examine how the territory used discovery disputes, sanctions motions, and oppositions to expose what it described as JPMorgan's internal awareness of Epstein's activities and its efforts to minimize fallout rather than stop the abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome 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.

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.

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.

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.

In this latest edition of The Epstein Files Unsealed we get a look at the sworn statement and recorded interviews of a teenage girl who became entangled in Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking operation after being recruited by another minor, identified in the records as “Haley.” The girl initially described being told she was simply going along to collect money and go shopping, with no clear explanation of what would occur. She recounted being taken to Epstein's Palm Beach home, passing through security, and being left alone upstairs with Epstein after Haley remained downstairs. Under pressure and confusion, she was instructed to undress and give Epstein a massage, during which he masturbated and made sexually explicit comments. She was then paid $300 and sent away, with Epstein acting casually afterward and encouraging her to return. The girl's testimony shows she did not understand the full nature of what was expected of her until she was already isolated and in the situation, a pattern consistent with grooming and coercion rather than informed consent.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Part 08 (Redacted).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Kirkland & Ellis response treats the May 19, 2008 letter from the Southern District of Florida's First Assistant U.S. Attorney not as a good-faith summary, but as a document that actively distorts the historical record of the Epstein investigation. The firm argues that the letter is riddled with contradictions, misleading framing, and outright falsehoods that cannot be chalked up to sloppy drafting or innocent error. Rather than accurately recounting investigative decisions, the letter is portrayed as a post-hoc justification designed to sanitize prosecutorial conduct after the fact. Kirkland & Ellis makes clear that the document attempts to reshape reality—presenting disputed actions as settled facts and glossing over decisions that directly benefited Epstein.Critically, the response emphasizes that the letter's defects are not marginal or technical, but foundational, calling into question the integrity of the government's entire narrative. By systematically comparing the letter's assertions with what actually occurred, Kirkland & Ellis suggests that the misrepresentations were deliberate and strategic, intended to create a paper trail that could withstand scrutiny rather than reflect truth. The firm characterizes the letter as emblematic of how the Epstein case was managed from start to finish: facts were selectively presented, inconvenient details were omitted or reframed, and the official record was bent to support an outcome already decided. In this view, the May 19 letter is not merely inaccurate—it is itself evidence of how the Epstein investigation was manipulated and why accountability was avoided.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00013801.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Kirkland & Ellis response treats the May 19, 2008 letter from the Southern District of Florida's First Assistant U.S. Attorney not as a good-faith summary, but as a document that actively distorts the historical record of the Epstein investigation. The firm argues that the letter is riddled with contradictions, misleading framing, and outright falsehoods that cannot be chalked up to sloppy drafting or innocent error. Rather than accurately recounting investigative decisions, the letter is portrayed as a post-hoc justification designed to sanitize prosecutorial conduct after the fact. Kirkland & Ellis makes clear that the document attempts to reshape reality—presenting disputed actions as settled facts and glossing over decisions that directly benefited Epstein.Critically, the response emphasizes that the letter's defects are not marginal or technical, but foundational, calling into question the integrity of the government's entire narrative. By systematically comparing the letter's assertions with what actually occurred, Kirkland & Ellis suggests that the misrepresentations were deliberate and strategic, intended to create a paper trail that could withstand scrutiny rather than reflect truth. The firm characterizes the letter as emblematic of how the Epstein case was managed from start to finish: facts were selectively presented, inconvenient details were omitted or reframed, and the official record was bent to support an outcome already decided. In this view, the May 19 letter is not merely inaccurate—it is itself evidence of how the Epstein investigation was manipulated and why accountability was avoided.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00013801.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

For years, the Department of Justice moved at a glacial pace despite mounting evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was running an organized sex-trafficking operation involving underage girls. Local law enforcement in Palm Beach began flagging serious allegations as early as 2005, supported by victim statements, corroborating witnesses, and sworn accounts from Epstein's own staff. Yet instead of escalating the matter into a robust federal prosecution, DOJ leadership allowed the case to languish, cycling through internal reviews, jurisdictional hedging, and prolonged “consideration” while Epstein remained free to continue abusing victims. The delay was not due to a lack of evidence, but a lack of urgency—an institutional hesitation that treated Epstein as a problem to be managed rather than a predator to be stopped.When the DOJ finally did engage in earnest, it did so in the narrowest and most deferential way possible, culminating in a non-prosecution agreement that short-circuited accountability rather than delivering it. Federal charges that could have dismantled Epstein's network were shelved, co-conspirators were quietly shielded, and victims were kept in the dark in violation of their rights. The drawn-out timeline reveals a pattern of foot-dragging that benefitted only Epstein and those around him: delays created leverage for his lawyers, softened prosecutorial resolve, and ultimately allowed the DOJ to claim resolution without reckoning. In hindsight, the slow walk toward charges wasn't a bureaucratic accident—it was a decisive factor in one of the most consequential failures of federal justice in modern memory.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome 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.

Tonight on The Last Word: Polls show voters are furious at the start of the midterm year. Also, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani promises to govern “audaciously.” Plus, Iran protests are growing amid a deepening economic crisis. And lawmakers threaten Attorney General Pam Bondi with contempt over incomplete Epstein files. Timothy Snyder, Robert Reich, Bobby Ghosh, Rep. Adam Smith, and Lisa Rubin join Ali Velshi. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Steve, David, Hannah, Jimmy, Matthew. and Francesco give Ralph a well-deserved break and highlight some of the clips they want to revisit from another challenging, inspiring, fascinating, infuriating, and galvanizing year. Featuring interviews with Chris Hedges, Jon Merryman, Mike German, and more.Featured ClipsDouglas Brinkley — The Legacy of Jimmy Carter (January 11, 2025)Chris Hedges — A Genocide Foretold/ World BEYOND War (March 29, 2025)Peter Beinart — Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza (March 15, 2025)John Bonifaz — Impeach Trump!... Again (August 30, 2025)Mike German — Policing White Supremacy (March 8, 2025)Stephen Witt — The AI Prompt That Could End the World (November 8, 2025)Jon Merryman — Trading Life For Death (July 12, 2025)News 1/2/26* Our top story this week is of course the news that the CIA has conducted a drone strike inside the sovereign borders of Venezuela. CNN reports U.S. Special Operations Forces provided intelligence support for this strike, though spec-ops leadership denies this claim. Unsurprisingly, the CIA itself declined to comment. Earlier this month, self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth compared Venezuelan “narcoterrorists,” to Al-Qaeda, indicating that the U.S. plans to use the same counterterrorism playbook that they deployed in the Middle East in Latin America. This, of course, begs the question of whether the United States is willing to reckon with creating a miniature Iraq or Afghanistan so close to home.* Giving the game away, Mike Pompeo – who served as Trump's Secretary of State from 2018 to 2021, told Fox News that the U.S. “can help rebuild…their oil sector,” and that, following a successful ouster of President Nicolás Maduro, American energy companies like Halliburton and Chevron would be able to “go down to Venezuela, [and] build out an economic capitalist model.” This from CBS Austin. President Trump has certainly not been subtle about his designs on Venezuela's oil, but this naked salivation over handing the country's fossil fuel deposits over to Halliburton is another eerie re-rerun of Iraq.* In more news from Latin America, ABC reports workers in Bolivia have declared a general strike to protest the new neoliberal government's announcement that they would scrap longstanding fuel subsidies in the impoverished nation. The fuel subsidies were first introduced under the Leftist government of Evo Morales nearly twenty years ago and have been maintained ever since; President Rodrigo Paz, who took office in November, marks the first non-leftist government elected in the country since 2006. The strike was called by Bolivia's powerful Central Union of Workers, but so far has largely been led by miners with other sectors, such as transportation workers, appearing more hesitant. When united, organized labor in Bolivia has delivered stunning victories in the past, but it remains to be seen how this strike will unfold.* In more foreign policy news, Israel has become the first country to formally recognize the East African breakaway state of Somaliland. Many question why Israel is making this decision at all and particularly why they are doing so at this moment; speculation abounds about a potential quid pro quo, with Israel extending recognition in exchange for Somaliland agreeing to accept Palestinians pushed out of Gaza. Somalia is currently a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. In a statement with other non-permanent council members Algeria, Guyana and Sierra Leone, Somalia's UN Ambassador Abukar Dahir Osman said Somalia, “unequivocally reject any steps aimed at advancing this objective, including any attempt by Israel to relocate the Palestinian population from Gaza to the northwestern region of Somalia.” This from Reuters.* In more Israel-Palestine news, American Jewish activist Cameron Kasky – a survivor of the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school shooting currently running in the primary to succeed Rep. Jerrold Nadler in New York's 12th congressional district – took the unprecedented step of visiting Palestine over the holidays to see the “reality on the ground.” He spent Christmas at a “peace march in Bethlehem calling for an end to the genocide in Gaza,” and issued a statement on the need to “end the settlements that violate international law and stop encouraging New Yorkers to move there,” in a social media post that garnered nearly 2 million views. Kasky is seeking to consolidate progressive support in this crowded primary, which pits him against Kennedy scion Jack Schlossberg, among many others.* Turning to domestic news, lawmakers in the House and Senate are considering their options to force Attorney General Pam Bondi to release the totality of the documents related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Among these are two tools often cited by Ralph Nader and Bruce Fein but rarely invoked by Congress: inherent contempt and impeachment. Per NBC, Representative Thomas Massie said “The quickest way, and…most expeditious way, to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi,” with Congressman Ro Khanna adding that the lawmakers are “building a bipartisan coalition, and it would fine Pam Bondi for every day that she's not releasing these documents.” Meanwhile, Newsweek reports Massie polled his followers and over 35,000 responded that Bondi should be impeached. However, no articles of impeachment against Bondi have yet been filed. It remains to be seen whether Congress will actually use the immense power vested in the body by the Constitution, or if these efforts will be stymied by the obsequious leadership of the Republican caucus.* Speaking of political party cowardice, this week the DNC announced that they would block the release of their own “autopsy” of what went wrong in the disastrous 2024 presidential election campaign. Writing in the Guardian, friend of the show Norman Solomon – director of RootsAction, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy – excoriated the party leadership for dodging hard questions such as “how much money went to insider consultants and advertising contractors as the Harris campaign managed to spend $1.5bn during the hallowed 107 days of her presidential campaign last year,” and the wisdom of “Harris continuing to toe the Biden line for huge arms shipments to Israel while its military continued to slaughter Palestinian civilians in Gaza.” More bluntly, an anonymous DNC member quoted in this piece said the decision to block the autopsy is, “about protecting people who fucked up.” RootsAction has released their own autopsy, which pulls no punches.* Our next two stories have to do with online gambling. First, in an address to mayors from across Italy this week, Pope Leo XIV denounced the “scourge of gambling,” which has “ruined many families,” and characterized the issue as a form of “loneliness.” He warned of a litany of other forms of loneliness as well, including “mental disorders, depression, cultural and spiritual poverty, and social abandonment,” according to the Catholic News Agency. Pope Leo cited a report from Caritas showing a surge in gambling across Italy, though this phenomenon is by no means constrained to the country. In the U.S., study after study shows Americans engaging in gambling at unprecedented levels. For example, a 2025 National Institutes of Health study showed 61.3% of adults in North America reported gambling within the past 12 months.* Meanwhile, USA Today reports Drake has been hit with a RICO lawsuit for “promoting an illegal online casino while using proceeds from the site to artificially inflate streams of his music.” This lawsuit, which also names streamers Adin Ross and George Nguyen, centers around Stake.us, which, the suit alleges “was created to bypass restrictions after Stake.com was banned from operating everywhere in the U.S.” As this piece explains, Stake claims that it does not allow gambling with real money in order to evade regulations, but in fact uses stand-ins like “Stake Cash” which can be exchanged for real currency. Drake and Ross were “paid to promote the platform by participating in livestreamed gambling with cash ‘surreptitiously' provided by Stake.” In turn, Drake is accused of using the illicit funds to “[deploy] automated bots and streaming farms to artificially inflate play counts of his music across major platforms, such as Spotify,” as part of his feud with fellow rapper Kendrick Lamar. If nothing else, this story shows how ubiquitous online gambling has become, infecting all facets and all levels of popular culture.* Finally, for some good news, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was sworn in at midnight on New Years Eve. Mamdani took the oath of office in the decommissioned subway station underneath City Hall, in a small ceremony, followed by a large public inauguration on New Years Day. In his Executive Order 01, Mamdani officially rescinded “All Executive Orders issued on or after September 26, 2024,” otherwise known as the date of outgoing Mayor Eric Adams' indictment on charges of corruption. These now-rescinded executive orders included officially adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism, a definition which includes antizionism, and other pro-Israel actions. That said, Mamdani explicitly stated he will retain an order establishing a Mayor's Office to Combat Antisemitism. Others include an order allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to operate on Riker's Island, and a blanket ban on the city's horse carriage industry. The New York Daily News notes “Mamdani has voiced support for banning the industry, but says he first wants to engage in dialogue with the union advocating for carriage drivers.” All in all, this marks the beginning of a new chapter in the history of America's largest city. We wish the city, and the mayor, good luck.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Tonight on Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski reads — in full — the November 3, 2025 letter sent by Congressman Jamie Raskin to Attorney General Pam Bondi, demanding answers about what he calls a “gigantic cover-up” surrounding the shutdown of the Epstein co-conspirator investigation. The claims laid out in this letter are extraordinary, and they raise questions that cut to the heart of how justice works in America. According to Raskin's letter, until early 2025 the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York was still pursuing leads involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's alleged co-conspirators. Nearly fifty survivors had reportedly provided testimony naming individuals connected to the trafficking network. Raskin alleges the investigation was active, growing, and producing evidence — until it was suddenly transferred from SDNY to DOJ headquarters in Washington, D.C. Six months later, the case was closed. In his letter, Raskin asks the DOJ to explain: • Why a federal trafficking probe was halted mid-investigation • Why banks reportedly flagged over $1.5 billion in Epstein-linked transactions without follow-up • Why survivors whose testimony helped convict Ghislaine Maxwell were later assessed as “not credible” • And whether the closure protected certain individuals from scrutiny Tony Brueski reads the entire letter unedited and uninterrupted, allowing listeners to hear Raskin's concerns exactly as written. This episode does not claim the allegations are proven — it presents the congressional questions now publicly on the record. If these claims are accurate, the implications are enormous. If they're not, why were they raised at all? Tonight, you hear the letter — and decide for yourself. #JamieRaskin #EpsteinInvestigation #JeffreyEpstein #GhislaineMaxwell #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #DOJ #FBI #TrueCrimePodcast #JusticeForSurvivors Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Tonight on Hidden Killers, Tony Brueski reads — in full — the November 3, 2025 letter sent by Congressman Jamie Raskin to Attorney General Pam Bondi, demanding answers about what he calls a “gigantic cover-up” surrounding the shutdown of the Epstein co-conspirator investigation. The claims laid out in this letter are extraordinary, and they raise questions that cut to the heart of how justice works in America. According to Raskin's letter, until early 2025 the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York was still pursuing leads involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's alleged co-conspirators. Nearly fifty survivors had reportedly provided testimony naming individuals connected to the trafficking network. Raskin alleges the investigation was active, growing, and producing evidence — until it was suddenly transferred from SDNY to DOJ headquarters in Washington, D.C. Six months later, the case was closed. In his letter, Raskin asks the DOJ to explain: • Why a federal trafficking probe was halted mid-investigation • Why banks reportedly flagged over $1.5 billion in Epstein-linked transactions without follow-up • Why survivors whose testimony helped convict Ghislaine Maxwell were later assessed as “not credible” • And whether the closure protected certain individuals from scrutiny Tony Brueski reads the entire letter unedited and uninterrupted, allowing listeners to hear Raskin's concerns exactly as written. This episode does not claim the allegations are proven — it presents the congressional questions now publicly on the record. If these claims are accurate, the implications are enormous. If they're not, why were they raised at all? Tonight, you hear the letter — and decide for yourself. #JamieRaskin #EpsteinInvestigation #JeffreyEpstein #GhislaineMaxwell #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #DOJ #FBI #TrueCrimePodcast #JusticeForSurvivors Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The 2007 NPA granted Epstein immunity from federal prosecution, explicitly including “any potential co-conspirators.” However, courts have ruled that this immunity only applied within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Florida, which negotiated the deal. The Second Circuit Court held that the agreement did not bind other U.S. Attorney's Offices, such as the Southern District of New York (SDNY), where Ghislaine Maxwell was later tried—and upheld her prosecution despite the NPA's language. This is because prosecutors in different districts are not automatically constrained by deals made in Florida.Prosecutors themselves have highlighted the absurdity of a scenario where Epstein could potentially still face prosecution in another district, while his co-conspirators remain untouchable nationwide. In a Supreme Court filing, the Justice Department stressed how logically inconsistent—and legally bizarre—it would be if a defendant could be pursued in District A, but their collaborators remain immune everywhere else due to an out-of-state agreement. The broader principle endorsed by courts is that NPAs do not grant blanket immunity beyond their originating district.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/sdny-rejects-absurd-notion-that-jeffrey-epsteins-non-prosecution-agreement-still-protects-ghislaine-maxwell/

During the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, testimony from Larry Visoski, Jeffrey Epstein's longtime pilot, provided jurors with a detailed look at Epstein's extensive travel patterns and the people who routinely accompanied him. Visoski described flying Epstein on numerous domestic and international trips over many years, including to the U.S. Virgin Islands, New Mexico, and overseas destinations. He testified that young women and girls were frequently passengers on these flights, sometimes traveling without parents or clear explanations for their presence. Visoski's testimony helped establish the scale and regularity of Epstein's operations, showing that the movement of underage girls was not incidental but a repeated and normalized part of Epstein's private air travel.David Rodgers, Epstein's former property manager in the U.S. Virgin Islands, complemented Visoski's testimony by explaining how Epstein's residences functioned on the ground, particularly on Little Saint James. Rodgers described seeing young girls at the island, observing their interactions with Epstein, and understanding that their presence was sexual in nature. He testified that the girls were often brought to Epstein as part of an expected routine and that staff understood not to interfere. Together, Visoski and Rodgers provided corroborating insider accounts—one from the air and one from the ground—that reinforced the prosecution's argument that Ghislaine Maxwell was part of a broader, sustained system that enabled Epstein's abuse rather than a peripheral figure disconnected from it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the note attributed to an unnamed assistant, she says Jeffrey Epstein changed her life. Once a 22-year-old divorcee working as a hostess in a hotel restaurant, she claims Epstein introduced her to elite society and experiences far beyond what she'd ever known. She name-drops having met Prince Andrew, President Clinton, Donald Trump, Naomi Campbell, Michael Jackson, and other high‐profile figures. She writes about traveling the world with him, doing things like flying on the Concorde, taking flying lessons, scuba diving, parasailing, attending Victoria's Secret fashion shows, seeing the private quarters of Buckingham Palace, and even sitting on the Queen's throne.More than just experiences, her letter is a praise piece: she expresses admiration, gratitude, and wonder. She calls Epstein “the most extraordinary person I've ever met,” saying she can't believe how lucky she is to have become part of his life. She also mentions learning “countless skills” thanks to him. Altogether, her stories paint a picture of Epstein as someone who elevated her existence, opening doors and giving her access to opportunity, privilege, and glamour — whether or not those images now seem deeply troubling.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein's assistant names Donald Trump, Prince Andrew among leaders she met

Speculation has long circulated that Ghislaine Maxwell quietly explored the possibility of cutting a cooperation deal with federal prosecutors in the window between her conviction and her initial appeal in 2022. Observers pointed to unusual signals: sealed filings, delayed sentencing timelines, and reports of meetings between Maxwell's legal team and the Department of Justice that appeared to go beyond routine post-trial procedure. The theory held that Maxwell, facing decades in prison, may have tested whether prosecutors were interested in information about Epstein's broader network in exchange for sentencing consideration or post-conviction relief. Her defense posture during this period—careful, restrained, and notably selective in public statements—only fueled suspicions that back-channel discussions were at least contemplated.What intensified that speculation was the ultimate outcome: no cooperation agreement emerged, no sweeping revelations followed, and Maxwell proceeded with a narrow, tightly constructed appeal that conspicuously avoided challenging the broader architecture of Epstein's operation. Critics argue this suggests that if discussions occurred, they either stalled or were deliberately constrained, possibly because prosecutors were unwilling to open cases that could implicate powerful institutions or individuals beyond the scope of her trial. Others believe Maxwell may have overestimated her leverage, discovering too late that the government was only interested in a conviction that sealed the case rather than one that expanded it. In the absence of transparency, the period before her 2022 appeal has come to symbolize a missed—or intentionally closed—door to exposing the full Epstein network.to  contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com