Podcasts about Jeffrey Epstein

Craig Unger follows the Epstein money trail from Bear Stearns to offshore banking, tracing how Jeffrey Epsteinmoved funds through complex financial networks to obscure the origins and destinations of his wealth.1946 VAN JOHNSON STORK CLUB

(January 28, 2025) Amy King and Neil Saavedra join Bill for Handel on the News. President Trump signs executive order aimed at taking over Los Angeles wildfire rebuilding. Pressure mounts on Kristi Noem as Republicans join calls for her to go. Still no timeline to release Epstein files, DOJ tells court. Airlines voicing concerns over dangers of mid-air crash at Hollywood Burbank Airport, NTSB chair says. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

Prince Andrew's decision to skip his own daughter Princess Eugenie's eleventh birthday in order to remain with Jeffrey Epstein stands as one of the clearest illustrations of how distorted his priorities had already become long before the scandal exploded publicly. While his wife and daughters traveled to Disneyland for a family celebration, Andrew chose to stay behind in Florida at Epstein's mansion after days spent socializing with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. This was not a work obligation, a diplomatic emergency, or a matter of state. It was a voluntary choice to abandon a milestone in his child's life to continue the company of a man who was already known within elite circles for troubling behavior and dubious dealings. The image is stark: a prince of the realm missing his daughter's birthday because the pull of Epstein's world mattered more than family, duty, or basic judgment.What makes the episode especially damning is not just the neglect, but what it reveals about Andrew's character and values. This was not an isolated lapse, but part of a broader pattern in which Epstein's access, wealth, and social utility repeatedly took precedence over responsibility and common sense. Andrew later insisted he ended the friendship in 2000, yet this incident occurred after that supposed break, exposing the claim as fiction and reinforcing how deeply embedded he remained in Epstein's orbit. Skipping a child's birthday is small compared to the allegations that followed, but symbolically it captures the core of Andrew's downfall: entitlement over accountability, indulgence over obligation, and a willingness to trade family, reputation, and eventually his royal role itself for proximity to a predator whose protection he seemed determined to preserve.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Prince Andrew Skipped Eugenie's 11th Birthday to Party with Epstein: Report

Representative Anna Paulina Luna publicly accused Judge Paul Engelmayer of obstructing transparency in the Epstein files by denying requests for a special master and refusing to intervene in what she characterized as the Justice Department's slow-walking of disclosures, framing the ruling as evidence of judicial complicity in protecting powerful interests. Luna claimed the court's refusal to step in effectively gave the DOJ cover to continue delaying and heavily redacting materials required to be released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and she suggested that the judiciary was now part of a broader institutional effort to suppress damaging information. In public statements and on social media, she portrayed Engelmayer's order as proof that “the system protects itself,” positioning herself as one of the few lawmakers willing to confront both the courts and the Justice Department. Her rhetoric cast the ruling not as a jurisdictional decision, but as an intentional act to shield elites connected to Epstein. By personalizing the dispute around Engelmayer, Luna attempted to transform a procedural setback into a political confrontation. The tone was accusatory and absolutist, presenting the judge's refusal as moral failure rather than legal limitation.Critics of Luna argue that her attack on Engelmayer was misleading, legally simplistic, and politically opportunistic, because the judge's ruling rested on well-established jurisdictional boundaries rather than any endorsement of secrecy. Engelmayer explicitly acknowledged the importance of transparency and congressional oversight but stated that he lacked authority to enforce a civil disclosure statute within a criminal case — a limitation Luna largely ignored in favor of incendiary framing. By depicting a procedural ruling as evidence of corruption, Luna blurred the line between oversight advocacy and populist grandstanding, feeding public distrust in the judiciary without offering a realistic legal path forward. Observers note that her comments substituted accusation for substance, inflating her role as a crusader while sidestepping the reality that enforcement power rests primarily with Congress itself, not the courts. Instead of advancing a workable strategy to compel compliance, Luna's rhetoric focused on spectacle and outrage. In doing so, she risked weakening legitimate oversight efforts by turning a technical legal dispute into a personal attack on a judge whose ruling, however frustrating, reflected structural limits rather than institutional malice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Rep. Luna to Newsmax: Impeach Judge Impeding Epstein Files | Newsmax.com

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

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

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

In early September 2020, amid growing scandal and public scrutiny over his associations with Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew traveled to Balmoral Castle to hold what was described as “crisis talks” with Queen Elizabeth II. This meeting was seen as a critical moment for the royal household, as the Queen and her advisors sought to manage the fallout from mounting allegations, including accusations by Virginia Giuffre and the widely publicized BBC Newsnight interview that followed. Sources at the time characterized the trip as an urgent effort to contain reputational damage and assess Andrew's future role within the monarchy.Though details of the discussions were never made public, the visit marked the beginning of a permanent shift for Prince Andrew. In the wake of the scandal, he stepped back from public duties and relinquished many of his official roles and patronages. The Balmoral meeting highlighted the monarchy's internal crisis and underscored the delicate balancing act between familial loyalty and institutional preservation as the royal family confronted one of its most serious controversies in decadesTo contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8692215/Duke-York-visited-Queen-Balmoral-crisis-talks-Jeffrey-Epstein.html

During Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, a curious and controversial detail surfaced when testimony referenced an alleged photograph showing Maxwell appearing pregnant during the period when she was accused of actively recruiting and abusing minors. The mention was brief but striking, because it directly contradicted the image Maxwell and her defense had long cultivated of her whereabouts, activities, and physical condition during key years of Epstein's operation. The implication was not merely gossip, but a challenge to timelines and narratives Maxwell had relied on to distance herself from day-to-day involvement. If authentic, the image suggested she was present, socially active, and physically visible in Epstein's world at a time when she later claimed to be elsewhere or disengaged. The prosecution did not present the photo as definitive proof of pregnancy, but its mention underscored how much of Maxwell's personal history during those years remains obscured or contested. It raised questions about what else may have been concealed or minimized.The defense quickly downplayed the significance of the alleged image, framing it as irrelevant, speculative, or misinterpreted, and the court did not allow it to become a focal point of the case. Still, its appearance during trial highlighted the broader pattern of incomplete transparency surrounding Maxwell's life during the height of Epstein's trafficking network. Observers noted that even small inconsistencies took on outsized importance because Maxwell's credibility was already under intense scrutiny. The alleged photograph became another example of how fragments of information, when introduced under oath, chipped away at carefully constructed narratives. While the jury was instructed to focus on the charged conduct rather than personal rumors, the reference lingered as a reminder that Maxwell's public story and private reality often failed to align. In a case defined by secrecy and manipulation, even an unresolved image carried weight.to  contract me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Just days after a group of mainly American investors approved by President Donald Trump took over control of TikTok's U.S. operations, some users now say the app is censoring and limiting their content, including posts and messages about Jeffrey Epstein and the shooting deaths of U.S. citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Jacob Ward of The Rip Current. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) requiring the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release all unclassified investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein by the legal deadline of 19 December 2025, only a tiny portion has been made public, triggering frustration among victims' advocates and lawmakers. Legal experts told the Guardian that efforts to compel full disclosure have been stymied; an attempt to appoint an independent monitor (a special master) to oversee the release failed, and the DOJ has shown little willingness to comply voluntarily. Attorneys representing survivors argued that transparency is essential for healing, accountability, and justice, and urged continued legal pressure through litigation, congressional oversight, Freedom of Information Act enforcement and sustained public scrutiny to force compliance.Experts also highlighted structural weaknesses in the current law — particularly that it lacks clear enforcement mechanisms or judicial oversight — which have allowed the DOJ to delay and limit disclosures with few consequences. Congressional leaders like Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, who co-sponsored the EFTA, said they will pursue every available legal avenue to ensure the files are released, including potential lawsuits or legislative fixes. Observers warned that without stronger enforcement tools, truth and closure for Epstein's survivors may remain elusive, as the agency charged with upholding the law is perceived to be flouting it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What else can be done to force Trump's DoJ to release all the Epstein files? Legal experts weigh in | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

In 2014, Jeffrey Epstein — through his estate's representatives — submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection seeking records that would reveal whether and how he had been subject to any monitoring, surveillance, questioning, or investigation by the agency years after his 2008 guilty plea to solicitation of prostitution involving a minor. The request asked for documents that could illuminate how, why, or when Epstein was flagged as a subject of interest by border officials, a detail long obscured from public view. This unusual FOIA filing, uncovered by investigative reporter Jason Leopold, shows Epstein actively trying to understand the scope of government scrutiny against him long before the recent push to release a much broader cache of files tied to his case.The story comes amid ongoing controversy surrounding the federal government's handling of material related to Epstein's criminal conduct and alleged networks. Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed by Congress in November 2025, the Department of Justice was required to release all investigative records within 30 days, but as of early 2026 had only shared a tiny fraction of the millions of documents potentially responsive to that mandate. Epstein's FOIA request adds another layer to the public's scrutiny of what information federal agencies collected and retained about him, and how much remains hidden or heavily redacted decades after key events in the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein Filed a FOIA Request - Bloomberg

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

Just days after a group of mainly American investors approved by President Donald Trump took over control of TikTok's U.S. operations, some users now say the app is censoring and limiting their content, including posts and messages about Jeffrey Epstein and the shooting deaths of U.S. citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Jacob Ward of The Rip Current. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tonight on The Last Word: Former special counsel Jack Smith publicly defends Trump prosecutions. And Donald Trump fixates on Greenland amid cost of living and Jeffrey Epstein woes. Professor Laurence Tribe, Andrew Weissmann, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse join Lawrence O'Donnell. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

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

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

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