Podcasts about Leon Black

Leon Black, the billionaire co-founder of Leon Black and longtime face of Apollo Global Management, was effectively forced out of the firm he helped build after revelations about his extensive financial ties to Jeffrey Epstein became impossible to contain. Reporting revealed that Black paid Epstein roughly $158 million over several years for what was described as tax and estate planning advice—payments that continued even after Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor. As public scrutiny intensified, investors, limited partners, and regulators began questioning Apollo's governance, oversight, and judgment, turning Black from an asset into a reputational liability almost overnight.While Black formally characterized his departure in 2021 as a voluntary step down, the reality was far more coercive. Apollo's board commissioned an outside review that confirmed the scale of the Epstein payments, and pressure mounted from pension funds and institutional investors who made clear that Black's continued presence threatened capital commitments and the firm's standing. Faced with growing backlash and an untenable optics problem, Apollo moved to distance itself from its co-founder, stripping Black of his leadership role and accelerating a governance overhaul. In practical terms, Black wasn't gently ushered aside—he was pushed out to protect the firm, marking one of the clearest examples of how the Epstein fallout claimed a major Wall Street power player long before any courtroom accountability arrived.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

When the Jeffrey Epstein story exploded back into public view in 2019, investors at Apollo Global Management were immediately confronted with damaging revelations about co-founder Leon Black and his deep financial ties to Epstein. The disclosure that Black had paid Epstein tens of millions of dollars—later revealed to total roughly $158 million—set off alarm bells across Apollo's investor base, particularly among public pension funds and institutional limited partners who are acutely sensitive to reputational and governance risk. These investors were not reacting to rumor or tabloid noise; they were responding to documented financial relationships that continued well after Epstein's 2008 conviction, raising serious questions about Black's judgment and Apollo's internal controls.As the story unfolded through late 2019 and into 2020, confidence in Black's leadership eroded rapidly. Investors began pressing Apollo's board for explanations, transparency, and concrete action, with some signaling that future capital commitments were at risk if Black remained in control. The issue metastasized from a personal scandal into a firm-wide credibility problem, forcing Apollo to commission an external review and publicly address governance failures it had long avoided. By the time Black announced his exit, investor faith had already collapsed; his continued presence was widely viewed as incompatible with Apollo's ability to raise capital and maintain legitimacy in a market increasingly intolerant of Epstein-adjacent risk.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

When the Jeffrey Epstein story exploded back into public view in 2019, investors at Apollo Global Management were immediately confronted with damaging revelations about co-founder Leon Black and his deep financial ties to Epstein. The disclosure that Black had paid Epstein tens of millions of dollars—later revealed to total roughly $158 million—set off alarm bells across Apollo's investor base, particularly among public pension funds and institutional limited partners who are acutely sensitive to reputational and governance risk. These investors were not reacting to rumor or tabloid noise; they were responding to documented financial relationships that continued well after Epstein's 2008 conviction, raising serious questions about Black's judgment and Apollo's internal controls.As the story unfolded through late 2019 and into 2020, confidence in Black's leadership eroded rapidly. Investors began pressing Apollo's board for explanations, transparency, and concrete action, with some signaling that future capital commitments were at risk if Black remained in control. The issue metastasized from a personal scandal into a firm-wide credibility problem, forcing Apollo to commission an external review and publicly address governance failures it had long avoided. By the time Black announced his exit, investor faith had already collapsed; his continued presence was widely viewed as incompatible with Apollo's ability to raise capital and maintain legitimacy in a market increasingly intolerant of Epstein-adjacent risk.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

When the Jeffrey Epstein story exploded back into public view in 2019, investors at Apollo Global Management were immediately confronted with damaging revelations about co-founder Leon Black and his deep financial ties to Epstein. The disclosure that Black had paid Epstein tens of millions of dollars—later revealed to total roughly $158 million—set off alarm bells across Apollo's investor base, particularly among public pension funds and institutional limited partners who are acutely sensitive to reputational and governance risk. These investors were not reacting to rumor or tabloid noise; they were responding to documented financial relationships that continued well after Epstein's 2008 conviction, raising serious questions about Black's judgment and Apollo's internal controls.As the story unfolded through late 2019 and into 2020, confidence in Black's leadership eroded rapidly. Investors began pressing Apollo's board for explanations, transparency, and concrete action, with some signaling that future capital commitments were at risk if Black remained in control. The issue metastasized from a personal scandal into a firm-wide credibility problem, forcing Apollo to commission an external review and publicly address governance failures it had long avoided. By the time Black announced his exit, investor faith had already collapsed; his continued presence was widely viewed as incompatible with Apollo's ability to raise capital and maintain legitimacy in a market increasingly intolerant of Epstein-adjacent risk.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leon Black, the billionaire co-founder of Leon Black and longtime face of Apollo Global Management, was effectively forced out of the firm he helped build after revelations about his extensive financial ties to Jeffrey Epstein became impossible to contain. Reporting revealed that Black paid Epstein roughly $158 million over several years for what was described as tax and estate planning advice—payments that continued even after Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor. As public scrutiny intensified, investors, limited partners, and regulators began questioning Apollo's governance, oversight, and judgment, turning Black from an asset into a reputational liability almost overnight.While Black formally characterized his departure in 2021 as a voluntary step down, the reality was far more coercive. Apollo's board commissioned an outside review that confirmed the scale of the Epstein payments, and pressure mounted from pension funds and institutional investors who made clear that Black's continued presence threatened capital commitments and the firm's standing. Faced with growing backlash and an untenable optics problem, Apollo moved to distance itself from its co-founder, stripping Black of his leadership role and accelerating a governance overhaul. In practical terms, Black wasn't gently ushered aside—he was pushed out to protect the firm, marking one of the clearest examples of how the Epstein fallout claimed a major Wall Street power player long before any courtroom accountability arrived.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A federal judge dismissed with prejudice one of the countersuits filed by Leon Black against an Epstein accuser, ruling that the claims failed as a matter of law and could not be refiled. Black had sought to strike back at allegations tied to his financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein by asserting claims that included defamation and related theories. The court found that the countersuit did not meet the required legal standards, concluding that the pleadings were insufficient and that the case could not be salvaged through amendment.The dismissal marked a decisive setback for Black's offensive legal strategy, narrowing the battlefield to the accuser's claims while foreclosing one avenue of counterattack. Legal analysts noted that a dismissal with prejudice is a strong rebuke, signaling the court's determination that the countersuit lacked a viable legal foundation. While the ruling did not resolve the underlying allegations against Black, it removed a key pressure tactic from the case and underscored the judiciary's reluctance to entertain retaliatory claims that do not clear high evidentiary and pleading thresholds in Epstein-adjacent litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger Picture[CB] around the world are dumping the Fed note, they just aren’t taking on anymore, everything is about to change. Trump’s GDP outshines Biden’s. China is now going to restrict silver, silver is used in electronics, batteries,solar panels etc. Silver prices are going to move. [CB] fraud is now exposed. The Tariff system is the future. The [DS] criminal syndicate is being exposed, it’s not just in DC it is world wide. As people learn how corrupt the system is and most of the taxes and borrowing goes to support the criminal system the people will be with Trump to remove the Fed. Trump is in the process of bringing down the entire corrupt temple on the [DS]. Trump moves closer to peace with Ukraine, 2026 is going to change everything. Economy Status of the US Dollar as Global Reserve Currency: USD Share Drops to Lowest since 1994  Central Banks diversify their holdings into dozens of smaller “non-traditional reserve currencies.”  The share of USD-denominated assets held by other central banks dropped to 56.9% of total foreign exchange reserves in Q3, the lowest since 1994, from 57.1% in Q2 and 58.5% in Q1, according to the IMF's new data on Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves. USD-denominated foreign exchange reserves include US Treasury securities, US mortgage-backed securities (MBS), US agency securities, US corporate bonds, and other USD-denominated assets held by central banks other than the Fed. Excluded are any central bank's assets denominated in its own currency, such as the Fed's Treasury securities or the ECB's euro-denominated securities. It's not that foreign central banks dumped US-dollar-denominated assets, such as Treasury securities. They did not. They added a little to their holdings. But they added more assets denominated in other currencies, particularly a gaggle of smaller currencies whose combined share has surged, while central banks' holdings of USD-denominated assets haven't changed much for a decade, and so the percentage share of those USD assets continued to decline.   Central banks' holdings of foreign exchange reserves in all currencies, and expressed in USD, rose to $13.0 trillion in Q3. Top holdings, expressed in USD: USD assets: $7.41 trillion Euro assets (EUR): $2.65 trillion Yen assets (YEN): $0.76 trillion British pound assets (GBP): $0.58 trillion Canadian dollar assets (CAD): $0.35 trillion Australian dollar assets (AUD): $0.27 trillion Chinese renminbi (RMB) assets: $0.25 trillion Source: wolfstreet.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");  https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2004750391435755846?s=20 https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2004928015172821228?s=20 https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2004946780216328590?s=20  Political/Rights https://twitter.com/Patri0tContr0l/status/2004590513182367845?s=20  https://twitter.com/Geiger_Capital/status/2005107085865103608?s=20 ICE: 70% Arrested Had Criminal Ties Roughly 70% of illegal migrants arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the second Trump administration reportedly had been convicted of or faced charges for criminal offenses. New data provided to the Washington Examiner shows the Trump administration arrested about 595,000 illegal immigrants between Jan. 20 and Dec. 11, according to the Department of Homeland Security. ICE said 70%, roughly 416,000, had “criminal convictions or pending criminal charges” in the United States, underscoring President Donald Trump’s promise to prioritize the “worst of the worst” in immigration enforcement. ICE officials stressed that even those without U.S. criminal records can still pose major public safety threats, the agency said, noting many are wanted abroad for violent crimes or have ties to gangs, terrorism, or other serious offenses. “This statistic doesn’t account for those wanted for violent crimes in their home country or another country, INTERPOL notices, human rights abusers, gang members, terrorists, etc. The list goes on,” an ICE spokesperson told the Examiner. Source: newsmax.com   New Files Show Epstein Was ‘Too Useful' for Banks to Drop — Trump Was ‘Too Politically Dangerous' to Keep  The newest Epstein disclosures include deposition testimony that illustrates, in unusually concrete detail, how major financial institutions assessed risk, value, and accountability. The transcript does not add new allegations about Epstein. Instead, it explains why he remained bankable long after his 2008 conviction and why his relationship with major banks survived despite generating almost no traditional revenue. That institutional logic is the same logic that later drove JPMorgan to end its ties with Trump Media, and the contrast between the two cases shows how selectively these standards are applied. In the deposition, Paul Morris—a private banker who handled Epstein's accounts at JPMorgan Chase and later Deutsche Bank—described Epstein's financial profile with unusual precision. Epstein's trading was minimal. His accounts produced limited fees. He was not a high-activity client and did not utilize the investment tools that banks rely on to generate consistent revenue. By every conventional benchmark, he was a low-value account. And yet, the relationship continued. The deposition shows why. Epstein was not retained for his financial performance but for his institutional usefulness. Morris acknowledged that Epstein facilitated introductions to ultra-wealthy individuals that the bank viewed as essential prospects. One example was Leon Black, whom Morris identified as a “priority prospect” because of Black's significant net worth and influence in the investment sector. Epstein introduced the bank to real-estate investor Andrew Farkas and discussed a potential connection involving biotech investor Boris Nikolic, who had ties to Bill Gates. These introductions were specific, documented, and initiated by Epstein, not the bank. This is the key element that many public accounts overlook. Epstein was not being managed as a traditional client. He functioned as a relationship broker inside a system where introductions to power carry more internal value than account-level returns. Source: thegatewaypundit.com  DOGE Geopolitical The EU Leaders Shouting About Visa Bans Are the Same EU Leaders Who Sent Political Operatives Into the U.S. to Support Kamala Harris  EU leaders from across the spectrum of their collective assembly, are furious with the administration of President Donald Trump for restricting their entry into the United States by blocking their visa permissions.  However, these same EU leaders are the people who sent operatives into the United States in order to interfere in our 2024 election. The Vice President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas, sums up the European position: “The decision by the U.S. to impose travel restrictions on European citizens and officials is unacceptable and an attempt to challenge our sovereignty. Europe will keep defending its values — freedom of expression, fair digital rules, and the right to regulate our own space.” The “attempt to challenge our sovereignty” statement is a particular type of hubris when we consider THIS: GREAT BRITAIN (October 2024) – The British Labour Party is sending approximately 100 current and former staff members to the United States to work for Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign in key swing states. [SOURCE – LINKEDIN] Not only did the U.K attempt to challenge our sovereignty, but they also actively worked to influence the outcome of our national election in 2024. It is worth remembering the British intelligence operation, (Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), commonly known as MI6), was at the center of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy in 2016. The first EU political group to be targeted with the visa bans includes French former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who was one of the architects of the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA). Also: Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index. https://twitter.com/GeneHamilton/status/2004656229684224393?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2004656229684224393%7Ctwgr%5E91706d63d41394916634b106fbd2268d7711e121%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2025%2F12%2F27%2Fthe-eu-leaders-shouting-about-visa-bans-are-the-same-eu-leaders-who-sent-political-operatives-into-the-u-s-to-support-kamala-harris%2F https://twitter.com/GeneHamilton/status/2004656234910433405?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2004656234910433405%7Ctwgr%5E91706d63d41394916634b106fbd2268d7711e121%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2025%2F12%2F27%2Fthe-eu-leaders-shouting-about-visa-bans-are-the-same-eu-leaders-who-sent-political-operatives-into-the-u-s-to-support-kamala-harris%2F Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/michaelgwaltz/status/2005058695647166898?s=20 https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2005035840934723894?s=20 War/Peace   EIGHT, perhaps the United States has become the REAL United Nations, which has been of very little assistance or help in any of them, including the disaster currently going on between Russia and Ukraine. The United Nations must start getting active and involved in WORLD PEACE!   the United States is capable of doing. Under my leadership, our Country will not allow Radical Islamic Terrorism to prosper. May God Bless our Military, and MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, including the dead Terrorists, of which there will be many more if their slaughter of Christians continues.   DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Trump Tasks Military With an ‘Oil Quarantine' Against Venezuela, as Economic Pressure Is Chosen for Now Over Military Action Venezuela's oil industry under maximum pressure.   And now that the extended holidays are over, the socialist regime will have to deal with the veritable siege imposed by the US and its unprecedented armada. Venezuela is running out of storage space for its oil production since some ships are being seized and many others turned around and left.  Now, it arises that Donald J. Trump has directed US forces to enforce ‘an oil quarantine' against Venezuela for at least the next two months. These moves lead many to think that the Trump team will focus on economic rather than military means to pressure Caracas into ousting Maduro. Reuters reported:   Read  more: Source: thegatewaypundit.com Trump Blockade Leaves $1 Billion Of Venezuelan Crude Stranded On Tankers  With a two-month “quarantine” placed on Venezuelan oil by the Trump administration in a foreign policy move called “gunboat diplomacy,” new data estimate that roughly $900 million worth of crude is currently loaded on tankers, unable to depart Venezuela due to the U.S. blockade. “Based on our visual analysis from both shore and space, we estimate that there are around 17.5 million barrels of crude oil floating onboard tankers in Venezuela which are unable to depart due to the ongoing US blockade,” independent research Tanker Trackers wrote on X. “That’s around $900M of oil.” https://twitter.com/TankerTrackers/status/2004713684871078162?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2004713684871078162%7Ctwgr%5E016cd45f97095edcd74bb159f40c4e93caf9794d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fcommodities%2Ftrump-blockade-leaves-1-billion-venezuelan-crude-stranded-tankers Source: zerohedge.com Trump to POLITICO: Zelenskyy ‘doesn't have anything until I approve it' Trump's comments come ahead of his Sunday meeting with Zelenskyy, who will bring with him a new 20-point plan to end the war President Donald Trump on Friday cast himself as the ultimate arbiter of any peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, in an exclusive conversation with POLITICO. “He doesn't have anything until I approve it,” Trump said. “So we'll see what he's got.” Source: politico.com https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/2005352028365848993?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2005352028365848993%7Ctwgr%5E1588e24fb392689513bf7b2f064c646c1bf5f470%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Ftrump-says-russia-ukraine-peace-talks-entering-final%2F  Medical/False Flags 19 Blue States Sue Trump Admin to Preserve Right to Perform Child Sex Changes Last week, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding to any provider that offers so-called gender-affirming treatment to minors. “Under my leadership, and answering President Trump's call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Kennedy said at the time. The Oregon-led lawsuit claims that the decision “exceeds the Secretary's authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Medicare and Medicaid statutes.” A total of nineteen blue states are suing the Trump administration in a bid to protect the right to perform child sex changes. His office said in a press release: Source: thegatewaypundit.com [DS] Agenda  https://twitter.com/nickshirleyy/status/2004642794862961123?s=20   work way too hard and pay too much in taxes for this to be happening, the fraud must be stopped. https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2005011311756017964?s=20 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2005158623442600391?s=20 https://twitter.com/DataRepublican/status/2005292438114738555?s=20  diabolical. And it’s going to work until we understand that primaries will be more important than generals from here out on. https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/2005016429687701811?s=20 https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2005351086115405986?s=20 https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2005030256382464493?s=20  and your tribe. I spent a lot of my life in the Middle East and Central Asia, working closely with foreign contractors and foreign governments to provide support to American military operations. As a US Army officer with a big checkbook courtesy of Uncle Sam, I can't really count the sheer number of times I was offered bribes to award a contract, or falsify records to do things like create larger (fake) headcounts at places like dining facilities, or to just simply be on the take for future illegal requests. Of course I had enough sense to never comply with such requests. Moreover, they were never explicitly structured as “bribes”; instead it was usually along the lines of “Here I have these Rolexes as gifts for you and your wife to show our friendship.” (Unfortunately, too many US officers and NCOs succumbed to this siren song and ended up breaking rocks in Leavenworth.) The weird thing about this to me was that whenever I turned down such an offering, it was treated as a grave insult. I was the one in the wrong, and not the fraudster trying to bribe me. They considered it rude that I was in their country and refused to accept how things got done. After all, why did I not want to help my tribe by helping their tribe? Let me repeat: in these cultures, FRAUD IS NOT EVEN A CONCEPT. There is only what helps your tribe. Such thought processes are so alien to Americans and much of the West. We are raised on the presumption that our institutions are valid, that the rule of law always prevails, and that integrity is universal. We need these presumptions to have working governments and economies, and without those presumptions—without the mental barrier that causes us not to accept outright fraud—our nation would quickly descend into the economic and social hellscape of countries like…. ummm… you know…. SOMALIA! So when we import people en masse from cultures that accept bribery and fraud as routine, acceptable ways to advance one's tribe, we should not be surprised that things like the $8 BILLION fraud schemes of the Somali population in Minnesota happen so easily. Introducing a fraud-based culture based on tribalism into America is like introducing some sort of lethal virus into a population that has no natural immunity. The virus will spread and grow, unchecked, because it is so alien to the host. Similarly, a culture of fraud is anathema to American thinking, and it must be cut out before it consumes the host. So when you see and hear patriotic Americans decrying what is happening in Minnesota or elsewhere, and when they seek deportation of the offenders, it is not “racism,” it is not “bigotry,” it is not “xenophobia”; instead, it is preserving the American tradition of responsible institutions and national integrity. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2005262465190223928?s=20 https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2005305530651189719?s=20   exploiting federal programs. Fraud that steals from taxpayers and robs vulnerable children will remain a top FBI priority in Minnesota and nationwide. To date, the FBI dismantled a $250 million fraud scheme that stole federal food aid meant for vulnerable children during COVID. The investigation exposed sham vendors, shell companies, and large-scale money laundering tied to the Feeding Our Future network. The case led to 78 indictments and 57 convictions. Defendants included Abdiwahab Ahmed Mohamud, Ahmed Ali, Hussein Farah, Abdullahe Nur Jesow, Asha Farhan Hassan, Ousman Camara, and Abdirashid Bixi Dool, each charged for roles ranging from wire fraud to money laundering and conspiracy. These criminals didn't just engaged in historic fraud, but tried to subvert justice as well. Abdimajid Mohamed Nur and others were charged for attempting to bribe a juror with $120,000 in cash. Those responsible pleaded guilty and were sentenced, including a 10-year prison term and nearly $48 million in restitution in related cases. The FBI believes this is just the tip of a very large iceberg. We will continue to follow the money and protect children, and this investigation very much remains ongoing. Furthermore, many are also being referred to immigrations officials for possible further denaturalization and deportation proceedings where eligible. https://twitter.com/ScottPresler/status/2004932316926193933?s=20 https://twitter.com/HarmeetKDhillon/status/2004976287270731981?s=20 https://twitter.com/rising_serpent/status/2005080344610177489?s=20  https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2005092720927232198?s=20  “skeptical jurors” in federal cases involving President Trump. Co-founder Alex Dodds said jurors have “enormous power” to judge the administration itself. Critics report the sessions encourage rigging trials against the administration, conduct plainly barred under 8 USC §1503. President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2004653262491058216?s=20 accomplished what no one else could. When we arrived, taxpayers were about to be on the hook for nearly $5 billion for a new headquarters that wouldn't open until 2035. We scrapped that plan. Instead, we selected the already-existing Reagan Building, saving billions and allowing the transition to begin immediately with required safety and infrastructure upgrades already underway. Once complete, most of the HQ FBI workforce will move in, and the rest are continuing in our ongoing push to put more manpower in the field, where they will remain. This decision puts resources where they belong: defending the homeland, crushing violent crime, and protecting national security. It delivers better tools for today's FBI workforce at a fraction of the cost. The Hoover Building will be shut down permanently.  They Got Her: FBI Caught Hillary Clinton Talking Donations with Foreign Felon on Tape As Hillary Clinton closed in on the presidential nomination in the spring of 2016, FBI field officers advised colleagues at headquarters to press her on the foreign donations flowing to the Clinton Foundation while she steered American foreign policy and whether she had used the charity as a campaign piggy bank. But the FBI HQ in Washington — a city in which the former secretary of state and first lady wields enormous influence — let the trail go cold. FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge Diego Rodriguez advised agents in Washington to ask Clinton several questions about the foundation, which are reproduced in full in documents released to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the FBI and published on Dec. 15. The questions reveal the concerns about foreign bribery that the Clinton Foundation case — codenamed “Cracked Foundation” — had uncovered. Among the evidence available to investigators, according to their questions: A recorded conversation between Clinton and Indian hotel magnate Sant Singh Chatwal in which Clinton discussed donations to the foundation and her remaining 2008 campaign debt. The new documents confirm that the FBI had at one time been “intercepting individuals associated with the Clinton Foundation.” Source: westernjournal.com  John Brennan's Lawfare Lawyers are Revealing More Than They Intend   former CIA Director John Brennan are sending proactive letters to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida {SEE HERE}.  However, some of the information included in the letters intended to be exculpatory is actually damning against their defense position. You have to go deep in the weeds to see it but if you understand the details of the events, the information being revealed by Brennan's lawyers is the opposite of helpful to his case.  As an example, there is a citation included in a footnote of the December 22, 2025, [fn #20 page 6] letter that links to a March 31, 2022, letter sent to John Durham. Here's page 6 of the 2025 letter. Compare the underlined section to the 2022 letter sent to John Durham. In 2025 Brennan is telling the Florida court the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) conclusion was confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in a “very serious review.”  However, in 2022 Brennan told John Durham that Robert Mueller never interviewed him or offered an assessment of the ICA; Mueller just regurgitated it. So, which is it? These contradictions are throughout both of the letters when you compare them side-by-side.  In 2022 former CIA Director John Brennan was trying to escape the Durham review.  In 2025 Brennan is trying to escape a grand jury review. [We are aware that the U.S Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, has access to the CTH public library of research into all of these historic events.] There are other citations in the 2022 letter that are certainly worth reviewing because the legally binding statements made by John Brennan at the time have been shown to be false in 2025. Another of the claims in the 2022 letter to John Durham highlights why it was critical for the CIA to assist in the capture and arrest of Julian Assange in 2019. Source: thegatewaypundit.com  Trump: Upcoming Midterms Will Be ‘About Pricing’ The 2026 midterm elections will be “about pricing,” according to President Donald Trump, who said that his administration is restoring the nation’s economy after the condition in which former President Joe Biden left it. “I think it’s going to be about the success of our country,” Trump said in an interview with Politico, the outlet reported Saturday. “They gave us high pricing, and we’re bringing it down. Energy’s way down. Gasoline is way down.” Over the past two weeks, a series of positive economic reports has shown that inflation is decreasing, with the White House highlighting the latest data while addressing cost-of-living concerns nationwide. According to a Politico poll conducted last month, Americans say they are finding that the costs of groceries, utilities, healthcare, housing, and transportation are too expensive. Trump has been fighting to reframe that, however, blaming Democrats under Biden for driving prices up. He said in the interview, conducted Friday, that “electricity is down. It’s way down.” “When the gasoline goes down, and when the oil and gas go down, the electricity comes down naturally,” he said. “But it’s all coming down. It’s all coming down. It’s coming beautifully.” Source: newsmax.com https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2004696380531503505?s=20   the NG will have quick response troops on standby in every state, the FBI building is being moved to a new location, the war between Russia and Ukraine is coming to an end, and all of Trump's pieces will be in place. There seems to be a shift in attitude. I think we are passing into a different phase of the operation. The shadow war will eventually have to come to the surface. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

A federal judge dismissed with prejudice one of the countersuits filed by Leon Black against an Epstein accuser, ruling that the claims failed as a matter of law and could not be refiled. Black had sought to strike back at allegations tied to his financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein by asserting claims that included defamation and related theories. The court found that the countersuit did not meet the required legal standards, concluding that the pleadings were insufficient and that the case could not be salvaged through amendment.The dismissal marked a decisive setback for Black's offensive legal strategy, narrowing the battlefield to the accuser's claims while foreclosing one avenue of counterattack. Legal analysts noted that a dismissal with prejudice is a strong rebuke, signaling the court's determination that the countersuit lacked a viable legal foundation. While the ruling did not resolve the underlying allegations against Black, it removed a key pressure tactic from the case and underscored the judiciary's reluctance to entertain retaliatory claims that do not clear high evidentiary and pleading thresholds in Epstein-adjacent litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leon Black assembled a formidable, top-tier legal defense team to confront allegations tied to his financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, drawing heavily from the highest ranks of elite white-collar defense and former federal prosecutors. Legal observers noted that Black retained attorneys with deep experience in complex financial litigation, internal investigations, and crisis management—lawyers accustomed to navigating SDNY scrutiny, high-stakes reputational risk, and parallel civil and regulatory exposure. The team was structured not only to defend against specific legal claims, but to manage disclosure strategy, negotiate with prosecutors and regulators, and control narrative damage as scrutiny intensified around Black's payments to Epstein and his role at Apollo Global Management.Commentators in the legal community emphasized that the sophistication of Black's defense reflected both the seriousness of the allegations and the scale of potential exposure, particularly in civil litigation and institutional fallout rather than criminal charges. The strategy combined aggressive factual rebuttal with procedural pressure, including motions to dismiss, jurisdictional challenges, and efforts to narrow claims before discovery could expand. While the legal firepower succeeded in limiting some courtroom consequences, analysts pointed out that no amount of legal muscle could fully insulate Black from reputational harm, shareholder backlash, or public scrutiny. In that sense, Black's legal team was widely viewed as one of the most powerful assembled in any Epstein-adjacent case—effective at legal containment, even as broader questions about accountability remained unresolved.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protomail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Leon Black assembled a formidable, top-tier legal defense team to confront allegations tied to his financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, drawing heavily from the highest ranks of elite white-collar defense and former federal prosecutors. Legal observers noted that Black retained attorneys with deep experience in complex financial litigation, internal investigations, and crisis management—lawyers accustomed to navigating SDNY scrutiny, high-stakes reputational risk, and parallel civil and regulatory exposure. The team was structured not only to defend against specific legal claims, but to manage disclosure strategy, negotiate with prosecutors and regulators, and control narrative damage as scrutiny intensified around Black's payments to Epstein and his role at Apollo Global Management.Commentators in the legal community emphasized that the sophistication of Black's defense reflected both the seriousness of the allegations and the scale of potential exposure, particularly in civil litigation and institutional fallout rather than criminal charges. The strategy combined aggressive factual rebuttal with procedural pressure, including motions to dismiss, jurisdictional challenges, and efforts to narrow claims before discovery could expand. While the legal firepower succeeded in limiting some courtroom consequences, analysts pointed out that no amount of legal muscle could fully insulate Black from reputational harm, shareholder backlash, or public scrutiny. In that sense, Black's legal team was widely viewed as one of the most powerful assembled in any Epstein-adjacent case—effective at legal containment, even as broader questions about accountability remained unresolved.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protomail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the wake of civil allegations that Leon Black engaged in sexual misconduct with a former Russian model, Guzel Ganieva, Black responded strongly to the claims, which she initially publicized on social media and later formalized in a lawsuit alleging harassment and abuse during their relationship. Black publicly denied any wrongdoing, stating the relationship was consensual, and characterized Ganieva's accusations as part of an extortion attempt to extract money and damage his reputation. He and his legal team filed counter-pleadings and defamation actions, asserting that the claims were baseless and suggesting that Ganieva was acting with ulterior motives, though they did not specifically label her a “Russian spy.”A New York judge later dismissed Ganieva's lawsuit on procedural grounds because of a nondisclosure agreement she had signed with Black, and Black has continued to deny all allegations of abuse. The broader legal and public dispute has intertwined with scrutiny of Black's past association with Jeffrey Epstein, but there is no credible reporting that Black formally accused his accuser of being a Russian spy; such characterizations have appeared only in speculative or fringe commentary rather than in verified court filings or mainstream news coverage.to contact me:bobbyapucci@protomail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the wake of civil allegations that Leon Black engaged in sexual misconduct with a former Russian model, Guzel Ganieva, Black responded strongly to the claims, which she initially publicized on social media and later formalized in a lawsuit alleging harassment and abuse during their relationship. Black publicly denied any wrongdoing, stating the relationship was consensual, and characterized Ganieva's accusations as part of an extortion attempt to extract money and damage his reputation. He and his legal team filed counter-pleadings and defamation actions, asserting that the claims were baseless and suggesting that Ganieva was acting with ulterior motives, though they did not specifically label her a “Russian spy.”A New York judge later dismissed Ganieva's lawsuit on procedural grounds because of a nondisclosure agreement she had signed with Black, and Black has continued to deny all allegations of abuse. The broader legal and public dispute has intertwined with scrutiny of Black's past association with Jeffrey Epstein, but there is no credible reporting that Black formally accused his accuser of being a Russian spy; such characterizations have appeared only in speculative or fringe commentary rather than in verified court filings or mainstream news coverage.to contact me:bobbyapucci@protomail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leon Black has been engaged in a legal struggle with a woman who claims that he sexually abused her for years and then had her sign a NDA so that the abuse would never be made public. Part of the offensive that Leon Black has been on has been attempting to paint his accuser and his former partner of colluding to take him down. One court has already denied his attempt to seek redress using RICO statutes, now a second court has dismissed his attempt and this time, with prejudice.(commercial at 8:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Billionaire Leon Black's Suit Over Rape Claim Gets Dismissed (thedailybeast.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Leon Black, the billionaire co-founder of Apollo Global Management, filed a civil RICO lawsuit in 2023 against his accuser, former Russian model Guzel Ganieva, and her attorneys, alleging they engaged in an extortion and fraud scheme by fabricating sexual assault claims to extract money from him. Black's suit claimed that Ganieva and those advising her knowingly made false allegations, manipulated evidence, and used media pressure as leverage, framing the dispute not as a question of abuse but as a criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The filing was aggressive by design, attempting to flip the narrative and place Black in the role of victim while casting his accuser as part of an organized shakedown.The federal court ultimately rejected that framing and dismissed the RICO case, finding that Black failed to plausibly allege the existence of a racketeering enterprise or a pattern of racketeering activity as required under the statute. The judge concluded that what Black described amounted to a private civil dispute—however bitter and high-stakes—not a criminal conspiracy governed by RICO law. The dismissal did not resolve the underlying abuse allegations or validate either side's broader claims; it simply made clear that RICO was not the proper legal vehicle for Black's counteroffensive. The ruling underscored how difficult it is to stretch racketeering law to cover personal misconduct disputes, even when vast wealth, reputational damage, and high-profile accusations are involved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Senators, primarily through the U.S. Senate Finance Committee under the leadership of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), launched a lengthy investigation beginning in 2022 into billionaire financier Leon Black's financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and the unusually large payments Black made to Epstein—totaling at least $158 million, and possibly as much as $170 million—between 2012 and 2017 for purported tax and estate planning advice that many lawmakers find dubious given Epstein's lack of professional credentials. The committee has pressed Black and financial institutions like Bank of America for details about how these funds were managed and why banks did not flag the massive transfers as suspicious in real time, as required under anti-money-laundering regulations. Investigators also noted that Epstein was paid far more than typical advisors and that some of the money may have been used to support Epstein's wider operations.Wyden's investigation has expanded to demand transparency from the Department of Justice, Treasury, and Internal Revenue Service, urging those agencies to release Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) tied to Epstein's finances and to audit the tax and estate planning work Epstein performed for Black. The Senate's efforts come amid concerns that oversight has been inadequate, and include seeking documents that might show whether Black's payments helped fund Epstein's alleged criminal network. Black has publicly denied involvement in Epstein's crimes and maintains the payments were lawful, and an independent review commissioned by Black's firm found no criminal activity; nevertheless, the Senate's scrutiny continues as part of broader efforts to understand how Epstein's financial networks operated and were used, and whether existing tax and financial laws were properly enforced.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the clearest possible terms, the financial network surrounding Jeffrey Epstein was not an accident, an anomaly, or the work of a lone predator—it was a deliberately constructed ecosystem enabled by billionaires, institutions, and the largest bank in the United States. Figures like Les Wexner and Leon Black didn't just brush up against Epstein; they empowered him, legitimized him, and embedded him inside their financial worlds. Wexner gave Epstein unprecedented legal control over his empire through power-of-attorney arrangements and trust structures that effectively turned Epstein into the architect of Wexner's personal and philanthropic machinery. Black, for his part, funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Epstein under the guise of “consulting,” using offshore pathways and fee structures so inexplicable that financial experts still can't reconcile the numbers. These weren't casual business relationships—they were pipelines, mechanisms, and conduits that allowed Epstein to scale his influence far beyond what any conventional résumé could justify.But none of Epstein's financial maneuvering would have been possible without JPMorgan Chase, whose private-banking division knowingly ignored internal warnings, suspicious activity reports, and staff concerns because Epstein delivered access to elite clients and deep-pocketed networks. The bank's compliance failures weren't accidental—they represented a strategic blindness, a willingness to override red flags in pursuit of profit and prestige. Taken together, Wexner's access, Black's money, and JPMorgan's infrastructure formed the backbone of Epstein's financial power. And that is precisely why Congress avoids digging into this side of the scandal: following the money wouldn't just expose Epstein—it would expose the machinery that enabled him, and the institutions that still shape American economic and political life today.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

After legal pressure mounted on Black for his close relationship with Epstein — including revelations that Black paid Epstein tens of millions of dollars for “tax and estate planning” even after Epstein's 2008 conviction — new lawsuits and investigations began to cast a wider net. Among those subpoenaed in a broad civil case against financial institutions linked to Epstein was Zuckerman, as part of efforts to trace the money trails and financial networks that may have funded or facilitated Epstein's enterprise. The inclusion of Zuckerman's name signaled a legal strategy aiming to pull in other wealthy associates and financiers who might have had business or financial exposure to Epstein — effectively broadening liability beyond Black.Black's own legal maneuvers complicated matters further. While he faced civil lawsuits (for alleged sexual misconduct) and regulatory scrutiny over his payments to Epstein, the broader legal actions — including suits against banks and other financial players — sought to implicate individuals like Zuckerman in chains of financial relationships tied to Epstein's operations. By doing this, Black's case became not just about his personal associations, but part of a larger legal attempt to map and hold accountable the network of affluent, high-profile individuals and institutions whose money may have indirectly supported Epstein's activities.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the clearest possible terms, the financial network surrounding Jeffrey Epstein was not an accident, an anomaly, or the work of a lone predator—it was a deliberately constructed ecosystem enabled by billionaires, institutions, and the largest bank in the United States. Figures like Les Wexner and Leon Black didn't just brush up against Epstein; they empowered him, legitimized him, and embedded him inside their financial worlds. Wexner gave Epstein unprecedented legal control over his empire through power-of-attorney arrangements and trust structures that effectively turned Epstein into the architect of Wexner's personal and philanthropic machinery. Black, for his part, funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Epstein under the guise of “consulting,” using offshore pathways and fee structures so inexplicable that financial experts still can't reconcile the numbers. These weren't casual business relationships—they were pipelines, mechanisms, and conduits that allowed Epstein to scale his influence far beyond what any conventional résumé could justify.But none of Epstein's financial maneuvering would have been possible without JPMorgan Chase, whose private-banking division knowingly ignored internal warnings, suspicious activity reports, and staff concerns because Epstein delivered access to elite clients and deep-pocketed networks. The bank's compliance failures weren't accidental—they represented a strategic blindness, a willingness to override red flags in pursuit of profit and prestige. Taken together, Wexner's access, Black's money, and JPMorgan's infrastructure formed the backbone of Epstein's financial power. And that is precisely why Congress avoids digging into this side of the scandal: following the money wouldn't just expose Epstein—it would expose the machinery that enabled him, and the institutions that still shape American economic and political life today.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the clearest possible terms, the financial network surrounding Jeffrey Epstein was not an accident, an anomaly, or the work of a lone predator—it was a deliberately constructed ecosystem enabled by billionaires, institutions, and the largest bank in the United States. Figures like Les Wexner and Leon Black didn't just brush up against Epstein; they empowered him, legitimized him, and embedded him inside their financial worlds. Wexner gave Epstein unprecedented legal control over his empire through power-of-attorney arrangements and trust structures that effectively turned Epstein into the architect of Wexner's personal and philanthropic machinery. Black, for his part, funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Epstein under the guise of “consulting,” using offshore pathways and fee structures so inexplicable that financial experts still can't reconcile the numbers. These weren't casual business relationships—they were pipelines, mechanisms, and conduits that allowed Epstein to scale his influence far beyond what any conventional résumé could justify.But none of Epstein's financial maneuvering would have been possible without JPMorgan Chase, whose private-banking division knowingly ignored internal warnings, suspicious activity reports, and staff concerns because Epstein delivered access to elite clients and deep-pocketed networks. The bank's compliance failures weren't accidental—they represented a strategic blindness, a willingness to override red flags in pursuit of profit and prestige. Taken together, Wexner's access, Black's money, and JPMorgan's infrastructure formed the backbone of Epstein's financial power. And that is precisely why Congress avoids digging into this side of the scandal: following the money wouldn't just expose Epstein—it would expose the machinery that enabled him, and the institutions that still shape American economic and political life today.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

After legal pressure mounted on Black for his close relationship with Epstein — including revelations that Black paid Epstein tens of millions of dollars for “tax and estate planning” even after Epstein's 2008 conviction — new lawsuits and investigations began to cast a wider net. Among those subpoenaed in a broad civil case against financial institutions linked to Epstein was Zuckerman, as part of efforts to trace the money trails and financial networks that may have funded or facilitated Epstein's enterprise. The inclusion of Zuckerman's name signaled a legal strategy aiming to pull in other wealthy associates and financiers who might have had business or financial exposure to Epstein — effectively broadening liability beyond Black.Black's own legal maneuvers complicated matters further. While he faced civil lawsuits (for alleged sexual misconduct) and regulatory scrutiny over his payments to Epstein, the broader legal actions — including suits against banks and other financial players — sought to implicate individuals like Zuckerman in chains of financial relationships tied to Epstein's operations. By doing this, Black's case became not just about his personal associations, but part of a larger legal attempt to map and hold accountable the network of affluent, high-profile individuals and institutions whose money may have indirectly supported Epstein's activities.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Settlement agreements reached with Jeffrey Epstein's estate included a little-noticed carveout that allowed some survivors to continue pursuing claims against powerful figures connected to Epstein, even after accepting compensation. These provisions weren't accidental; they were crafted to preserve the ability to target individuals believed to have played a role beyond Epstein himself. At least one survivor signaled plans to use that pathway to bring legal action against high-profile Wall Street executives Leon Black and Jes Staley, asserting that accountability should extend to those who enabled, protected, or benefitted from Epstein's operations.The existence of these carveouts shifted the landscape of post-Epstein litigation. Instead of closing the book on the case, the settlements effectively opened new fronts — placing influential financiers back under scrutiny and raising the possibility of additional lawsuits that could broaden public understanding of the network surrounding Epstein. It reflected a larger sentiment among survivors: Epstein may be gone, but the system that supported him was far from dismantled, and there remained unfinished business in pursuit of the truth.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This week we bring you an episode from Question Everything, another KCRW podcast. Host Brian Reed brings together the reporters who know the Jeffrey Epstein case best – along with one of their Trump-supporting producers – for drinks and a candid, no-holds-barred conversation. They compare notes, challenge each other's assumptions, and reveal what it really takes to separate fact from rumor in a story that has tested the limits of journalism.It's one of the most provocative and confronting discussions Brian's ever hosted about power, accountability and what's at stake when the media goes up against billionaires and their networks.Check out the Question Everything Substack, by the way, where we get into juicy behind the scenes details and other good stuff from our episodes. “Question Everything” is a production of KCRW and Placement Theory.Drinking and fact-checking don't always go hand in hand, so clarifying and correcting a few statements from the conversation here – which honestly in themselves give a sense of just how many crannies of global power the tendrils of the Epstein story reach into. We reached out to Anouska De Georgiou to see if she wanted to comment, but we didn't hear back. Leslie Wexner is not the founder of Victoria's Secret – he bought the company in 1982, and he said Jeffrey Epstein had stolen $46 million from him, not $60 million. Meanwhile investor Leon Black paid Epstein $170 million for supposed tax advice – not $160 million. Virginia Giuffre sued Prince Andrew as an individual, not the Crown itself. Tara Palmeri's reporting that Elon Musk dm'd Virgina Giuffre saying Trump would release the files is based on Virginia telling her this – Tara didn't see the DM. At one point, Eric says that in 2015, Roger Stone called Epstein's island a “democrat orgy island.” Really, Stone wrote a book excoriating the Clintons called The Clinton's War on Women, and there's a chapter in there called Orgy Island, which highlights Bill Clinton's friendship with Epstein. So Roger Stone didn't call Epstein's island a democrat orgy island. Just “orgy island.” And last, but not least: the pope who was in a picture with Jeffrey Epstein, which was displayed on Epstein's credenza, was John Paul II.

A persistent misconception continues to circulate around the Epstein case: the belief that survivors have never identified individuals involved. In reality, numerous names have already been publicly stated in sworn testimony, court filings, and interviews. Among those named are former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, former Senate majority leader George Mitchell, financier Glenn Dubin, scientist Marvin Minsky, billionaire retail magnate Les Wexner, investor Leon Black, Hyatt executive Thomas Pritzker, and Prince Andrew. These are not obscure figures; they are individuals of immense political and financial influence. Yet the public response has largely been silence, shaped by partisan distractions and misinformation that shifted attention away from real testimony in favor of viral conspiracy narratives. The issue is not that names have not been provided — it is that society has not acted on them.Survivors face intense pressure and legal intimidation when they come forward, including the threat of financially ruinous lawsuits from powerful defendants with vast legal resources, which has historically deterred additional testimony. This environment of fear has shielded the accused for decades, enabling them to operate without accountability. Many advocates and journalists have become increasingly vocal in rejecting that silence and calling for immediate action — demanding investigations, subpoenas, and legal consequences for the names already publicly identified. The question should no longer be, “Why aren't survivors naming names?” but rather, “Why are the named individuals not being investigated?” Until there is movement on the existing record, continued calls for additional names serve only as a distraction from the urgent need for accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Settlement agreements reached with Jeffrey Epstein's estate included a little-noticed carveout that allowed some survivors to continue pursuing claims against powerful figures connected to Epstein, even after accepting compensation. These provisions weren't accidental; they were crafted to preserve the ability to target individuals believed to have played a role beyond Epstein himself. At least one survivor signaled plans to use that pathway to bring legal action against high-profile Wall Street executives Leon Black and Jes Staley, asserting that accountability should extend to those who enabled, protected, or benefitted from Epstein's operations.The existence of these carveouts shifted the landscape of post-Epstein litigation. Instead of closing the book on the case, the settlements effectively opened new fronts — placing influential financiers back under scrutiny and raising the possibility of additional lawsuits that could broaden public understanding of the network surrounding Epstein. It reflected a larger sentiment among survivors: Epstein may be gone, but the system that supported him was far from dismantled, and there remained unfinished business in pursuit of the truth.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A persistent misconception continues to circulate around the Epstein case: the belief that survivors have never identified individuals involved. In reality, numerous names have already been publicly stated in sworn testimony, court filings, and interviews. Among those named are former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, former Senate majority leader George Mitchell, financier Glenn Dubin, scientist Marvin Minsky, billionaire retail magnate Les Wexner, investor Leon Black, Hyatt executive Thomas Pritzker, and Prince Andrew. These are not obscure figures; they are individuals of immense political and financial influence. Yet the public response has largely been silence, shaped by partisan distractions and misinformation that shifted attention away from real testimony in favor of viral conspiracy narratives. The issue is not that names have not been provided — it is that society has not acted on them.Survivors face intense pressure and legal intimidation when they come forward, including the threat of financially ruinous lawsuits from powerful defendants with vast legal resources, which has historically deterred additional testimony. This environment of fear has shielded the accused for decades, enabling them to operate without accountability. Many advocates and journalists have become increasingly vocal in rejecting that silence and calling for immediate action — demanding investigations, subpoenas, and legal consequences for the names already publicly identified. The question should no longer be, “Why aren't survivors naming names?” but rather, “Why are the named individuals not being investigated?” Until there is movement on the existing record, continued calls for additional names serve only as a distraction from the urgent need for accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A persistent misconception continues to circulate around the Epstein case: the belief that survivors have never identified individuals involved. In reality, numerous names have already been publicly stated in sworn testimony, court filings, and interviews. Among those named are former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, former Senate majority leader George Mitchell, financier Glenn Dubin, scientist Marvin Minsky, billionaire retail magnate Les Wexner, investor Leon Black, Hyatt executive Thomas Pritzker, and Prince Andrew. These are not obscure figures; they are individuals of immense political and financial influence. Yet the public response has largely been silence, shaped by partisan distractions and misinformation that shifted attention away from real testimony in favor of viral conspiracy narratives. The issue is not that names have not been provided — it is that society has not acted on them.Survivors face intense pressure and legal intimidation when they come forward, including the threat of financially ruinous lawsuits from powerful defendants with vast legal resources, which has historically deterred additional testimony. This environment of fear has shielded the accused for decades, enabling them to operate without accountability. Many advocates and journalists have become increasingly vocal in rejecting that silence and calling for immediate action — demanding investigations, subpoenas, and legal consequences for the names already publicly identified. The question should no longer be, “Why aren't survivors naming names?” but rather, “Why are the named individuals not being investigated?” Until there is movement on the existing record, continued calls for additional names serve only as a distraction from the urgent need for accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's finances were a labyrinth deliberately designed to defy transparency. Despite presenting himself as a billionaire money manager, there was never any verifiable evidence of major clients, traditional investment portfolios, or legitimate business operations. His primary company, Financial Trust Co., was registered in the Virgin Islands — a jurisdiction notorious for secrecy — and functioned more as a private shell than a real investment firm. Epstein's wealth seemed to appear out of thin air: properties worth hundreds of millions, private jets, an island compound, and a Manhattan mansion allegedly “gifted” to him under murky circumstances. Forensic accountants and federal investigators alike have repeatedly noted that his books were impenetrable, his paper trail incomplete, and his supposed “financial empire” more illusion than reality.Beneath that illusion, Epstein's fortune was a web of offshore accounts, shadow foundations, and undisclosed transfers tied to an elite network of billionaires, politicians, and institutions. Many of his most conspicuous assets were owned through opaque LLCs or layered trusts that obscured true ownership, allowing him to move money between jurisdictions without detection. His close ties to figures like Leslie Wexner and Leon Black raised deeper questions about whether Epstein's wealth came from management fees, blackmail leverage, or participation in illicit financial schemes. Even after his death, forensic efforts to trace his full financial structure have been hampered by missing records, sealed documents, and non-cooperative entities. To this day, Epstein's finances remain one of the most sophisticated examples of how power, secrecy, and corruption can blur the line between wealth and criminality.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In a move widely criticized as politically motivated and structurally compromised, former SEC chairman Jay Clayton—who previously worked closely with Apollo Global Management, the private-equity firm led for decades by Jeffrey Epstein associate Leon Black—was appointed to oversee an investigation into Epstein's alleged ties to Donald Trump's political adversaries. Critics argue that placing someone so closely connected to a firm entangled in Epstein's financial orbit fundamentally undermines the credibility of the inquiry. While the announcement was framed as a push for transparency, the decision raised immediate concerns about conflicts of interest and selective scrutiny. Observers note that when Trump publicly demanded investigations into his opponents, he conspicuously avoided referencing Black or Les Wexner, another figure long linked to Epstein, fueling allegations that the appointment was designed to protect insiders rather than expose them.The broader controversy highlights what many see as a calculated effort to contain the fallout from newly surfaced Epstein-related communications that could implicate individuals across both political parties. Rather than pursuing a comprehensive accounting, the administration's strategy appears focused on limiting exposure and reframing the narrative toward partisan targets. Survivors of Epstein's abuse and their advocates have expressed frustration that those with direct proximity to Epstein—financially and personally—continue to remain shielded while public attention is redirected. Critics contend that the government's approach resembles damage control rather than a legitimate pursuit of justice, reinforcing suspicions that political and financial interests, rather than accountability, are driving decisions at the highest levels.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In a move widely criticized as politically motivated and structurally compromised, former SEC chairman Jay Clayton—who previously worked closely with Apollo Global Management, the private-equity firm led for decades by Jeffrey Epstein associate Leon Black—was appointed to oversee an investigation into Epstein's alleged ties to Donald Trump's political adversaries. Critics argue that placing someone so closely connected to a firm entangled in Epstein's financial orbit fundamentally undermines the credibility of the inquiry. While the announcement was framed as a push for transparency, the decision raised immediate concerns about conflicts of interest and selective scrutiny. Observers note that when Trump publicly demanded investigations into his opponents, he conspicuously avoided referencing Black or Les Wexner, another figure long linked to Epstein, fueling allegations that the appointment was designed to protect insiders rather than expose them.The broader controversy highlights what many see as a calculated effort to contain the fallout from newly surfaced Epstein-related communications that could implicate individuals across both political parties. Rather than pursuing a comprehensive accounting, the administration's strategy appears focused on limiting exposure and reframing the narrative toward partisan targets. Survivors of Epstein's abuse and their advocates have expressed frustration that those with direct proximity to Epstein—financially and personally—continue to remain shielded while public attention is redirected. Critics contend that the government's approach resembles damage control rather than a legitimate pursuit of justice, reinforcing suspicions that political and financial interests, rather than accountability, are driving decisions at the highest levels.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the report dated January 22, 2021, Dechert reviewed over 60,000 documents and interviewed more than 20 witnesses to examine Black's social and business ties to Epstein, including payments, introductions, and services rendered. It concluded that there was no evidence that Black or his affiliates were involved in Epstein's criminal activities, or that Epstein introduced Black to any under-age woman. The document confirmed that Black engaged Epstein for tax, estate-planning, philanthropic and family-office advice between about 2012 and 2017 — with total payments around $158 million — and that their social relationship dated to the mid-1990s. It found that Black believed Epstein had served his sentence in 2008 and viewed engaging him as not “inappropriate,” though the report notes Black severed ties around fall 2018.The report also flagged red-flags: Epstein advised on a “proprietary” solution for a 2006 Grantor-Retained Annuity Trust (“GRAT”) that reportedly saved Black up to $1 billion+ in estate taxes, and a “step-up basis” transaction that may have saved about $600 million in future tax liability. The investigation found that Epstein's compensation “far exceeded” what Black paid his other professional advisors, and payments after 2013 were made on an ad-hoc basis without formal service agreements. While the report cleared Black of criminal wrongdoing, it raised significant questions about the nature of Epstein's advisory role and the scale/value of payments relative to documented services.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a move widely criticized as politically motivated and structurally compromised, former SEC chairman Jay Clayton—who previously worked closely with Apollo Global Management, the private-equity firm led for decades by Jeffrey Epstein associate Leon Black—was appointed to oversee an investigation into Epstein's alleged ties to Donald Trump's political adversaries. Critics argue that placing someone so closely connected to a firm entangled in Epstein's financial orbit fundamentally undermines the credibility of the inquiry. While the announcement was framed as a push for transparency, the decision raised immediate concerns about conflicts of interest and selective scrutiny. Observers note that when Trump publicly demanded investigations into his opponents, he conspicuously avoided referencing Black or Les Wexner, another figure long linked to Epstein, fueling allegations that the appointment was designed to protect insiders rather than expose them.The broader controversy highlights what many see as a calculated effort to contain the fallout from newly surfaced Epstein-related communications that could implicate individuals across both political parties. Rather than pursuing a comprehensive accounting, the administration's strategy appears focused on limiting exposure and reframing the narrative toward partisan targets. Survivors of Epstein's abuse and their advocates have expressed frustration that those with direct proximity to Epstein—financially and personally—continue to remain shielded while public attention is redirected. Critics contend that the government's approach resembles damage control rather than a legitimate pursuit of justice, reinforcing suspicions that political and financial interests, rather than accountability, are driving decisions at the highest levels.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's finances were a labyrinth deliberately designed to defy transparency. Despite presenting himself as a billionaire money manager, there was never any verifiable evidence of major clients, traditional investment portfolios, or legitimate business operations. His primary company, Financial Trust Co., was registered in the Virgin Islands — a jurisdiction notorious for secrecy — and functioned more as a private shell than a real investment firm. Epstein's wealth seemed to appear out of thin air: properties worth hundreds of millions, private jets, an island compound, and a Manhattan mansion allegedly “gifted” to him under murky circumstances. Forensic accountants and federal investigators alike have repeatedly noted that his books were impenetrable, his paper trail incomplete, and his supposed “financial empire” more illusion than reality.Beneath that illusion, Epstein's fortune was a web of offshore accounts, shadow foundations, and undisclosed transfers tied to an elite network of billionaires, politicians, and institutions. Many of his most conspicuous assets were owned through opaque LLCs or layered trusts that obscured true ownership, allowing him to move money between jurisdictions without detection. His close ties to figures like Leslie Wexner and Leon Black raised deeper questions about whether Epstein's wealth came from management fees, blackmail leverage, or participation in illicit financial schemes. Even after his death, forensic efforts to trace his full financial structure have been hampered by missing records, sealed documents, and non-cooperative entities. To this day, Epstein's finances remain one of the most sophisticated examples of how power, secrecy, and corruption can blur the line between wealth and criminality.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Today's Headlines: Sudan's civil war took a dark turn after the paramilitary RSF captured El Fasher, giving them full control of Darfur's major cities. The group is accused of killing hundreds and filming their own war crimes as hundreds of thousands flee. Meanwhile, Trump's threatening to send the U.S. military “guns-a-blazing” into Nigeria to “protect cherished Christians” from Boko Haram, declaring the country a “state of particular concern.” Nigerian officials politely said thanks but no thanks—they're still, you know, a sovereign nation. In Venezuela, the U.S. carried out yet another boat strike (the 15th since September), as reports suggest Trump's team is prepping direct hits on Venezuelan military targets linked to drug trafficking. In local matters, Trump's demanding Senate Republicans ditch the filibuster to end the government shutdown while partying at Mar-a-Lago as SNAP benefits expire. A judge ordered the USDA to pay SNAP recipients “as soon as possible,” but leaked emails show the agency told grocery stores not to offer discounts to hungry families. Very on-brand. In other news, the White House fired the entire Commission of Fine Arts to make way for friendlier faces on upcoming construction projects, the FBI may have overhyped a supposed Michigan “terror plot” that might've just been teenage gamers, and newly released records show JP Morgan flagged over $1 billion in suspicious Epstein-related transactions—names like Dershowitz, Wexner, and Leon Black—while both the bank and Trump's first administration looked the other way. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: PBS: Sudan's brutal civil war escalates as paramilitary forces go on killing rampage NBC News: Trump tells Defense Department to 'prepare for possible action' in Nigeria NYT: Latest U.S. Military Boat Strike in Caribbean Sea Kills 3, Pete Hegseth Says Miami Herald: U.S. ready to strike military targets inside Venezuela The Independent: Venezuela claims to have captured ‘CIA backed cell plotting false flag attack' as tensions with US grow WSJ: Trump Urges Republicans to End the Filibuster to Reopen Government X: USDA sent an email to grocery stores telling them they are prohibited from offering special discounts People: USDA sent an email to grocery stores telling them they are prohibited from offering special discounts ABC News: White House fires members of commission that is to weigh in on Trump's construction projects NBC News: FBI foiled a 'potential terrorist attack' in Michigan planned for Halloween weekend, Director Kash Patel says AP News: Michigan lawyer says a Halloween terror plot that FBI Director Kash Patel described never existed NYT: JPMorgan Alerted U.S. to Epstein Transfers Involving Wall St. Figures Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

In April 2022, when Elon Musk made his $43–44 billion bid to buy Twitter, Apollo Global Management quickly surfaced as one of the major Wall Street firms exploring involvement. Reports from the Wall Street Journal and Sports Business Journal indicated that Apollo, which owned Yahoo and AOL through its portfolio, was considering helping finance Musk's bid through preferred equity or debt financing. The firm was also exploring options to roll its existing digital assets—like Yahoo's advertising infrastructure—into a broader partnership with Twitter after acquisition. The discussions positioned Apollo as one of the most significant institutional players potentially backing Musk, underscoring its appetite for high-profile tech and media investments.By October 2022, however, Reuters and PYMNTS confirmed that Apollo, along with Sixth Street Partners, had dropped out of negotiations. Sources familiar with the talks said the firms were “no longer in discussions” to participate in the financing package, citing uncertainties over Musk's shifting deal terms and the platform's long-term revenue trajectory. The withdrawal highlighted Apollo's risk-management approach—balancing bold investment ambition with caution toward volatile technology assets. In the end, Musk closed the acquisition without Apollo's participation, and the firm publicly moved on to other digital-media ventures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Epstein is reported to have advised clients on deploying GRATs (Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts)—an estate planning vehicle that lets ultra-wealthy individuals pass appreciating assets to heirs while minimizing gift and estate taxes. Analysts say Epstein used his proximity to billionaires and his aura of financial wizardry to pitch these sophisticated tax-avoidance schemes. The strategy exploits a loophole in U.S. tax law: during the trust's term, the grantor retains annuity payments, and if the trust's investments outperform the assumed IRS rate, the excess passes to beneficiaries tax-free. Epstein's involvement with GRATs even drew Senate scrutiny after it emerged he helped clients like Leon Black and possibly Sergey Brin structure trust arrangements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Patrick Bet-David and the team break down disturbing new Epstein revelations involving billionaire Leon Black, coded letters, and hidden payoffs. They analyze how Epstein's empire mixed sex trafficking, blackmail, and money laundering.

The lawsuits filed against Leon Black in connection with Jeffrey Epstein are among the most graphic and disturbing to emerge from Epstein's orbit. Several women, including Cheri Pierson and a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe, accuse Black of violent sexual assaults that allegedly took place inside Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. Pierson claims Black raped her in 2002 after Epstein arranged what was supposed to be a massage appointment, describing the encounter as brutal and coercive. Another lawsuit alleges Black sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl with autism and Down syndrome, leaving her bleeding and traumatized. Both cases portray Black as a predator who exploited Epstein's network to target vulnerable women, echoing the broader pattern of abuse associated with Epstein's inner circle. Black's legal team has vehemently denied all allegations, dismissing the claims as false and opportunistic.Compounding the scandal is Black's series of high-dollar settlements and legal maneuvering. In 2023, he quietly paid $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands to avoid potential litigation tied to Epstein's trafficking operations there. He also succeeded in getting parts of other lawsuits dismissed on procedural grounds, including a defamation case brought by former model Guzel Ganieva, which was thrown out in early 2025. Still, the volume and nature of the claims — combined with his massive financial ties to Epstein and the Senate Finance Committee's scrutiny of his payments — have left Black mired in controversy. The lawsuits' explicit, violent allegations and the perception of systemic leniency have solidified his position as one of the most controversial figures to emerge from Epstein's shadow.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The lawsuits filed against Leon Black in connection with Jeffrey Epstein are among the most graphic and disturbing to emerge from Epstein's orbit. Several women, including Cheri Pierson and a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe, accuse Black of violent sexual assaults that allegedly took place inside Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. Pierson claims Black raped her in 2002 after Epstein arranged what was supposed to be a massage appointment, describing the encounter as brutal and coercive. Another lawsuit alleges Black sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl with autism and Down syndrome, leaving her bleeding and traumatized. Both cases portray Black as a predator who exploited Epstein's network to target vulnerable women, echoing the broader pattern of abuse associated with Epstein's inner circle. Black's legal team has vehemently denied all allegations, dismissing the claims as false and opportunistic.Compounding the scandal is Black's series of high-dollar settlements and legal maneuvering. In 2023, he quietly paid $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands to avoid potential litigation tied to Epstein's trafficking operations there. He also succeeded in getting parts of other lawsuits dismissed on procedural grounds, including a defamation case brought by former model Guzel Ganieva, which was thrown out in early 2025. Still, the volume and nature of the claims — combined with his massive financial ties to Epstein and the Senate Finance Committee's scrutiny of his payments — have left Black mired in controversy. The lawsuits' explicit, violent allegations and the perception of systemic leniency have solidified his position as one of the most controversial figures to emerge from Epstein's shadow.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leon Black, a billionaire financier and Dartmouth alumnus, has faced growing scrutiny over his long and lucrative association with Jeffrey Epstein — scrutiny that has extended to his alma mater. Black and his wife donated $48 million to Dartmouth College, funding the Black Family Visual Arts Center, which bears their name. However, revelations that Black paid Epstein $158 million for “tax and estate planning services” between 2012 and 2017 — years after Epstein's conviction for sex crimes — sparked outrage within the Dartmouth community. Critics argued that maintaining Black's name on campus was incompatible with the college's stated values. Epstein had also been listed as a trustee on Black's family foundation, further entangling the financier's legacy with that of the disgraced predator.The Guerrilla Girls, an anonymous feminist art collective known for holding cultural institutions accountable for gender and racial justice, publicly challenged Black over his ties to Epstein. They canceled a book deal with Phaidon Press (which is owned by Black) upon learning of his “extensive and shady dealings” with Epstein.    They also led campaigns urging MoMA to remove Black from its board, installing public posters outside the museum and rallying other artists and activists to pressure the institution to sever ties with donors linked to sexual misconduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

According to newly reported emails between Jeffrey Epstein and Leon Black, Epstein pressed Black with aggressive financial demands for years, particularly around 2015 to 2016. Epstein repeatedly insisted on annual payments of roughly US$40 million for providing tax-and-estate-planning services, seeking an upfront US$25 million plus multiple US$5-million bi-monthly installments. He chastised Black's children and financial advisers, calling them incompetent and saying that their actions had created a “really dangerous mess.”While Black had engaged Epstein for advisory services and reportedly paid over US$150 million over a period of time, the correspondence underscores how Epstein sought to impose unusually high compensation and used personal attacks and pressure tactics. Black maintains that Epstein's role was limited to legitimate financial work, and investigations (such as the independent review by law firm Dechert LLP) found no conclusive wrongdoing by Black, though substantial payments and tax-planning strategies remain under scrutiny from the U.S.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein sent nasty emails to Apollo founder Leon Black demanding millions of dollars

CannCon and Zak Paine kick off another fiery week on Badlands Daily as the government shutdown drags into its third week. After a quick dive into AI innovation and its coming impact on the workforce, the duo shifts gears to explosive developments in the Epstein saga, linking Prince Andrew, Ehud Barak, and Tony Blair to new revelations from Virginia Giuffre's memoir. They unpack billionaire Leon Black's disturbing ties to Epstein and the hidden hands behind global corruption. Then it's on to the “No Kings” protests, media psyops, and the growing manipulation meant to push America toward civil conflict. Trump's latest moves on pardons, peace negotiations in Ukraine, and bold strikes against drug traffickers get their own deep dive, capped with insight into looming globalist power plays like the proposed carbon tax and the latest Israel-Gaza updates. Smart, sharp, and unfiltered, this episode proves once again why Badlands Daily remains the pulse of the parallel press.

According to newly reported emails between Jeffrey Epstein and Leon Black, Epstein pressed Black with aggressive financial demands for years, particularly around 2015 to 2016. Epstein repeatedly insisted on annual payments of roughly US$40 million for providing tax-and-estate-planning services, seeking an upfront US$25 million plus multiple US$5-million bi-monthly installments. He chastised Black's children and financial advisers, calling them incompetent and saying that their actions had created a “really dangerous mess.”While Black had engaged Epstein for advisory services and reportedly paid over US$150 million over a period of time, the correspondence underscores how Epstein sought to impose unusually high compensation and used personal attacks and pressure tactics. Black maintains that Epstein's role was limited to legitimate financial work, and investigations (such as the independent review by law firm Dechert LLP) found no conclusive wrongdoing by Black, though substantial payments and tax-planning strategies remain under scrutiny from the U.S.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein sent nasty emails to Apollo founder Leon Black demanding millions of dollarsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Headline stories and then King Randall and his innovative school for boys~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Manage Your Energy, Grantifa, No Kings, French Crown Jewels Stolen, Robot War Dogs, Walter Cronkite, Leon Black, Friedrich Merz, President Maduro, Gaza Ceasefire, Ukraine Tomahawk Missiles, Ukraine War, President Trump, President Putin, King Randall, Scott AdamsKing Randall: Thexforboys.org~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.

Jeffrey Epstein manipulated financial markets not by traditional trading fraud but through influence, opacity, and access. He embedded himself inside the financial empires of billionaires like Les Wexner and Leon Black, gaining control of vast capital reserves under the guise of “exclusive money management.” By structuring himself as a gatekeeper rather than a trader, Epstein positioned his network at the intersection of elite capital and secrecy. Through Financial Trust Company, registered in the U.S. Virgin Islands, he exploited generous tax shelters, confidentiality protections, and regulatory blind spots to quietly move and obscure assets. These offshore structures let Epstein shift funds globally, mask ownership trails, and shield beneficiaries — creating the illusion of legitimate financial sophistication while actually leveraging loopholes and relationships.Epstein's real power lay in his ability to manipulate liquidity and market perception through shell entities and credit instruments like repos and mortgage-backed securities. His Bermuda-based vehicle Liquid Funding Ltd. — partially financed by Bear Stearns — operated in debt and derivatives markets that allowed him to obscure leverage ratios and offload risk to counterparties. He also had historical ties to Towers Financial, a company later revealed to be a massive Ponzi scheme, where Epstein reportedly advised founder Stephen Hoffenberg on structuring debt packages that misled investors. Taken together, these networks enabled Epstein to influence pricing, conceal illicit inflows, and present himself as a mysterious financial genius while effectively manipulating money flows that blurred the line between investment and laundering.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Epstein is reported to have advised clients on deploying GRATs (Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts)—an estate planning vehicle that lets ultra-wealthy individuals pass appreciating assets to heirs while minimizing gift and estate taxes. Analysts say Epstein used his proximity to billionaires and his aura of financial wizardry to pitch these sophisticated tax-avoidance schemes. The strategy exploits a loophole in U.S. tax law: during the trust's term, the grantor retains annuity payments, and if the trust's investments outperform the assumed IRS rate, the excess passes to beneficiaries tax-free. Epstein's involvement with GRATs even drew Senate scrutiny after it emerged he helped clients like Leon Black and possibly Sergey Brin structure trust arrangements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein manipulated financial markets not by traditional trading fraud but through influence, opacity, and access. He embedded himself inside the financial empires of billionaires like Les Wexner and Leon Black, gaining control of vast capital reserves under the guise of “exclusive money management.” By structuring himself as a gatekeeper rather than a trader, Epstein positioned his network at the intersection of elite capital and secrecy. Through Financial Trust Company, registered in the U.S. Virgin Islands, he exploited generous tax shelters, confidentiality protections, and regulatory blind spots to quietly move and obscure assets. These offshore structures let Epstein shift funds globally, mask ownership trails, and shield beneficiaries — creating the illusion of legitimate financial sophistication while actually leveraging loopholes and relationships.Epstein's real power lay in his ability to manipulate liquidity and market perception through shell entities and credit instruments like repos and mortgage-backed securities. His Bermuda-based vehicle Liquid Funding Ltd. — partially financed by Bear Stearns — operated in debt and derivatives markets that allowed him to obscure leverage ratios and offload risk to counterparties. He also had historical ties to Towers Financial, a company later revealed to be a massive Ponzi scheme, where Epstein reportedly advised founder Stephen Hoffenberg on structuring debt packages that misled investors. Taken together, these networks enabled Epstein to influence pricing, conceal illicit inflows, and present himself as a mysterious financial genius while effectively manipulating money flows that blurred the line between investment and laundering.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leon Black, a billionaire financier and Dartmouth alumnus, has faced growing scrutiny over his long and lucrative association with Jeffrey Epstein — scrutiny that has extended to his alma mater. Black and his wife donated $48 million to Dartmouth College, funding the Black Family Visual Arts Center, which bears their name. However, revelations that Black paid Epstein $158 million for “tax and estate planning services” between 2012 and 2017 — years after Epstein's conviction for sex crimes — sparked outrage within the Dartmouth community. Critics argued that maintaining Black's name on campus was incompatible with the college's stated values. Epstein had also been listed as a trustee on Black's family foundation, further entangling the financier's legacy with that of the disgraced predator.The Guerrilla Girls, an anonymous feminist art collective known for holding cultural institutions accountable for gender and racial justice, publicly challenged Black over his ties to Epstein. They canceled a book deal with Phaidon Press (which is owned by Black) upon learning of his “extensive and shady dealings” with Epstein.    They also led campaigns urging MoMA to remove Black from its board, installing public posters outside the museum and rallying other artists and activists to pressure the institution to sever ties with donors linked to sexual misconduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leon Black's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein spanned decades and has been a source of sustained scandal. Black, cofounder of Apollo Global Management, paid Epstein at least $158 million (and recent investigations suggest as much as $170 million) between 2012 and 2017 for tax, estate planning, and art-collection services. Black has acknowledged that working with Epstein was a “horrible mistake” and said he deeply regrets their association. Nonetheless, his payments and closeness to Epstein have invited intense scrutiny about what Black knew — or should have known — about Epstein's criminal network. Meanwhile, congressional and regulatory probes have sought to uncover the full extent of their financial entanglements and whether Black's use of Epstein's services was beyond mere professional consults.In addition to the financial scandal, Black's ties to Epstein have been tangled with serious allegations of sexual misconduct. Multiple lawsuits accuse Black of rape, including claims that in 2002, when introduced by Epstein, he assaulted a 16-year-old autistic girl in Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. One prominent lawsuit filed by Cheri Pierson accused Black of attacking her in Epstein's home; that lawsuit was later dismissed. Black has denied all criminal wrongdoing, asserting consensual relationships and rejecting claims against him as false. These overlapping allegations and financial links with Epstein have undermined Black's reputation, led to his resignation as MoMA board chair and Apollo executive, and triggered ongoing legal and reputational battles.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmaill.com

A new wave of scrutiny has reignited public attention on figures once connected to Jeffrey Epstein, with developments spanning finance, politics, and media. Billionaire investor Leon Black, who resigned from Apollo Global Management in 2021 after revelations he paid Epstein more than $150 million for “tax and estate planning,” is reportedly in talks to anchor a bid for The Telegraph, one of Britain's most storied newspapers. The move, seen by critics as an attempt at reputation rehabilitation, has drawn renewed criticism over Black's past ties to Epstein — particularly as he seeks control of a media institution traditionally associated with moral conservatism.Across the Atlantic, former Labour heavyweight Peter Mandelson has been ousted from his ambassadorial role after emails emerged showing him describing Epstein as a “good friend” and advocating for his early release even after the financier's sex crime conviction. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who initially defended Mandelson, reversed course swiftly once the correspondence became public, declaring the longtime political operator would have “no future role” in government. The episode has underscored the enduring reputational risks tied to Epstein's network, years after his death, and how proximity to his name continues to derail public careers.Meanwhile, journalist and author Michael Wolff has resurfaced with claims that Epstein's “ghost” still haunts former president Donald Trump — a relationship both men have publicly minimized. Wolff's insinuations, based largely on anecdotal accounts and suggestive sourcing, have been met with skepticism, yet continue to generate headlines in a political environment where scandal and spectacle often overshadow substance. Collectively, the stories of Black, Mandelson, and Trump — filtered through a media ecosystem eager for intrigue — illustrate how Epstein's legacy remains an open wound in elite circles, where power, money, and image intersect in a never-ending struggle between denial and exposure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com