Podcasts about Mega

The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by Joe House to react to the Hawks trading Trae Young to the Wizards (2:54). Then, Billy Gil joins to break down the wild-card round of the NFL playoffs before making their Ringer 107 picks for the week (23:18). Host: Bill Simmons Guests: Joe House and Billy Gil Producers: Chia Hao Tat and Eduardo Ocampo Searchlight Pictures: Is This Thing On? Directed by Bradley Cooper. The Ringer is committed to responsible gaming. Please visit⁠⁠⁠ www.rg-help.com⁠⁠⁠ to learn more about the resources and helplines available. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ghislaine Maxwell originally signaled she was ready to comply with the congressional subpoena demanding her testimony before the House Oversight Committee tentatively scheduled for the week of August 11. Her legal team had framed her cooperation with the Department of Justice—during a two‑day interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, in which she reportedly answered questions about nearly 100 individuals without invoking privilege—as a sign of willingness to come forward fully. That earlier posture suggested Maxwell might walk the halls of Capitol Hill to finally provide insight into Epstein's network and operations.But following that DOJ sit‑down, she is now openly "undecided" about whether she will testify before Congress. Despite praising her own “truthful” and unrestricted cooperation in front of federal prosecutors, Maxwell has refused to commit to congressional testimony, leaving open the possibility of invoking her Fifth Amendment rights absent formal immunity. Critics are quick to suggest this move is a calculated pivot—falling back into legal limbo just as the political temperature rises. Rather than embracing transparency, she's pulling back into silence until she sees whether immunity or clemency might eventually materialize—casting further doubt on the sincerity of her earlier so-called "willingness."to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Maxwell's lawyer says she's undecided on appearing for congressional testimony - POLITICO

One of the most glaring omissions in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial was who wasn't put on the stand. Despite years of public acknowledgment by prosecutors, victims, and even courts that Jeffrey Epstein did not operate alone, none of Epstein's known or suspected co-conspirators were called to testify. The trial was narrowly structured to focus almost exclusively on Maxwell's role as a recruiter and facilitator, while the broader criminal enterprise was treated as background noise rather than a living network of accomplices. Names that had appeared repeatedly in civil filings, victim statements, and investigative records were conspicuously absent from the courtroom. This was not because those individuals were irrelevant, but because calling them would have forced the government to confront uncomfortable questions about who was protected, who was never charged, and why the conspiracy itself was effectively carved down to a single defendant.That avoidance is most obvious when it comes to what many observers and survivors refer to as the “core four” figures tied to Epstein's operations—individuals alleged to have managed money, logistics, legal shielding, and daily access to victims. These figures have lingered in the margins of the official narrative for years, acknowledged obliquely if at all, while the focus remains fixed on Epstein and Maxwell alone. The result is a sanitized version of events that frames the crimes as the actions of two bad actors rather than a coordinated system that relied on enablers, fixers, and silence from powerful quarters. By never calling these people to testify, the Maxwell trial reinforced a pattern that has defined the Epstein case from the start: accountability stops early, names disappear before they reach a jury, and the full scope of the conspiracy is left deliberately unresolved.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

On this episode of Ask KT & Suze Anything, Suze answers your questions about the previous episode’s mega backdoor Roth strategy. Watch Suze’s YouTube Channel Jumpstart financial wellness for your employees: https://bit.ly/SecureSave Protect your financial future with the Must Have Docs: https://bit.ly/3Vq1V3GGet your savings going with Alliant Credit Union: https://bit.ly/3rg0YioGet Suze’s special offers for podcast listeners at suzeorman.com/offerJoin Suze’s Women & Money Community for FREE and ASK SUZE your questions which may just end up on the podcast. Download the app by following one of these links: CLICK HERE FOR APPLE: https://apple.co/2KcAHbHCLICK HERE FOR GOOGLE PLAY: https://bit.ly/3curfMISee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nate Tice & Charles McDonald join forces to preview ALL six NFL Wild Card games. After reacting to the Miami Dolphins firing Head Coach Mike McDaniel and where he could potentially land as one of the better playcallers in the NFL, the duo dive into Wild Card Weekend. Nate & Charles start off by discussing whether the Carolina Panthers have a chance to keep it close against the Los Angeles Rams, if the Chicago Bears can get the upper hand on the Green Bay Packers in their rubber match and if the Buffalo Bills really deserve to be road favorites against the red-hot Jacksonville Jaguars.Later, Nate & Charles discuss the San Francisco 49ers and Philadelphia Eagles battling to see who can get the good vibes going again, the Los Angeles Chargers trying to overcome their injuries against the New England Patriots (and MVP Drake Maye) and the Pittsburgh Steelers walking into a buzzsaw Houston Texans defense on Monday night. The two hosts wrap things up with their Hail Mary bold predictions, including some pessimism surrounding Bryce Young and Aaron Rodgers.(2:45) - Dolphins fire Mike McDaniel(13:30) - Rams @ Panthers(23:20) - Packers @ Bears(40:35) - Bills @ Jaguars(1:00:05) - 49ers @ Eagles(1:16:30) - Chargers @ Patriots(1:41:20) - Texans @ Steelers(1:49:50) - Hail Mary predictions Subscribe to Football 301 on your favorite podcast app:

Yeah the Lakers lost but Raj and Anthony haven't spoken since 2025 so there was A LOT to catch up on. So grab a seat, get comfy. Come along for the ride. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In their letter, Haley Robson and Courtney Wild lay out a blunt indictment of the financial institutions that enabled Jeffrey Epstein's criminal empire to function for decades. They argue that Epstein's abuse operation was not sustained by secrecy alone, but by banks and financial professionals who ignored glaring red flags, processed suspicious transactions, and continued doing business with him long after his criminal conduct was well known. The letter emphasizes that Epstein's wealth, mobility, and access to victims were directly tied to the services provided by major financial players who treated him as a valuable client rather than a known sex offender. Robson and Wild make clear that without this financial infrastructure, Epstein's trafficking network could not have operated at the scale or duration that it did.The letter also rejects the idea that civil settlements or regulatory fines amount to real accountability. Robson and Wild demand consequences that go beyond monetary penalties absorbed as the cost of doing business, calling instead for transparency, individual responsibility, and meaningful reform within the financial sector. They stress that survivors are not seeking symbolic gestures or carefully worded apologies, but an honest reckoning with how institutional greed and willful blindness helped shield Epstein from scrutiny. By framing the issue as systemic rather than incidental, the letter challenges regulators, prosecutors, and the public to confront the uncomfortable reality that Epstein's crimes were not just enabled by people, but by institutions that still have not fully answered for their role.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

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

World War II sparked a notable surge in church attendance that extended into a full-blown postwar religious revival in America, challenging claims of decline. Polls and historical data from the era reveal packed pews as returning GIs, marriages, and baby booms fueled spiritual fervor. Mega church pastors citing negative effects may overlook this well-documented boom.Mark Driscoll's TakePost War Church FactsGood TimesBoomers

Prince Andrew's downfall has accelerated sharply in the wake of fresh allegations tied to Jeffrey Epstein and the explosive release of Virginia Giuffre's memoir, Nobody's Girl. The book recounts new details about Andrew's alleged sexual encounters with Giuffre while she was being trafficked as a minor by Epstein. These revelations reignited public outrage and renewed scrutiny over Andrew's long-denied relationship with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Buckingham Palace has reportedly been forced into damage control, with King Charles III supporting Andrew's decision to give up his “Duke of York” title and remaining royal honors. The palace has publicly stated that the new allegations must be fully investigated, signaling growing institutional distance from Andrew as pressure mounts for full transparency and accountability.Adding to his disgrace, newly surfaced claims allege that Andrew attempted to orchestrate an online smear campaign against Giuffre to salvage his reputation. According to The Guardian's coverage of the memoir, the prince and his aides tried to hire internet trolls to harass Giuffre online and even sought access to her private information, including her Social Security number. Reports indicate that the Metropolitan Police have opened an inquiry into whether Andrew misused his royal security detail or other public resources during this smear campaign. Parliamentarians are also reportedly pushing to strip him of any remaining titles and privileges, as his reputation continues to collapse under the weight of new evidence and public disgust over his conduct.Also...Ian Maxwell, brother of convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, publicly smeared Virginia Giuffre by labeling her “the real monster” in the Epstein saga, claiming she was the one who “ruined lives.” In a tone dripping with contempt, Maxwell reversed the narrative of survivor and perpetrator, portraying Giuffre not as a victim of child sex trafficking, but as a malicious force responsible for the downfall of others. He claimed that Giuffre had “profited” from her accusations and implied that her allegations lacked credibility—completely ignoring the fact that his sister was convicted in a U.S. federal court, and that Giuffre's testimony and civil suits helped bring global attention to Epstein's trafficking ring.Maxwell's comments weren't just tone-deaf—they were a grotesque display of gaslighting and reputational warfare against a survivor of child abuse. Rather than addressing his sister's crimes or acknowledging the systemic exploitation she helped carry out, Ian Maxwell chose to attack one of the few women courageous enough to confront the monster head-on. His remarks attempted to muddy the moral waters, deflect guilt, and assassinate the character of a woman who endured horrific abuse. In doing so, Ian Maxwell made it clear that his family's legacy of denial and elite entitlement is alive and well—even in disgrace.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

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

We did it! We made it to 100 Episodes. Cheers to the next 100 PTB Friends. Enjoy a crazy night, with a ton of friends, laughs, and great times.~ Past The Barb Social Media ~ Email Us Questions and Feedback: pastthebarbpodcast@gmail.comInstagram: @pastthebarbpodcastFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?... ~ Follow Us On Social Media ~ Adam Bartusek Instagram: @adambartusek Adam Bartusek Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/adambartbart... Ryan Pinkalla Instagram: @ryan_pinkalla Ryan Pinkalla YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiRa... Sam Sobi Instagram: @sam_sobi_ Sam Sobi Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sobieckfishing

Episode 197 – Special Conditions (Pokémon TCG) This week's Card of the Day is a full-on vibes pick: Mega Manectric EX full art—loud colors, chaotic Mega-era energy, and the kind of card you love because it rules, not because someone on the internet said it's “a smart buy.” That “collect what you like” energy keeps showing up all episode: Adam talks card shows, trades, and the kind of personal chase cards that hit harder than market comps—like the Ditto Charmander promo that instantly time-travels you back to your first big events. If your binder's been drifting into “what's hot right now,” consider this your reminder to steer it back to you. Build the collection you'd still love if prices didn't exist. 00:00:00 — Cold open: Delibird show survival + Whatnot glow-up? 00:01:15 — Episode start + what we're getting into 00:04:30 — Card of the Day: Mega Manectric EX (taste over value) 00:07:45 — Freeport, ME show recap (brewery vibes + room to browse) 00:11:15 — Ditto Charmander promo = core memory collecting 00:19:15 — Why is everyone hunting Mudkip? 00:24:30 — Danvers, MA show recap (New England Cardhouse energy) 00:29:00 — TGA slabs + trade talk 00:30:45 — Prismatic product reality check 00:35:30 — Anime Frontier finds (artist alley Pokémon heat) 00:40:45 — Whatnot learning curve: awkward starts, pacing, bids 00:42:45 — Giveaways + keeping viewers engaged 00:51:00 — Buyers, shipping, and stream momentum 00:58:00 — Holiday stream idea + time management panic

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

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

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

Creep love is in the air: we've got creeps who met through totes and Tinder, Trump nipping into Venezuela for a quick kidnap, Blackwater's rent-a-war madness, eBay execs losing the run of themselves and a haunted bra for dessert. Listen ad-free and get an extra episode every week (plus first dibs on our Meat Creep Valentine's show tickets) over on Patreon: patreon.com/thecreepdive. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We talk about Bret saying something out loud that he now regrets, and our "vison boards" for 2026.

We wonder if using a deceased relative's recipe is really the right thing to do, and we talk about a great way to tackle decluttering.

It's birthday week at Everything is Logistics! To celebrate, we're digging into the vault to cover the heavy hitters: Janet Labuta explains why "importing is not for cowards," Kevin Lawton drops a truth bomb on why 90% of warehouses are still manual, Grace Sharkey helps us navigate the hype of delivery drones, and we take a deep dive into the booming infrastructure of South America.Key Takeaways: Why AI is the only way to stay ahead of Customs and Border Protection.The psychological and financial barriers to warehouse automation.The "Great Rerouting": How China is bypassing global choke points.Timestamps:04:09 – Janet Labuta on Customs & Compliance1:10:29 – Kevin Lawton on Robotics Hype vs. Reality1:36:30 – Grace Sharkey on Drone Logistics2:06:17 – South American Mega Ports & InfrastructureWatch the video versions of these episodes:Importing Is Not for Cowards with Maersk's Janet LabudaWhy 90% of Warehouses Are Still Manual with Kevin Lawton of New Warehouse PodcastWarehouse and Delivery Drones  South American Logistics Feedback? Ideas for a future episode? Shoot us a text here to let us know. -----------------------------------------THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS! SPI Logistics has been a Day 1 supporter of this podcast which is why we're proud to promote them in every episode. During that time, we've gotten to know the team and their agents to confidently say they are the best home for freight agents in North America for 40 years and counting. Listen to past episodes to hear why. CargoRex is the search engine for the logistics industry—connecting LSPs with the right tools, services, events, and creators to explore, discover, and evolve. Digital Dispatch manages and maximizes your #1 sales tool with a website that establishes trust and builds rock-solid relationships with your leads and customers.

Annie Farmer testified during Ghislaine Maxwell's federal trial that she was just 16 years old when Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein flew her to Epstein's ranch in New Mexico under the guise of an academic retreat. Farmer explained that she initially believed the trip was meant to provide her with educational and career opportunities. Instead, she said the experience quickly turned uncomfortable and exploitative. She recalled Maxwell giving her a massage during which Maxwell touched her breasts, an incident that left her feeling frozen and terrified. She also testified that Epstein had climbed into her bed unexpectedly and caressed her without consent. Farmer described feeling "panicked" and manipulated by two adults who had promised mentorship and safety.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's ties to billionaire retail magnate Les Wexner remain some of the most enigmatic and disturbing in the entire saga. Wexner, founder of L Brands and the empire behind Victoria's Secret, gave Epstein power of attorney over his finances in the 1990s—an almost unprecedented level of control. This arrangement effectively gave Epstein sweeping access to Wexner's fortune, properties, and business dealings, despite Epstein having no formal background in finance. Epstein used this trust to enrich himself, acquiring Wexner's Manhattan townhouse—the largest private residence in the city—under circumstances that remain suspicious. Many have questioned why Wexner, a seasoned and shrewd businessman, would hand over his empire's keys to a man with a checkered past and no credentials to warrant such trust.The depth of this relationship is further underscored by the fact that Epstein's social ascent was largely built on Wexner's backing. The fortune, credibility, and connections Epstein enjoyed were in large part derived from his inexplicable hold over Wexner. Even after the ties supposedly dissolved, Wexner continued to face scrutiny over how Epstein was able to leverage their bond into years of unchecked financial and social influence. While Wexner has claimed ignorance of Epstein's crimes and insists he severed ties long before the scandal exploded, the unanswered question remains: why did one of the most powerful retailers in America entrust a mysterious outsider with unfettered access to his fortune? That silence has only fueled speculation that the ties between Epstein and Wexner run far deeper than either man was ever willing to publicly admit.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/inside-jeffrey-epsteins-decades-long-relationship-with-his-biggest-clientBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's ties to billionaire retail magnate Les Wexner remain some of the most enigmatic and disturbing in the entire saga. Wexner, founder of L Brands and the empire behind Victoria's Secret, gave Epstein power of attorney over his finances in the 1990s—an almost unprecedented level of control. This arrangement effectively gave Epstein sweeping access to Wexner's fortune, properties, and business dealings, despite Epstein having no formal background in finance. Epstein used this trust to enrich himself, acquiring Wexner's Manhattan townhouse—the largest private residence in the city—under circumstances that remain suspicious. Many have questioned why Wexner, a seasoned and shrewd businessman, would hand over his empire's keys to a man with a checkered past and no credentials to warrant such trust.The depth of this relationship is further underscored by the fact that Epstein's social ascent was largely built on Wexner's backing. The fortune, credibility, and connections Epstein enjoyed were in large part derived from his inexplicable hold over Wexner. Even after the ties supposedly dissolved, Wexner continued to face scrutiny over how Epstein was able to leverage their bond into years of unchecked financial and social influence. While Wexner has claimed ignorance of Epstein's crimes and insists he severed ties long before the scandal exploded, the unanswered question remains: why did one of the most powerful retailers in America entrust a mysterious outsider with unfettered access to his fortune? That silence has only fueled speculation that the ties between Epstein and Wexner run far deeper than either man was ever willing to publicly admit.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/inside-jeffrey-epsteins-decades-long-relationship-with-his-biggest-clientBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bitcoin has just SMASHED through the $94,000 mark, hitting its highest level since mid-December 2025!

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

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

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

Dating Talk is LIVE on ⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/whatever

We have 6 adds from Sunday, and 5 more from Saturday, and MANY have top-75 potential or better. Sure, most are connected to injury, but not all. Let's dive in! Key names discussed: Jake LaRavia Isaiah Stewart Paul Reed Kevin Huerter Aaron Nesmith De'Anthony Melton and so many more! The Old Man Squad has a PATREON now. It's $1 and doesn't get a single benefit. It is entirely to support the mission here but won't change anything we do. https://www.patreon.com/cw/oldmansquad Follow Dan Besbris on Twitter: https://x.com/danbesbris Find Dan on the brand new BlueSky social network: https://bit.ly/3Vo5M0N Check out Dan's Google Sheet with Ranks, Weekly Streaming Schedule Charts & Injury Replacement Adds FREE! https://bit.ly/3XrAdEW Listen and subscribe on iTunes: https://apple.co/3XiUzQK Listen and subscribe on Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3ACCHYe Float on over to the new Old Man Squad Sports Network YouTube page to watch videos from the network's top talent: https://bit.ly/46Z6fvb Join the Old Man Squad Discord to chat with Dan and all the other hosts: https://t.co/aY9cqDrgRY Follow Old Man Squad Fantasy on Instagram for all our short videos: https://bit.ly/3ZQbxrt Podcast logo by https://twitter.com/freekeepoints Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We play "2 Truths And A Lie" to see what we REALLY did over the holiday break, and we find out about Kevin's "Christmas Wheel" for giving away presents.

We talk about some of the things we did over our holiday breaks, and Hannah tells us the Christmas gift that she got herboyfriend that she was nervous about giving to him.

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

Prince Andrew's downfall has accelerated sharply in the wake of fresh allegations tied to Jeffrey Epstein and the explosive release of Virginia Giuffre's memoir, Nobody's Girl. The book recounts new details about Andrew's alleged sexual encounters with Giuffre while she was being trafficked as a minor by Epstein. These revelations reignited public outrage and renewed scrutiny over Andrew's long-denied relationship with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Buckingham Palace has reportedly been forced into damage control, with King Charles III supporting Andrew's decision to give up his “Duke of York” title and remaining royal honors. The palace has publicly stated that the new allegations must be fully investigated, signaling growing institutional distance from Andrew as pressure mounts for full transparency and accountability.Adding to his disgrace, newly surfaced claims allege that Andrew attempted to orchestrate an online smear campaign against Giuffre to salvage his reputation. According to The Guardian's coverage of the memoir, the prince and his aides tried to hire internet trolls to harass Giuffre online and even sought access to her private information, including her Social Security number. Reports indicate that the Metropolitan Police have opened an inquiry into whether Andrew misused his royal security detail or other public resources during this smear campaign. Parliamentarians are also reportedly pushing to strip him of any remaining titles and privileges, as his reputation continues to collapse under the weight of new evidence and public disgust over his conduct.Also...Ian Maxwell, brother of convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, publicly smeared Virginia Giuffre by labeling her “the real monster” in the Epstein saga, claiming she was the one who “ruined lives.” In a tone dripping with contempt, Maxwell reversed the narrative of survivor and perpetrator, portraying Giuffre not as a victim of child sex trafficking, but as a malicious force responsible for the downfall of others. He claimed that Giuffre had “profited” from her accusations and implied that her allegations lacked credibility—completely ignoring the fact that his sister was convicted in a U.S. federal court, and that Giuffre's testimony and civil suits helped bring global attention to Epstein's trafficking ring.Maxwell's comments weren't just tone-deaf—they were a grotesque display of gaslighting and reputational warfare against a survivor of child abuse. Rather than addressing his sister's crimes or acknowledging the systemic exploitation she helped carry out, Ian Maxwell chose to attack one of the few women courageous enough to confront the monster head-on. His remarks attempted to muddy the moral waters, deflect guilt, and assassinate the character of a woman who endured horrific abuse. In doing so, Ian Maxwell made it clear that his family's legacy of denial and elite entitlement is alive and well—even in disgrace.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

Come along this week and see what's new here at the driveway, what happened on this day in 1977 and where is the mega bin.

Die US-Aktion gegen Venezuelas Präsidenten raubt uns eine der wenigen Gewissheiten, die wir in Bezug auf Donald Trump zu haben glaubten. In der US-Außenpolitik scheint jetzt alles möglich.

On this Suze School, we get a review on the basics of Roth retirement accounts and Suze goes over the new 2026 contribution limits. Then, Suze explains how a new rule around employer sponsored Roths can help you build up a massive tax free retirement account! Watch Suze’s YouTube Channel Jumpstart financial wellness for your employees: https://bit.ly/SecureSave Protect your financial future with the Must Have Docs: https://bit.ly/3Vq1V3GGet your savings going with Alliant Credit Union: https://bit.ly/3rg0YioGet Suze’s special offers for podcast listeners at suzeorman.com/offerJoin Suze’s Women & Money Community for FREE and ASK SUZE your questions which may just end up on the podcast. Download the app by following one of these links: CLICK HERE FOR APPLE: https://apple.co/2KcAHbHCLICK HERE FOR GOOGLE PLAY: https://bit.ly/3curfMISee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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