Podcasts about Mega

Gray is in limbo with his job offer and Halle goes rogue on a pride flag. Join Supercast for the full Mega experience. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listener Q&A where Andy talks about: Are tax return amendments needed if info from a 1099-R was left out but doesn't impact the return's gross or taxable income ( 4:08 )What are the pros and cons of using average cost basis tracking for mutual funds ( 8:36 )Tax implications of nonqualified annuities and surrendering vs annuitizing it ( 13:55 )Is there a more optimized way to pay taxes on in-plan Roth conversions as opposed to having additional taxes withheld from your paycheck ( 23:21 )Thoughts on using "reverse budgeting" to figure out how much you spend, instead of manually adding up all of the line items of actual expenses you have ( 28:28 )How to properly report on your tax return a disability exception to the 10% IRA early withdrawal penalty if the custodian won't reflect the exception on the 1099-R ( 34:31 )How much is too much to pay a financial advisor who charges a percent of assets under management, and thoughts on only rolling some of a 401(k) to an advisor and managing the rest on your own ( 40:23 )Options/insurance to help cover expenses for dental, vision, and hearing since traditional Medicare doesn't cover those things ( 47:46 )When to consider getting a financial advisor (or at least getting a one-time financial plan done) ( 52:06 )How to properly report on your tax return a SEPP (Substantially Equal Periodic Payment) exception to the 10% IRA early withdrawal penalty if the custodian won't reflect the exception on the 1099-R ( 58:00 )Thoughts on retiring from Oklahoma to a high cost of living place like New York City (to be near kids and grandkids) ( 1:02:02 )To send Andy questions to be addressed on future Q&A episodes, email andy@andypanko.comLinks in this episode:Tenon Financial monthly newsletter/blog - Retirement Planning InsightsYouTube channel - Retirement Planning Education (formerly Retirement Planning Demystified)Retirement Planning Education website - www.RetirementPlanningEducation.com

 Mega Quakes Devastate Venezuela, Scientists Warn California NEXT! Trump Scores Giant Deportation Victories With SCOTUS! Israeli Leaders Threaten To Use Nuclear Weapons On Iran! Mamdani-Backed Communists Score More Victories

Anthony reacts to a fascinating trade between Minnesota and Charlotte, then explains why it may have hurt the Lakers' chances at landing the center they need. He then breaks down some of the options he's heard at center and dives into a nice, long Q&A with the live audience.

Jeffrey Epstein repeatedly manipulated the legal, social, and institutional systems around him by exploiting power imbalances, cultivating influential allies, and leveraging ambiguity to delay or derail accountability. From the earliest reports, he relied on intermediaries to insulate himself—using employees and recruiters to create distance between himself and victims—while simultaneously presenting himself as a legitimate financier whose wealth and connections discouraged scrutiny. When allegations surfaced, Epstein's lawyers went over the heads of local prosecutors, engaging directly with federal officials and framing the case as narrow, manageable, and unsuitable for aggressive prosecution. This strategy culminated in the 2008 non-prosecution agreement, an extraordinary deal that shut down a federal investigation, shielded unnamed co-conspirators, and was negotiated in secret, all while victims were kept in the dark. The outcome was not accidental; it was the result of sustained pressure, elite access, and a legal strategy designed to exploit discretion and deference within the justice system.Even after his crimes were widely known, Epstein continued to bend the system to his advantage through delay, obfuscation, and reputation laundering. He used civil settlements, confidentiality agreements, and aggressive legal threats to silence victims and discourage further reporting, while simultaneously rebranding himself through academic donations, philanthropic fronts, and proximity to respected institutions. When scrutiny intensified, agencies repeatedly stalled, narrowed the scope of inquiries, or claimed jurisdictional or procedural limits, allowing Epstein to maintain a veneer of legitimacy long after credible evidence of serial abuse existed. His ability to survive multiple investigative moments was not due to a lack of evidence, but to a pattern of institutional failure—one that Epstein anticipated, exploited, and reinforced—turning bureaucratic inertia, prosecutorial caution, and elite protection into tools that consistently worked in his favor.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

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

On today's show Torres recaps the entire Round 1 of the NBA Draft - he discusses the biggest winners and losers, best and worst picks and much, MUCH MORE! Timestamps: The top of the draft goes as planned (2:00) Why teams will regret passing on Darius Acuff (20:00) Biggest winners and losers (30:00) Rest of night one of the draft (43:00)

Nah, but the memes are fun!Check out our podcast, social channels, and much more! https://pokesports.info

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

We're drafting again! Sean and Amanda are joined by Ringer all-stars Chris Ryan, Mallory Rubin, Van Lathan, Joanna Robinson, and Rob Mahoney to draft their favorite movies from the year 2010. (0:00) Intro (0:17) The state of movies (and us) in 2010 (24:03) The 2010 Mega-Movie Re-Draft (2:40:50) Honorable mentions and draft recap Hosts: Sean Fennessey and Amanda Dobbins Guests: Chris Ryan, Mallory Rubin, Van Lathan, Joanna Robinson, and Rob Mahoney Producer: Jack Sanders Production Support: Lucas Cavanagh, Jacob Cornett, and Jamie Yukich Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Honestly, buckle in. This one goes ALL over the place.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre's lawsuit against Prince Andrew was filed in federal court in New York in August 2021, accusing him of sexually abusing her when she was 17 after she had allegedly been trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The case alleged that Andrew assaulted her in multiple locations, including London, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and it was brought under New York's Child Victims Act, which temporarily allowed older abuse claims to be filed despite expired statutes of limitation. Andrew denied the allegations and tried to get the case dismissed, but Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected that effort in January 2022, allowing the lawsuit to move forward while making clear that the ruling was not a finding that the accusations were trueThe lawsuit was explosive because it threatened to drag Andrew into discovery, depositions, and possibly a public civil trial over his relationship with Epstein and Maxwell. Instead, in February 2022, Andrew and Giuffre reached an out-of-court settlement for an undisclosed amount, with Andrew agreeing to make a substantial donation to Giuffre's victims' rights charity while making no admission of liability. The settlement ended the civil case, but it did not erase the damage: Andrew had already lost royal duties, military affiliations, and much of his public standing, and the case cemented him as one of the most disgraced figures in the modern royal family.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Recent disclosures from congressional investigations and documents tied to the Epstein estate have exposed a far deeper and more personal relationship between Kathryn Ruemmler and Jeffrey Epstein than previously acknowledged, raising serious questions about her judgment and fitness to serve as general counsel of Goldman Sachs. Emails and schedules show she met with Epstein dozens of times between 2014 and 2019 — long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor — and that their communication ranged from career advice and personal travel planning to repeated informal exchanges, which some insiders view as far beyond the scope of mere professional interaction. She was even named as a backup executor in an early version of Epstein's will, a detail that triggered internal alarm at Goldman once it became public, and suggests a level of trust and intimacy that many observers find profoundly inappropriate given Epstein's crimes. The revelations directly undermine her role on Goldman's Reputational Risk Committee, where she helps decide which clients and relationships could endanger the firm's ethical standing.Even after Goldman's leadership publicly defended Ruemmler and denied any formal plans to replace her, the controversy has not dissipated; critics argue that the firm's insistence on keeping her in a top legal and governance role reflects a troubling tolerance for ethical ambiguity when it benefits powerful insiders. Some executives reportedly view Ruemmler as a potential liability whose past associations were not fully disclosed or understood at the time of her hiring, and whose continued presence on ethics-related committees sends a poor message about the bank's commitment to accountability and moral judgment. The fact that these revelations emerged only through released documents and not proactive disclosure further fuels skepticism about transparency at the highest levels of Goldman Sachs, intensifying scrutiny from investors, lawmakers, and corporate governance watchdogs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New court doc asserts former Obama WH counsel advised Jeffrey Epstein during critical reputational and legal battles | CNN Politics

In September 2025, Peter Mandelson — then the United Kingdom's Ambassador to the United States — was dismissed (effectively recalled and fired) by Prime Minister Keir Starmer after revelations about his longstanding social relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein surfaced. Emails published earlier that year showed Mandelson had maintained contact with Epstein after Epstein's 2008 conviction and had expressed supportive sentiments toward him, which diplomats said was far deeper than what had been known at the time of his appointment. Those communications raised questions about his judgment and suitability for the high-profile diplomatic post, prompting Starmer to remove him from the position immediately.In February 2026, the scandal escalated when authorities arrested Mandelson on 23 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office. This followed the release of internal documents and emails from the U.S. Department of Justice's Epstein files suggesting he may have shared sensitive government information with Epstein during his time in government in 2009–10. As part of the fallout, Mandelson resigned from the House of Lords and the Labour Party, and British police executed search warrants at his residences as part of a criminal investigation. His arrest reflects widening legal and political consequences from the Epstein file revelations that have also embroiled other high-profile figures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

We find out why AB's Father's Day FLOPPED, and we discover what Bret will be like in 10 years thanks to ChatGPT.

We talk about Kevin's "mixtape" he made for his wedding anniversary, and how his son did on his first day of band camp.

Prince Andrew has become one of the most radioactive public figures in modern royal history, and the labels attached to him reflect just how completely his image has collapsed. He has been called arrogant, entitled, spoiled, sleazy, reckless, protected, disgraceful, and out of touch, but the most brutal label thrown at him in Britain has been “nonce,” a slang term used to accuse someone of being a sexual predator, especially toward minors. That word has followed him because of his long association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, his disastrous public explanations, the Virginia Giuffre allegations, and the perception that he was shielded for years by royal status instead of being held to the same scrutiny as an ordinary person.The power of those labels is not just insult; it is public judgment. Andrew has denied wrongdoing, and allegations are not the same thing as a conviction, but the damage to his reputation has been overwhelming because the public sees a pattern of proximity to abusers, evasive answers, institutional protection, and zero believable accountability. To many people, “nonce” became shorthand for everything they believe the palace tried to manage away: the Epstein friendship, the Maxwell connection, the infamous interview, the settlement, and the sense that elite men are allowed to float above consequences until public outrage becomes too loud to ignore.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The failure to keep Jeffrey Epstein alive was not just a jailhouse screwup; it was a neon-lit indictment of the Bureau of Prisons as an institution. Epstein was one of the most high-profile federal detainees in the country, a man whose survival mattered to victims, investigators, the courts, and the public's faith in the justice system. Yet the BOP managed to leave him effectively unprotected inside MCC New York, despite his prior incident in custody, despite the obvious stakes, and despite basic procedures that were supposed to prevent exactly this outcome. The DOJ Inspector General found failures involving his housing, supervision, required rounds, staff performance, and institutional follow-through, including the failure to ensure he had a cellmate and the failure of staff to carry out required responsibilities in the hours before his death. In other words, the agency did not merely drop the ball; it dropped the ball, kicked it into traffic, falsified the paperwork, and then asked the country to accept that this was just another unfortunate bureaucratic accident.That is why Epstein's death personifies the absolute dumpster fire the BOP was and continues to be: an agency defined by understaffing, broken infrastructure, bad management, weak accountability, and a culture where catastrophic failures somehow become nobody's fault in any meaningful way. The DOJ's own watchdog has described federal corrections management as a long-running major challenge, with persistent problems including staffing shortages, deteriorating facilities, and contraband, while reporting around Epstein's death tied his case to broader BOP failures rather than a single isolated lapse. And that is the real insult. If the BOP could not properly safeguard the most watched prisoner in America, inside one of the most scrutinized cases in modern history, then what chance does an ordinary prisoner have when nobody is watching, nobody is famous, and nobody in power is afraid of the consequences? Epstein's death did not create the crisis of confidence around the BOP; it exposed it in the ugliest possible way.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew's exile from royal life did not happen all at once; it hardened step by step as his Epstein disgrace became impossible for the palace to manage. First came the loss of public duties after the disastrous BBC interview, then the stripping away of military roles, patronages, HRH styling in public life, and eventually the deeper symbolic punishments: fewer balcony appearances, fewer ceremonial roles, fewer family optics, and fewer chances to be seen as part of the working royal machine. By 2025 and 2026, that freeze-out had become much more explicit, with King Charles moving to strip Andrew of titles and privileges amid renewed Epstein scrutiny, while Andrew was also forced out of Royal Lodge and pushed further away from the public-facing royal family.That isolation has shown up most clearly during major royal celebrations and rituals, where the palace message has been blunt: Andrew is no longer part of the picture they want the public to see. He and Sarah Ferguson were reportedly excluded from Easter celebrations in 2026, he was barred from Christmas-related royal gatherings after his titles were removed, and he was fully shut out of Garter Day events at Windsor Castle, ending even the private compromises that had previously allowed him to linger around the edges. The result is a slow-motion erasure: Andrew is not simply disgraced in the tabloids; he is being edited out of the monarchy's most visible traditions, treated less like a senior royal and more like a reputational hazard the institution wants kept off-camera.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Dave talks about feeling a little guilty for winning a large sum of money from their buddy Marcus in Monopoly Go. 

Fourth week of June, what'd you miss in vet med?Anterra Capital closes $100M Fund IIIElanco launches VC armMerck backs Rejuvenate BioRoyal Canin researchers call for actionHeart+Paw Personalized Care PlansPayPal Ventures closes shopHelpful links:The Bird Bath substackPasspaw - Pet Travel Compliance Tools For Veterinary PracticesThe Bird Bath Terminal

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by Zach Lowe to discuss the newest developments with the Giannis trade rumors before jumping into a mega-mailbag to answer questions from the listeners. Then, Joe House joins the pod to react to Wyndham Clark winning the U.S. Open and to discuss the World Cup. (0:00) Intro (1:15) Giannis trade rumors (24:46) Mega-mailbag (01:35:44) U.S. Open reactions Host: Bill Simmons Guests: Zach Lowe and Joe House Producers: Chia Hao Tat, Eduardo Ocampo, and Chris Wohlers Brought to you by PayPal. Learn more at paypal.com As the Official Beer Sponsor of the FIFA World Cup 26, Michelob ULTRA away $1million in FIFA World Cup tickets and prizes. https://www.michelobultra.com/superioraccess/FIFAWORLDCUP26 MICHELOB ULTRA® FIFA® WORLD CUP 26TM SUPERIOR ACCESS. No Purchase Necessary. Open to US residents 21+. Begins on 12/1/25 and ends on 7/31/26. Multiple entry periods. Visit https://www.michelobultra.com/superioraccess/FIFAWORLDCUP26 for free entry, entry deadlines, and Official Rules. Message and data rates may apply. Void where prohibited. The Ringer is committed to responsible gaming. Please visit https://fanduel.com/playwithaplan to learn more about the resources and helplines Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Alvaro Bedoya, senior advisor at the American Economic Liberties Project and former FTC commissioner, offers his opinion on how the Paramount - Warner Brothers Discovery mega merger will affect every day people and their jobs, and more on what he calls the pervasiveness of monopolies and their effects in the US today. Photo: The Paramount Pictures logo is displayed on the water tower in Los Angeles, California, on February 17, 2026. Paramount Skydance attempts a hostile takeover bid of Warner Bros. (Photo by Michael Yanow/NurPhoto via Getty Images)   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

I spent years digging into the Jeffrey Epstein situation when almost nobody wanted to touch it. During that time, speaking publicly about what was really happening came with actual consequences—jobs vanished, relationships fell apart, and people distanced themselves fast. I dealt with intimidation attempts, anonymous calls, and pressure meant to get me to stop. Instead of backing off, I drove to Zorro Ranch to make it clear that fear wasn't going to dictate anything I did. I grew up around real danger, and those tactics didn't land the way they expected. What mattered then, and still matters now, is staying focused on the truth and pushing for accountability when powerful people would prefer silence.The landscape now is filled with new voices talking like authorities, even though most weren't around when this subject was treated like insanity instead of fact. Watching that happen is frustrating, not because of competition, but because accuracy gets lost when people chase attention instead of understanding the depth of what's involved. My work isn't about popularity or validation. It's about consistency, honesty, and refusing to drop something just because it's difficult or uncomfortable. I'm still here, still digging, and still committed, because the people who were harmed deserve more than another wave of performative outrage. The job isn't done, and I'm not stepping back.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

President Donald Trump abruptly reversed his longstanding opposition to public disclosure of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's network, telling House Republicans to back a measure requiring the Department of Justice to release Epstein-related files. He previously labelled the disclosure effort a “hoax” and actively resisted it, but as bipartisan and intraparty pressure mounted—including from conservative lawmakers—the tide shifted and he pledged to sign the bill if passed.The legislation mandates the DOJ to publish all unclassified records tied to Epstein's investigations within 30 days, with limited allowances for redactions only to protect victims or continuing probes; it explicitly bars withholding records on the basis of embarrassment or political sensitivity. The move comes amid growing scrutiny of Epstein's ties to powerful figures and renewed demands for accountability, even as questions linger about Trump's motivations for this pivot and whether it signals a genuine commitment to transparency or a tactical retreat under mounting pressure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How Trump reversed course on the Epstein files as his administration faces lingering suspicion about their release | CNN Politics

In her civil lawsuit, the Jane Doe plaintiff alleges that Leon Black sexually abused her in encounters arranged by Jeffrey Epstein, describing the conduct as violent, sadistic, and intentionally degrading. She claims Epstein trafficked her to Black, presenting her as part of a system designed to fulfill extreme sexual demands rather than consensual intimacy. According to the complaint, the encounters involved coercion, fear, and physical pain, with Black allegedly exercising control meant to humiliate and dominate her. The plaintiff asserts she did not have meaningful power to refuse and that Epstein's presence and authority functioned as enforcement rather than protection. She characterizes the abuse as deliberate and repeated, not accidental or misinterpreted. The language of the lawsuit emphasizes cruelty and imbalance of power as central features of the alleged conduct.The plaintiff further alleges that Epstein served as a facilitator who insulated Black from accountability by managing logistics, payments, and secrecy. She claims Epstein acted as an intermediary who normalized abuse, discouraged resistance, and ensured victims remained isolated and compliant. In this framing, Black is accused of knowingly participating in a system that exploited Epstein's trafficking operation to access victims while maintaining distance from consequences. The lawsuit does not allege misunderstanding or consent gone awry, but a calculated dynamic in which suffering and submission were integral to the abuse. While these claims have not been adjudicated and Black has denied them, the allegations themselves are explicit and specific. As pleaded, they present Black not as a peripheral figure, but as an alleged direct participant in severe sexual violence facilitated by Epstein's network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Welcome to this big, 3-hour English lesson! Do you want to speak English more naturally? Do you want to understand native speakers? This video is perfect for you.In this video, we do not use boring textbooks. We learn English using real news stories from around the world. Because this lesson is long, you can pause the video and study a little bit every day!What you will learn in this lesson:Real English Words: Learn important words that native speakers use every day.Better Listening: Practice listening to natural English so you can understand more.Real News Stories: Look at real news headlines to build your reading and speaking skills.

We talk about awkward conversations with hairdressers, and we find out what Disney DADS are the hottest.

We talk about our Father's Day and what we would put in a time capsule to remember 2026.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

España goleó a Arabia Saudí en su segundo partido del Mundial 2026. Pero el primero había sido una decepción enorme: empate a cero ante Cabo Verde, cuando la mayoría de periodistas discutían sólo a cuánto ascendería la goleada. Artistas invitados (por orden de aparición): Roberto Gómez, Javi Amaro, [Cabecera: Jesús Gallego, Joseba Larrañaga, Quique Iglesias, Juan Antonio Alcalá, Inma Rodríguez, Paco García Caridad, Julio Maldonado 'Maldini', Antonio Romero, Paco González, David Bernabeu, José Álvarez, Roberto Gómez, Juanma Castaño, Fernando Burgos, Felipe del Campo, José Joaquín Brotons, José Damián González, José Manuel Monje] Dani Garrido, Antonio Sanz, Emilio Pérez de Rozas, Irene Junquera, Paco González, Poli Rincón, Julio Maldonado 'Maldini', Raúl Fuentes, Axel Torres, Jorge Segura, Rubén Martín, Dani Senabre, Roberto Morales, Mónica Marchante, Pablo Parra, Miguel Quintana, Pablo López, Manolo Lama, Miguel Ángel Díaz, Helena Condis, Selene Melián, Alfredo Relaño, Santi Cañizares, Germán Mansilla, Heri Frade, Andrea Pelaéz, Vicente Ortega, Juanma Castaño, Rocío Martínez, Paul Tenorio, Juanma Rodríguez, María Trisac, Julio Pulido, Javier Herráez, Santiago Segurola, Isaac Fouto, Tomás Roncero, Emilio Contreras, Javier Tintó, María José Hostalrich, Manu Carreño, Luis Enrique Martínez, Josep Pedrerol, Alfredo Martínez, Antón Meana, Miguel Martín Talavera, Raúl Varela, Luis de la Fuente, Álex Silvestre, Óscar Pereiro, Edu Aguirre, Fernando Burgos, Unai Simón, Paco 'Lobo' Carrasco, Juan Félix Sanz, José Damián González, Carlos Martínez, Sergio Fernández, Elías Israel, George Weah, Pepe Pasqués, Roberto Palomar, Marc Cucurella. [Bonus track: Miguel Ángel Román, Claude Makélélé] Fuentes: A diario (Radio Marca), El chiringuito de jugones (Mega), El larguero (Ser), Marcador (Radio Marca), El partidazo de Cope, La pizarra de Quintana (Radio Marca), El primer palo (Es Radio), Radioestadio noche (Onda Cero), Twitch de Rubén Martín. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

William Barr assumed an unusually personal role in managing the federal government's response to Jeffrey Epstein's death. After initially declaring himself “appalled” and promising investigations into the serious irregularities at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, Barr personally questioned Efrain “Stone” Reyes, the final inmate assigned to share Epstein's cell before Reyes was transferred away less than a day before Epstein died. That meeting placed the attorney general directly inside the fact-gathering process rather than at the more customary distance expected of the nation's chief law-enforcement officer. Barr also reviewed surveillance footage, received briefings from investigators and publicly described Epstein's death as the result of a “perfect storm of screw-ups.” His involvement gave him enormous control over how the emerging evidence was interpreted and presented, even as malfunctioning cameras, falsified guard records, missed checks, Epstein's removal from suicide watch and the unexplained absence of a replacement cellmate continued to generate legitimate questions.Barr ultimately transformed himself from the official responsible for overseeing the investigation into its self-appointed arbiter of truth. He announced that his personal review of the available video convinced him nobody entered Epstein's housing tier and treated that judgment as sufficient to dismiss alternative explanations, despite later acknowledging that the camera had a blind spot and did not show Epstein's cell door itself. Years later, Barr continued to insist that the death was “undoubtedly suicide,” presenting his own interpretation as the final word while asking the public to trust evidence that remained incomplete, contested or unavailable for independent examination. The problem was not merely that Barr reached a conclusion; it was that he repeatedly invoked his personal certainty as a substitute for full transparency, while the institutional failures under his authority produced remarkably little lasting accountability. In effect, the same official overseeing a compromised federal system also declared that the system's preferred explanation should be accepted, leaving Barr less like a neutral investigator and more like the government's chief defender of its own narrative.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein was accepted by the upper crust of New York society because wealth, access and reputation often mattered more in those circles than the disturbing facts already attached to his name. Even after his 2006 arrest in Florida and his 2008 guilty plea to state prostitution-related charges involving a minor, Epstein continued to maintain relationships with billionaires, academics, financiers, lawyers, politicians and cultural figures. His Manhattan townhouse remained a gateway into elite social and intellectual networks, while his philanthropy, private dinners and connections to prestigious institutions helped preserve the image of a wealthy, eccentric patron rather than a convicted sex offender. For many in his orbit, Epstein's money and introductions appear to have outweighed the moral and reputational consequences of continued association.That acceptance was not merely a private failure of judgment; it became a form of social rehabilitation. Epstein was still invited into influential spaces, entertained prominent guests and was treated as someone whose status could survive conduct that would have permanently excluded almost anyone without his resources. The willingness of powerful people to keep meeting with him sent a clear message that his conviction was not enough to close the doors of elite society. By continuing to grant him access, prestige and legitimacy, New York's upper circles helped create the environment in which Epstein could present himself as untouchable, rebuild his network and remain surrounded by people whose names and institutions gave him cover long after the danger he posed should have been unmistakable.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Deutsche Bank avoided an Epstein-related trial by agreeing in 2023 to pay $75 million to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of women who said Epstein abused or trafficked them. The plaintiffs alleged that the bank knowingly benefited from Epstein's trafficking operation by accepting him as a client in 2013—after his criminal record and status as a registered sex offender were already public—and then processing payments and maintaining dozens of accounts despite repeated warning signs. The case had been scheduled for trial in September 2023, where internal communications, compliance failures and the actions of bank executives could have been examined publicly before a jury. By settling before that date, Deutsche Bank eliminated the risk of an adverse verdict and prevented the litigation from reaching a full public courtroom accounting.The settlement provided substantial compensation to survivors, but it did not require Deutsche Bank to admit liability or formally concede that it had facilitated Epstein's crimes. That distinction allowed the bank to resolve the financial threat while avoiding sworn trial testimony, extensive public presentation of evidence and a judicial finding about precisely what its employees knew. Deutsche Bank had already paid New York regulators a separate $150 million penalty in 2020 for significant compliance failures involving Epstein and other clients, yet that regulatory action also stopped short of a criminal prosecution or public trial. In practical terms, the bank was able to purchase legal finality: it paid hundreds of millions of dollars, acknowledged that accepting Epstein as a client had been a mistake, and escaped the far more damaging prospect of having its relationship with him dissected in open court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell complemented one another because each supplied something the other needed. Epstein brought money, properties, private aircraft, social connections and the authority that came with wealth, while Maxwell brought polish, access, organization and the ability to make young women feel that they were entering a sophisticated and trustworthy world. Prosecutors proved at Maxwell's trial that she helped identify, groom and normalize the abuse of underage girls, often presenting herself as a reassuring female presence before boundaries were gradually broken down. Epstein created the machinery of exploitation, but Maxwell helped make that machinery appear respectable, controlled and socially acceptable.Their partnership was especially effective because it combined predatory power with psychological manipulation. Epstein could be intimidating, transactional and overtly controlling, while Maxwell could be charming, familiar and disarming, allowing her to lower defenses that he alone might not have been able to overcome. Together, they created an environment in which abuse was disguised as employment, mentorship, travel, massage work or entry into elite social circles. That division of roles made them uniquely dangerous: Epstein supplied the resources and appetite, Maxwell supplied recruitment, credibility and operational support, and each reinforced the other's conduct. They were not merely associates whose paths happened to cross; they functioned as partners whose different strengths helped sustain the same criminal enterprise.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In 2011, Cantor Gaming stormed into Las Vegas with the swagger of Wall Street, led by Howard Lutnick at the helm of the parent company Cantor Fitzgerald and Lee Amaitis running the Nevada operation. Known for pioneering mobile sports wagering and accepting unprecedented high-limit bets—sometimes as large as $500,000—Cantor positioned itself as the cutting edge of sports gaming. To many, it looked like a revolution: bettors flocked to its books at the M Resort and beyond, drawn by the promise of action other operators wouldn't touch. But behind the gloss of innovation, Cantor became entangled in one of the largest illegal betting scandals in modern history. The so-called “Jersey Boys,” an East Coast ring with deep ties to organized bookmaking, infiltrated the operation through Cantor executive Michael “The Computer” Colbert. With Colbert as their insider, the crew laundered millions through Cantor's system, exploiting the company's appetite for volume and its disregard for traditional risk limits.The scheme collapsed in 2012 when Colbert and more than two dozen associates were arrested in a sweeping FBI crackdown. Nevada regulators soon levied one of the largest fines in state history—$5.5 million—citing Cantor's lack of oversight. Amaitis stepped down in 2016, his reputation scarred, while the Cantor brand itself was rebranded as CG Technology in a failed attempt to shed its baggage. By 2020, the company was sold to William Hill, its ambitions of dominating Las Vegas reduced to a cautionary tale. The Jersey Boys scandal not only crippled Cantor but reshaped the entire sports gaming industry, ushering in stricter compliance, tighter wagering oversight, and a lasting reminder that unchecked ambition and Wall Street arrogance could topple even the flashiest of innovators.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Lamine N'Diaye, in his interview with the Office of the Inspector General, essentially tried to turn the Metropolitan Correctional Center into a scapegoat while positioning himself as a bystander to its failures. He leaned heavily on the narrative that the facility was already broken—staff shortages, overtime abuse, infrastructure decay—as if that somehow absolved him of responsibility rather than underscoring the urgency of his role. What stands out is not just what he admitted, but what he avoided: there is little evidence in his account of decisive leadership, no clear record of aggressive intervention, and no meaningful acknowledgment that the buck was supposed to stop with him. Instead, he described a system failing in slow motion while he remained at the helm, fully aware of the cracks but unwilling—or unable—to reinforce them before they gave way.Even more troubling is how his interview reflects a pattern of deflection that mirrors broader institutional behavior in the wake of Jeffrey Epstein's death. N'Diaye pointed to correctional officers missing rounds, falsifying logs, and working under extreme fatigue, but failed to explain why those conditions were tolerated under his command, especially after Epstein had already been flagged as a high-risk inmate following a prior incident. The responsibility didn't disappear into the system—it sat squarely in his office, and his testimony reads less like accountability and more like damage control. The overall picture is not of a warden overwhelmed by circumstances, but of a leader who allowed a known crisis environment to persist unchecked, then attempted to retroactively frame it as inevitable once the worst-case scenario unfolded.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00119019.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Lamine N'Diaye, in his interview with the Office of the Inspector General, essentially tried to turn the Metropolitan Correctional Center into a scapegoat while positioning himself as a bystander to its failures. He leaned heavily on the narrative that the facility was already broken—staff shortages, overtime abuse, infrastructure decay—as if that somehow absolved him of responsibility rather than underscoring the urgency of his role. What stands out is not just what he admitted, but what he avoided: there is little evidence in his account of decisive leadership, no clear record of aggressive intervention, and no meaningful acknowledgment that the buck was supposed to stop with him. Instead, he described a system failing in slow motion while he remained at the helm, fully aware of the cracks but unwilling—or unable—to reinforce them before they gave way.Even more troubling is how his interview reflects a pattern of deflection that mirrors broader institutional behavior in the wake of Jeffrey Epstein's death. N'Diaye pointed to correctional officers missing rounds, falsifying logs, and working under extreme fatigue, but failed to explain why those conditions were tolerated under his command, especially after Epstein had already been flagged as a high-risk inmate following a prior incident. The responsibility didn't disappear into the system—it sat squarely in his office, and his testimony reads less like accountability and more like damage control. The overall picture is not of a warden overwhelmed by circumstances, but of a leader who allowed a known crisis environment to persist unchecked, then attempted to retroactively frame it as inevitable once the worst-case scenario unfolded.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00119019.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Weekend Edition for June 20-21, 2026 Show Notes: Give to the June 1517 Podcast Network Fundraiser! Learn more about the 1517 Podcast Network Fundraiser 1517 Podcasts 1517 on YouTube 1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts 1517 Events Schedule 1517 Academy - Free Theological Education Germany / Switzerland - Study Tour What's New from 1517: By Water and the Word by Brian Thomas:  Being Family by Dr. Scott Keith  A Reasoned Defense of the Faith by Adam Francisco  Stretched: A Study for Lent and the Entire Christian Life by Dr. Christopher Richmann  The Essential Nestingen: Essays on Preaching, Catechism, and the Reformation More from the hosts: Dan van Voorhis Follow 1517:  Instagram X/Twitter Facebook SHOW TRANSCRIPTS are available: https://www.1517.org/podcasts/the-christian-history-almanac CONTACT: CHA@1517.org Facebook Twitter Audio production by Christopher Gillespie (outerrimterritories.com)

The Ringer's Bill Simmons and Joe House talk about their favorite early-offseason NBA story lines, including draft changes and trade moves. Then, they discuss Jalen Brunson's greatness in the NBA Finals before comparing him to some other all-time greats. Finally, Bill and Joe answer some mailbag questions from the listeners. (0:00) Intro (3:15) Favorite offseason NBA story lines (25:50) Is Jalen Brunson a top-50 all-time player? (54:21) Mailbag Host: Bill Simmons Guest: Joe House Producers: Chia Hao Tat and Eduardo Ocampo Brought to you by PayPal. Learn more at paypal.com Get 30% off snacks and groceries on Uber Eats. https://www.ubereats.com/feeds/wfootball_2026_us The Ringer is committed to responsible gaming. Please visit https://fanduel.com/playwithaplan to learn more about the resources and helplines Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices