Podcasts about Oversight Committee

Ralph welcomes Dr. Mimi Syed to discuss the recent report from Brown University's Costs of War Project: “Lethal Precision Without Accountability: Israeli Government ‘Quadcopter' Use in Gaza.” Then, Ralph speaks to Joel McCleary (former Deputy Assistant to President Jimmy Carter and international consultant) about his “Dancing in the Dark” essay series on the strategies that Trump is using to hold onto power at almost any cost.Dr. Mimi Syed is an emergency medicine physician and assistant clinical professor at University of Washington and Washington State University, and a fellow of the American College of Emergency Physicians. Dr. Syed served in Gaza at both al-Aqsa Hospital and Nasser Hospital, where she documented severe injuries from drone strikes and she has firsthand experience treating civilians targeted by the IDF. She is co-author of the Costs of War Project's new report: Lethal Precision Without Accountability: Israeli Government “Quadcopter” Use in Gaza.A lot of the attention has essentially fallen off from Gaza because of this so-called ceasefire…And the media (Western media) unfortunately is complicit in this—has no interest in covering Gaza, has no interest in covering the ongoing slaughter that's happening in Gaza.Dr. Mimi SyedThe irony of all of this is that the drones and the capabilities that these drones have to shoot and to distinguish between a civilian and a combatant—the whole purpose of this is to mitigate civilian harm. And instead, perversely, they're being used for the opposite. They're being used to target civilians and children. And in the U.N. report, they specifically talk about a soldier describing the experience, saying that it's like a video game. He can be sitting somewhere far away, away from the dangers of a military zone, away from the dangers of combatants, and essentially target whoever he wants, and shoot. And these drones have the capability of distinguishing between a child, an adult, a combatant. And most of these cases that I documented, the child was by themselves. There was no other adult harmed.Dr. Mimi SyedJoel McCleary served as Deputy Assistant to the President during the Carter Administration. As president of the Sawyer-Miller Group he oversaw international strategic advisory work for fourteen prime ministers and presidents. Currently, he is Managing Partner of Four Seasons Ventures, which has conducted in-depth studies for the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security on biodefense. These studies reviewed the emergency powers of the President in the event of a pandemic or major biological weapons attack. He is co-founder of the nonpartisan nonprofit Keep Our Republic.November 3rd is just the prelude to January 3rd—the game (so to speak) is who controls the Speakership. And that is determined by the certified members who are certified by the current House—they will determine who meets on January 3rd. So obviously what Trump does not want (or any President does not want) is there to be an opposing party's Speaker.Joel McClearyWe're not saying that anything is inevitable. We're just saying what is possible if you look at what they're saying and if you look at where they might go if they feel compelled to do so. So NSPM-7 is probably the most frightening aspect of this whole thing. And what's most frightening is how few people have focused on it. All of us need to read these documents at the ACLU (the Brennan Center has done fantastic work). And Mark Medish and I just are appalled that still, in Democratic circles or other circles, we are not yet comprehending the meaning of NSPM-7 and how it threatens each one of us in reality.Joel McClearyNews 8/21/26* This week, another round of primaries were held, most notably in Florida. For progressives, the biggest victory is that of Angie Nixon, a DSA-backed member of the Florida House of Representatives, representing Jacksonville. Nixon trounced her opponent – Alex Vindman, who testified against Trump during the 2019 impeachment effort – winning 56% of the vote to his 44% despite being outspent by a margin of 16 to 1. Forbes reports that in her victory speech, Nixon said “We have proved that everyday people are more powerful than corporations and billionaires…We went up against the political establishment, against millions of dollars of outside spending…and we won. This win was for the little guys and girls…We, the hardworking everyday people of Florida, sent a shock wave to the Washington, D.C., establishment.” Unfortunately, Nixon's candidacy, like that of any statewide Democratic campaign in the Sunshine State, remains a long shot. The last Democrat to win a U.S. Senate seat in Florida was former astronaut Bill Nelson in 2012.* More disappointing were the down-ballot results in these primaries. In the 20th congressional district, a majority-minority district centered on Broward County, Debbie Wasserman Schultz won with 45% of the vote, according to NBC. She defeated four Black candidates, including young progressive Elijah Manley. Wasserman Schultz previously represented the 25th district, but following the Republican-led mid-decade redistricting program carried out in Florida, she opted to seek reelection in this heavily Democratic seat. The Black candidates had tried and failed to consolidate behind a single choice.* And in Florida's 25th congressional district, ultra-zionist incumbent Congressman Jared Moskowitz “warded off” a challenge from his left in the form of Oliver Larkin, a DSA-backed union organizer. Larkin drew substantial media attention, first when he appeared on Fox and, asked about immigration and crime, he demanded accountability for “this pedophile president Donald Trump” and others implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal and again during an interview with WPLG Local 10 when Larkin was “faced with genocide denial.” According to the Middle East Eye, Larkin “raised the topic of Israel's genocide in Gaza, pointing to statements and findings from institutions such as the United Nations, Amnesty International and Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem,” which the interviewer, Glenna Milberg incorrectly dismissed as “factually incorrect.” Larkin “outlined Israel's deliberate targeting of civilians, restrictions on humanitarian aid and attacks on churches, schools and other places of worship,” and Milberg again “interrupted and said his account was ‘factually not correct.'” The Middle East Eye writes that the exchange was then “cut short when Milberg said she was being told they had to wrap up the interview.”* Turning to Texas, NOTUS reports Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico – capitalizing on the acrimonious primary battle between sitting Republican Senator John Cornyn and his victorious primary opponent Texas AG Ken Paxton – has taken the extraordinary step of bringing a Cornyn aide onto his campaign. According to this piece, “Jacob Smith, who worked for Cornyn for five years as a deputy legislative director and policy adviser, is taking on the role of deputy policy director for Talarico's campaign.” In a statement, Smith said that he is “proud” to join Talarico's campaign and that “Instead of playing partisan politics, Talarico speaks to the needs of everyday people who day in and day out work too hard for too little.” Smith also laid into Paxton, calling him “the most corrupt, self-dealing politician in Texas who would sell their futures to the highest contributor just to hold onto power,” and urging “fellow Republicans who know Ken Paxton is unfit to serve in the Senate to finally hold him accountable at the ballot box.” This piece quotes an anonymous “Republican operative” who characterized this kind of “cross-party hire” as “unheard of.” He added that Talarico has a “better chance than any Democrat has had in the state in a very long time.”* In more primary news, last week we discussed the victory of former Hartford, Connecticut Mayor Luke Bronin over 14-term incumbent Congressman John Larson. That same day, the Lever published an exposé of Stephen Mandel, a Connecticut-based billionaire hedge fund manager and Democratic mega-donor who is the “largest bankroller of a nascent political machine promising to ‘redefine' the Democratic Party.” Via two organizations – Majority Democrats and the Bench – Mandel and his wife have funneled tens of millions of dollars to candidates of their choosing in an attempt to form a “new [political] center.” According to this report, Bronin amassed a “sizable war chest,” during his primary challenge against Larson, much of which traces back to Mandel. Not only that, apparently, Bronin “used to be on the payroll of a nonprofit funded by the billionaire,” and his campaign's policy stances reflect the network's preferences and priorities. The Lever notes that, perhaps unsurprisingly, the Mandels did not return their requests for comment.* In more Connecticut news, in the wake of Larson's defeat, local media is beginning to question whether Senator Richard Blumenthal should run for another term in 2028, with WTNH noting that he will be 82 at the end of his current term. While Blumenthal has not formally announced that he will run for a fourth senate term, he did confirm that he has a campaign committee and it is raising money. This piece notes that Blumenthal is the second oldest member of Connecticut's congressional delegation, behind only Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, 83, who represents the state's third congressional district. With the increased scrutiny on aging Democrats, and donors like Stephen Mandel bankrolling primary challenges by younger candidates, Blumenthal's decision of whether or not to run or anoint a successor could prove critical. For his part, Blumenthal is quoted saying “Age is a state of mind…and I am very, very happy doing my job right now, as energetically as I feel is appropriate.”* Senator Blumenthal features prominently in another story this week from a different part of Washington. NOTUS reports that on K Street, lobbyists for the defense industry – literally the military industrial complex – are “girding for aggressive investigations of President Donald Trump's Pentagon and the companies that do business with it,” if the Democrats retake one or both houses of Congress in the midterm elections. This piece emphasizes that Democrats have “spent two years seething that the Trump administration shut Congress out of decisions about the Pentagon, from the Iran war to politically connected contractors and a defense budget that's ballooned to $1.5 trillion.” Lobbyists are reported to be particularly wary of their clients being caught between outraged congressional Democrats and an uncooperative White House for the next two years. Blumenthal, the top Democrat on the Senate Investigations Subcommittee, is already zeroing in on 1789 Capital, where Donald Trump Jr. is an investor, and American Ventures, where Eric Trump is an investor, both of which received billions of dollars in government awards. He is quoted saying “We need to look into whether Trump's sons are profiting from investments in defense contractors that involve insider information or contracts awarded in ways that compromise defense interests.” Other investigations he signaled they might pursue include a probe of “the administration's growing reliance on single-source contracts and whether the administration has given preferential treatment to companies with political ties, particularly those that donated to Trump's White House ballroom project.” In the House, Democrats on the Armed Services Committee will likely focus on “military strategy, acquisition decisions and the Pentagon's rapidly growing budget,” while the Oversight Committee, is more focused on “corruption, conflicts of interest, companies connected to Trump allies such as SpaceX and other ethics issues.” When Republicans won control of the House, Senate, and presidency in 2024, many lobbying firms axed their Democratic staff. It seems they are beginning to regret that decision.* Our next two stories have to do with the AI boom. First, in Wisconsin, the politics of AI data centers have come to in large part define the ongoing race to succeed Democrat Tony Evers as Governor. DSA-backed candidate Francesca Hong rode her vow of a moratorium on new data center construction to front-runner status in the primary, only to lose by a hair to Evers' last minute chosen successor, David Crowley. Since becoming the nominee, Crowley has refused to adopt Hong's signature issue and his opponent, Republican Congressman Tom Tiffany is taking full advantage. According to Wisconsin Public Radio, Tiffany's campaign has released a new TV ad labeling his opponent “data center David Crowley.” In the ad, Crowley is “seen saying Wisconsin has the opportunity to be ‘an AI and a data hub not only for the entire country, but for the entire globe.'” Ironically, Tiffany himself has cast “pro-data center votes in Congress” and Crowley's campaign argues that Tiffany “wouldn't be as hard on developers as his campaign claims,” though he is now campaigning on “ending state subsidies for data centers and creating additional protections for ratepayers and the state's farmland and water.”* Next, a stunning feat of reporting by 404 Media exposed how “Amazon is buying massive quantities of books, scanning them for AI training data, and destroying them in the process.“ To investigate this, the outlet placed a tracking device in a rare book that they suspected would be acquired by an AI company for training data. Then, when indeed it was, they followed the book around the country to its final destination – an Amazon warehouse in Las Vegas, Nevada – where employees say that “all [they] do is scan books..Some are assigned to cut books, and others go to receive where they get books and scan the bar codes.” The printed book is destroyed in the process. The logo of the Amazon team that works at this warehouse, called VGT3, is a dinosaur, brandishing its teeth and with a book in its hands. The piece notes that the AI company Anthropic has previously been sued for engaging in the practice of destroying rare books in order to feed them into their large language models, or LLMs, on copyright grounds, but the “judge in the lawsuit ruled it was fair use and not a copyright violation for Anthropic to scan a book for training data in part because it destroyed the original, printed copy.” The author of this piece notes that these rare books are not necessarily monetarily valuable – they could be rare because “not many copies of them were ever printed,” or “they are in a foreign language not many people speak.” Still, as one bookseller said “There are different types of value…[besides monetary value] There's historical value, intellectual value, sentimental value. All sorts of things, and all of those the AI companies don't care about. They just want the content as a bunch of words strung together.”* Finally, we turn to the Vatican, where, Drop Site reports, Pope Leo XIV is using his pulpit to call for the opening of humanitarian corridors for civilians in Sudan. In his weekly Angelus address, the first American Pope highlighted “the plight of civilians in the besieged city of el-Obeid.” In addition to his call for humanitarian corridors, the pontiff called for both sides to “cease attacks on civilian targets.” Drop Site explains that El-Obeid, the largest city in Kordofan – the region comprising central Sudan – has faced intense drone attacks as the rebels of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) battle the Sudanese army for supremacy in the region. An RSF siege has “left over 500,000 people in famine conditions for months and without supplies.” The United Nations warns that if El-Obeid falls, it could follow in the mold of el-Fasher, which fell to the RSF last year and resulted in “mass ethnic cleansing massacres by the RSF that killed an estimated 60,000 people.” We can only hope that the world will heed the Pope's plea for peace and humanitarian assistance to the civilian population of Sudan.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Alan Dershowitz said he was still “anxious” to testify before the House Oversight Committee about Jeffrey Epstein, but his eagerness looked considerably less convincing after his scheduled appearance abruptly collapsed. Dershowitz had publicly volunteered for months to testify under oath and on video, portraying himself as someone ready to confront the record and explain what he knew about Epstein, the 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement, and the people surrounding him. Yet when the committee actually put him on the calendar, his attorneys pulled the plug shortly before the interview, citing unspecified legal concerns that were never clearly explained. For someone who had repeatedly insisted that he wanted the opportunity to speak, the sudden retreat naturally raised questions about why those concerns apparently became insurmountable only when sworn congressional testimony was imminent.House Oversight Chairman James Comer made clear that the committee was not satisfied, calling the cancellation “unacceptable” and saying Dershowitz's lawyers had failed to provide an adequate explanation. Dershowitz's interview was rescheduled for September 2, with the possibility of a subpoena hanging over the process if he again failed to cooperate. Dershowitz continued to insist that he wanted to testify, but at this point the contradiction was difficult to ignore: he had spent considerable time publicly demanding a forum to tell his story, only to disappear from that forum when it finally materialized. Given his central role on Epstein's legal team and his involvement in negotiating one of the most controversial prosecution deals in modern American criminal justice, Congress had every reason to demand answers from him. Until he actually appeared, took the oath, and answered substantive questions, his repeated declarations about being “anxious” to testify amounted to little more than promises.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Dershowitz says he's 'anxious' to testify on Epstein despite abrupt Oversight Committee cancellation

Welcome to Last Call, a look at the biggest stories Jim and Greg covered over the past week on the 3 Martini Lunch.This week, they discuss Wisconsin Dems at each other's throats over the governor's primary, how radical Pete Buttigieg's presidential agenda would be, the University of Michigan refusing to issue grades to first semester freshmen, and a Senate committee holding Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress.First, they focus on Wisconsin, where many Democrats are furious at outgoing Gov. Tony Evers for aggressively trying to manufacture his preferred outcome in the governor's primary. Meanwhile, online posts from 2019 and 2020 are emerging in which the socialist frontrunner, Francesca Hong, wanted to ban Thanksgiving and felt uncomfortable eating around "old white people."Next, they recoil as Pete Buttigieg tells Politico about his plans for radical change and incremental change if he's elected president in 2028. Jim and Greg detail just how insane Buttigieg's agenda is but point out the media will still call him a moderate because he doesn't yell much.Then, they roll their eyes as the University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts says freshmen will not get letter grades their first semester in order to help "curb the mental health crisis." The policy, which is set to begin in Fall 2027, will apply to all students. Jim and Greg wonder how we got this fragile.Finally, Sen. Rand Paul and the Senate Governmental Affairs and Oversight Committee voted Thursday to hold Dr. Fauci in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions last week. Jim says he understands why this is happening but doubts much will ultimately come from it in the courts. Greg wonders the same but still thinks it's the right move.Please visit our great sponsors:AG1Head to https://DrinkAG1.com/3ML and get a free AG1 Travel Case along with 7 free AG1 Travel Packs in your Welcome Kit when you sign up for your first AG1 subscription.  While supplies last.ZocDocYour health matters and taking care of yourself shouldn't be complicated. Find and book the right doctor with Zocdoc. Head to http://ZocDoc.com/3ml  #sponsoredLarinecoRight now, Larineco is offering our listeners up to 50% off at https://BuyLarine.com/3MLNew episodes every weekday. 

Join Jim and Greg for the Thursday 3 Martini Lunch as they explore how Democrats nominating far-left candidates might help Republicans in November, deepening concerns about how low the U.S. missile arsenal is, one House Republican abandoning his re-election bid amid scandal while another digs in, and a Senate committee holding Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress.First, they react to Democrats nominating far-left and even socialist candidates in states and congressional districts that are far more moderate or even lean to the right. They also get a kick out of some Dems trying to distance themselves from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) after winning their primaries.Next, they discuss a Washington Post report about the ongoing concerns about U.S. stockpiles of missile interceptors and other munitions, as well as reports concerning how President Trump and Sec. Pete Hegseth are dealing with this issue. The White House denies Post reports that heated conversations took place over this issue last weekend at Camp David.Then, they're glad to see North Carolina GOP Rep. Chuck Edwards give up his re-election bid after the House Ethics Committee recommended he be censured for his conduct towards young female staffers. Meanwhile, Ohio Rep. Max Miller refuses to withdraw despite the abuse allegations against him, and he is now past the deadline to withdraw from the ballot.Finally, Sen. Rand Paul and the Senate Governmental Affairs and Oversight Committee voted Thursday to hold Dr. Fauci in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions last week. Jim says he understands why this is happening but doubts much will ultimately come from it in the courts. Greg wonders the same but still thinks it's the right move.Please visit our great sponsors:QuoMoney is on the line. Always say hello with QUO. Try QUO for FREE PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months when you go to https://Quo.com/3MLZocDocYour health matters and taking care of yourself shouldn't be complicated. Find and book the right doctor with Zocdoc. Head to http://ZocDoc.com/3ml  #sponsoredLarinecoRight now, Larineco is offering our listeners up to 50% off at https://BuyLarine.com/3MLNew episodes every weekday. 

My guests include Linda Phillips from the Shelby County Election Commission. Election time is here and its importance cannot be understated. Early voting has started and she gives us an update on the numbers, locations and everything you need to know. Next, the new school year is upon us and there is uncertainty as to who is in charge. The state created an Oversight Committee to basically oversee operations and  the day to day decisions over the elected school board. This has resulted in a lawsuit and a temporary restraining order by the board. Dr. Henry Jones is a Community Organizer and is Director at Together 4 Students. His position is that MSCS has not prepared our children for the future they deserve and should drop the lawsuit and get to work for our kids. He explains his mission. Lastly, Robert Gordon is a Grammy Award winning writer and filmmaker from Memphis. His work has focused on the American south. His latest film project is entitled, ‘Newport and the Great Folk Dream'. He joins me to talk about what he calls, a film that serves as a reminder of what the Statue of Liberty stands for. That and more on air and online Monday, 6pm on 91.7 FM WYXR. Also the WYXR app, Tunein, Facebook Live, YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.It's time to talk

Senator Ron Wyden is pressing for deeper answers about Leon Black's financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein as congressional scrutiny of Black intensifies. According to the reporting, Wyden's Senate Finance Committee investigation has focused on why Black transferred an estimated $170 million to Epstein between 2012 and 2017, payments Wyden argues were far larger than what Black paid to established tax and estate-planning professionals already handling his affairs. Wyden has sent his findings to the House Oversight Committee ahead of Black's congressional appearance, urging investigators to dig harder into financial records, settlement payments, and the movement of money connected to Epstein's network.The central issue is whether Epstein's role in Black's financial life was truly limited to tax and estate advice, as Black has maintained, or whether the money trail points to something broader and more troubling. Wyden has raised questions about whether Epstein acted as an intermediary for payments to women and whether records exist involving settlement agreements. The article also notes Black's multimillion-dollar settlement with the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, which resolved civil claims without Black admitting wrongdoing, as another area now feeding congressional interest. The broader picture is that Black's Epstein ties are no longer being examined merely as a reputational problem; they are being treated as a financial, legal, and oversight problem that Congress still believes has unanswered questions at its center.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Wyden Presses for Answers as Congressional Scrutiny of Leon Black Deepens

Senator Ron Wyden is pressing for deeper answers about Leon Black's financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein as congressional scrutiny of Black intensifies. According to the reporting, Wyden's Senate Finance Committee investigation has focused on why Black transferred an estimated $170 million to Epstein between 2012 and 2017, payments Wyden argues were far larger than what Black paid to established tax and estate-planning professionals already handling his affairs. Wyden has sent his findings to the House Oversight Committee ahead of Black's congressional appearance, urging investigators to dig harder into financial records, settlement payments, and the movement of money connected to Epstein's network.The central issue is whether Epstein's role in Black's financial life was truly limited to tax and estate advice, as Black has maintained, or whether the money trail points to something broader and more troubling. Wyden has raised questions about whether Epstein acted as an intermediary for payments to women and whether records exist involving settlement agreements. The article also notes Black's multimillion-dollar settlement with the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, which resolved civil claims without Black admitting wrongdoing, as another area now feeding congressional interest. The broader picture is that Black's Epstein ties are no longer being examined merely as a reputational problem; they are being treated as a financial, legal, and oversight problem that Congress still believes has unanswered questions at its center.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Wyden Presses for Answers as Congressional Scrutiny of Leon Black DeepensBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Senator Ron Wyden is pressing for deeper answers about Leon Black's financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein as congressional scrutiny of Black intensifies. According to the reporting, Wyden's Senate Finance Committee investigation has focused on why Black transferred an estimated $170 million to Epstein between 2012 and 2017, payments Wyden argues were far larger than what Black paid to established tax and estate-planning professionals already handling his affairs. Wyden has sent his findings to the House Oversight Committee ahead of Black's congressional appearance, urging investigators to dig harder into financial records, settlement payments, and the movement of money connected to Epstein's network.The central issue is whether Epstein's role in Black's financial life was truly limited to tax and estate advice, as Black has maintained, or whether the money trail points to something broader and more troubling. Wyden has raised questions about whether Epstein acted as an intermediary for payments to women and whether records exist involving settlement agreements. The article also notes Black's multimillion-dollar settlement with the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, which resolved civil claims without Black admitting wrongdoing, as another area now feeding congressional interest. The broader picture is that Black's Epstein ties are no longer being examined merely as a reputational problem; they are being treated as a financial, legal, and oversight problem that Congress still believes has unanswered questions at its center.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Wyden Presses for Answers as Congressional Scrutiny of Leon Black DeepensBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bill Gates told the House Oversight Committee that his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was, in his telling, about philanthropy — Epstein claimed he could connect Gates to wealthy donors who might put major money into global health work. Gates said he met Epstein beginning in 2011, after Epstein's 2008 conviction, and continued interactions until 2014, when he concluded Epstein could not deliver on those promises. He denied witnessing Epstein commit crimes, denied visiting Epstein's island, ranch, or Florida home, and said he “never victimized anyone,” while acknowledging that he may have been in the presence of Epstein victims during his dealings with Epstein.The more damaging part is that Gates admitted Epstein gained access to sensitive information about his personal life, including extramarital affairs, and allegedly tried to use that information — mixed with falsehoods, according to Gates — to pressure him back into contact. Gates portrayed Epstein as a manipulator who used proximity to powerful people to launder his reputation, while lawmakers pressed the obvious question: why Gates kept engaging with a convicted sex offender at all. Gates expressed regret, saying he should never have met with Epstein, but the testimony still adds another example of Epstein's method: insinuating himself into elite circles, collecting leverage, and using access as currency.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill Gates says he didn't witness crimes but may have been in presence of Epstein victims | CNN Politics

Bill Gates told the House Oversight Committee that his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was, in his telling, about philanthropy — Epstein claimed he could connect Gates to wealthy donors who might put major money into global health work. Gates said he met Epstein beginning in 2011, after Epstein's 2008 conviction, and continued interactions until 2014, when he concluded Epstein could not deliver on those promises. He denied witnessing Epstein commit crimes, denied visiting Epstein's island, ranch, or Florida home, and said he “never victimized anyone,” while acknowledging that he may have been in the presence of Epstein victims during his dealings with Epstein.The more damaging part is that Gates admitted Epstein gained access to sensitive information about his personal life, including extramarital affairs, and allegedly tried to use that information — mixed with falsehoods, according to Gates — to pressure him back into contact. Gates portrayed Epstein as a manipulator who used proximity to powerful people to launder his reputation, while lawmakers pressed the obvious question: why Gates kept engaging with a convicted sex offender at all. Gates expressed regret, saying he should never have met with Epstein, but the testimony still adds another example of Epstein's method: insinuating himself into elite circles, collecting leverage, and using access as currency.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill Gates says he didn't witness crimes but may have been in presence of Epstein victims | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Bill Gates told the House Oversight Committee that his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was, in his telling, about philanthropy — Epstein claimed he could connect Gates to wealthy donors who might put major money into global health work. Gates said he met Epstein beginning in 2011, after Epstein's 2008 conviction, and continued interactions until 2014, when he concluded Epstein could not deliver on those promises. He denied witnessing Epstein commit crimes, denied visiting Epstein's island, ranch, or Florida home, and said he “never victimized anyone,” while acknowledging that he may have been in the presence of Epstein victims during his dealings with Epstein.The more damaging part is that Gates admitted Epstein gained access to sensitive information about his personal life, including extramarital affairs, and allegedly tried to use that information — mixed with falsehoods, according to Gates — to pressure him back into contact. Gates portrayed Epstein as a manipulator who used proximity to powerful people to launder his reputation, while lawmakers pressed the obvious question: why Gates kept engaging with a convicted sex offender at all. Gates expressed regret, saying he should never have met with Epstein, but the testimony still adds another example of Epstein's method: insinuating himself into elite circles, collecting leverage, and using access as currency.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill Gates says he didn't witness crimes but may have been in presence of Epstein victims | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

House Democrats on the Oversight Committee are seeking testimony from three private investigators—Paul Lavery, Stephen Kiraly, and William Riley—who allegedly removed a significant amount of material from Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home before law enforcement executed a search in 2005. According to letters sent by the committee, lawmakers want detailed accounts of what was taken, how it was handled, and where it is now, raising concerns that potentially critical evidence may have been diverted or hidden before authorities could access it.Lawmakers say it is “incredibly troubling” that Epstein's computers, hard drives, and other materials may have been in private hands rather than secured by law enforcement, potentially limiting what investigators—and now Congress—have been able to review. The committee has requested the preservation and production of all related materials, including digital storage, financial records, communications, and any documentation showing the chain of custody, as part of a broader effort to understand whether key evidence was effectively shielded during the early stages of the Epstein investigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:House Oversight panel seeks testimony from private investigators who removed evidence from Epstein's home - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

House votes down an extension of the foreign spying power called FISA Sect. 702 a day before it is set to expire, with many Democrats upset at President Trump naming FHFA Director Bill Pulte as Acting Director of National Intelligence; after the vote, President Trump nominates Jay Clayton, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, to be the next permanent DNI; Just hours after President Trump says the U.S. would strike Iran 'very hard tonight,' he calls off the bombing, claiming a breakthrough in negotiations with Iran; Secretary of State Marco Rubio signs a sports diplomacy partnership with UFC CEO Dana White; Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announces indictments against three people in Ohio for conspiring to smuggle unaccompanied minors across the U.S. border; Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), Oversight Committee ranking member, accuses Vice President JD Vance of leading a 'cover-up' of the Jeffrey Epstein files after news reports about the  Vice President's role in White House Situation Room meetings; First Lady Melania Trump promotes savings accounts for children in the foster care system; New York politicians talk about the NBA Knicks being one game closer to a championship and the World Cup soccer tournament getting underway. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdf

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdf

Bill Gates is set to sit for a closed-door interview with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on June 10 as part of the committee's continuing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the federal government's handling of the case, and the powerful people who moved through Epstein's orbit. Gates was asked to appear after recently released Justice Department records included photos, emails, and other material tying him to Epstein between roughly 2011 and 2014, years after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Gates has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing, and he has repeatedly said his relationship with Epstein was a serious mistake, explaining that he met with him in hopes of attracting money for global health and philanthropic work. The Gates Foundation has said there were discussions involving Epstein, but no funding ever came from him.The interview is expected to focus on why Gates continued meeting with Epstein despite Epstein's known criminal history, what Epstein was seeking from Gates and the Gates Foundation, and whether Epstein tried to leverage access to Gates for money, influence, credibility, or protection. Gates' association with Epstein has already had personal and reputational consequences, including renewed scrutiny after Melinda French Gates said Epstein was one of the issues that contributed to the breakdown of their marriage. The broader point is that Congress is now pulling Gates into the same unresolved web that has surrounded Epstein for years: how a convicted sex offender continued attracting billionaires, politicians, financiers, academics, and institutional players long after everyone knew who he was.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill Gates questioned about Jeffrey Epstein by House Oversight

Bill Gates is set to sit for a closed-door interview with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on June 10 as part of the committee's continuing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the federal government's handling of the case, and the powerful people who moved through Epstein's orbit. Gates was asked to appear after recently released Justice Department records included photos, emails, and other material tying him to Epstein between roughly 2011 and 2014, years after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Gates has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing, and he has repeatedly said his relationship with Epstein was a serious mistake, explaining that he met with him in hopes of attracting money for global health and philanthropic work. The Gates Foundation has said there were discussions involving Epstein, but no funding ever came from him.The interview is expected to focus on why Gates continued meeting with Epstein despite Epstein's known criminal history, what Epstein was seeking from Gates and the Gates Foundation, and whether Epstein tried to leverage access to Gates for money, influence, credibility, or protection. Gates' association with Epstein has already had personal and reputational consequences, including renewed scrutiny after Melinda French Gates said Epstein was one of the issues that contributed to the breakdown of their marriage. The broader point is that Congress is now pulling Gates into the same unresolved web that has surrounded Epstein for years: how a convicted sex offender continued attracting billionaires, politicians, financiers, academics, and institutional players long after everyone knew who he was.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill Gates questioned about Jeffrey Epstein by House OversightBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Thank you Steven Rosenzweig, L Joseph Rosas III, Campbell Welsh, Darlene, and many others for tuning into my live video! * Congressman Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland speak on SCOTUS and more: Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee did not mince his words on reforming SCOTUS, the President, and much more at Netroots Nation 2025Trump once again mismanaging pathog… To hear more, visit egberto.substack.com

Bill Gates is set to sit for a closed-door interview with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on June 10 as part of the committee's continuing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the federal government's handling of the case, and the powerful people who moved through Epstein's orbit. Gates was asked to appear after recently released Justice Department records included photos, emails, and other material tying him to Epstein between roughly 2011 and 2014, years after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Gates has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing, and he has repeatedly said his relationship with Epstein was a serious mistake, explaining that he met with him in hopes of attracting money for global health and philanthropic work. The Gates Foundation has said there were discussions involving Epstein, but no funding ever came from him.The interview is expected to focus on why Gates continued meeting with Epstein despite Epstein's known criminal history, what Epstein was seeking from Gates and the Gates Foundation, and whether Epstein tried to leverage access to Gates for money, influence, credibility, or protection. Gates' association with Epstein has already had personal and reputational consequences, including renewed scrutiny after Melinda French Gates said Epstein was one of the issues that contributed to the breakdown of their marriage. The broader point is that Congress is now pulling Gates into the same unresolved web that has surrounded Epstein for years: how a convicted sex offender continued attracting billionaires, politicians, financiers, academics, and institutional players long after everyone knew who he was.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill Gates questioned about Jeffrey Epstein by House OversightBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdf

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdf

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdf

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdf

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdf

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdf

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdf

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdf

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdf

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdf

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Pam Bondi's congressional transcript showed her trying to defend the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files while repeatedly distancing herself from the day-to-day mechanics of the review. She told House Oversight lawmakers that Todd Blanche was the official “in charge” of the Epstein records process, saying she did not personally conduct the document review and that the work had been delegated to him. Bondi acknowledged that mistakes were made, including redaction problems, but framed the release as a massive and difficult undertaking rather than a deliberate attempt to obstruct transparency. At the same time, she insisted the department was committed to accountability, even as lawmakers pressed her on why the disclosures remained incomplete, flawed, or slow-moving.The transcript also showed Bondi trying to avoid directly blaming Blanche while making clear that he was the person managing the release. She praised him as ethical and capable, but Democrats seized on her answers as evidence that Blanche, along with other DOJ and FBI officials, should be brought before Congress to explain the process in detail. Bondi also said she learned about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from news reports, denied involvement in that decision, rejected the idea of a Maxwell pardon, and refused to discuss private conversations with Donald Trump. The result was a transcript that did not settle the Epstein files controversy, but instead widened the accountability fight by making clear that Congress still does not have a clean answer on who controlled the review, why errors happened, and whether the public has truly received the full record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Darrell Castle talks about the resignation of Tulsi Gabbard from her position as Director of National Intelligence, and why she made the decision to resign. Was it because of her husband’s illness or something else. Transcription / Notes TULSI'S GONE Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report. This is Friday the 29th day of May in the year of our Lord 2026. I will be talking about the resignation of Tulsi Gabbard from her position as Director of National Intelligence, and about why Tulsi made the decision to resign. Was her decision because of her husband's illness or was it something else. Tulsi never seemed to fit into Washington like a typical Washington politician. She never seemed willing to lie and cheat her way to the top as is typical of Washington. From the beginning of her prominence, she seemed a little too honest and too forthright for Washington politics. Nevertheless, she was a politician having served as a Democrat in congress from the state of Hawaii. She left congress and ran for president as a Democrat but lost in the primary to Joe Biden. She became disenchanted with the Democrat Party and decided to back President Trump in his run for that office. President Trump appointed her Director of National Intelligence, in theory the most important national security position in the country. The U.S. now has 18 intelligence agencies or departments if you count their various components and they all report to the Director of National Intelligence, but once in the office I imagine that the DNI found out who holds the real power in the intelligence world. When I learned a few weeks ago that the CIA had apparently broken into, raided, or whatever you want to call the CIA's visit to their boss's office, I knew Tulsi would soon be gone. Whistleblower James Erdman blew his whistle in congress and testified that the CIA had “seized” documents from their secure area in the office of the DNI. Some of the files they seized related to the assassination, or perhaps their assassination, of JFK. They apparently also took the files related to MKULTRA which was and probably is the CIA's experimental program designed to alter and control human behavior through the use of mind-altering drugs and torture. They sought to and apparently did learn the art of mind control including control of whole populations through these experiments. There are people who exist now who are suing the CIA in an effort to get some answers to the questions of what happened to their minds and the minds of their parents because of MKULTRA. That's not all they got because apparently they got the files on “Havana Syndrome” in which U.S. diplomats and others stationed in Havana and other places were apparently subjected to some kind of mind-altering rays. In response to the CIA raid, Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) and James Comer (R-KY) chairman of the house Oversight Committee, sent a preservation letter to the CIA demanding that all evidence related to the taken or stolen material be preserved. I imagine the CIA got a good laugh over that letter as they endeavored to show naive members of Congress who actually runs this country. Apparently someone spoke to someone and explained the facts of life as it exists in Washington because when that letter of preservation became public people started to backtrack their statements. Even Erdman, the whistleblower said no I didn't say it was a raid instead I just said CIA refused to comply with “lawful oversight and documented everts to circumvent oversight.” He testified to Congress that not only did CIA refuse to comply with the directives of the ODNI Director's Initiatives Group (DIG) investigations into the origins of COVID-19 and other “phenomena” but retaliated against those who did not support their own conclusions. Quoting long-term CIA agent Erdman, “The CIA illegally monitored the computer and phone usage of DIG personnel, their investigations, and contact with whistleblowers, which significantly impacted Director Gabbard's implementation of several Eo's issued during this administration and tasked to the DIG.” In addition, “when the DIG ceased operations, the CIA also took back 40 boxes of JFK files and MKULTRA files being processed for declassification by DNI Gabbard.” The CIA's spying was referenced as tracking every keystroke of DIG personnel as they processed files directed by presidential EO to be released or unclassified. These files included files concerning JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations, the origins of COVID-19, Crossfire Hurricane, The Biden Administration's domestic surveillance, Anomalous Health Incidents (AHI) and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. So, just speculating here folks, but trying to do it with logic I think it went something like this. The President appoints this intelligent and experienced, but most importantly honest woman to head the nation's intelligence organizations. He then says that as he campaigned on a pledge to be transparent and release long classified files he issues an Executive Order (EO) to that effect. Tulsi, his DNI, who most likely took the job based on a promise to be forthcoming, sets out to obey the President's EO. She appoints a working group from among those in the office of the DNI which she calls DIG to sort through the files to determine if there was anything that should not be released. The CIA completely ignored that  report to DNI which was Tulsi and in fact they ignore or refuse to abide by the direct written orders of the President of the United States. They break into, or raid, if that is better, her office, take the files and even congress can't get them back. My conclusion, then, is that this case reveals as clearly as anything has who or what runs this country. I knew when I heard the story of what happened and looked into it that Tulsi would not be able to remain in the administration. Who would want to be director of the office that controls American intelligence agencies, all 18 of them, if one of those agencies was completely exempt from you, their boss's orders, and apparently didn't even follow the orders of the President. So, is that why she resigned because she didn't say that it was. In fact, she didn't complain about the President's inability or unwillingness to control the CIA but instead she thanked him and the American people for the opportunity to serve. In her letter she cited her husband Abraham and his diagnosis of a “extremely rare form of bone cancer” as the reason. She said he had stood by her every step of the way including when her Army guard unit was deployed to East Africa and through her political campaigns so she wanted to be with him full-time during such a difficult time. In 18 months as DNI she restructured the office, cutting its size and saving the American people more than $700 million per year. She launched many investigations and sought the release of previously classified material related to the programs previously listed. She has declassified more than 500,000 pages thus far. Her National Counterterrorism Center stopped thousands of narco-terrorists from entering the country until finally its head, Joe Kent, publicly resigned citing the Iran war as the reason. I saw her interviewed on the Shawn Ryan Podcast the other day and she was very forthright as she normally is. She said that the people who opposed her in her efforts were very intolerant of anyone who believes in God because in their minds they are God. They are the ultimate deciders of right and wrong and their choices are never wrong because they determine what right is. If a person opposes them, even if their boss opposes them, that person is on the way out. She said that before she goes at the end of June she will release many files related to the programs in question. Likely, these files will be released in weekly installments over the weeks of June. Her deputy director, Aaron Lukas, will serve as acting director until a permanent director is appointed. I predict without knowing one way or the other that the new director will have a CIA or perhaps military, meaning ex-General background. Politicians seem to be sweating over the prospect of files related to Crossfire Hurricane or the Russia gate hoax and other weaponization of law programs. I'm just speculating because I admit I don't know but I will wager that Tulsi grew very weary of constantly trying to follow presidential directives and being stymied at every turn while doing so. That type of constant stress is very difficult to bear long term.  Why would the CIA take her JFK files along with the other assassination files. That's a good question isn't it but the answer is very obvious but unsayable in public. Yes I know the assassinations were all done by lone nuts who were killed or prosecuted without any real investigation but nothing to see here folks just move along. Finally, folks, Tulsi seems to be an intelligent, honest woman who loves her country and its people and who puts them before any political party. There aren't many left like her and I for one will miss her. I wish her well. At least that's the way I see it, Until next time folks, This is Darrell Castle, Thanks for listening.