Podcasts about Passages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

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

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

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

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

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

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Il y a des jours où l'on aimerait que la vie reste simple.On dépose son enfant à la crèche, on l'embrasse, on lui fait un dernier coucou à travers la baie vitrée et on part travailler.Tout semble normal.Et puis parfois, sans raison évidente, quelque chose résiste.Un inconfort diffus.Un détail minuscule, un geste, un regard.Et cette sensation étrange, logée quelque part entre le ventre et le cœur, qui ne veut pas se taire et qui nous dit que quelque chose cloche.Mon invitée du jour, Stéphanie, a vécu l'un de ces moments où l'intuition maternelle ne vous lâche pas jusqu'à vous pousser à agir.Dans son histoire, il y a de l'amour, du courage et un besoin de vérité.Bienvenue dans un épisode intense, parfois dérangeant et plein d'amour.Aujourd'hui, avec Stéphanie, nous allons parler d'un corps qui réagit avant la tête, d'une porte qu'on ne referme pas comme d'habitude et d'un doudou que l'on embarque dans la précipitation.RÉSUMÉ DE L'ÉPISODE AVEC STÉPHANIE00:00 – Le pressentiment qui ne passe pasStéphanie raconte cette sensation diffuse, corporelle et persistante qui s'installe sans raison apparente après l'entrée de sa fille en crèche.04:00 – Devenir mère solo et aiguiser son intuitionElle revient sur sa grossesse, la naissance de Soraya et la manière dont son intuition maternelle s'est renforcée très tôt.07:10 – Le retour au travail et la séparationStéphanie évoque la reprise rapide du travail, la difficulté de confier son bébé et le choix contraint de la crèche.09:30 – Les premiers changements chez son bébéElle décrit les signaux subtils chez Soraya : alimentation, comportements, repli et stress croissant.12:40 – L'intuition face au doute et au déni extérieurStéphanie raconte comment son entourage minimise ses ressentis et la fait douter de sa légitimité de mère.16:20 – Observer pour comprendreElle décide de rester, de regarder, et tente de rationaliser ce qu'elle perçoit dans la crèche.18:00 – Le jour où le corps dit stopStéphanie explique ce matin où son corps réagit violemment et la pousse à agir sans réfléchir.19:00 – La scène de tropElle raconte le moment où elle surprend la violence exercée sur sa fille et la réaction instinctive qui s'ensuit.23:00 – Protéger son enfant coûte que coûteStéphanie parle de la fuite, du doudou attrapé dans la précipitation et de la décision irréversible de retirer sa fille.27:00 – Après-coup, effondrement et reconstructionElle partage les conséquences émotionnelles, le burn-out, puis la manière dont cette épreuve a transformé sa maternité et sa vie.intuition maternelle • instinct de mère • maman solo • bébé en crèche • protéger son enfantSi vous aimez La petite voix, je compte sur vous pour laisser des commentaires, des étoiles ✨ et des bonnes notes sur votre plateforme de podcast préférée. Merci

In this powerful and thought-provoking episode of the 9941 Podcast, Granger, Tyler, Parker and AntMan tackle a rapidly growing cultural trend: AI girlfriends, boyfriends, and digital soulmates. What starts as a discussion about emerging AI companion technology quickly becomes a deep, biblical examination of love, loneliness, identity, and God’s design for human relationships. The guys explore how artificial intelligence is being marketed as emotional companionship — even romantic partnership — and why that trend poses serious spiritual, emotional, and societal dangers. They reference real-world examples like hologram companions and AI chatbot “relationships,” including platforms that introduced erotic roleplay features and the emotional fallout when those features were removed. Using Scripture as their foundation, the conversation moves into what the Bible teaches about love, human connection, and God’s design for marriage. Passages from 2 Timothy 4, Proverbs 14, and Romans 1 are used to show how redefining love and pursuing artificial substitutes for real relationships leads people away from truth and toward spiritual harm. The hosts also address deeper heart issues behind the appeal of AI relationships — loneliness, sexual temptation, fear of rejection, and the desire for unconditional affirmation. They emphasize that while AI may seem safe and customizable, it ultimately replaces real sanctifying relationships and distracts people from Christ, the Church, and the gospel. The episode closes with a clear gospel message, reminding listeners that true love, fulfillment, and rest are found in Jesus alone — not in manufactured affection or digital fantasy. The guys issue a firm warning against pursuing romantic or emotional relationships with AI and encourage believers to trust God with their singleness, relationships, and longing for connection. *************** Follow the show: Instagram - https://www.Instagram.com/9941thepodcast Facebook - https://www.Facebook.com/9941thepodcast YouTube - https://www.YouTube.com/@9941ThePodcast Online - https://www.9941ThePodcast.com Shop - https://yeeyee.com/collections/faithSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

January 25, 2026Pastor Scott PolingMain Passage: James 3:13-18Other Scripture used: Proverbs 9:10; Colossians 2:2b-3; Matthew 5:16; 1 Peter 3:7; 1 Peter 3:15b-16; Proverbs 4:23; Ephesians 2:2b, 2c, 3b; Ephesians 6:12; 1 Timothy 4:1-2; 1 Corinthians 14:33; James 3:17; 1 Corinthians 6:18-20; 1 Timothy 5:22b; Matthew 5:9; Romans 12:18; Hebrews 12:14-15; 2 Tmothy 2:24-25; James 1:19; Ephesians 6:1-2; Ephesians 5:22-25; Ephesians 6:5b; Romans 13:1-2; Ephesians 5:21; James 4:7a; Romas 12:15; Luke 10:33-37; Luke 6:36; Matthew 5:7; John 15:1-8; Ephesians 2:10; Matthew 6:2; Matthew 6:5; Matthew 6:16; Matthew 7:5; Luke 12:1; Matthew 22:18; Matthew 23:27-28; Matthw 24:50-51; Isaiah 26:3; Philippians 4:5-9; Proverbs 6:16-19; 2 Corinthians 9:6; Galatians 6:7; James 3:18Main Points:FIRST – WISDOMWisdom Takes the TestWisdom Acts GentlyWisdom Refuses Bitter Envy & Selfish AmbitionWisdom Looks to Heaven's ListWisdom Cultivates Peace

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Le 18 janvier, le Parisien a consacré un long dossier à la prévention de la pédocriminalité. La France est en retard sur cette question par rapport à la Grande-Bretagne ou à l'Allemagne, mais il existe une association et une ligne d'écoute, notamment, dont le but est d'accompagner les personnes attirées par les enfants afin d'essayer d'éviter des passages à l'acte.On estime qu'entre 4 et 13% de la population souffre de ce que l'on appelle la paraphilie pédophile, c'est-à-dire une attirance sexuelle pour les enfants. Une grande partie d'entre eux ne passent jamais à l'acte, mais certains commettent des agressions, ou consomment de la pédopornographie. Alors que 160 000 enfants subissent des violences sexuelles chaque année en France, les professionnels insistent sur le fait qu'il faut prendre en charge les personnes pédophiles et les accompagner sur le plan médical et psychologique. Cet épisode de Code source est raconté par deux journalistes du service police justice du Parisien, Lucie de Perthuis et Nicolas Jacquard.La ligne d'écoute « STOP » (Service téléphonique d'orientation et de prévention) est joignable au 0 806 23 10 63. Il y a aussi un site internet : dispositifstop.fr. Écoutez Code source sur toutes les plates-formes audio : Apple Podcast (iPhone, iPad), Amazon Music, Podcast Addict ou Castbox, Deezer, Spotify.Crédits. Direction de la rédaction : Pierre Chausse - Rédacteur en chef : Jules Lavie - Reporter : Barbara Gouy - Production : Clara Garnier-Amouroux et Thibault Lambert - Réalisation et mixage : Pierre Chaffanjon - Musiques : François Clos, Audio Network. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

In this episode, Lisa Fields and Dr. Jo Vitale join host Matthias Walther for a candid, heartfelt conversation about some of the Bible's most challenging passages relating to suffering, justice, and the character of God. Together, they explore tough questions, engaging both the head and the heart, and share an honest look at how Scripture continues to shape, stretch, and speak to us today.  Guest bio: Lisa Fields is CEO and founder of the Jude 3 Project, a leading apologetics organization dedicated to equipping the Black community with the tools to know what they believe and why they believe it. As a renowned Christian apologist, speaker, author, and film producer, she has been a driving force in shaping conversations on faith, theology, and culture. She uses innovative content to engage diverse audiences and challenge them to think critically about their beliefs.  Dr. Jo Vitale, founder of Kardia, has always been interested in people's questions about life and purpose, faith and culture. Growing up as a Christian in an increasingly secular society, those questions led her to pursue three degrees through the University of Oxford's theology faculty: a theology BA, an MSt in biblical interpretation, and a DPhil in the field of Old Testament studies.   Show Notes:  Lisa Fields - Instagram Joe Vitale - Instagram jude3project.org kardiaquestions.com Jude 3 Project at Museum of the Bible - "The Bible's Hardest Questions: Slavery, Judgment, and Why We Won't Be Married in Heaven"  Stay up to date with Museum of the Bible on social media:  Instagram: @museumofBible  X: @museumofBible  Facebook: museumofBible  Linkedin: museumofBible  YouTube: @museumoftheBible 

As always, we hope this is an encouragement, and we want this to be a resource to you men. Let's continue the conversation over at our men's facebook group, Reforming Manhood, https://www.facebook.com/groups/115836479115063/Don't forget to subscribe!

In this Ask Me Anything episode, Ryan Michler and Kipp Sorensen tackle some of the most pressing questions facing modern men. From the pros and cons of testosterone replacement therapy to rites of passage for men who were never initiated, the conversation dives deep into masculinity, leadership, and responsibility. They explore how men can give advice with confidence, navigate today's confusing cultural signals around manhood, and prepare their sons for a challenging financial future. This episode is a powerful reminder that being a man is not a title - it's a daily commitment to action. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS 00:00 - Opening & Current Events 04:55 - Testosterone & TRT 12:35 - Rites of Passage Into Manhood 22:45 - Giving Advice With Authority 33:20 - Masculinity, Adolescence & Maturity 42:30 - Preparing Sons for the Future 50:30 - Wrap-Up & Iron Council Battle Planners: Pick yours up today! Order Ryan's new book, The Masculinity Manifesto. For more information on the Iron Council brotherhood. Want maximum health, wealth, relationships, and abundance in your life? Sign up for our free course, 30 Days to Battle Ready  

Attention : Cet épisode contient des descriptions d'inceste, et peut heurter votre sensibilité. Prenez soin de vous, et bonne écoute. Enfant, Sébastien se réjouit de retrouver chaque été ses grand-parents à la ferme. Mais un jour, ces visites prennent fin brutalement, lorsque Sébastien appelle ses parents, et leur demande de venir le chercher le plus vite possible. En tant qu'adulte, Sébastien ne se souvient pas exactement de ce qu'il s'est passé, de ce qui a provoqué cette rupture. Et puis un jour, les souvenirs affleurent, et ce qui était flou prend soudain des contours nets.Cet épisode de Passages a été tourné et monté par Tiphaine Pioger, la réalisation et le mix sont de Thomas Loupias, Louise Hemmerlé est à la production. Merci à Sébastien pour les morceaux de violoncelle que vous entendez dans l'épisode. Si vous aussi vous voulez nous raconter votre histoire dans Passages, écrivez-nous en remplissant ce formulaire. Vous souhaitez soutenir la création et la diffusion des projets de Louie Media ? Vous pouvez le faire via le Club Louie. Chaque participation est précieuse. Nous vous proposons un soutien sans engagement, annulable à tout moment, soit en une seule fois, soit de manière régulière. Au nom de toute l'équipe de Louie : MERCI !Pour avoir des news de Louie, des recos podcasts et culturelles, abonnez-vous à notre newsletter en cliquant ici. Et suivez Louie Media sur Instagram, Facebook, Twitter. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

January 18, 2026Pastor Scott PolingOther Scripture used: 1 Timothy 3:8-13; Acts 6:2-7; Galatians 5:22a, 23b; Ephesians 5:18; Matthew 6:24; Matthew 6:19-21; 1 Tmothy 3:11; Romans 16:1-2; 1 Timothy 3:12-13; Mark 9:33-37; Psalm 94:8-9; Matthew 12:36-37; Romans 12:3a; Mark 9:31; Luke 14:7-11; Luke 22:27b; Luke 6:27-28; Proverbs 25:21-22; Romans 12:21; Isaiah 57:15; 1 Kings 22:1-5; Matthew 6:9a, 10b; 1 Kings 22:6; 1 Kings 22:7; 1 Kings 22:8; 1 Kings 22:13-14; 1 Kings 22:26-27; 1 Kings 22:28; 1 Kings 22:34-38; Proverbs 14:12Main Points:FIRST THINGS FIRSTFirst – Leaders Must Be TestedFirst – Leaders Must Aspire to True GreatnessFirst – Leaders Must Pray

Introduction I remember the first time I sat down to read the book of Revelation. It was the summer of 1992a pleasant Pennsylvania eveningsitting on the back patio of the small house where I spent my teenage years. That night, I read all twenty-two chapters in one sitting. Early on, I underlined a verse that encouraged me:Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy(Rev. 1:3). Those words felt like a promisethat something good awaited anyone willing to step into this book. But as I kept reading, I grew more and more confusedespecially when I reached chapter 6. The imagery became overwhelming, the questions multiplied, and when I finished, I had only highlighted a handful of verses. That night marked both my introduction to Revelation and the limits of my confidence in ita confidence that, for many years, did not grow much beyond that patio chair. Part of the reason I read Revelation in the first place had to do with a movie I watched with my friends calledA Thief in the Night, which focused on what theologians call the rapturethe belief that believers will be caught up to meet Christ in connection with a future tribulation. Passages like 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4 are often cited in support of this view. For the sake of time, we read just the words from 1 Thessalonians:The Lord himself will descend from heaven and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words (v. 16). Because the wordrapturedoes not appear in the Bible, many people encounter it through popular books and films, such as theLeft Behindseries. Those works helped popularize one particular way of reading prophetic textsknown as dispensationalismwhich has had a significant influence on American evangelical churches. Dispensationalism is one of several interpretive approaches Christians have used to read Revelation, and it developed in the nineteenth century before spreading widely through conferences, study Bibles, and evangelical institutions. My own thinking as a new Christian was deeply shaped by this framework. I share that not to critique my past, but to be honest about the lenses I brought with me as I opened this bookand the lenses many of us bring with us still. Its also important to know that dispensationalism is not the only way Christians have read Revelation. Throughout church history, believers have approached this book in several major ways:Preterist,Historicist, andIdealistreadings. Faithful Christians have held each of these views while confessing the same gospel and worshiping the same Lord. That diversity of interpretation is not new. In fact, G. K. Chesterton once observed,Though St. John the Evangelist saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators.[1] How to Read Revelation Today When I began myRevelation and Its Parallelsproject, I heard a simple statementone Ive never been able to trace to a single sourcethat has guided everything since:Revelation cannot mean for us what it did not first mean for John and the first-century church.That sentence has served as a compass for my book, my preparation for this sermon, and every message in this series. I believe this principle is confirmed by Revelation 1:3, where we are given one of the clearest clues for how this book is meant to be read:Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.This is the first of seven blessings in Revelation,[2] and it was originally spoken to seven real churches that existed in history. That blessing was not abstract or theoreticalit was given to ordinary believers gathered in local congregations. To read Revelation rightly, we must first recognize that it is aletterwritten to seven churches. At the same time, it is alsoapocalypticfrom the Greekapokalypsis, meaning unveiling. Apocalyptic literature communicates truth through visions and symbolic language, revealing heavenly realities that are normally hidden from everyday sight. It invites us to question the assumption that appearances always reflect reality. What seems powerful and permanent by earthly standards may already be exposed as temporary when seen from heavens perspective. What does that mean for us today? Revelation was writtentofirst-century churches, but it was writtenforthe church in every generation. It speaks across time, culture, and ethnic boundaries precisely because it first spoke clearly and meaningfully to the first-century church. And one of the clearest ways John teaches us to read this book is through the careful and consistent use of numbersespecially the number seven. Let me show you what I mean. Reading Revelation Through Its Use of Numbers There are a series of numbers that you must be aware of that are used throughout the Bible. When you are trying to figure out what those numbers mean, you MUST understand how those numbers are used throughout the Bible. So, the important numbers you need to be aware are 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 24, 3 (also 42 months, and 1260 days), and 1000. I have a whole chapter in the beginning of my book on the use of numbers in the book of Revelation, but for now let me highlight why this is important without getting into the weeds. The Number Seven The most predominant number used throughout the book of Revelation is the number seven. Many people associate seven with judgmentbut Revelation begins withseven churches, not seven disasters (Rev. 13). Before Christ judges the world, He walks among His churches, knows them by name, commends their faithfulness, and calls them to endurance. Throughout Revelation, the number seven consistently communicatesdivine completenessthe fullness of Gods purposeful and perfect work. There are not only seven churches, but alsothe seven Spirits of God. The seven Spirits are before Gods throne (Rev. 1:4) and are sent out into all the earth (Rev. 5:6). John is drawing on the imagery ofZechariah 4, where the emphasis is not on multiple spirits, but on thefullness of Gods Spirit at work. John is not describing seven distinct spirits, but the complete, sevenfold Spirit of the Lord. Each time we encounter this phrase, we should hear the echo of Zechariah 4:6:Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts. In Revelation 5, John is told,Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals(v. 5). Then something that happens often in Revelation occurs: John hears one thing, but when he turns to see, he sees something unexpected. In verse 6 he seesa Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes.Jesus is the Lamb. The seven horns do not describe physical features, butcomplete authority, since horns symbolize power. The seven eyes representperfect knowledgethe Lamb fully knows His people and their suffering. Throughout Revelation there is a scroll withseven seals, followed byseven trumpetsandseven bowlsof wrath. But here is what often surprises people: there are alsoseven blessings, sometimes called the seven beatitudes of Revelation. So let me ask this question: if the number seven is used everywhere else in the book to communicate a real and meaningful theological truth, why would we assume it functions differently when applied to a period of suffering often called the tribulation? The number seven is even applied toevil powersnot to suggest their equality with God, but to show how evil attempts tomimicthe completeness that belongs to God alone. Even then, its power is borrowed and its end is certain. We will return to the number seven again at the end of the sermon. The Number Three The number three is also an important number in Revelation. It does not appear as obviously or as frequently as the number seven, but it is woven throughout the book in meaningful ways. We see it immediately in Revelation 1:4, where John writes: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. In the Greek, John begins very simply and deliberately:from the One who is, and who was, and who is coming.[3]This threefold description refers to the Father and emphasizes His faithful presence across all of timepast, present, and future. Before Revelation introduces conflict, judgment, or suffering, it grounds the church in the identity of the eternal God. Heres the encouragement: before Revelation tells uswhatwill happen, it tells uswhoGod is. The book does not begin with fear, but with divine testimonya settled assurance that the God who was faithful in the past is present now and will remain faithful in what is yet to come. Before Revelation confronts the church with suffering, it anchors the church in the faithful, triune God who speaks with one unified voice. The Number Four After Revelation reveals the nature of God, it shifts focus to encompass all of creation and its relationship to Him. In the Bible, the number four frequently symbolizes the entirety of the created worldrepresenting the total extent of Gods handiwork. By utilizing this number, Revelation emphasizes that Johns vision is not limited to a specific location or group, but instead embraces the whole of creation. We see this in Revelation 4 with the four living creatures who surround the throne of God (Rev. 4:6-8). Have you ever thought about the way they are described? The first living creature had the appearance like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third was like a man, and the fourth was like an eagle in flight. Taken together, the point is that the entire created order is made to worship the One who is on the throne. God rules over creation! So when you read in Revelation about the four horsemen of the apocalypse, the four corners of the earth, the four winds, know that what is being referred to is the whole created world. One of my favorite places the number 4 is used is in Revelation 5:9-10 regarding the song that the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders sing: Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth. Jesus ransomed a people for God 1) from every tribe, 2) from every language, 3) from every people, and 4) from every nation. The Numbers Twelve and Twenty-Four The numbertwelverepresents the people of God. In the Old Testament, it refers to the twelve tribes of Israel, and in the New Testament, to the twelve apostles. Scripture consistently uses twelve to communicate that Gods people are known, formed, and established by His saving work. As Paul reminds us in Ephesians 2, Gods people are being built together on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:1922). In Revelation, the numberstwelveandtwenty-fourfunction together to identify the people of God as a unified whole. Twelve signals Gods covenant people, and twenty-four brings that picture to completion. In Revelation 4 and 5, John seestwenty-four eldersseated around the thronetwelve representing Gods people under the old covenant and twelve under the newtogether, at rest, and worshiping. The emphasis here is not on calculation, but on reassurance. Revelation is not telling us how many belong to God; it is assuring us thatallwho belong to Him are gathered, secure, and present with Himnot one is missing. The Number 1000 A final number worth mentioning isone thousand. Like the other numbers weve seen, Revelation does not use one thousand to satisfy curiosity or to function as a precise chronological measurement. Throughout Scripture, the number one thousand often communicates theall-encompassing scopeof Gods work and promises. We see this clearly in the Old Testament. Psalm 50:10 says,For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.The point is not that God owns exactly one thousand hills and no more. The psalmist is using the number to say thateverything belongs to God. One thousand functions as a way of expressing abundance and totality, not limitation. That same use of the number helps us understand Revelations reference to144,000. This number is not meant to be decoded, but understood. Twelve tribes multiplied by twelve apostles, multiplied by one thousand, forms a picture of thecomplete people of God, fully known, fully gathered, and fully secure. The emphasis is not on how many are counted, but on the assurance thatno one is missing. In the same way, when Revelation later speaks of a period described as a thousand years, the focus is not on constructing a timeline, but on affirming that Gods purposes arefull, complete, and lacking nothing. In Revelation, one thousand does not tell ushow longGod reignsit tells ushow completelyHe reigns. Conclusion Now, back to the number seven. One of the most startling discoveries I madeone that truly floored mecame as I traced the biblical parallels shaping the book of Revelation. As I worked through both the Old and New Testaments, I began to see a repeated pattern suggesting that Revelation is intentionally structured in a particular way. As I sketched out what I was seeing, that structure took shape as aheptagon, reflecting seven distinct yet interconnected perspectives. At the same time, I noticed that Revelation consistently moves toward a single, overarching theme:a new Eden, infinitely better than the firstwhere redemption reaches its climax in the new heaven and new earth. I also became convinced that theseven Jewish feastshelp govern the movement of the book. As you can see in the diagram, Revelation is designed to be read fromseven different vantage points, much like the four Gospels present Jesus from four complementary perspectives. What this prepares us to see is that Revelation is not laid out like a straight timeline moving neatly from beginning to end. Instead, John repeatedly returns to the same redemptive realitiessometimes from the perspective of the church, sometimes from heaven, sometimes through judgment, and sometimes through worshipeach time helping us see more clearly what is already true. You may have noticed the small slinky on your seat this morning. I put those there intentionally. A slinky doesnt move forward in a straight lineit advances by looping back over itself. And in many ways, thats how Revelation works. The book moves forward by returning again and again to the same redemptive realities, each time from a different vantage point. Thats what I mean when I talk about therecapitulatory natureof Revelationand thats what thisseven-fold vantage point diagramis designed to help us see. Rather than presenting a single, forward-moving sequence of events, Revelation shows us the same story from seven different angles, each one reinforcing the same central truth:God reigns, the Lamb has conquered, and His people are secure. This diagram isnt meant to flatten Revelation or oversimplify it. Its meant to help us see how its visions relate to one anotherhow seals, trumpets, bowls, and worship scenes are not competing timelines, but recurring perspectives on the same unfolding reality. Revelation isnt a puzzle to be solved, but a picture book meant to be seen. When we view it from heavens perspective, it becomes a source of assurance rather than confusion. Its purpose is not to challenge us with riddles, but to steady our faith, strengthen our hearts, and draw us into worship of the Lamb. [1] G. K. Chesterton,Orthodoxy(London: John Lane, 1908), 21. [2] On the seven beatitudes of Revelation, see 1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14 [3] Craig R. Koester, Revelation and the End of All Things, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), 54.

Introduction I remember the first time I sat down to read the book of Revelation. It was the summer of 1992a pleasant Pennsylvania eveningsitting on the back patio of the small house where I spent my teenage years. That night, I read all twenty-two chapters in one sitting. Early on, I underlined a verse that encouraged me:Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy(Rev. 1:3). Those words felt like a promisethat something good awaited anyone willing to step into this book. But as I kept reading, I grew more and more confusedespecially when I reached chapter 6. The imagery became overwhelming, the questions multiplied, and when I finished, I had only highlighted a handful of verses. That night marked both my introduction to Revelation and the limits of my confidence in ita confidence that, for many years, did not grow much beyond that patio chair. Part of the reason I read Revelation in the first place had to do with a movie I watched with my friends calledA Thief in the Night, which focused on what theologians call the rapturethe belief that believers will be caught up to meet Christ in connection with a future tribulation. Passages like 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4 are often cited in support of this view. For the sake of time, we read just the words from 1 Thessalonians:The Lord himself will descend from heaven and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words (v. 16). Because the wordrapturedoes not appear in the Bible, many people encounter it through popular books and films, such as theLeft Behindseries. Those works helped popularize one particular way of reading prophetic textsknown as dispensationalismwhich has had a significant influence on American evangelical churches. Dispensationalism is one of several interpretive approaches Christians have used to read Revelation, and it developed in the nineteenth century before spreading widely through conferences, study Bibles, and evangelical institutions. My own thinking as a new Christian was deeply shaped by this framework. I share that not to critique my past, but to be honest about the lenses I brought with me as I opened this bookand the lenses many of us bring with us still. Its also important to know that dispensationalism is not the only way Christians have read Revelation. Throughout church history, believers have approached this book in several major ways:Preterist,Historicist, andIdealistreadings. Faithful Christians have held each of these views while confessing the same gospel and worshiping the same Lord. That diversity of interpretation is not new. In fact, G. K. Chesterton once observed,Though St. John the Evangelist saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators.[1] How to Read Revelation Today When I began myRevelation and Its Parallelsproject, I heard a simple statementone Ive never been able to trace to a single sourcethat has guided everything since:Revelation cannot mean for us what it did not first mean for John and the first-century church.That sentence has served as a compass for my book, my preparation for this sermon, and every message in this series. I believe this principle is confirmed by Revelation 1:3, where we are given one of the clearest clues for how this book is meant to be read:Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.This is the first of seven blessings in Revelation,[2] and it was originally spoken to seven real churches that existed in history. That blessing was not abstract or theoreticalit was given to ordinary believers gathered in local congregations. To read Revelation rightly, we must first recognize that it is aletterwritten to seven churches. At the same time, it is alsoapocalypticfrom the Greekapokalypsis, meaning unveiling. Apocalyptic literature communicates truth through visions and symbolic language, revealing heavenly realities that are normally hidden from everyday sight. It invites us to question the assumption that appearances always reflect reality. What seems powerful and permanent by earthly standards may already be exposed as temporary when seen from heavens perspective. What does that mean for us today? Revelation was writtentofirst-century churches, but it was writtenforthe church in every generation. It speaks across time, culture, and ethnic boundaries precisely because it first spoke clearly and meaningfully to the first-century church. And one of the clearest ways John teaches us to read this book is through the careful and consistent use of numbersespecially the number seven. Let me show you what I mean. Reading Revelation Through Its Use of Numbers There are a series of numbers that you must be aware of that are used throughout the Bible. When you are trying to figure out what those numbers mean, you MUST understand how those numbers are used throughout the Bible. So, the important numbers you need to be aware are 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 24, 3 (also 42 months, and 1260 days), and 1000. I have a whole chapter in the beginning of my book on the use of numbers in the book of Revelation, but for now let me highlight why this is important without getting into the weeds. The Number Seven The most predominant number used throughout the book of Revelation is the number seven. Many people associate seven with judgmentbut Revelation begins withseven churches, not seven disasters (Rev. 13). Before Christ judges the world, He walks among His churches, knows them by name, commends their faithfulness, and calls them to endurance. Throughout Revelation, the number seven consistently communicatesdivine completenessthe fullness of Gods purposeful and perfect work. There are not only seven churches, but alsothe seven Spirits of God. The seven Spirits are before Gods throne (Rev. 1:4) and are sent out into all the earth (Rev. 5:6). John is drawing on the imagery ofZechariah 4, where the emphasis is not on multiple spirits, but on thefullness of Gods Spirit at work. John is not describing seven distinct spirits, but the complete, sevenfold Spirit of the Lord. Each time we encounter this phrase, we should hear the echo of Zechariah 4:6:Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts. In Revelation 5, John is told,Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals(v. 5). Then something that happens often in Revelation occurs: John hears one thing, but when he turns to see, he sees something unexpected. In verse 6 he seesa Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes.Jesus is the Lamb. The seven horns do not describe physical features, butcomplete authority, since horns symbolize power. The seven eyes representperfect knowledgethe Lamb fully knows His people and their suffering. Throughout Revelation there is a scroll withseven seals, followed byseven trumpetsandseven bowlsof wrath. But here is what often surprises people: there are alsoseven blessings, sometimes called the seven beatitudes of Revelation. So let me ask this question: if the number seven is used everywhere else in the book to communicate a real and meaningful theological truth, why would we assume it functions differently when applied to a period of suffering often called the tribulation? The number seven is even applied toevil powersnot to suggest their equality with God, but to show how evil attempts tomimicthe completeness that belongs to God alone. Even then, its power is borrowed and its end is certain. We will return to the number seven again at the end of the sermon. The Number Three The number three is also an important number in Revelation. It does not appear as obviously or as frequently as the number seven, but it is woven throughout the book in meaningful ways. We see it immediately in Revelation 1:4, where John writes: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. In the Greek, John begins very simply and deliberately:from the One who is, and who was, and who is coming.[3]This threefold description refers to the Father and emphasizes His faithful presence across all of timepast, present, and future. Before Revelation introduces conflict, judgment, or suffering, it grounds the church in the identity of the eternal God. Heres the encouragement: before Revelation tells uswhatwill happen, it tells uswhoGod is. The book does not begin with fear, but with divine testimonya settled assurance that the God who was faithful in the past is present now and will remain faithful in what is yet to come. Before Revelation confronts the church with suffering, it anchors the church in the faithful, triune God who speaks with one unified voice. The Number Four After Revelation reveals the nature of God, it shifts focus to encompass all of creation and its relationship to Him. In the Bible, the number four frequently symbolizes the entirety of the created worldrepresenting the total extent of Gods handiwork. By utilizing this number, Revelation emphasizes that Johns vision is not limited to a specific location or group, but instead embraces the whole of creation. We see this in Revelation 4 with the four living creatures who surround the throne of God (Rev. 4:6-8). Have you ever thought about the way they are described? The first living creature had the appearance like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third was like a man, and the fourth was like an eagle in flight. Taken together, the point is that the entire created order is made to worship the One who is on the throne. God rules over creation! So when you read in Revelation about the four horsemen of the apocalypse, the four corners of the earth, the four winds, know that what is being referred to is the whole created world. One of my favorite places the number 4 is used is in Revelation 5:9-10 regarding the song that the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders sing: Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth. Jesus ransomed a people for God 1) from every tribe, 2) from every language, 3) from every people, and 4) from every nation. The Numbers Twelve and Twenty-Four The numbertwelverepresents the people of God. In the Old Testament, it refers to the twelve tribes of Israel, and in the New Testament, to the twelve apostles. Scripture consistently uses twelve to communicate that Gods people are known, formed, and established by His saving work. As Paul reminds us in Ephesians 2, Gods people are being built together on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:1922). In Revelation, the numberstwelveandtwenty-fourfunction together to identify the people of God as a unified whole. Twelve signals Gods covenant people, and twenty-four brings that picture to completion. In Revelation 4 and 5, John seestwenty-four eldersseated around the thronetwelve representing Gods people under the old covenant and twelve under the newtogether, at rest, and worshiping. The emphasis here is not on calculation, but on reassurance. Revelation is not telling us how many belong to God; it is assuring us thatallwho belong to Him are gathered, secure, and present with Himnot one is missing. The Number 1000 A final number worth mentioning isone thousand. Like the other numbers weve seen, Revelation does not use one thousand to satisfy curiosity or to function as a precise chronological measurement. Throughout Scripture, the number one thousand often communicates theall-encompassing scopeof Gods work and promises. We see this clearly in the Old Testament. Psalm 50:10 says,For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.The point is not that God owns exactly one thousand hills and no more. The psalmist is using the number to say thateverything belongs to God. One thousand functions as a way of expressing abundance and totality, not limitation. That same use of the number helps us understand Revelations reference to144,000. This number is not meant to be decoded, but understood. Twelve tribes multiplied by twelve apostles, multiplied by one thousand, forms a picture of thecomplete people of God, fully known, fully gathered, and fully secure. The emphasis is not on how many are counted, but on the assurance thatno one is missing. In the same way, when Revelation later speaks of a period described as a thousand years, the focus is not on constructing a timeline, but on affirming that Gods purposes arefull, complete, and lacking nothing. In Revelation, one thousand does not tell ushow longGod reignsit tells ushow completelyHe reigns. Conclusion Now, back to the number seven. One of the most startling discoveries I madeone that truly floored mecame as I traced the biblical parallels shaping the book of Revelation. As I worked through both the Old and New Testaments, I began to see a repeated pattern suggesting that Revelation is intentionally structured in a particular way. As I sketched out what I was seeing, that structure took shape as aheptagon, reflecting seven distinct yet interconnected perspectives. At the same time, I noticed that Revelation consistently moves toward a single, overarching theme:a new Eden, infinitely better than the firstwhere redemption reaches its climax in the new heaven and new earth. I also became convinced that theseven Jewish feastshelp govern the movement of the book. As you can see in the diagram, Revelation is designed to be read fromseven different vantage points, much like the four Gospels present Jesus from four complementary perspectives. What this prepares us to see is that Revelation is not laid out like a straight timeline moving neatly from beginning to end. Instead, John repeatedly returns to the same redemptive realitiessometimes from the perspective of the church, sometimes from heaven, sometimes through judgment, and sometimes through worshipeach time helping us see more clearly what is already true. You may have noticed the small slinky on your seat this morning. I put those there intentionally. A slinky doesnt move forward in a straight lineit advances by looping back over itself. And in many ways, thats how Revelation works. The book moves forward by returning again and again to the same redemptive realities, each time from a different vantage point. Thats what I mean when I talk about therecapitulatory natureof Revelationand thats what thisseven-fold vantage point diagramis designed to help us see. Rather than presenting a single, forward-moving sequence of events, Revelation shows us the same story from seven different angles, each one reinforcing the same central truth:God reigns, the Lamb has conquered, and His people are secure. This diagram isnt meant to flatten Revelation or oversimplify it. Its meant to help us see how its visions relate to one anotherhow seals, trumpets, bowls, and worship scenes are not competing timelines, but recurring perspectives on the same unfolding reality. Revelation isnt a puzzle to be solved, but a picture book meant to be seen. When we view it from heavens perspective, it becomes a source of assurance rather than confusion. Its purpose is not to challenge us with riddles, but to steady our faith, strengthen our hearts, and draw us into worship of the Lamb. [1] G. K. Chesterton,Orthodoxy(London: John Lane, 1908), 21. [2] On the seven beatitudes of Revelation, see 1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14 [3] Craig R. Koester, Revelation and the End of All Things, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), 54.

As always, we hope this is an encouragement, and we want this to be a resource to you men. Let's continue the conversation over at our men's facebook group, Reforming Manhood, https://www.facebook.com/groups/115836479115063/Don't forget to subscribe!

Consecration does not end with just purification and sanctification. God consecrates his people for purpose and mission so that we may be faithful vessels of his Spirit and power. Therefore, as God consecrates our lives and our church, we must be ready to live with boldness and urgency for His glory.

January 11, 2026Pastor Scott PolingOther Scripture used: Proverbs 3:9-10; Proverbs 3:5-8; Proverbs 3:11a; Genesis 4:3-7; Proverbs 11:24-25; Luke 6:38; 2 Corinthians 9:6; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 9:7; Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42; 2 Corinthians 8:1-5; Mark 12:41-44; James 1:2-4; Acts 20:35b; Matthew 6:24; Matthew 6:21 Main Points: FIRST THINGS FIRST First – Give to God First – Give on the First Day of the Week First – Give Yourself to God

The Lord of HistorySeries: Daniel: Wisdom and Hope in Exile Preacher: Cory BrockSunday MorningDate: 11th January 2026Passages: Daniel 11:1-45Daniel 12:1-13

Jean-Marie ne s'est jamais totalement fondu dans le milieu de ses parents adoptifs. Ce qui détonne entre eux, c'est surtout son intérêt pour l'art, et la musique en particulier. Des années plus tard, lorsqu'il se met en quête de sa famille biologique, il découvre que sa passion coule en fait dans ses veines. Cet épisode de Passages a été tourné et monté par Sarah Gandillot. Théo Boulenger est à la réalisation et au mix. Louise Hemmerlé est à la production. Si vous aussi vous voulez nous raconter votre histoire dans Passages, écrivez-nous en remplissant ce formulaire. Pour avoir des news de Louie, des recos podcasts et culturelles, abonnez-vous à notre newsletter en cliquant ici. Et suivez Louie Media sur Instagram, Facebook, Twitter. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.