Podcast appearances and mentions of prince andrew

The April 24, 2007 testimony before Federal Grand Jury 07-103 in West Palm Beach was part of Operation Leap Year, the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The proceedings took place inside the U.S. Courthouse and reflected a moment when federal prosecutors were actively laying out evidence, witness testimony, and investigative findings related to Epstein's alleged sexual exploitation of underage girls. This phase of the grand jury process focused on establishing patterns of conduct, corroborating victim statements, and clarifying the scope of Epstein's activities, including how victims were recruited, transported, and compensated. Testimony presented during this session was aimed at helping jurors understand the systematic nature of the abuse rather than isolated incidents, reinforcing the argument that Epstein's conduct met federal thresholds for serious criminal charges.In this episode, we begin digging into the deposition of one of the young women who accused Jeffrey Epstein, shifting the focus away from legal maneuvering and back onto the human cost at the center of this case. Her sworn testimony offers a chilling, first-person account of how she was recruited, what she was told, and what she experienced inside Epstein's world, filling in details that never fully surfaced in public at the time. The deposition strips away euphemisms and defenses, replacing them with a raw narrative that shows how methodical and normalized the abuse became from the victim's perspective. As we walk through her words, it becomes clear how closely her account aligns with others, reinforcing that these were not isolated claims but part of a broader, deeply entrenched pattern that federal investigators were already aware of in 2007.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009586.pdf

The April 24, 2007 testimony before Federal Grand Jury 07-103 in West Palm Beach was part of Operation Leap Year, the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The proceedings took place inside the U.S. Courthouse and reflected a moment when federal prosecutors were actively laying out evidence, witness testimony, and investigative findings related to Epstein's alleged sexual exploitation of underage girls. This phase of the grand jury process focused on establishing patterns of conduct, corroborating victim statements, and clarifying the scope of Epstein's activities, including how victims were recruited, transported, and compensated. Testimony presented during this session was aimed at helping jurors understand the systematic nature of the abuse rather than isolated incidents, reinforcing the argument that Epstein's conduct met federal thresholds for serious criminal charges.In this episode, we begin digging into the deposition of one of the young women who accused Jeffrey Epstein, shifting the focus away from legal maneuvering and back onto the human cost at the center of this case. Her sworn testimony offers a chilling, first-person account of how she was recruited, what she was told, and what she experienced inside Epstein's world, filling in details that never fully surfaced in public at the time. The deposition strips away euphemisms and defenses, replacing them with a raw narrative that shows how methodical and normalized the abuse became from the victim's perspective. As we walk through her words, it becomes clear how closely her account aligns with others, reinforcing that these were not isolated claims but part of a broader, deeply entrenched pattern that federal investigators were already aware of in 2007.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009586.pdf

The April 24, 2007 testimony before Federal Grand Jury 07-103 in West Palm Beach was part of Operation Leap Year, the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The proceedings took place inside the U.S. Courthouse and reflected a moment when federal prosecutors were actively laying out evidence, witness testimony, and investigative findings related to Epstein's alleged sexual exploitation of underage girls. This phase of the grand jury process focused on establishing patterns of conduct, corroborating victim statements, and clarifying the scope of Epstein's activities, including how victims were recruited, transported, and compensated. Testimony presented during this session was aimed at helping jurors understand the systematic nature of the abuse rather than isolated incidents, reinforcing the argument that Epstein's conduct met federal thresholds for serious criminal charges.In this episode, we begin digging into the deposition of one of the young women who accused Jeffrey Epstein, shifting the focus away from legal maneuvering and back onto the human cost at the center of this case. Her sworn testimony offers a chilling, first-person account of how she was recruited, what she was told, and what she experienced inside Epstein's world, filling in details that never fully surfaced in public at the time. The deposition strips away euphemisms and defenses, replacing them with a raw narrative that shows how methodical and normalized the abuse became from the victim's perspective. As we walk through her words, it becomes clear how closely her account aligns with others, reinforcing that these were not isolated claims but part of a broader, deeply entrenched pattern that federal investigators were already aware of in 2007.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009586.pdf

Jeffrey Epstein's legal team didn't just negotiate within the normal bounds of the U.S. Attorney's Office in South Florida—they deliberately went over Alex Acosta's head and straight to Department of Justice leadership in Washington. When local prosecutors appeared resistant to the sweeping immunity Epstein wanted, his lawyers escalated the matter to Main Justice, reframing the case as a broader federal concern rather than a local sex-crimes prosecution. That pressure campaign paid off. Senior DOJ officials ultimately signed off on the notorious Non-Prosecution Agreement, an extraordinary deal that shielded Epstein from federal charges and quietly immunized unnamed co-conspirators—a move that short-circuited what could have been a devastating national prosecution and locked victims out of the process.In this episode, newly surfaced correspondence pulls back the curtain on how that deal was engineered at the highest levels, including emails and letters involving Kenneth Starr, one of Epstein's most powerful defense attorneys. The exchanges show Starr communicating directly with DOJ brass, using his institutional clout and legal gravitas to press Epstein's case far beyond ordinary advocacy. Rather than a routine plea negotiation, the correspondence reveals a coordinated, top-down lobbying effort that treated Epstein as a problem to be managed, not prosecuted—raising disturbing questions about favoritism, backchannel influence, and how justice was quietly bent to accommodate one of the most well-connected defendants in modern American criminal history.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00013989.pdf

The U.S. Department of Justice is now operating under a level of scrutiny it has never faced in the Jeffrey Epstein matter, forced by newly enacted transparency laws to disclose records it spent years sealing, slow-walking, or shielding under claims of prosecutorial discretion and victim privacy. Publicly, DOJ insists it is complying in good faith—releasing documents in phases, redacting sensitive material, and coordinating with courts to avoid prejudicing ongoing matters. Privately, the department is clearly trying to manage exposure, balancing legal compliance against the institutional risk of revealing how aggressively—or passively—it handled Epstein and his network over decades. The result is a calibrated drip of information that technically satisfies statutory requirements while avoiding a full, unfiltered reckoning with past charging decisions, non-prosecution agreements, and investigative dead ends.That tightrope walk is most obvious in how DOJ frames delays and redactions as necessary safeguards rather than resistance, even as critics argue the law's intent was to end precisely this kind of gatekeeping. By releasing materials without broader narrative context, the department limits immediate legal jeopardy while still appearing responsive to Congress and the public. But the strategy carries risk: each partial disclosure fuels further questions about what remains withheld and why, especially when previously secret decisions appear indefensible in hindsight. In effect, DOJ is complying with the letter of the Epstein transparency laws while testing how much control it can retain over the story—an approach that may keep it legally safe in the short term, but politically and reputationally exposed as more records inevitably come to light.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein used a web of charitable foundations to project legitimacy, influence, and intellectual respectability while concealing the true nature of his activities. Through entities such as the Jeffrey Epstein Foundation and related philanthropic vehicles, Epstein positioned himself as a benefactor of science, education, and elite institutions, donating money to universities, researchers, and high-profile causes. These foundations allowed Epstein to gain proximity to powerful academics, politicians, and financiers, creating the appearance of a wealthy eccentric philanthropist rather than a criminal predator. In practice, the charitable structure functioned as a reputational shield, granting Epstein social access, credibility, and insulation from scrutiny at the very moment he was abusing minors behind closed doors.Beyond image laundering, the foundations also served practical purposes that raised serious red flags after Epstein's arrest. They were used to move large sums of money with minimal transparency, blur personal and institutional finances, and justify travel, meetings, and housing arrangements tied to Epstein's broader network. Survivors and investigators have argued that these charities were not merely incidental to Epstein's operation, but instrumental—providing cover for recruitment, control, and silence while discouraging institutions from asking hard questions about the source of his wealth or his behavior. Once examined closely, the charitable façade collapses, revealing that Epstein's philanthropy was less about public good and more about building protection, access, and plausible deniability for a long-running criminal enterprise.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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

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

The Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Jeffrey Epstein was a controversial legal arrangement reached in 2007 between Epstein, a wealthy financier, and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The agreement was overseen by the DOJ.The Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Jeffrey Epstein was a controversial legal arrangement reached in 2007 between Epstein, a wealthy financier, and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The agreement was overseen by then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who later became the U.S. Secretary of Labor under President Donald Trump.The NPA came about as Epstein faced allegations of sexually abusing underage girls. It allowed him to plead guilty to two state prostitution charges, serving just 13 months in a county jail with work release privileges. In exchange, federal charges against him were dropped, and the agreement granted immunity not only to Epstein but also to any potential co-conspirators.The secrecy surrounding the NPA and the leniency of the sentence sparked outrage and accusations of preferential treatment due to Epstein's wealth and connections. Critics argued that the deal was unjust and failed to adequately address the gravity of Epstein's crimes or provide justice for his victims.In the years following the NPA, Epstein continued to face legal scrutiny and accusations of sexual abuse. However, the agreement insulated him from federal prosecution for the crimes covered in the deal until his arrest in July 2019 on new federal charges of sex trafficking minors. Epstein died by suicide in his jail cell a month later, while awaiting trial.In this episode, we take a trip back down to Palm Beach for a crash course on some of the main players on the stage when Jeffrey Epstein was given his once in a lifetime deal.(commercial at 11:03)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein: Players in early prosecution in Palm Beach County (palmbeachpost.com)

How does a man like Jeffrey Epstein—a serial predator accused by multiple underage victims, operating in plain sight for years—walk into one of the most grotesquely lenient plea deals in modern American legal history? How does federal prosecution quietly vanish, victims get lied to, and a man facing life-altering charges instead secure a sweetheart agreement that lets him serve time in a private wing, leave jail six days a week, and continue living like a billionaire? This wasn't a paperwork error or a one-off lapse in judgment. Deals like that do not happen by accident. They require power, protection, and people inside the system willing to bend, break, or outright ignore the law.So the real question isn't how did Epstein do it—it's who cleared the runway. Who decided the victims didn't need to know? Who signed off on shielding unnamed co-conspirators? Who looked at the evidence, the scale of abuse, the number of girls, and said, “Let's make this go away”? Because no ordinary defendant gets that kind of mercy. That kind of deal screams institutional fear, leverage, or complicity. And until every hand that touched that agreement is named, questioned, and held to account, the Epstein case isn't a failure of justice—it's proof of how selectively justice is applied.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Legal analysts have long noted that Ghislaine Maxwell never seriously pursued a cooperation deal in part because prosecutors had little incentive to offer one. The government's case against Maxwell was unusually narrow and tightly framed, focusing on a defined time window, a limited number of victims, and a clean narrative of recruitment and grooming that could be proven without relying on broader conspiracy testimony. By structuring the indictment this way, prosecutors minimized risk, avoided intelligence sensitivities, and ensured a conviction without opening doors to sprawling discovery fights over Epstein's finances, political connections, or institutional enablers. In that context, Maxwell's value as a cooperator was sharply limited: the government already had what it needed to win.That has fueled speculation—shared quietly by defense lawyers and former prosecutors—that Maxwell's refusal or inability to cut a deal may have stemmed from the case being deliberately engineered to not require her to talk about the wider network. Any cooperation that meaningfully reduced her sentence would likely have required testimony implicating powerful third parties or exposing systemic failures beyond Epstein himself. Such disclosures may have been inconvenient, destabilizing, or outside the scope prosecutors wanted to litigate. As a result, Maxwell faced a stark reality: cooperate and offer information the government did not appear to want—or go to trial in a case designed to convict her alone. The outcome suggests the prosecution prioritized certainty and containment over a broader reckoning, leaving Maxwell with no off-ramp and the larger structure surrounding Epstein largely untouched.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

After her conviction, Ghislaine Maxwell found herself embroiled in an unflattering postscript to the trial: allegations that she failed to pay her own lawyers. Court filings and reporting showed that at least one defense attorney accused Maxwell of leaving substantial legal bills unpaid after the verdict, despite months of high-stakes work on post-trial and appellate matters. The dispute spilled into public view through formal motions, exposing a rare and uncomfortable rupture between a defendant once backed by elite legal firepower and the lawyers who stood beside her through one of the most notorious sex-trafficking trials in recent history.Legal observers noted that the episode carried an air of irony difficult to ignore. Maxwell had financed a famously expensive defense while maintaining deep secrecy around her finances, yet once the jury returned its guilty verdict, the money appeared to dry up fast. The court treated the matter as a straightforward fee dispute rather than a legal crisis, but the optics were damaging: a convicted trafficker accused of stiffing the very attorneys paid to defend her. For critics, the fallout reinforced a broader portrait of Maxwell's post-trial unraveling—where loyalty, resources, and legal alliances seemed to evaporate as quickly as her freedom.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Legal analysts have long noted that Ghislaine Maxwell never seriously pursued a cooperation deal in part because prosecutors had little incentive to offer one. The government's case against Maxwell was unusually narrow and tightly framed, focusing on a defined time window, a limited number of victims, and a clean narrative of recruitment and grooming that could be proven without relying on broader conspiracy testimony. By structuring the indictment this way, prosecutors minimized risk, avoided intelligence sensitivities, and ensured a conviction without opening doors to sprawling discovery fights over Epstein's finances, political connections, or institutional enablers. In that context, Maxwell's value as a cooperator was sharply limited: the government already had what it needed to win.That has fueled speculation—shared quietly by defense lawyers and former prosecutors—that Maxwell's refusal or inability to cut a deal may have stemmed from the case being deliberately engineered to not require her to talk about the wider network. Any cooperation that meaningfully reduced her sentence would likely have required testimony implicating powerful third parties or exposing systemic failures beyond Epstein himself. Such disclosures may have been inconvenient, destabilizing, or outside the scope prosecutors wanted to litigate. As a result, Maxwell faced a stark reality: cooperate and offer information the government did not appear to want—or go to trial in a case designed to convict her alone. The outcome suggests the prosecution prioritized certainty and containment over a broader reckoning, leaving Maxwell with no off-ramp and the larger structure surrounding Epstein largely untouched.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

Joanna Coles looks back at her sit downs with Andrew Lownie to uncover the full scope of Prince Andrew's scandals, from secret deals and Epstein entanglements to whispers of a royal escape. Lownie lays bare a monarchy in crisis, revealing corruption, systemic failures, and a family blindsided by decades of unexamined behavior. This episode traces Andrew's personal downfall as the spine of a much larger story about power, privilege, and protection. With shocking claims of assassination plots and palace cover-ups, nothing about this saga is as simple as it seems. The only certainty: the story is far from over. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Let's have a toast to 2026! My initial thoughts of Stranger Things Volume 3 (NO spoilers) and a wild tangent about this years biggest stories from Blake Lively to Meghan Markle, Sydney Sweeney, Prince Andrew and more. And a deep dive into dinosaurs! Were Dinosaurs REAL?!   LifeMD is offering a Holiday and New Year's Sale with 50% off their Weight Management Program plus free shipping, which makes getting started easier and more affordable. Just visit https://lifemd.com/NOFILTER to activate the offer.   Become a Member of No Filter: ALL ACCESS: https://allaccess.supercast.com/    Shop New Merch now: https://merchlabs.com/collections/zack-peter?srsltid=AfmBOoqqnV3kfsOYPubFFxCQdpCuGjVgssGIXZRXHcLPH9t4GjiKoaio    Watch Disaster Daters: https://open.spotify.com/show/3L4GLnKwz9Uy5dT8Ey1VPi   Book a personalized message on Cameo: https://v.cameo.com/e/QxWQhpd1TIbare  

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice publicly acknowledged that it had made “mistakes” in its handling of Jeffrey Epstein's survivors, particularly in connection with the 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement in Florida. Federal officials conceded that prosecutors failed to properly notify victims about the deal and misled them about the status of the case, violations that ran afoul of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The admission followed years of litigation brought by survivors who argued they were deliberately kept in the dark while Epstein secured an extraordinary plea agreement that shielded him from federal prosecution at the time.The DOJ's acknowledgment came after a federal judge ruled that prosecutors had indeed violated victims' rights, forcing the department to publicly reckon with its conduct. While officials expressed regret and described the failures as institutional errors, the admission stopped short of disciplinary action against those involved or a broader accounting of how the deal was approved. For survivors and their advocates, the statement underscored a painful reality: that the justice system not only failed to stop Epstein earlier, but also compounded the harm by excluding victims from decisions that directly affected their safety and legal rights.to  contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The 2008 federal grand jury proceedings against Jeffrey Epstein represented a moment when the full scope of his criminal conduct was beginning to come into focus at the federal level. Investigators subpoenaed witnesses, gathered victim testimony, reviewed flight logs and financial records, and presented evidence that went far beyond the limited state charges later pursued in Florida. That evidence pointed to a coordinated operation involving recruiters, enablers, and facilitators who helped Epstein access minors and maintain control over them. Despite the breadth of the federal investigation, the grand jury materials were sealed, the case was effectively abandoned, and Epstein was allowed to walk away with a non-prosecution agreement that foreclosed federal charges and kept both victims and the public in the dark about how extensive the case had become.That secrecy has now been pierced by the newly unsealed documents released under the Epstein Transparency Act passed by Congress, which have given fresh life to what was once buried. The unsealing has revealed how serious the federal inquiry actually was and has allowed the public, for the first time, to hear directly from a federal special agent describing how investigators identified multiple co-conspirators during the grand jury process. These disclosures reframe the 2008 proceedings not as a weak or incomplete investigation, but as a suppressed one—where substantial evidence existed, names were known, and accountability was halted by design rather than lack of proof. With these records now public, the narrative that Epstein acted alone becomes increasingly untenable, and the focus shifts back to the network that federal investigators had.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:293-03.pdf

Jeffrey Epstein's appointment calendars, disclosed through court filings and investigative reporting, painted a stark picture of the scale and routine nature of his alleged abuse. Entries from certain periods showed Epstein scheduling meetings with multiple young women and girls in a single day—sometimes as many as seven—often listed only by first names or initials. Legal analysts and investigators said the calendars suggested a tightly organized, repetitive system rather than sporadic or incidental encounters, reinforcing accounts from survivors who described abuse as frequent, transactional, and embedded into Epstein's daily life.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Ghislaine Maxwell repeatedly pointed to Jeffrey Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) as a shield against her own criminal exposure, arguing that the deal's language was broad enough to insulate not just Epstein, but those who allegedly assisted him. Her defense leaned heavily on the clause that purported to cover unnamed “co-conspirators,” claiming that federal prosecutors had already bargained away the government's ability to charge her years later. By framing the NPA as a sweeping, binding promise, Maxwell attempted to recast herself as a beneficiary of Epstein's deal—despite not being a signatory and despite the agreement being negotiated without victims' meaningful input.Courts ultimately rejected that strategy, finding that the NPA did not grant Maxwell immunity and could not be stretched to function as a blanket pardon for future defendants. Judges emphasized that the agreement bound only the parties who signed it, applied to a specific jurisdiction, and did not override later federal prosecutions based on independently gathered evidence. In effect, Maxwell's reliance on the NPA backfired: it highlighted how aggressively Epstein's deal had been used to suppress accountability, while underscoring that she was trying to inherit protections never legally hers. The failure of that argument reinforced a central point of her case—that Epstein's extraordinary deal distorted justice—but it did not save her from facing charges herself.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In a videotaped deposition taken in April 2016, Maxwell was questioned under oath about Giuffre's allegations of being groomed and trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell—allegations that she vehemently denied, calling Giuffre an “absolute liar” and asserting she had no involvement in recruiting or abusing her. Maxwell repeatedly refused to answer questions about alleged sexual activity with minors—labeling them as inquiries into “consensual adult sex”—and insisted she had no knowledge of underage abuse. She denied any wrongdoing or participation in Epstein's trafficking network, attempting to distance herself from all aspects of Giuffre's claims.Critics and federal prosecutors later pointed to this deposition as a key piece of evidence in her criminal indictment: they argue Maxwell knowingly made false statements under oath, which became the basis for two counts of perjury in her 2021 criminal charges. Despite her denials, corroborating evidence—including testimony about threesomes with minor girls, flight logs, and recruitment patterns—cast serious doubt on her credibility. Giuffre's suit was ultimately settled in 2017, reportedly for millions of dollars, but the unsealed deposition—and Maxwell's fierce denials—now serve as a stark contrast to the weight of testimony and documentation later vetted in court.source:Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript - DocumentCloud

In a videotaped deposition taken in April 2016, Maxwell was questioned under oath about Giuffre's allegations of being groomed and trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell—allegations that she vehemently denied, calling Giuffre an “absolute liar” and asserting she had no involvement in recruiting or abusing her. Maxwell repeatedly refused to answer questions about alleged sexual activity with minors—labeling them as inquiries into “consensual adult sex”—and insisted she had no knowledge of underage abuse. She denied any wrongdoing or participation in Epstein's trafficking network, attempting to distance herself from all aspects of Giuffre's claims.Critics and federal prosecutors later pointed to this deposition as a key piece of evidence in her criminal indictment: they argue Maxwell knowingly made false statements under oath, which became the basis for two counts of perjury in her 2021 criminal charges. Despite her denials, corroborating evidence—including testimony about threesomes with minor girls, flight logs, and recruitment patterns—cast serious doubt on her credibility. Giuffre's suit was ultimately settled in 2017, reportedly for millions of dollars, but the unsealed deposition—and Maxwell's fierce denials—now serve as a stark contrast to the weight of testimony and documentation later vetted in court.source:Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript - DocumentCloud

The Department of Justice has responded to mounting pressure over the Epstein records by claiming it still has more than five million additional files to review, a figure that sounds less like transparency and more like institutional stalling. After nearly two decades of investigations, plea deals, prosecutions, civil litigation, and internal reviews, the idea that the DOJ is only now discovering the sheer scale of its Epstein archive strains credibility. This is not a new case, not a cold file pulled from a forgotten warehouse, but one of the most litigated, scrutinized, and publicly exposed criminal scandals in modern history. The implication that millions of documents remain unexamined suggests either catastrophic incompetence or a deliberate strategy to slow-walk disclosure until public attention fades. Either way, it reinforces the perception that the DOJ has never had a coherent or urgent plan to fully confront Epstein's network.Critically, the DOJ's “five million files” explanation functions as a bureaucratic shield rather than a meaningful update, offering volume as a substitute for accountability. Survivors, journalists, and lawmakers are not asking the DOJ to skim every scrap of paper in real time; they are demanding targeted transparency about known co-conspirators, prosecutorial decisions, and prior investigative failures. Invoking an overwhelming backlog conveniently avoids answering why so many leads were ignored, why federal charges were abandoned in 2007, and why key figures were never seriously pursued. At this point, the DOJ's reliance on scale sounds less like diligence and more like delay, reinforcing a long-standing pattern in the Epstein case: when clarity is demanded, the department responds with process; when accountability is required, it pleads administrative burden.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The rift between Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene reflects Trump's long-standing pattern of transactional loyalty rather than any real ideological dispute. Greene rose to prominence as one of Trump's most aggressive defenders, amplifying his attacks on institutions, critics, and even fellow Republicans, and she was rewarded with praise and proximity when her loyalty was absolute. That changed once she began voicing frustration over how Trump and his allies were handling fallout from the Epstein revelations and the broader demand from the base for transparency. Rather than engaging with the substance of those concerns, Trump reverted to form—treating any deviation as betrayal and signaling, implicitly or explicitly, that Greene was expendable the moment she became inconvenient.Trump's response underscored a core weakness in his leadership style: he demands unwavering fealty while offering none in return. Greene, once celebrated as a MAGA firebrand, quickly found herself subjected to the same scorched-earth tactics Trump has used against countless former allies, revealing that loyalty in Trump's orbit is conditional and revocable at a whim. The episode highlights Trump's instinct to deflect pressure by turning on allies instead of confronting uncomfortable facts, particularly when those facts threaten his personal narrative or his circle of friendsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In a videotaped deposition taken in April 2016, Maxwell was questioned under oath about Giuffre's allegations of being groomed and trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell—allegations that she vehemently denied, calling Giuffre an “absolute liar” and asserting she had no involvement in recruiting or abusing her. Maxwell repeatedly refused to answer questions about alleged sexual activity with minors—labeling them as inquiries into “consensual adult sex”—and insisted she had no knowledge of underage abuse. She denied any wrongdoing or participation in Epstein's trafficking network, attempting to distance herself from all aspects of Giuffre's claims.Critics and federal prosecutors later pointed to this deposition as a key piece of evidence in her criminal indictment: they argue Maxwell knowingly made false statements under oath, which became the basis for two counts of perjury in her 2021 criminal charges. Despite her denials, corroborating evidence—including testimony about threesomes with minor girls, flight logs, and recruitment patterns—cast serious doubt on her credibility. Giuffre's suit was ultimately settled in 2017, reportedly for millions of dollars, but the unsealed deposition—and Maxwell's fierce denials—now serve as a stark contrast to the weight of testimony and documentation later vetted in court.source:Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript - DocumentCloud

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA), finalized during the 2007–2008 period and implemented as Epstein entered his 2008–2009 state sentence, was an extraordinary federal deal that halted a looming indictment in the Southern District of Florida. Under the agreement, Epstein avoided federal prosecution for sex-trafficking and related offenses in exchange for pleading guilty in Florida state court to minor charges of solicitation. The deal allowed him to serve a remarkably lenient sentence—largely on work release—while federal prosecutors agreed not to pursue additional charges tied to the same conduct. Crucially, the NPA was negotiated in secret, without notifying or consulting Epstein's victims, a decision that would later be ruled a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act.The agreement became infamous for its unusually broad language, including a clause purporting to protect unnamed “co-conspirators” from federal prosecution, effectively freezing accountability beyond Epstein himself. That provision sparked years of legal battles, public outrage, and skepticism about whether justice had been subordinated to convenience or influence. When the deal was later scrutinized, courts condemned both the secrecy and the substance of the arrangement, exposing it as a profound failure of prosecutorial judgment. The Epstein NPA now stands as a case study in how an aggressive defense strategy, combined with prosecutorial deference, can derail accountability and allow systemic abuse to persist unchecked.to contact me:bobbbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Wall Street Journal published an exclusive account revealing what it says was the specific incident that led Donald Trump to ban Jeffrey Epstein from Mar-a-Lago's spa in 2003. According to the report, Mar-a-Lago had been sending spa employees to provide services at Epstein's nearby Palm Beach mansion for years, even as staff privately warned one another about Epstein's increasingly inappropriate behavior. The practice continued until an 18-year-old beautician returned from a house call and reported that Epstein had pressured her for sex; a manager then sent Trump a fax about the allegation, and Trump responded by ordering Epstein banned from the club's spa. The Journal's account also notes that Epstein wasn't a formal club member yet was treated “like one” on Trump's instruction.The report situates that episode as the first clear break in Trump and Epstein's relationship, though the two continued to be seen together socially for a time afterward. Mar-a-Lago staffers told the WSJ that Epstein's companion Ghislaine Maxwell regularly coordinated the spa visits — including recruiting young employees — and that concerns about Epstein's conduct were known internally before the 2003 complaint. Trump's current White House has disparaged the WSJ story as politically motivated, with spokespeople saying he acted appropriately in banning Epstein for alleged misconduct toward employees.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New report digs in on details of the incident that reportedly caused Trump to ban Epstein from Mar-a-Lago | The Independent

Happy New Year to each and every one of you. As we step into this next chapter, I hope this year brings you health, stability, and moments of genuine peace in a world that rarely slows down. I hope it gives you clarity where there was uncertainty and strength where there was exhaustion. No matter what this past year took from you, you're still here, and that matters. The fact that you continue to show up, listen, and care says a lot about who you are. I'm grateful beyond words that you choose to spend your time here, engaging with work that isn't easy but is necessary. I truly wish nothing but the best for you and the people you love in the year ahead.I also want to sincerely thank you for staying engaged in the fight for truth and accountability around Jeffrey Epstein. Your attention, your questions, and your refusal to let this story fade are what keep pressure where it belongs. This fight only continues because people like you refuse to look away. Every message, every share, every conversation helps keep the truth alive. Your commitment has made a real difference, whether you realize it or not. As we move into this new year together, know that your support matters deeply and that this work continues because of you. Here's to a strong, healthy, and determined year ahead for all of us.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The April 24, 2007 testimony before Federal Grand Jury 07-103 in West Palm Beach was part of Operation Leap Year, the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The proceedings took place inside the U.S. Courthouse and reflected a moment when federal prosecutors were actively laying out evidence, witness testimony, and investigative findings related to Epstein's alleged sexual exploitation of underage girls. This phase of the grand jury process focused on establishing patterns of conduct, corroborating victim statements, and clarifying the scope of Epstein's activities, including how victims were recruited, transported, and compensated. Testimony presented during this session was aimed at helping jurors understand the systematic nature of the abuse rather than isolated incidents, reinforcing the argument that Epstein's conduct met federal thresholds for serious criminal charges.In this episode, we begin digging into the deposition of one of the young women who accused Jeffrey Epstein, shifting the focus away from legal maneuvering and back onto the human cost at the center of this case. Her sworn testimony offers a chilling, first-person account of how she was recruited, what she was told, and what she experienced inside Epstein's world, filling in details that never fully surfaced in public at the time. The deposition strips away euphemisms and defenses, replacing them with a raw narrative that shows how methodical and normalized the abuse became from the victim's perspective. As we walk through her words, it becomes clear how closely her account aligns with others, reinforcing that these were not isolated claims but part of a broader, deeply entrenched pattern that federal investigators were already aware of in 2007.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009586.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Happy New Year to each and every one of you. As we step into this next chapter, I hope this year brings you health, stability, and moments of genuine peace in a world that rarely slows down. I hope it gives you clarity where there was uncertainty and strength where there was exhaustion. No matter what this past year took from you, you're still here, and that matters. The fact that you continue to show up, listen, and care says a lot about who you are. I'm grateful beyond words that you choose to spend your time here, engaging with work that isn't easy but is necessary. I truly wish nothing but the best for you and the people you love in the year ahead.I also want to sincerely thank you for staying engaged in the fight for truth and accountability around Jeffrey Epstein. Your attention, your questions, and your refusal to let this story fade are what keep pressure where it belongs. This fight only continues because people like you refuse to look away. Every message, every share, every conversation helps keep the truth alive. Your commitment has made a real difference, whether you realize it or not. As we move into this new year together, know that your support matters deeply and that this work continues because of you. Here's to a strong, healthy, and determined year ahead for all of us.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The 2007 NPA granted Epstein immunity from federal prosecution, explicitly including “any potential co-conspirators.” However, courts have ruled that this immunity only applied within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Florida, which negotiated the deal. The Second Circuit Court held that the agreement did not bind other U.S. Attorney's Offices, such as the Southern District of New York (SDNY), where Ghislaine Maxwell was later tried—and upheld her prosecution despite the NPA's language. This is because prosecutors in different districts are not automatically constrained by deals made in Florida.Prosecutors themselves have highlighted the absurdity of a scenario where Epstein could potentially still face prosecution in another district, while his co-conspirators remain untouchable nationwide. In a Supreme Court filing, the Justice Department stressed how logically inconsistent—and legally bizarre—it would be if a defendant could be pursued in District A, but their collaborators remain immune everywhere else due to an out-of-state agreement. The broader principle endorsed by courts is that NPAs do not grant blanket immunity beyond their originating district.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/sdny-rejects-absurd-notion-that-jeffrey-epsteins-non-prosecution-agreement-still-protects-ghislaine-maxwell/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The new wave of outrage from lawmakers over Jeffrey Epstein is less a moral awakening than a stage play. For years, these same politicians happily accepted his money, attended his events, and ignored survivors' pleas. Now, with the cameras rolling, they've reinvented themselves as crusaders for justice. Their speeches are choreographed performances — complete with dramatic pauses and crocodile tears — designed to look like courage but reeking of political survival. Survivors don't need applause lines or hashtags; they needed action years ago, when it might have made a difference.What we're really watching is hypocrisy in motion. The very people who enabled Epstein's influence machine now use outrage as a costume to launder their reputations. They hope the public will forget the donations, the fundraisers, and the Rolodex connections, but the record doesn't disappear just because they suddenly discovered empathy. This isn't justice, it's theater — and if they believe they can posture without being called out, they've underestimated how much the audience has been paying attention.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The April 24, 2007 testimony before Federal Grand Jury 07-103 in West Palm Beach was part of Operation Leap Year, the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The proceedings took place inside the U.S. Courthouse and reflected a moment when federal prosecutors were actively laying out evidence, witness testimony, and investigative findings related to Epstein's alleged sexual exploitation of underage girls. This phase of the grand jury process focused on establishing patterns of conduct, corroborating victim statements, and clarifying the scope of Epstein's activities, including how victims were recruited, transported, and compensated. Testimony presented during this session was aimed at helping jurors understand the systematic nature of the abuse rather than isolated incidents, reinforcing the argument that Epstein's conduct met federal thresholds for serious criminal charges.In this episode, we begin digging into the deposition of one of the young women who accused Jeffrey Epstein, shifting the focus away from legal maneuvering and back onto the human cost at the center of this case. Her sworn testimony offers a chilling, first-person account of how she was recruited, what she was told, and what she experienced inside Epstein's world, filling in details that never fully surfaced in public at the time. The deposition strips away euphemisms and defenses, replacing them with a raw narrative that shows how methodical and normalized the abuse became from the victim's perspective. As we walk through her words, it becomes clear how closely her account aligns with others, reinforcing that these were not isolated claims but part of a broader, deeply entrenched pattern that federal investigators were already aware of in 2007.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009586.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The April 24, 2007 testimony before Federal Grand Jury 07-103 in West Palm Beach was part of Operation Leap Year, the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The proceedings took place inside the U.S. Courthouse and reflected a moment when federal prosecutors were actively laying out evidence, witness testimony, and investigative findings related to Epstein's alleged sexual exploitation of underage girls. This phase of the grand jury process focused on establishing patterns of conduct, corroborating victim statements, and clarifying the scope of Epstein's activities, including how victims were recruited, transported, and compensated. Testimony presented during this session was aimed at helping jurors understand the systematic nature of the abuse rather than isolated incidents, reinforcing the argument that Epstein's conduct met federal thresholds for serious criminal charges.In this episode, we begin digging into the deposition of one of the young women who accused Jeffrey Epstein, shifting the focus away from legal maneuvering and back onto the human cost at the center of this case. Her sworn testimony offers a chilling, first-person account of how she was recruited, what she was told, and what she experienced inside Epstein's world, filling in details that never fully surfaced in public at the time. The deposition strips away euphemisms and defenses, replacing them with a raw narrative that shows how methodical and normalized the abuse became from the victim's perspective. As we walk through her words, it becomes clear how closely her account aligns with others, reinforcing that these were not isolated claims but part of a broader, deeply entrenched pattern that federal investigators were already aware of in 2007.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009586.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. Department of Justice is now operating under a level of scrutiny it has never faced in the Jeffrey Epstein matter, forced by newly enacted transparency laws to disclose records it spent years sealing, slow-walking, or shielding under claims of prosecutorial discretion and victim privacy. Publicly, DOJ insists it is complying in good faith—releasing documents in phases, redacting sensitive material, and coordinating with courts to avoid prejudicing ongoing matters. Privately, the department is clearly trying to manage exposure, balancing legal compliance against the institutional risk of revealing how aggressively—or passively—it handled Epstein and his network over decades. The result is a calibrated drip of information that technically satisfies statutory requirements while avoiding a full, unfiltered reckoning with past charging decisions, non-prosecution agreements, and investigative dead ends.That tightrope walk is most obvious in how DOJ frames delays and redactions as necessary safeguards rather than resistance, even as critics argue the law's intent was to end precisely this kind of gatekeeping. By releasing materials without broader narrative context, the department limits immediate legal jeopardy while still appearing responsive to Congress and the public. But the strategy carries risk: each partial disclosure fuels further questions about what remains withheld and why, especially when previously secret decisions appear indefensible in hindsight. In effect, DOJ is complying with the letter of the Epstein transparency laws while testing how much control it can retain over the story—an approach that may keep it legally safe in the short term, but politically and reputationally exposed as more records inevitably come to light.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Alan Dershowitz quietly dropped his defamation lawsuit against Netflix, ending a legal fight he launched over his portrayal in the Epstein-related documentary series. Dershowitz had claimed the program falsely implicated him in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and damaged his reputation, but the decision to abandon the case brought the dispute to an abrupt close without a courtroom reckoning over the underlying allegations. The withdrawal spared Netflix from discovery and testimony that could have further widened the Epstein record, while also leaving many of the factual disputes unresolved in the public eye.At the same time, Alan Dershowitz reignited controversy by repeating and expanding on his claim that Jeffrey Epstein functioned as a kind of intelligence asset or “spy,” a characterization he has floated in multiple interviews over the years. Dershowitz has suggested Epstein's connections to powerful figures and governments explain both his unusual access and the extraordinary leniency he received for so long. Critics argue that framing Epstein as a spy risks deflecting attention from the concrete evidence of abuse and the institutional failures that protected him, turning a documented criminal conspiracy into a murkier story of intrigue that muddies accountability rather than clarifying it.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Les Wexner's central role in Jeffrey Epstein's rise—from obscure money manager to untouchable power broker—has been persistently minimized, softened, or outright ignored in much of the public narrative. Epstein did not ascend in a vacuum. His access, wealth, legitimacy, and institutional protection were built first and foremost through Les Wexner, who handed Epstein unprecedented financial authority, legal insulation, and proximity to elite political and social networks. That relationship was not incidental or brief; it was foundational. Yet over time, Wexner has been recast as a naive victim of betrayal rather than the primary enabler who created the conditions that allowed Epstein to operate with power, money, and perceived credibility for decades.This whitewashing persists despite overwhelming evidence that Epstein's reign of terror depended on the empire Wexner placed in his hands—control over vast assets, private aircraft, multiple properties, and the veneer of respectability that comes from being tied to one of the most powerful businessmen in America. While Jeffrey Epstein is rightly condemned as the predator at the center, the systems and patrons that empowered him are routinely excused, compartmentalized, or quietly absolved. Wexner's narrative has been carefully laundered through selective reporting and legal distance, but the reality remains unavoidable: without Wexner's patronage, Epstein never becomes Epstein, and the continued reluctance to confront that truth represents one of the most enduring failures of accountability in the entire scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley has repeatedly argued that he was unfairly railroaded by his association with Jeffrey Epstein, portraying himself as collateral damage in a scandal he claims was exaggerated and mischaracterized. In public statements and court filings, Jes Staley has insisted that his relationship with Epstein was overstated, that he had no knowledge of Epstein's criminal conduct, and that the fallout cost him his career and reputation unjustly. Staley has framed the allegations as a narrative pile-on—suggesting that regulators, banks, and the media needed a single, convenient figure to absorb blame once Epstein's crimes became impossible to ignore.Those denials, however, collapse under the weight of the documented facts. Emails, travel records, and testimony show that Staley maintained a far closer and longer relationship with Jeffrey Epstein than he publicly acknowledged, including repeated personal contact well after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Evidence revealed during regulatory investigations and litigation contradicts Staley's claims of distance and ignorance, exposing a pattern of sustained engagement that undercuts his credibility. When set against the paper trail, Staley's insistence that he was merely an unlucky bystander rings hollow—less a case of being railroaded, and more an example of how implausible denials unravel once they're tested against emails, calendars, and sworn findings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Washington has long perfected the art of political theater, where outrage is loudly paraded before cameras only to evaporate when accountability is required. On the campaign trail, fiery speeches about corruption and justice come easy—rhetoric designed for applause, not action. Yet when those same figures sit under oath, the fire dies out, replaced by carefully hedged statements and dismissive legal jargon. It's not about uncovering truth; it's about protecting power.That's the script Kash Patel followed to the letter. After crowing about Epstein's crimes for political gain, he turned around and downplayed survivor testimony as “not credible” when speaking before the Senate. The hypocrisy couldn't be clearer. What once served as an applause line became an inconvenient truth, quickly discarded in favor of denial. The mask slipped, the act collapsed, and what was revealed was not a defender of justice but yet another operator shielding the powerful under the guise of credibility.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the note attributed to an unnamed assistant, she says Jeffrey Epstein changed her life. Once a 22-year-old divorcee working as a hostess in a hotel restaurant, she claims Epstein introduced her to elite society and experiences far beyond what she'd ever known. She name-drops having met Prince Andrew, President Clinton, Donald Trump, Naomi Campbell, Michael Jackson, and other high‐profile figures. She writes about traveling the world with him, doing things like flying on the Concorde, taking flying lessons, scuba diving, parasailing, attending Victoria's Secret fashion shows, seeing the private quarters of Buckingham Palace, and even sitting on the Queen's throne.More than just experiences, her letter is a praise piece: she expresses admiration, gratitude, and wonder. She calls Epstein “the most extraordinary person I've ever met,” saying she can't believe how lucky she is to have become part of his life. She also mentions learning “countless skills” thanks to him. Altogether, her stories paint a picture of Epstein as someone who elevated her existence, opening doors and giving her access to opportunity, privilege, and glamour — whether or not those images now seem deeply troubling.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein's assistant names Donald Trump, Prince Andrew among leaders she metBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew repeatedly refused to cooperate with formal legal requests seeking his testimony about Jeffrey Epstein, denying at least three documented approaches from attorneys representing Epstein victims and, later, U.S. authorities. Lawyers for Virginia Giuffre first sought Andrew's cooperation during civil litigation in the United States, requesting interviews and testimony about his relationship with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Andrew declined to participate. Subsequent formal requests—renewed as evidence mounted and court deadlines approached—were likewise rejected, with his legal team maintaining that he would not submit to questioning or provide a sworn account.That pattern continued even as pressure escalated. U.S. prosecutors publicly stated they had made repeated efforts to speak with Andrew as part of their Epstein investigation, only to be rebuffed each time. Legal experts noted that while Andrew was under no obligation to voluntarily cooperate as a foreign national, his refusal to engage stood in sharp contrast to public claims that he was eager to help authorities. The denials became a central feature of the case's narrative, reinforcing criticism that Andrew avoided scrutiny not through legal immunity, but through strategic non-cooperation—declining every formal opportunity to explain his role in Epstein's orbit under oath.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA), finalized during the 2007–2008 period and implemented as Epstein entered his 2008–2009 state sentence, was an extraordinary federal deal that halted a looming indictment in the Southern District of Florida. Under the agreement, Epstein avoided federal prosecution for sex-trafficking and related offenses in exchange for pleading guilty in Florida state court to minor charges of solicitation. The deal allowed him to serve a remarkably lenient sentence—largely on work release—while federal prosecutors agreed not to pursue additional charges tied to the same conduct. Crucially, the NPA was negotiated in secret, without notifying or consulting Epstein's victims, a decision that would later be ruled a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act.The agreement became infamous for its unusually broad language, including a clause purporting to protect unnamed “co-conspirators” from federal prosecution, effectively freezing accountability beyond Epstein himself. That provision sparked years of legal battles, public outrage, and skepticism about whether justice had been subordinated to convenience or influence. When the deal was later scrutinized, courts condemned both the secrecy and the substance of the arrangement, exposing it as a profound failure of prosecutorial judgment. The Epstein NPA now stands as a case study in how an aggressive defense strategy, combined with prosecutorial deference, can derail accountability and allow systemic abuse to persist unchecked.to contact me:bobbbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Happy New Year to each and every one of you. As we step into this next chapter, I hope this year brings you health, stability, and moments of genuine peace in a world that rarely slows down. I hope it gives you clarity where there was uncertainty and strength where there was exhaustion. No matter what this past year took from you, you're still here, and that matters. The fact that you continue to show up, listen, and care says a lot about who you are. I'm grateful beyond words that you choose to spend your time here, engaging with work that isn't easy but is necessary. I truly wish nothing but the best for you and the people you love in the year ahead.I also want to sincerely thank you for staying engaged in the fight for truth and accountability around Jeffrey Epstein. Your attention, your questions, and your refusal to let this story fade are what keep pressure where it belongs. This fight only continues because people like you refuse to look away. Every message, every share, every conversation helps keep the truth alive. Your commitment has made a real difference, whether you realize it or not. As we move into this new year together, know that your support matters deeply and that this work continues because of you. Here's to a strong, healthy, and determined year ahead for all of us.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Donald Trump's most recent comments on Jeffrey Epstein reveal a man in panic mode, lashing out at his own base while trying to downplay one of the most damning unresolved scandals of the modern era. In a Truth Social rant, Trump scolded his “boys” and “gals” for fueling what he called a “civil war” within MAGA over the Epstein case, particularly targeting those criticizing Florida AG Pam Bondi, who many feel is stonewalling transparency. He bizarrely dismissed Epstein as “a guy who never dies,” while insisting nobody actually cares about the case—urging his followers to drop it and focus on what he called more important issues, like the border and the economy.Trump's latest comments are not just evasive—they're a deliberate attempt to smother public scrutiny under the weight of mockery and misdirection. By dismissing Epstein as “a guy who never dies” and labeling renewed interest as political noise, Trump is actively discouraging any meaningful investigation. He frames the pursuit of truth as a distraction, not because the questions lack merit, but because the answers might be inconvenient. Rather than confront the unresolved details of Epstein's network, Trump redirects blame toward his usual political enemies, hoping to reduce a sprawling, bipartisan scandal into just another partisan spat.In the end, the message is simple: look away. But the public isn't looking away—not anymore. The Epstein story isn't old news. It's unfinished business. And no amount of deflection, denial, or loyalist cheerleading is going to bury it for good. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein's death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein's survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein's death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein's survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The rift between Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene reflects Trump's long-standing pattern of transactional loyalty rather than any real ideological dispute. Greene rose to prominence as one of Trump's most aggressive defenders, amplifying his attacks on institutions, critics, and even fellow Republicans, and she was rewarded with praise and proximity when her loyalty was absolute. That changed once she began voicing frustration over how Trump and his allies were handling fallout from the Epstein revelations and the broader demand from the base for transparency. Rather than engaging with the substance of those concerns, Trump reverted to form—treating any deviation as betrayal and signaling, implicitly or explicitly, that Greene was expendable the moment she became inconvenient.Trump's response underscored a core weakness in his leadership style: he demands unwavering fealty while offering none in return. Greene, once celebrated as a MAGA firebrand, quickly found herself subjected to the same scorched-earth tactics Trump has used against countless former allies, revealing that loyalty in Trump's orbit is conditional and revocable at a whim. The episode highlights Trump's instinct to deflect pressure by turning on allies instead of confronting uncomfortable facts, particularly when those facts threaten his personal narrative or his circle of friendsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's legal team didn't just negotiate within the normal bounds of the U.S. Attorney's Office in South Florida—they deliberately went over Alex Acosta's head and straight to Department of Justice leadership in Washington. When local prosecutors appeared resistant to the sweeping immunity Epstein wanted, his lawyers escalated the matter to Main Justice, reframing the case as a broader federal concern rather than a local sex-crimes prosecution. That pressure campaign paid off. Senior DOJ officials ultimately signed off on the notorious Non-Prosecution Agreement, an extraordinary deal that shielded Epstein from federal charges and quietly immunized unnamed co-conspirators—a move that short-circuited what could have been a devastating national prosecution and locked victims out of the process.In this episode, newly surfaced correspondence pulls back the curtain on how that deal was engineered at the highest levels, including emails and letters involving Kenneth Starr, one of Epstein's most powerful defense attorneys. The exchanges show Starr communicating directly with DOJ brass, using his institutional clout and legal gravitas to press Epstein's case far beyond ordinary advocacy. Rather than a routine plea negotiation, the correspondence reveals a coordinated, top-down lobbying effort that treated Epstein as a problem to be managed, not prosecuted—raising disturbing questions about favoritism, backchannel influence, and how justice was quietly bent to accommodate one of the most well-connected defendants in modern American criminal history.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00013989.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Department of Justice has responded to mounting pressure over the Epstein records by claiming it still has more than five million additional files to review, a figure that sounds less like transparency and more like institutional stalling. After nearly two decades of investigations, plea deals, prosecutions, civil litigation, and internal reviews, the idea that the DOJ is only now discovering the sheer scale of its Epstein archive strains credibility. This is not a new case, not a cold file pulled from a forgotten warehouse, but one of the most litigated, scrutinized, and publicly exposed criminal scandals in modern history. The implication that millions of documents remain unexamined suggests either catastrophic incompetence or a deliberate strategy to slow-walk disclosure until public attention fades. Either way, it reinforces the perception that the DOJ has never had a coherent or urgent plan to fully confront Epstein's network.Critically, the DOJ's “five million files” explanation functions as a bureaucratic shield rather than a meaningful update, offering volume as a substitute for accountability. Survivors, journalists, and lawmakers are not asking the DOJ to skim every scrap of paper in real time; they are demanding targeted transparency about known co-conspirators, prosecutorial decisions, and prior investigative failures. Invoking an overwhelming backlog conveniently avoids answering why so many leads were ignored, why federal charges were abandoned in 2007, and why key figures were never seriously pursued. At this point, the DOJ's reliance on scale sounds less like diligence and more like delay, reinforcing a long-standing pattern in the Epstein case: when clarity is demanded, the department responds with process; when accountability is required, it pleads administrative burden.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Wall Street Journal published an exclusive account revealing what it says was the specific incident that led Donald Trump to ban Jeffrey Epstein from Mar-a-Lago's spa in 2003. According to the report, Mar-a-Lago had been sending spa employees to provide services at Epstein's nearby Palm Beach mansion for years, even as staff privately warned one another about Epstein's increasingly inappropriate behavior. The practice continued until an 18-year-old beautician returned from a house call and reported that Epstein had pressured her for sex; a manager then sent Trump a fax about the allegation, and Trump responded by ordering Epstein banned from the club's spa. The Journal's account also notes that Epstein wasn't a formal club member yet was treated “like one” on Trump's instruction.The report situates that episode as the first clear break in Trump and Epstein's relationship, though the two continued to be seen together socially for a time afterward. Mar-a-Lago staffers told the WSJ that Epstein's companion Ghislaine Maxwell regularly coordinated the spa visits — including recruiting young employees — and that concerns about Epstein's conduct were known internally before the 2003 complaint. Trump's current White House has disparaged the WSJ story as politically motivated, with spokespeople saying he acted appropriately in banning Epstein for alleged misconduct toward employees.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New report digs in on details of the incident that reportedly caused Trump to ban Epstein from Mar-a-Lago | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.