Podcasts about prosecution

Former FBI director James Comey's prosecution hits a major snag after prosecutors admit the grand jury never reviewed his full indictment, raising questions about whether the case can even proceed.Thousands of already released Epstein documents shed new light on the powerful figures who stayed close to Jeffrey Epstein even after his conviction.And Nvidia's staggering earnings and $5 trillion valuation fuel both optimism and warnings about whether the AI boom is entering bubble territory.Want more comprehensive analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Today's episode of Up First was edited by Anna Yukhananov, Megan Pratz, Julia Redpath, Mohamad ElBardicy, and Alice Woelfle.It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Nia Dumas and Christopher Thomas.We get engineering support from Stacey Abbott. And our technical director is Carleigh Strange.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

At 4pm ET on Nov. 19, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Molly Roberts, Anna Bower, and Roger Parloff to discuss two court hearings that occurred that day. First they discussed the hearing in the prosecution of James Comey. Then they briefly discussed the hearing in J.G.G. v. Trump, over potential contempt proceedings against the government concerning actions taken surrounding the deportation of some El Salvador immigrants to CECOT.This episode is a part of Lawfare's new livestream series, Lawfare Live: The Now. Subscribe to Lawfare on Substack or YouTube to receive an alert for future livestreams. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us a textThis week's podcast guest is Joseph Margulies, an accomplished civil rights litigator, author of three books and many online articles, and Cornell University professor. Joe was counsel of record in Supreme Court litigation that established the right of Guantanamo inmates and Americans detained abroad by American forces to challenge their detentions. He describes one of his current clients as having been “imprisoned and tortured in CIA black sites.”Joe and Fairfax criminal lawyer Jonathan Katz graduated from their respective law schools a year apart. Joe's father, Irv, was a great lawyer who was a key mentor to Jon when the litigation partner at Jon's first law firm. Detours about Irv in this interview include his sharp mind, and Joe's and Irv's commonality about the importance of strong persuasive writing skills for litigators. Jon witnessed Irv's taking even complex issues and getting right to the heart of the persuasive matter, with appropriate word imagery and emphasis. Irv's persona shines through in his combat veteran oral history.Starting with doing indigent criminal defense, Joe eventually shifted from mainly wanting to fight in court, to adopting a more client-focused approach that seeks to know his clients as people, as well as what happened in their life path that preceded their arrest and prosecution. That approach develops trust between a lawyer and client that cannot be substituted any other way, and enables the lawyer to persuasively advocate for their clients all the better.  Joe aptly says on his main professional webpage: “If history and science teach us anything, it is that any of us can do monstrous things, and if all of us can be monstrous, then none of us are monsters, which is why I do not believe in the Other, that mythical creature we are so quick to find and eager to cast out.”Asked about approaches to beating the prosecution, Joe admits that he has suffered defeats (as do all criminal defense lawyers), and focuses on the importance for a criminal defense lawyer to sharpen their writing skills, process, and re-writing. For writing excellence, Joe especially likes George Orwell, and addresses his essays, including “Politics and the English Language”.This episode is also available on YouTube and Apple podcasts. This podcast with Fairfax, Virginia criminal / DUI lawyer Jon Katz is playable on all devices at podcast.BeatTheProsecution.com. For more information, visit https://KatzJustice.com or contact us at info@KatzJustice.com, 703-383-1100 (calling), or 571-406-7268 (text). If you like what you hear on our Beat the Prosecution podcast, please take a moment to post a review at our Apple podcasts page (with stars only, or else also with a comment) at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beat-the-prosecution/id1721413675

AP correspondent Haya Panjwani reports on the former director of the FBI attempting once again to have his case thrown out.

In this episode, Wade and Tain discuss unit of prosecution. The written outline, with citations, can be found at goodjudgepod.com.

The report from the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility found that no prosecutors committed formal misconduct in approving Epstein's 2008 non-prosecution agreement, but condemned Alexander Acosta (then U.S. Attorney in Miami) for “poor judgment” in allowing the deal to proceed without full federal investigation, excluding key evidence, and failing to notify victims before the plea. It noted a troubling 11-month gap in Acosta's emailed records during the critical period when the federal indictment was being drafted and abandoned. The deal also included sweeping immunity for potential co-conspirators, negotiated with minimal transparency, while Epstein was allowed to escape what many considered imminent federal charges.Critically, the report drew fire for virtually ignoring the survivors themselves: meetings with victims, their input, and their statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act were treated superficially or bypassed entirely. One alleged victim called the report “another slap in the face,” arguing that it served more as a self-protective cover-up than a genuine reckoning of how power, money and institutional apathy let Epstein continue abusing minors. In failing to hold anyone accountable—despite what the survivors and victim-rights advocates say was extensive prosecutorial and institutional failure—the review leaves the deeper questions of enablement, institutional bias and justice for victims unanswered.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for November 14, 2025. 0:30 We dig into a surprising new analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco that challenges decades of economic dogma. For nearly a century, experts have insisted that tariffs raise prices and cripple economies—but a 150-year review of data from the U.S., UK, and France shows the opposite. We break down how tariffs can lower prices, strengthen domestic manufacturing, reduce foreign dependency, and expose the myths that fueled the rise of global competitors like China. And we look at how new trade deals and shifting economic power are reshaping American industry in real time. 9:30 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. The Prosecution against President Trump from Georgia will move forward with Peter Skandalakis as the prosecutor. California Congressman Eric Swalwell, who previously was accused of having an affair with a Chinese spy, is now accused of falsifying loans. Democrat Jared Golden of Maine announced this week he won't be seeking reelection to Congress. 12:30 Get Performlyte from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:30 We break down the debate over H-1B visas, fraud in the system, and the growing rift inside the Republican Party over immigration and specialized labor. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s proposal to cap visas and crack down on abuse faces pushback after President Trump argues that certain specialized skills simply don’t exist in sufficient numbers here at home. We explore why most H-1B visas aren’t going to top-tier engineers, how major tech and outsourcing firms have become the biggest beneficiaries, and why national security concerns are now shaping the conversation about who should—or shouldn’t—be filling America’s most sensitive industrial and defense roles. 16:00 American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson react to the backlash surrounding Sydney Sweeney’s latest film, Christie—a biopic about 1990s boxer Christy Martin—and why the movie world has turned on one of its brightest young stars. Despite keeping her politics private, Sweeney has been labeled “problematic” after reports surfaced that she’s a registered Republican. Now, after the film’s disappointing box office debut, some in the industry are blaming her for its performance.We explore the double standard in Hollywood—how major flops from firmly left-leaning stars barely make a ripple, while Sweeney’s misstep draws vitriol from actors like Ruby Rose. We also highlight Christy Martin’s heartfelt defense of Sweeney, pushing back against claims that she “ruined” the film. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 22:00 We break down the economic pressures shaping young voters—and how those frustrations helped propel Zoran Mamdani to victory in New York City. We examine the growing resentment around rent, wages, and soaring personal debt, including the staggering $1.2 trillion in U.S. credit card balances. 24:30 We Dig Deep into a new Gallup report showing one of the sharpest drops in religiosity anywhere in the world—and what that means for America’s future.We break down the 17-point decline in Americans who say faith is an important part of daily life, and why the Founders believed a moral and religious people were essential to preserving freedom. We look at how this vacuum of belief is being filled—not by God, but by government. From New York City’s Zoran Mamdani declaring that no problem is too big for government to solve, to the rise of political and ideological substitutes for religion, misplaced faith in bureaucracy threatens liberty itself. 31:30 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 32:00 We break down a sprawling, mob-linked sports betting ring that stretched across college campuses and pulled in student-athletes. We discuss how the explosion of legalized sports gambling, combined with the massive money flowing through today’s NIL era, has created fertile ground for corruption and chaos. From point-shaving schemes to young athletes being pressured by organized crime, we look at how institutions once built on discipline and merit have drifted into moral relativism and cash-driven incentives. And as New Jersey authorities uncover a multi-million-dollar criminal pipeline tied to college programs, the warning signs are getting harder to ignore. 35:00 Plus, it's Fake News Friday! We're putting you to the test with our weekly game of headlines—are they real news, fake news, or really fake news? From TSA bonuses and collapsing bridges, to chart-topping AI-generated music, Tiktok scandals, and even Tucker Carlson's interview with Bigfoot, can you spot the fake news? Play along, keep score, and share your results with us on Facebook page: facebook.com/AmericanGroundRadio. 39:00 We take a look at the Democratic National Committee’s latest internal drama: staffers being ordered back to the office after years of remote work. Long-distance governing may have contributed to the party’s recent missteps, but they aren't too happy about returning to the office and we're saying, "Whoa." 41: And we finish off with a young man with integrity. After turning in some lost cash, he was rewarded with a job. Follow us: americangroundradio.com Facebook: facebook.com / AmericanGroundRadio Instagram: instagram.com/americangroundradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The original prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in Florida wasn't just mishandled — it was corrupted from within. Three prosecutors from the same U.S. Attorney's Office—Bruce Reinhardt, Lilly Sanchez, and Matt Menchel—quit during or immediately after the Epstein investigation and went to work for him or his associates. That isn't coincidence; that's the anatomy of a fix. Each of them had access to confidential case information and leveraged that insider knowledge to cash in, turning justice into a commodity. Then, when the Office of the Inspector General reviewed it, the watchdog that should have barked called it merely “bad judgment,” effectively normalizing what was blatant ethical rot. In any other case, this would have been criminal, but in Epstein's world, betrayal was just another business decision—and the DOJ let it slide.The result was a system that protected predators and punished truth. Epstein's freedom wasn't an accident; it was a purchase, bought through a revolving door of prosecutors-turned-defenders, cushioned by bureaucrats too cowardly to act. The OIG's weak response proved that institutional loyalty outweighed moral duty, and that's why none of these people have faced consequences. If three prosecutors can defect to a child trafficker's payroll without consequence, then the justice system is broken by design. Congress should have dragged them in years ago, put them under oath, and made them answer for it. Until that happens, every promise of accountability is hollow, every “lesson learned” meaningless, and the fix remains exactly where Epstein left it — alive, protected, and thriving inside the walls of justice itself.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Glenn Wiggle, Mike Hoeflich, and Mike Sperrazza dive into the real fallout of Washington's latest government shutdown—and the hypocrisy behind politicians still cashing paychecks while everyday Americans go without. From bloated regulations driving up healthcare costs to the failures of Obamacare, the hosts call out both parties for their inaction and lack of leadership. They break down how excessive government control has crippled competition, inflated costs, and hurt working Americans, arguing for a return to smaller government, personal responsibility, and common sense. Plus, a no-holds-barred discussion on welfare reform, accountability in Congress, and why the GOP must finally deliver.(00:02:15) Impact of Government Shutdown on Individuals and Politicians(00:11:58) Impact of Regulations on Healthcare Accessibility and Costs(00:14:22) Healthcare Overhaul: Promoting Competition and Efficiency(00:24:28) Effective Legislators: Leading for Progress(00:26:37) Republican Party's Lack of Initiative and Action(00:30:24) Republican Party's Urgency for Accountability and Prosecution(00:34:29) State-Level Enforcement of Welfare to Work

The original prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in Florida wasn't just mishandled — it was corrupted from within. Three prosecutors from the same U.S. Attorney's Office—Bruce Reinhardt, Lilly Sanchez, and Matt Menchel—quit during or immediately after the Epstein investigation and went to work for him or his associates. That isn't coincidence; that's the anatomy of a fix. Each of them had access to confidential case information and leveraged that insider knowledge to cash in, turning justice into a commodity. Then, when the Office of the Inspector General reviewed it, the watchdog that should have barked called it merely “bad judgment,” effectively normalizing what was blatant ethical rot. In any other case, this would have been criminal, but in Epstein's world, betrayal was just another business decision—and the DOJ let it slide.The result was a system that protected predators and punished truth. Epstein's freedom wasn't an accident; it was a purchase, bought through a revolving door of prosecutors-turned-defenders, cushioned by bureaucrats too cowardly to act. The OIG's weak response proved that institutional loyalty outweighed moral duty, and that's why none of these people have faced consequences. If three prosecutors can defect to a child trafficker's payroll without consequence, then the justice system is broken by design. Congress should have dragged them in years ago, put them under oath, and made them answer for it. Until that happens, every promise of accountability is hollow, every “lesson learned” meaningless, and the fix remains exactly where Epstein left it — alive, protected, and thriving inside the walls of justice itself.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The original prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in Florida wasn't just mishandled — it was corrupted from within. Three prosecutors from the same U.S. Attorney's Office—Bruce Reinhardt, Lilly Sanchez, and Matt Menchel—quit during or immediately after the Epstein investigation and went to work for him or his associates. That isn't coincidence; that's the anatomy of a fix. Each of them had access to confidential case information and leveraged that insider knowledge to cash in, turning justice into a commodity. Then, when the Office of the Inspector General reviewed it, the watchdog that should have barked called it merely “bad judgment,” effectively normalizing what was blatant ethical rot. In any other case, this would have been criminal, but in Epstein's world, betrayal was just another business decision—and the DOJ let it slide.The result was a system that protected predators and punished truth. Epstein's freedom wasn't an accident; it was a purchase, bought through a revolving door of prosecutors-turned-defenders, cushioned by bureaucrats too cowardly to act. The OIG's weak response proved that institutional loyalty outweighed moral duty, and that's why none of these people have faced consequences. If three prosecutors can defect to a child trafficker's payroll without consequence, then the justice system is broken by design. Congress should have dragged them in years ago, put them under oath, and made them answer for it. Until that happens, every promise of accountability is hollow, every “lesson learned” meaningless, and the fix remains exactly where Epstein left it — alive, protected, and thriving inside the walls of justice itself.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The evidence against Bryan Kohberger that has been presented thus far has been very strong as far as circumstational evidence goes. However, that doesn't mean that there is no room for the defense to try to punch holes in the evidence, especially if the only DNA turns out to be the DNA left on the sheath.In this episode, we hear from Tracy Walder who discusses what the DNA found on the sheath tells us and doesn't tell us and how the defense might attempt to attack this evidence.(commercial at 7:59)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Why Bryan Kohberger's DNA Presents Problem for Prosecution (newsweek.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Send us a textStorytelling is a key part of persuading in court. In this Beat the Prosecution episode, Fairfax criminal lawyer Jonathan Katz interviews one of his favorite storytellers, Danny Schnitzlein,  who penned The Monster Who Ate My Peas, which was the centerpiece of hundreds of bedtime stories told to Jon's son. Danny gives a fascinating look at his storytelling process, the key elements to a great story, and his continued connection with his inner child that enables his addressing fear and humor. Jon Katz  includes addressing the feeling aspect of stories, the healing potential in stories, and the benefit of storytelling for transporting the audience into the circle of the story in the present moment. Check out Danny's books The Monster Who Ate My Peas, Gnu and Shrew, The Monster Who Did My Math, and Monster Street. This episode also is available on YouTube and Apple podcasts. This podcast with Fairfax, Virginia criminal / DUI lawyer Jon Katz is playable on all devices at podcast.BeatTheProsecution.com. For more information, visit https://KatzJustice.com or contact us at info@KatzJustice.com, 703-383-1100 (calling), or 571-406-7268 (text). If you like what you hear on our Beat the Prosecution podcast, please take a moment to post a review at our Apple podcasts page (with stars only, or else also with a comment) at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beat-the-prosecution/id1721413675

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.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.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.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.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.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.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.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.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.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.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.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.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.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.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.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.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.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.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.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.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.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.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on  ⁨@TheEmilyDBaker⁩  YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/Gi3OiGX-PBs In this Case Brief update on the Kouri Richins case, we delve into the latest motions filed by the defense, including their attempt to subpoena Kouri Richins' sister-in-law, Katie Richins-Benson, the executive of the estate. The defense is seeking financial activities of the Eric Richins' living trust from March 3rd, 2022, to the present, as well as copies of checks drawn from the sister-in-law's personal or business accounts made payable to individuals connected to the investigation. Katie's attorney responds to the subpoena, calling the requests vague, ambiguous, and an "undue burden" and "blind fishing expedition" aimed at harassment. The attorney clarifies that individuals the defense insinuated were "paid witnesses" are actually retained expert witnesses in the civil case regarding the estate. The defense claims a witness, Robert Crozier, recanted his statement about selling fentanyl, now stating he only sold Oxy or Roxy's. The prosecution argues there's no undisclosed exculpatory evidence and that Crozier's recent assertion is not credible. The defense's motion to reconsider bail and conditions of release is discussed, with the prosecution asserting that Crozier's changed statement does not amount to a material change in circumstance. Kouri Richins' attorneys request a hearing in the civil case regarding the estate to compel production of trust report information and enforce an order requiring trust accounting, believing this information will impact the criminal trial. Stay tuned for more updates on the Kouri Richins case as motions ramp up and court dates are set. RESOURCES Kouri Richins Playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gJYyEMQDM_Cn4icqWBV20fW Kouri Richins New Motions - https://youtu.be/FGOrXwYIQA4 STAY IN THE LOOP WITH EMILY D. BAKER Download Our FREE App: https://lawnerdapp.com Get the Free Email Alert: https://www.LawNerdAlert.com Case Requests & Business Inquiries: TeamEmilyDBaker@wmeagency.com Help with the shop: https://www.lawnerdshop.com/pages/contact Mailing Address: Emily D. Baker 2000 Mallory Ln. St. 130-185, Franklin TN 37067 LAW NERD MERCH! https://www.LawNerdShop.com LONG FORM CONTENT https://www.youtube.com/@TheEmilyDBaker The Emily Show Podcast on YouTube: https://emilydbaker.com/TheEmilyShowPlaylist Apple Podcasts: https://emilydbaker.com/AppleTheEmilyShow Spotify Podcasts: https://emilydbaker.com/SpofityTheEmilyShow On your favorite podcast player Mondays EMILY ON SOCIAL @TheEmilyDBaker Instagram: https://www.Instagram.com/TheEmilyDBaker Twitter: https://www.Twitter.com/TheEmilyDBaker Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheEmilyDBaker MY YOUTUBE TOOLS **My Favorite YOUTUBE TOOL VidIQ https://vidiq.com/LawNerd Follow My Cats on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fredandgeorge_cat Emily's glasses lenses are Irlen tint https://www.irlen.com *This video is not legal advice; it is commentary for educational and entertainment purposes. Some links shared are affiliate links, all sponsorships are stated in video. Videos are based on publicly available information unless otherwise stated. Sharing a resource is not an endorsement; it is a resource. Copyright 2020-2025 Baker Media, LLC* Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

New York Attorney General Letitia James was arraigned in her bank fraud case. Donald Trump had directed his unqualified US Attorney, Lindsey Halligan, to bring those charges against James. Glenn attended the hearing in federal court in Norfolk, Virginia. He gives 2 reports from the courthouse - one before and also one after the arraignment hearing.For Glenn's Substack: hhtps://glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

President Trump seeks roughly $230 million from the Justice Department for what he calls malicious prosecutions, a move raising unprecedented conflict-of-interest concerns inside his own administration. Construction begins on a privately-funded 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom, triggering outrage from critics. Journalist Nick Sortor films inside a suspected Antifa hideout near Portland's ICE facility and is met with threats and slurs as police face questions over alleged stand-down orders. The Louvre reopens after Sunday's $100 million jewel heist as prosecutors arrest a suspect in a separate Paris museum robbery.  All Family Pharmacy: Order now at https://allfamilypharmacy.com/MEGYN and save 10% with code MEGYN10 Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.