Podcasts about Southern District

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-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger Picture[CB] around the world are dumping the Fed note, they just aren’t taking on anymore, everything is about to change. Trump’s GDP outshines Biden’s. China is now going to restrict silver, silver is used in electronics, batteries,solar panels etc. Silver prices are going to move. [CB] fraud is now exposed. The Tariff system is the future. The [DS] criminal syndicate is being exposed, it’s not just in DC it is world wide. As people learn how corrupt the system is and most of the taxes and borrowing goes to support the criminal system the people will be with Trump to remove the Fed. Trump is in the process of bringing down the entire corrupt temple on the [DS]. Trump moves closer to peace with Ukraine, 2026 is going to change everything. Economy Status of the US Dollar as Global Reserve Currency: USD Share Drops to Lowest since 1994  Central Banks diversify their holdings into dozens of smaller “non-traditional reserve currencies.”  The share of USD-denominated assets held by other central banks dropped to 56.9% of total foreign exchange reserves in Q3, the lowest since 1994, from 57.1% in Q2 and 58.5% in Q1, according to the IMF's new data on Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves. USD-denominated foreign exchange reserves include US Treasury securities, US mortgage-backed securities (MBS), US agency securities, US corporate bonds, and other USD-denominated assets held by central banks other than the Fed. Excluded are any central bank's assets denominated in its own currency, such as the Fed's Treasury securities or the ECB's euro-denominated securities. It's not that foreign central banks dumped US-dollar-denominated assets, such as Treasury securities. They did not. They added a little to their holdings. But they added more assets denominated in other currencies, particularly a gaggle of smaller currencies whose combined share has surged, while central banks' holdings of USD-denominated assets haven't changed much for a decade, and so the percentage share of those USD assets continued to decline.   Central banks' holdings of foreign exchange reserves in all currencies, and expressed in USD, rose to $13.0 trillion in Q3. Top holdings, expressed in USD: USD assets: $7.41 trillion Euro assets (EUR): $2.65 trillion Yen assets (YEN): $0.76 trillion British pound assets (GBP): $0.58 trillion Canadian dollar assets (CAD): $0.35 trillion Australian dollar assets (AUD): $0.27 trillion Chinese renminbi (RMB) assets: $0.25 trillion Source: wolfstreet.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");  https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2004750391435755846?s=20 https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2004928015172821228?s=20 https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2004946780216328590?s=20  Political/Rights https://twitter.com/Patri0tContr0l/status/2004590513182367845?s=20  https://twitter.com/Geiger_Capital/status/2005107085865103608?s=20 ICE: 70% Arrested Had Criminal Ties Roughly 70% of illegal migrants arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the second Trump administration reportedly had been convicted of or faced charges for criminal offenses. New data provided to the Washington Examiner shows the Trump administration arrested about 595,000 illegal immigrants between Jan. 20 and Dec. 11, according to the Department of Homeland Security. ICE said 70%, roughly 416,000, had “criminal convictions or pending criminal charges” in the United States, underscoring President Donald Trump’s promise to prioritize the “worst of the worst” in immigration enforcement. ICE officials stressed that even those without U.S. criminal records can still pose major public safety threats, the agency said, noting many are wanted abroad for violent crimes or have ties to gangs, terrorism, or other serious offenses. “This statistic doesn’t account for those wanted for violent crimes in their home country or another country, INTERPOL notices, human rights abusers, gang members, terrorists, etc. The list goes on,” an ICE spokesperson told the Examiner. Source: newsmax.com   New Files Show Epstein Was ‘Too Useful' for Banks to Drop — Trump Was ‘Too Politically Dangerous' to Keep  The newest Epstein disclosures include deposition testimony that illustrates, in unusually concrete detail, how major financial institutions assessed risk, value, and accountability. The transcript does not add new allegations about Epstein. Instead, it explains why he remained bankable long after his 2008 conviction and why his relationship with major banks survived despite generating almost no traditional revenue. That institutional logic is the same logic that later drove JPMorgan to end its ties with Trump Media, and the contrast between the two cases shows how selectively these standards are applied. In the deposition, Paul Morris—a private banker who handled Epstein's accounts at JPMorgan Chase and later Deutsche Bank—described Epstein's financial profile with unusual precision. Epstein's trading was minimal. His accounts produced limited fees. He was not a high-activity client and did not utilize the investment tools that banks rely on to generate consistent revenue. By every conventional benchmark, he was a low-value account. And yet, the relationship continued. The deposition shows why. Epstein was not retained for his financial performance but for his institutional usefulness. Morris acknowledged that Epstein facilitated introductions to ultra-wealthy individuals that the bank viewed as essential prospects. One example was Leon Black, whom Morris identified as a “priority prospect” because of Black's significant net worth and influence in the investment sector. Epstein introduced the bank to real-estate investor Andrew Farkas and discussed a potential connection involving biotech investor Boris Nikolic, who had ties to Bill Gates. These introductions were specific, documented, and initiated by Epstein, not the bank. This is the key element that many public accounts overlook. Epstein was not being managed as a traditional client. He functioned as a relationship broker inside a system where introductions to power carry more internal value than account-level returns. Source: thegatewaypundit.com  DOGE Geopolitical The EU Leaders Shouting About Visa Bans Are the Same EU Leaders Who Sent Political Operatives Into the U.S. to Support Kamala Harris  EU leaders from across the spectrum of their collective assembly, are furious with the administration of President Donald Trump for restricting their entry into the United States by blocking their visa permissions.  However, these same EU leaders are the people who sent operatives into the United States in order to interfere in our 2024 election. The Vice President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas, sums up the European position: “The decision by the U.S. to impose travel restrictions on European citizens and officials is unacceptable and an attempt to challenge our sovereignty. Europe will keep defending its values — freedom of expression, fair digital rules, and the right to regulate our own space.” The “attempt to challenge our sovereignty” statement is a particular type of hubris when we consider THIS: GREAT BRITAIN (October 2024) – The British Labour Party is sending approximately 100 current and former staff members to the United States to work for Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign in key swing states. [SOURCE – LINKEDIN] Not only did the U.K attempt to challenge our sovereignty, but they also actively worked to influence the outcome of our national election in 2024. It is worth remembering the British intelligence operation, (Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), commonly known as MI6), was at the center of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy in 2016. The first EU political group to be targeted with the visa bans includes French former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who was one of the architects of the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA). Also: Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index. https://twitter.com/GeneHamilton/status/2004656229684224393?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2004656229684224393%7Ctwgr%5E91706d63d41394916634b106fbd2268d7711e121%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2025%2F12%2F27%2Fthe-eu-leaders-shouting-about-visa-bans-are-the-same-eu-leaders-who-sent-political-operatives-into-the-u-s-to-support-kamala-harris%2F https://twitter.com/GeneHamilton/status/2004656234910433405?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2004656234910433405%7Ctwgr%5E91706d63d41394916634b106fbd2268d7711e121%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2025%2F12%2F27%2Fthe-eu-leaders-shouting-about-visa-bans-are-the-same-eu-leaders-who-sent-political-operatives-into-the-u-s-to-support-kamala-harris%2F Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/michaelgwaltz/status/2005058695647166898?s=20 https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2005035840934723894?s=20 War/Peace   EIGHT, perhaps the United States has become the REAL United Nations, which has been of very little assistance or help in any of them, including the disaster currently going on between Russia and Ukraine. The United Nations must start getting active and involved in WORLD PEACE!   the United States is capable of doing. Under my leadership, our Country will not allow Radical Islamic Terrorism to prosper. May God Bless our Military, and MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, including the dead Terrorists, of which there will be many more if their slaughter of Christians continues.   DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Trump Tasks Military With an ‘Oil Quarantine' Against Venezuela, as Economic Pressure Is Chosen for Now Over Military Action Venezuela's oil industry under maximum pressure.   And now that the extended holidays are over, the socialist regime will have to deal with the veritable siege imposed by the US and its unprecedented armada. Venezuela is running out of storage space for its oil production since some ships are being seized and many others turned around and left.  Now, it arises that Donald J. Trump has directed US forces to enforce ‘an oil quarantine' against Venezuela for at least the next two months. These moves lead many to think that the Trump team will focus on economic rather than military means to pressure Caracas into ousting Maduro. Reuters reported:   Read  more: Source: thegatewaypundit.com Trump Blockade Leaves $1 Billion Of Venezuelan Crude Stranded On Tankers  With a two-month “quarantine” placed on Venezuelan oil by the Trump administration in a foreign policy move called “gunboat diplomacy,” new data estimate that roughly $900 million worth of crude is currently loaded on tankers, unable to depart Venezuela due to the U.S. blockade. “Based on our visual analysis from both shore and space, we estimate that there are around 17.5 million barrels of crude oil floating onboard tankers in Venezuela which are unable to depart due to the ongoing US blockade,” independent research Tanker Trackers wrote on X. “That’s around $900M of oil.” https://twitter.com/TankerTrackers/status/2004713684871078162?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2004713684871078162%7Ctwgr%5E016cd45f97095edcd74bb159f40c4e93caf9794d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fcommodities%2Ftrump-blockade-leaves-1-billion-venezuelan-crude-stranded-tankers Source: zerohedge.com Trump to POLITICO: Zelenskyy ‘doesn't have anything until I approve it' Trump's comments come ahead of his Sunday meeting with Zelenskyy, who will bring with him a new 20-point plan to end the war President Donald Trump on Friday cast himself as the ultimate arbiter of any peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, in an exclusive conversation with POLITICO. “He doesn't have anything until I approve it,” Trump said. “So we'll see what he's got.” Source: politico.com https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/2005352028365848993?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2005352028365848993%7Ctwgr%5E1588e24fb392689513bf7b2f064c646c1bf5f470%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Ftrump-says-russia-ukraine-peace-talks-entering-final%2F  Medical/False Flags 19 Blue States Sue Trump Admin to Preserve Right to Perform Child Sex Changes Last week, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding to any provider that offers so-called gender-affirming treatment to minors. “Under my leadership, and answering President Trump's call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Kennedy said at the time. The Oregon-led lawsuit claims that the decision “exceeds the Secretary's authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Medicare and Medicaid statutes.” A total of nineteen blue states are suing the Trump administration in a bid to protect the right to perform child sex changes. His office said in a press release: Source: thegatewaypundit.com [DS] Agenda  https://twitter.com/nickshirleyy/status/2004642794862961123?s=20   work way too hard and pay too much in taxes for this to be happening, the fraud must be stopped. https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2005011311756017964?s=20 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2005158623442600391?s=20 https://twitter.com/DataRepublican/status/2005292438114738555?s=20  diabolical. And it’s going to work until we understand that primaries will be more important than generals from here out on. https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/2005016429687701811?s=20 https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2005351086115405986?s=20 https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2005030256382464493?s=20  and your tribe. I spent a lot of my life in the Middle East and Central Asia, working closely with foreign contractors and foreign governments to provide support to American military operations. As a US Army officer with a big checkbook courtesy of Uncle Sam, I can't really count the sheer number of times I was offered bribes to award a contract, or falsify records to do things like create larger (fake) headcounts at places like dining facilities, or to just simply be on the take for future illegal requests. Of course I had enough sense to never comply with such requests. Moreover, they were never explicitly structured as “bribes”; instead it was usually along the lines of “Here I have these Rolexes as gifts for you and your wife to show our friendship.” (Unfortunately, too many US officers and NCOs succumbed to this siren song and ended up breaking rocks in Leavenworth.) The weird thing about this to me was that whenever I turned down such an offering, it was treated as a grave insult. I was the one in the wrong, and not the fraudster trying to bribe me. They considered it rude that I was in their country and refused to accept how things got done. After all, why did I not want to help my tribe by helping their tribe? Let me repeat: in these cultures, FRAUD IS NOT EVEN A CONCEPT. There is only what helps your tribe. Such thought processes are so alien to Americans and much of the West. We are raised on the presumption that our institutions are valid, that the rule of law always prevails, and that integrity is universal. We need these presumptions to have working governments and economies, and without those presumptions—without the mental barrier that causes us not to accept outright fraud—our nation would quickly descend into the economic and social hellscape of countries like…. ummm… you know…. SOMALIA! So when we import people en masse from cultures that accept bribery and fraud as routine, acceptable ways to advance one's tribe, we should not be surprised that things like the $8 BILLION fraud schemes of the Somali population in Minnesota happen so easily. Introducing a fraud-based culture based on tribalism into America is like introducing some sort of lethal virus into a population that has no natural immunity. The virus will spread and grow, unchecked, because it is so alien to the host. Similarly, a culture of fraud is anathema to American thinking, and it must be cut out before it consumes the host. So when you see and hear patriotic Americans decrying what is happening in Minnesota or elsewhere, and when they seek deportation of the offenders, it is not “racism,” it is not “bigotry,” it is not “xenophobia”; instead, it is preserving the American tradition of responsible institutions and national integrity. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2005262465190223928?s=20 https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2005305530651189719?s=20   exploiting federal programs. Fraud that steals from taxpayers and robs vulnerable children will remain a top FBI priority in Minnesota and nationwide. To date, the FBI dismantled a $250 million fraud scheme that stole federal food aid meant for vulnerable children during COVID. The investigation exposed sham vendors, shell companies, and large-scale money laundering tied to the Feeding Our Future network. The case led to 78 indictments and 57 convictions. Defendants included Abdiwahab Ahmed Mohamud, Ahmed Ali, Hussein Farah, Abdullahe Nur Jesow, Asha Farhan Hassan, Ousman Camara, and Abdirashid Bixi Dool, each charged for roles ranging from wire fraud to money laundering and conspiracy. These criminals didn't just engaged in historic fraud, but tried to subvert justice as well. Abdimajid Mohamed Nur and others were charged for attempting to bribe a juror with $120,000 in cash. Those responsible pleaded guilty and were sentenced, including a 10-year prison term and nearly $48 million in restitution in related cases. The FBI believes this is just the tip of a very large iceberg. We will continue to follow the money and protect children, and this investigation very much remains ongoing. Furthermore, many are also being referred to immigrations officials for possible further denaturalization and deportation proceedings where eligible. https://twitter.com/ScottPresler/status/2004932316926193933?s=20 https://twitter.com/HarmeetKDhillon/status/2004976287270731981?s=20 https://twitter.com/rising_serpent/status/2005080344610177489?s=20  https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2005092720927232198?s=20  “skeptical jurors” in federal cases involving President Trump. Co-founder Alex Dodds said jurors have “enormous power” to judge the administration itself. Critics report the sessions encourage rigging trials against the administration, conduct plainly barred under 8 USC §1503. President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2004653262491058216?s=20 accomplished what no one else could. When we arrived, taxpayers were about to be on the hook for nearly $5 billion for a new headquarters that wouldn't open until 2035. We scrapped that plan. Instead, we selected the already-existing Reagan Building, saving billions and allowing the transition to begin immediately with required safety and infrastructure upgrades already underway. Once complete, most of the HQ FBI workforce will move in, and the rest are continuing in our ongoing push to put more manpower in the field, where they will remain. This decision puts resources where they belong: defending the homeland, crushing violent crime, and protecting national security. It delivers better tools for today's FBI workforce at a fraction of the cost. The Hoover Building will be shut down permanently.  They Got Her: FBI Caught Hillary Clinton Talking Donations with Foreign Felon on Tape As Hillary Clinton closed in on the presidential nomination in the spring of 2016, FBI field officers advised colleagues at headquarters to press her on the foreign donations flowing to the Clinton Foundation while she steered American foreign policy and whether she had used the charity as a campaign piggy bank. But the FBI HQ in Washington — a city in which the former secretary of state and first lady wields enormous influence — let the trail go cold. FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge Diego Rodriguez advised agents in Washington to ask Clinton several questions about the foundation, which are reproduced in full in documents released to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the FBI and published on Dec. 15. The questions reveal the concerns about foreign bribery that the Clinton Foundation case — codenamed “Cracked Foundation” — had uncovered. Among the evidence available to investigators, according to their questions: A recorded conversation between Clinton and Indian hotel magnate Sant Singh Chatwal in which Clinton discussed donations to the foundation and her remaining 2008 campaign debt. The new documents confirm that the FBI had at one time been “intercepting individuals associated with the Clinton Foundation.” Source: westernjournal.com  John Brennan's Lawfare Lawyers are Revealing More Than They Intend   former CIA Director John Brennan are sending proactive letters to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida {SEE HERE}.  However, some of the information included in the letters intended to be exculpatory is actually damning against their defense position. You have to go deep in the weeds to see it but if you understand the details of the events, the information being revealed by Brennan's lawyers is the opposite of helpful to his case.  As an example, there is a citation included in a footnote of the December 22, 2025, [fn #20 page 6] letter that links to a March 31, 2022, letter sent to John Durham. Here's page 6 of the 2025 letter. Compare the underlined section to the 2022 letter sent to John Durham. In 2025 Brennan is telling the Florida court the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) conclusion was confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in a “very serious review.”  However, in 2022 Brennan told John Durham that Robert Mueller never interviewed him or offered an assessment of the ICA; Mueller just regurgitated it. So, which is it? These contradictions are throughout both of the letters when you compare them side-by-side.  In 2022 former CIA Director John Brennan was trying to escape the Durham review.  In 2025 Brennan is trying to escape a grand jury review. [We are aware that the U.S Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, has access to the CTH public library of research into all of these historic events.] There are other citations in the 2022 letter that are certainly worth reviewing because the legally binding statements made by John Brennan at the time have been shown to be false in 2025. Another of the claims in the 2022 letter to John Durham highlights why it was critical for the CIA to assist in the capture and arrest of Julian Assange in 2019. Source: thegatewaypundit.com  Trump: Upcoming Midterms Will Be ‘About Pricing’ The 2026 midterm elections will be “about pricing,” according to President Donald Trump, who said that his administration is restoring the nation’s economy after the condition in which former President Joe Biden left it. “I think it’s going to be about the success of our country,” Trump said in an interview with Politico, the outlet reported Saturday. “They gave us high pricing, and we’re bringing it down. Energy’s way down. Gasoline is way down.” Over the past two weeks, a series of positive economic reports has shown that inflation is decreasing, with the White House highlighting the latest data while addressing cost-of-living concerns nationwide. According to a Politico poll conducted last month, Americans say they are finding that the costs of groceries, utilities, healthcare, housing, and transportation are too expensive. Trump has been fighting to reframe that, however, blaming Democrats under Biden for driving prices up. He said in the interview, conducted Friday, that “electricity is down. It’s way down.” “When the gasoline goes down, and when the oil and gas go down, the electricity comes down naturally,” he said. “But it’s all coming down. It’s all coming down. It’s coming beautifully.” Source: newsmax.com https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2004696380531503505?s=20   the NG will have quick response troops on standby in every state, the FBI building is being moved to a new location, the war between Russia and Ukraine is coming to an end, and all of Trump's pieces will be in place. There seems to be a shift in attitude. I think we are passing into a different phase of the operation. The shadow war will eventually have to come to the surface. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

A new corruption scandal charged against Trump's DOJ and AG Pam Bondi by Former FBI Director John Brennan's attorneys has made is way to the Chief Judge of the Southern District of Florida, as Brennan's attorneys' argue that Trump's DOJ is using a right wing influencer (Mike Davis), a novice US Attorney that's friends with Bondi, and a Judge Trump loves (Judge Cannon) to corrupt the impartial grand jury process. Michael Popok reports on Pam Bondi adding new evidence of corruption and ethics violations by responding in the press, that Brennan, the target of an active grand jury proceeding, is a “bad actor.” Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Lawyers for former CIA Chief John Brennan have written to the Chief Judge in the Southern District of Florida accusing the Justice Department of forum shopping.The Supreme Court has ruled that Trump does not have the authority to deploy the National Guard under title 10 USC section 12406.The Justice Department issues a memo asking assistant US Attorneys to work through the holidays to redact the Epstein files as they claim to have found a million new documents.The White House has taken over the Justice Department communications on social media.Plus listener questions…Do you have questions for the pod?  Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdf

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdf

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdf

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdf

In this civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 31, 2010, the plaintiff—identified by the initials C.L.—accuses Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse and related misconduct. C.L., a resident of Palm Beach County at the time of the alleged incidents, brings this complaint based on events that occurred when she was underage and in vulnerable circumstances. The complaint outlines Epstein's pattern of grooming and exploiting young girls in the Palm Beach area, suggesting that C.L. was one of his many victims targeted during a period when Epstein operated a network designed to recruit and abuse minors under the guise of offering financial help or mentorship.The suit claims Epstein engaged in a deliberate and manipulative scheme to solicit C.L. for sexually exploitative acts and that these acts resulted in significant emotional and psychological trauma. The complaint seeks damages for the abuse endured and accuses Epstein of violating both civil and statutory obligations designed to protect minors. Although this is just the first page, the document is consistent with the broader pattern of civil actions filed against Epstein in the wake of his non-prosecution agreement and subsequent revelations about his long-running sex trafficking operation.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew was not covered by Jeffrey Epstein's 2007–2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), a point that has repeatedly been misunderstood or deliberately obscured. Legal experts have emphasized that the NPA applied narrowly to Epstein himself and, at most, to unnamed U.S.-based co-conspirators under specific jurisdictional limits tied to the Southern District of Florida. Prince Andrew, a British national with alleged conduct occurring outside that jurisdiction—including in the United Kingdom, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—fell entirely outside the agreement's scope. Courts later made clear that the NPA did not grant immunity to foreign nationals, did not bind other federal districts, and did not preempt civil or criminal exposure beyond the deal's precise terms.That legal reality became especially clear during Virginia Giuffre's civil case against Prince Andrew, where judges rejected arguments that Epstein's plea deal insulated Andrew from liability. The settlement Andrew ultimately reached was not a function of legal protection under the NPA, but rather a strategic move to avoid sworn testimony, discovery, and the risk of trial. Attorneys and legal analysts have noted that Andrew's long period of effective insulation stemmed from political deference, diplomatic sensitivity, and institutional hesitation—not from any binding legal shield in Epstein's agreement. In short, Andrew was never legally protected by the Epstein NPA; he was protected by silence, delay, and power, none of which carried the force of law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Geoffrey Berman's exit as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in June 2020 unfolded amid unusual public tension with the Justice Department and immediately raised red flags. Attorney General William Barr first announced that Berman was stepping down, only for Berman to respond that he had not resigned and intended to remain in office until a Senate-confirmed successor was appointed. The standoff drew national attention because of how rare it is for a sitting U.S. attorney to openly challenge an attorney general's authority. After several days of public back-and-forth, Berman ultimately agreed to leave once assurances were made that his deputy would assume the role, preserving continuity within the office. The episode was widely viewed as extraordinary and politically fraught. It underscored the sensitivity surrounding the Southern District of New York, long known for its independence and willingness to pursue powerful figures. Berman's departure immediately prompted questions about what pressures may have been at play behind the scenes.Those questions intensified because Berman's office had overseen the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, one of the most explosive criminal cases in decades. Although no definitive evidence has emerged showing that the Epstein case directly caused Berman's removal, the timing and context fueled speculation that ongoing or potential investigations connected to Epstein may have made the SDNY leadership inconvenient. Observers noted that Epstein's death in federal custody, unresolved questions about co-conspirators, and the political sensitivity of the case all loomed over the office at the time. Lawmakers and legal analysts questioned whether the attempt to remove Berman was part of a broader effort to exert control over an office handling politically dangerous matters. The Justice Department denied any improper motive, insisting the move was administrative. Still, the circumstances left lingering doubts. For many critics, Berman's exit became another chapter in the broader controversy surrounding Epstein and the institutions tasked with delivering accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdf

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Geoffrey Berman's exit as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in June 2020 unfolded amid unusual public tension with the Justice Department and immediately raised red flags. Attorney General William Barr first announced that Berman was stepping down, only for Berman to respond that he had not resigned and intended to remain in office until a Senate-confirmed successor was appointed. The standoff drew national attention because of how rare it is for a sitting U.S. attorney to openly challenge an attorney general's authority. After several days of public back-and-forth, Berman ultimately agreed to leave once assurances were made that his deputy would assume the role, preserving continuity within the office. The episode was widely viewed as extraordinary and politically fraught. It underscored the sensitivity surrounding the Southern District of New York, long known for its independence and willingness to pursue powerful figures. Berman's departure immediately prompted questions about what pressures may have been at play behind the scenes.Those questions intensified because Berman's office had overseen the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, one of the most explosive criminal cases in decades. Although no definitive evidence has emerged showing that the Epstein case directly caused Berman's removal, the timing and context fueled speculation that ongoing or potential investigations connected to Epstein may have made the SDNY leadership inconvenient. Observers noted that Epstein's death in federal custody, unresolved questions about co-conspirators, and the political sensitivity of the case all loomed over the office at the time. Lawmakers and legal analysts questioned whether the attempt to remove Berman was part of a broader effort to exert control over an office handling politically dangerous matters. The Justice Department denied any improper motive, insisting the move was administrative. Still, the circumstances left lingering doubts. For many critics, Berman's exit became another chapter in the broader controversy surrounding Epstein and the institutions tasked with delivering accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Geoffrey Berman's exit as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in June 2020 unfolded amid unusual public tension with the Justice Department and immediately raised red flags. Attorney General William Barr first announced that Berman was stepping down, only for Berman to respond that he had not resigned and intended to remain in office until a Senate-confirmed successor was appointed. The standoff drew national attention because of how rare it is for a sitting U.S. attorney to openly challenge an attorney general's authority. After several days of public back-and-forth, Berman ultimately agreed to leave once assurances were made that his deputy would assume the role, preserving continuity within the office. The episode was widely viewed as extraordinary and politically fraught. It underscored the sensitivity surrounding the Southern District of New York, long known for its independence and willingness to pursue powerful figures. Berman's departure immediately prompted questions about what pressures may have been at play behind the scenes.Those questions intensified because Berman's office had overseen the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, one of the most explosive criminal cases in decades. Although no definitive evidence has emerged showing that the Epstein case directly caused Berman's removal, the timing and context fueled speculation that ongoing or potential investigations connected to Epstein may have made the SDNY leadership inconvenient. Observers noted that Epstein's death in federal custody, unresolved questions about co-conspirators, and the political sensitivity of the case all loomed over the office at the time. Lawmakers and legal analysts questioned whether the attempt to remove Berman was part of a broader effort to exert control over an office handling politically dangerous matters. The Justice Department denied any improper motive, insisting the move was administrative. Still, the circumstances left lingering doubts. For many critics, Berman's exit became another chapter in the broader controversy surrounding Epstein and the institutions tasked with delivering accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In a ruling on July 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the Southern District of Florida denied the Trump administration's bid to unseal grand jury transcripts from the 2005 and 2007 federal investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. She concluded that the Justice Department failed to present any legal exception allowing disclosure, such as a judicial proceeding or prosecutorial misconduct claim. The court emphasized that “the law does not permit disclosure” absent those narrow exceptions, and declared that “the court's hands are tied” under the Eleventh Circuit's strict grand jury secrecy rules.This denial marks the first judicial response to the administration's attempt to release previously sealed materials amid mounting political pressure. The transcripts in question derive from Epstein's early federal probes initiated by the U.S. Attorney's Office in West Palm Beach—not his later indictments. Meanwhile, similar unsealing requests for grand jury materials in Manhattan, tied to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, remain pending and subject to review under different, less rigid legal standards.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge rejects effort to unseal Epstein grand jury records in Florida | AP NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe world is moving away from wind and solar, coal demand is up, China was never going along with the green new scam. Trump is moving carefully through the [CB] minefield economy. Gold is on the move. Trump is moving the country out of the old system. The [DS] try to get Trump with the Epstein hoax, now that the information dropped the people can now see what the [DS] was planning. Ship building is coming back to the US. Trump signs the NDAA that has additional protections for the election. Every step of the way Trump is countering the [DS] cheating system. Economy https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2003156645388406992?s=20   consumption, or 4.95 billion tonnes. By comparison, US coal demand stands at 410 million tonnes, just ~5% of the world's total. Meanwhile, the IEA projects a gradual decline in demand over the next 5 years, to ~8.60 billion tonnes by 2030. However, past forecasts of peak coal demand have repeatedly proven wrong, as consumption continues to rise. Coal remains in high demand 23 US States Are At High Risk Of (Or In) Recession Currently  In 2025, states responsible for about a third of U.S. GDP are in recession, or face high recession risk. Another third are expanding, including Florida and Utah, based on payrolls, employment, and other key economic data. This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows recession risk by state in 2025, based on analysis from Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. In Recession/High Risk Treading Water Expanding State/District Business Cycle Status Share of U.S. GDP (%) Georgia In Recession/High Risk 3.03 Montana In Recession/High Risk 0.25 Wyoming In Recession/High Risk 0.18 Michigan In Recession/High Risk 2.44 Massachusetts In Recession/High Risk 2.73 Mississippi In Recession/High Risk 0.53 Minnesota In Recession/High Risk 1.70 Kansas In Recession/High Risk 0.80 Rhode Island In Recession/High Risk 0.28 Delaware In Recession/High Risk 0.34 Washington In Recession/High Risk 3.02 Illinois In Recession/High Risk 3.85 West Virginia In Recession/High Risk 0.36 New Hampshire In Recession/High Risk 0.42 Maryland In Recession/High Risk 1.86 Virginia In Recession/High Risk 2.66 South Dakota In Recession/High Risk 0.25 Connecticut In Recession/High Risk 1.27 Oregon In Recession/High Risk 1.14 Iowa In Recession/High Risk 0.86 New Jersey In Recession/High Risk 2.93 Maine In Recession/High Risk 0.33 District of Columbia In Recession/High Risk 0.64 Missouri Treading Water 1.54 Ohio Treading Water 3.14 Hawaii Treading Water 0.39 Arkansas Treading Water 0.65 New Mexico Treading Water 0.49 Tennessee Treading Water 1.87 New York Treading Water 7.92 Vermont Treading Water 0.16 Alaska Treading Water 0.24 Colorado Treading Water 1.92 California Treading Water 14.50 Nevada Treading Water 0.86 South Carolina Expanding 1.18 Texas Expanding 9.41 Oklahoma Expanding 0.92 Idaho Expanding 0.43 Kentucky Expanding 0.99 Alabama Expanding 1.10 Indiana Expanding 1.81 Nebraska Expanding 0.63 North Carolina Expanding 2.86 Louisiana Expanding 1.11 Florida Expanding 5.78 North Dakota Expanding 0.26 Pennsylvania Expanding 3.54 Arizona Expanding 1.88 Wisconsin Expanding 1.53 Utah Expanding 1.02 Currently, many coastal, Northeastern states are facing some of the worst economic conditions. In Maine, for instance, year-over-year GDP growth is just 0.8% as of Q2 2025, compared to the U.S. average of 2.1%. Meanwhile, Washington, D.C.'s unemployment rate was 6.4% in July, significantly higher than the 4.6% U.S. average given sweeping federal cuts. According to Zandi's analysis, New York and California are “Treading Water”, together responsible for driving over 22% of U.S. GDP. In comparison, Texas, which fuels 9.4% of U.S. economic growth is expanding. Unemployment rates of 4.0% in July remain below the U.S. average. Additionally, the Texas economy is growing faster than the nation, while income growth rose 6.3% annually as of Q2 2025, outpacing the national average.   Source: zerohedge.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/unseen1_unseen/status/2003254895143461092?s=20   caused by falling home prices while increasing the affordability of homes. Home builders aren’t going to build more homes if they are losing money. Trump can’t force them to build homes. This is where thinking outside the box comes in play and things like the 50 year mortgage, interest rate cuts, lower down-payments, salt taxes etc get proposed. With deportations and the decline of the boomer generation from old age, supply will be increasing. Prices will come down. The trick is not to allow them to go into a free fall and keep demand high enough to soak up a great deal of that supply. Trump’s proposed $2,000 tariff rebate checks depend on Congress   President Donald Trump needs Congress to take action to make good on a proposal to send some Americans $2,000 tariff rebate checks next year. Director of the National Economic Council Kevin Hassett said the U.S. House and Senate will need to take up the matter. “I would expect that in the new year, the president will bring forth a proposal to Congress to make that happen,” Hassett said on “Face the Nation” on Sunday. Details about Trump’s tariff rebate proposal remain sparse. Trump has said he wants to issue the rebate checks and use the rest of the tariff revenue to pay down the nation’s $38 trillion debt, even as the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet determined whether he has the authority to impose tariffs. Source: thecentersquare.com US Industrial Production Rises At Strongest Annual Rate Since Apr 2022 Following the much-stronger-than-expected GDP print, US Industrial Production also surprised to the upside, rising 0.2% MoM in November and pulling the YoY change up to 2.52% – the strongest annual growth since April 2022… Source: zerohedge.com Trump Boom: U.S. Economy Grows 4.3%, Fastest in Two Years, Smashing Expectations The U.S. economy grew this summer at the fastest pace in two years, far outpacing economists' forecasts. The Commerce Department said U.S. gross domestic product—the government's official economic scorecard—rose at a seasonally and inflation-adjusted 4.3 percent annual rate in the third quarter. The report on the July through September period was delayed due to the shutdown. Consumer spending grew much faster than expected, expanding at a seasonally and inflation-adjusted annual rate of 3.5 percent. That's up from 2.5 percent in the second quarter and above the 2.7 percent expected. Source: breitbart.com    FULL steam ahead — “You haven't seen anything yet!” Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2003149733158588868?s=20 This list is just the table setting for the coming booming economy. Wait till Trump transforms the entire fiat world debt system. A Golden Age for the world approaches. https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2003285919668011147?s=20    good news, the Market went up. Nowadays, when there is good news, the Market goes down, because everybody thinks that Interest Rates will be immediately lifted to take care of “potential” Inflation. That means that, essentially, we can never have a Great Market again, those Markets from the time when our Nation was building up, and becoming great. Strong Markets, even phenomenal Markets, don't cause Inflation, stupidity does! I want my new Fed Chairman to lower Interest Rates if the Market is doing well, not destroy the Market for no reason whatsoever. I want to have a Market the likes of which we haven't had in many decades, a Market that goes up on good news, and down on bad news, the way it should be, and the way it was. Inflation will take care of itself and, if it doesn't, we can always raise Rates at the appropriate time — But the appropriate time is not to kill Rallies, which could lift our Nation by 10, 15, and even 20 GDP points in a year — and maybe even more than that! A Nation can never be Economically GREAT if “eggheads” are allowed to do everything within their power to destroy the upward slope. We are going to be encouraging the Good Market to get better, rather than make it impossible for it to do so. We are going to see numbers that are far more natural, and far better, than they have ever been before. We are going to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! The United States should be rewarded for SUCCESS, not brought down by it. Anybody that disagrees with me will never be the Fed Chairman! Political/Rights https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2003309528805470611?s=20 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2003266300832038926?s=20 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2003271819705389139?s=20   interfere with immigration operations. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2003378383862817224?s=20 https://twitter.com/BillMelugin_/status/2002573015142576350?s=20 https://twitter.com/TriciaOhio/status/2002801058897142114?s=20   This was a targeted operation to arrest Fernandez Flores, a criminal illegal alien from Honduras with a criminal conviction for making a false police report. Flores entered the United States illegally at unknown date and location without inspection by an immigration officer. He will remain in ICE custody pending further immigration proceedings. If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, we will find you, we will arrest you, and you will not return. https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2003130997198713329?s=20https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/2003214521419333695?s=20 https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/2003214521419333695?s=20 WATCH: Justice Department Releases Shocking Recreation Video of Jeffrey Epstein Trying to Kill Himself The Justice Department on Monday released recreation video of Jeffrey Epstein inside of his jail cell trying to kill himself. The video – which was revealed to be computer-generated – is timestamped August 10, 2019 at 4:29 am ET – Epstein was found dead at 6:30 am ET on August 10, 2019. Prosecutors previously said that the two CCTV cameras positioned outside of Epstein's cell had malfunctioned. The 10-second recreation video shows Epstein sitting on the floor of his cell attempting to kill himself. WATCH:  Source: thegatwaypundit.com  https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2003476301970133417?s=20  “a circular line of erythema at the base of the neck” along with other marks of friction and bruising on his knee. Epstein told prison staff he didn't remember what happened but was afraid to return to the Special Housing Unit, saying it was “where he had gotten marks on his neck and he does not know why it happened.” He said he had only slept 30 minutes a night for five days due to noise and stress. His cellmate, ex-cop Nicholas Tartaglione, had reportedly been harassing him, and Epstein claimed “he tried to kill me.” Staff noted Tartaglione had been aggressive and was seen mocking Epstein with a string around his neck. Despite these signs, the incident was labeled a “possible suicide attempt.” https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2003292687835787393?s=20  were actively tracking and attempting to contact 10 individuals connected to Epstein’s crimes. The email references attempts to contact Brunel (modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel, who later died in prison), Maxwell (Ghislaine, now serving 20 years), and mentions “Ohio contacting Wexner.” Les Wexner is the billionaire L Brands founder who gave Epstein his $77 million NYC mansion and served as his primary financial benefactor for years. A separate confidential document from law firm Debevoise & Plimpton lists SDNY matters they appeared in, including one entry: “Wexner: Epstein investigation.” 10 co-conspirators. Only Maxwell was ever charged. The names behind those black boxes are the real story here. https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/2003358231780032675?s=20 https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2003480729624412240?s=20  and his residence as Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Profession listed: “Manager.” It's part of a trove of thousands of Epstein-related files released overnight. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2003436034709995730?s=20   from Epstein's properties – computers, hard drives, disks, the digital nervous system of the operation. And they can't get it. At one point, frustration boils over into honesty: “The FBI is completely fucking us on this.” That's not a tweet. That's an internal DOJ message. Translation: the prosecutors responsible for bringing cases did not have a clear, reliable accounting of the evidence in the FBI's possession. Not what was seized. Not what was imaged. Not what was searchable. Not what was missing. This isn't incompetence in a vacuum. It's structural. Evidence control is power. Whoever controls the data controls the pace, the scope, and the fallout. And remember: Epstein died before trial. Maxwell was prosecuted narrowly. No broader conspiracy case ever materialized. Prediction: this is why. Not because the evidence didn't exist- but because it never cohered into something prosecutors could safely touch without detonating their own case. The scandal isn't just who was on the tapes. It's that even the feds couldn't tell you where the tapes went. That's not a cover-up movie plot. That's a system quietly eating itself. https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/2003457025695719784?s=20  and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 Election. To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.” New: More Epstein Files Drop, and Donald Trump Appears to Be the Star This Time Around So, what incriminating evidence against President Trump is to be found in this latest drop? Apparently, an email from January 2020 in which a federal prosecutor from New York – of course – to an “undisclosed person” claiming Trump had flown on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plan at least eight times during the 1990s, and one time there was a 20-year-old woman on the flight.  Here’s more: The email, which was sent in January 2020 from a federal prosecutor in New York to an undisclosed person, says, “For your situational awareness, wanted to let you know that the flight records we received yesterday reflect that Donald Trump traveled on Epstein's private jet many more times than previously has been reported (or that we were aware), including during the period we would expect to charge in a [Ghislaine] Maxwell case.”  This big revelation is that Trump traveled a few more times than we previously knew, although this was during a time period that the president has already acknowledged having had an association with Epstein. Note the timing of the email – January 2020 is when the presidential election would be kicking into full swing. This anonymous federal prosecutor clearly thought they had a gotcha moment, but there’s a pesky little detail that puts things in perspective: “[Trump] is listed as having traveled with, among others and at various times, Marla Maples, his daughter Tiffany, and his son Eric.”  Source: redstate.com The specific document you’re referring to appears to be the complaint filed in the 2020 civil lawsuit Doe v. Indyke et al. (Case No. 1:20-cv-00484, S.D.N.Y.), which was part of the recently released Epstein files by the U.S. Department of Justice.  This lawsuit was brought by an anonymous plaintiff (“Jane Doe”) against the executors of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate (Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn) and Ghislaine Maxwell, seeking compensation for alleged sexual abuse and trafficking by Epstein.How Trump’s Name Appears in the DocumentOn page 4 of the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that during one of her encounters with Epstein (around the 1990s), he took her to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida when she was 14 years old. Epstein reportedly introduced her to Donald Trump (then the owner of Mar-a-Lago), elbowed him playfully, and asked, referring to the girl, “This is a good one, right?” Trump is described as smiling and nodding in agreement, after which they both chuckled. The plaintiff states she felt uncomfortable but was too young to understand why at the time. The document does not accuse Trump of any criminal wrongdoing or involvement in Epstein’s abuse; it frames this as part of the broader context of her grooming and exploitation by Epstein.How the Name Got Into the DocumentTrump’s name was included as part of the plaintiff’s personal allegations detailing her experiences with Epstein. The complaint is a legal filing where the victim recounts specific incidents to support her claims against Epstein’s estate and associates. It reflects her firsthand account, not a court-verified fact or evidence from other sources.  There is no mention of independent corroboration (e.g., witnesses, photos, or records) in the filing itself, and it has not been adjudicated in court as true.Source of the AllegationThe source is the anonymous plaintiff (“Jane Doe”), who claims to be a victim of Epstein’s abuse starting from age 13 or 14.  She was reportedly recruited at a summer camp in Michigan and alleges ongoing grooming and assaults by Epstein over several years. This Doe is distinct from other known accusers like Virginia Giuffre, though a similar incident (Epstein introducing a 14-year-old to Trump at Mar-a-Lago without the “good one” comment) was testified to by another accuser (“Jane”) during Ghislaine Maxwell’s 2021 criminal trial.  https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2003236602374713557?s=20 DOGE Geopolitical https://twitter.com/BreannaMorello/status/2003196698974191914?s=20   that are protected under the Constitution. Under D.C. law, anyone wishing to own a firearm must register it with the MPD. However, the D.C. Code imposes a sweeping ban on the registration—and thus the legal possession—of a wide range of firearms. This broad prohibition, the Justice Department argues, infringes on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to keep and bear commonly owned firearms for lawful purposes. Trump's DOJ Sues Washington, D.C. Police Department Over Unconstitutional Ban on Semi-Automatic Firearms The Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department for enforcing a ban on semi-automatic firearms in violation of the Second Amendment. The lawsuit alleges that D.C.'s gun laws require registration of all firearms with the MPD; however, the D.C. Code imposes a sweeping ban on numerous protected weapons, making it legally impossible for residents to own them for self-defense or other lawful purposes. The DOJ said in a press release announcing the lawsuit: “MPD's current pattern and practice of refusing to register protected firearms is forcing residents to sue to protect their rights and to risk facing wrongful arrest for lawfully possessing protected firearms.” “Today's action from the Department of Justice's new Second Amendment Section underscores our ironclad commitment to protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. Bondi continued, “Washington, DC's ban on some of America's most popular firearms is an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment — living in our nation's capital should not preclude law-abiding citizens from exercising their fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” Echoing this sentiment, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division added, “This Civil Rights Division will defend American citizens from unconstitutional restrictions of commonly used firearms, in violation of their Second Amendment rights. The newly established Second Amendment Section filed this lawsuit to ensure that the very rights D.C. resident Mr. Heller secured 17 years ago are enforced today — and that all law-abiding citizens seeking to own protected firearms for lawful purposes may do so.” The case draws directly from the landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to own semi-automatic weapons in their homes for self-defense. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2003192220753723840?s=20 https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2003238094057955337?s=20 War/Peace https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2003334956479558072?s=20 there will be no escalation into broader conflict, and the decision has already been made. However, precision air strikes on cartel assets seems like a probable outcome. Trump is neutralizing Deep State assets around the globe, and South/Central American drug cartels are assets of the Deep State. They are transnational criminal organizations responsible for the drug, weapon, and human trafficking of the Western hemisphere, and their racket feeds the Deep State machine. My guess is, that cartel drug factories and assets are going to get smoked by the US MIL via precision air strikes, and the other powerful leaders of the world have already agreed to some sort of deal with Trump and no one will interfere. Just like Iran and Syria. I think most of the leaders/nations of the world agree with Trump that these transnational criminal organizations must be eradicated, and stability must be brought to the world. President Unveils ‘Trump Class’ Of Warships, Huntington Ingalls Shares Jump    build two new “Trump-class” battleships, to acquire 20-25 of these ships in the coming years.   In his address, the President noted these 30,000-40,000 ton ships will carry a large quantity of missiles, including hypersonic missiles, and will also be outfitted with electromagnetic rail guns and directed energy lasers. Trump-class battleships will also carry nuclear-armed sea launched cruise missiles (currently under development) adding an additional element of nuclear deterrence to the Navy. Trump-class destroyers appear to be designed as the center of enhanced command and control networks at sea, as the Navy looks to field more autonomous assets and traditional vessels in the coming years.   The first “Trump-class” battleship will be named USS Defiant, and it will be even longer than the Iowa-class battleships of the World War II era. However, at 35,000 tons, it will only weigh about half as much, and have a smaller crew of between 650 and 850 sailors; the Iowa had some 2,700 sailors. The new ships — which are being called “guided missile battleships” —  are part of larger vision for a “Golden Fleet.” The Navy has rolled out a website to promote that concept. Sources tell AP that construction of the Defiant is expected to start in the early 2030’s, with another 19 to 24 Trump-class ships to follow.   Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2003231263520379120?s=20   that kind of money, they HAVE to build quickly!”   “We want the dividends to go into the creation of production facilities. We’ll be talking about CapEx, dividends and the pay.” “Also, buybacks…they want to buy back their stock. I want them to put their money in plants and equipment! So they can build these planes FAST, like, IMMEDIATELY!” Medical/False Flags https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2003224842078675311?s=20  of American institutions or threats to our food supply, economy, or public safety. Protecting the homeland means vigilance: every time, no exceptions. https://twitter.com/ThomasMoreSoc/status/2003262595566850541?s=20  precedent-setting victory, a federal court has permanently blocked California AG Rob Bonta and the CA Dept. of Education from forcing teachers to lie to parents about their own children’s secret gender transitions—declaring parents have a constitutional right to know and teachers have a constitutional right to share the truth. [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2003205278796501397?s=20  larger scale. Don't forget that the Malthusians are antihuman and that they believe that 7 out of every 8 human lives on the planet must be terminated in order to save the world. Nearly 100 Minnesota Mayors Send Panicked Letter to Lawmakers Complaining About Fraud Scandal and the Leadership of Tim Walz Almost 100 mayors in the state of Minnesota have sent a letter to state lawmakers complaining about the fraud scandal and how it is going to impact the communities they serve. They are clearly not happy with the leadership of Governor Tim Walz and his connections to the fraud scandal that has rocked the state in recent weeks. The scandal is still unfolding and it's unclear what the final tally will be, but it's looking like something in the tens of billions. FOX News reports:  You can see the full letter here. These mayors should have demanded that Tim Walz resign. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2002771316345327905?s=20 Our crooked politicians have set up the biggest money laundering operation in the world and that 38 trillion in debt is almost all tied to fraud. this is the tip of the iceberg. Buckle up, its all being exposed. Your harder earned money was used to support a criminal syndicate.  President Trump's Plan  https://twitter.com/DcLidstone/status/2003338615917806050?s=20 John Brennan Lawyers Confirm Their Client is a “Target” of a Grand Jury Investigation Lawfare lawyer Kenneth Wainstein representing former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed in a proactive litigation letter to Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida, their client is a “target” of a grand jury investigation. The word “target” is important here, because the letter specifically outlines how Brennan has received subpoenas for documents and information surrounding his construct of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. The letter notes that prosecutors from the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, have advised Mr. Brennan that he is “a target” of a grand jury investigation.   [SOURCE] Pay attention to the footnotes being cited by Brennan's lawyers as they begin to pull in some of the commentary by voices who have publicly given opinion about the overall Trump targeting operation.  Mike Davis name appears frequently in this letter, as the Brennan defense team begins to frame the conspiratorial nature of some claims against their client. In essence, the Brennan legal team are attempting to refute the evidence by pointing to the blanket of some crazy commentary that covers it. This is exactly what I have been cautioning about {SEE HERE}. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/TheStormRedux/status/2003448097930662069?s=20  Cannon's courtroom. FANTASTIC. https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2003133420021424297?s=20   Thune objected the president would be able to adjourn Congress for ten days and get his full team on the field. https://twitter.com/DavidShafer/status/2002953961595449763?s=20 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Contains Hidden Election Integrity Gem – Could Have Huge Implications for Voting Machines    With the National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Donald Trump on December 18th, 2025, a little-known section was snuck into the 3000+ page bill:  Section 6805. Requiring Penetration Testing As Part Of The Testing And Certification of Voting Systems. This section amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 by adding a “Required Penetration Testing” section that “provides for the conduct of penetration testing as part of the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting system hardware and software” by an accredited laboratory. The amendment now requires the penetration testing as a condition of certification from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and allows consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology or any other federal agency on “lab selection criteria” and “other aspects of the program.” While this is still short of a legitimate attempt at ensuring election integrity, it is an effort toward scrutinizing the voting systems by finally requiring cybersecurity experts to do what Clay Parikh was restricted from doing during his time as a VSTL contractor. Hand-marked paper ballots hand-counted at the precinct level, is being utilized in Dallas County, TX for the 2026 midterm primaries, and is still the ultimate goal of the election integrity community to ensure free and fair elections in the United States. Source: thegatewaypundit.com Penetration testing, often abbreviated as “pen testing,” is a cybersecurity practice where authorized experts simulate real-world cyberattacks on a computer system, network, or application to identify and exploit vulnerabilities before malicious actors can do so. The goal is to uncover weaknesses in security measures, such as software flaws, misconfigurations, or inadequate defenses, and provide recommendations for remediation. It typically involves several stages: Planning and reconnaissance: Gathering information about the target system. Scanning: Using tools to probe for potential entry points. Gaining access: Attempting to exploit vulnerabilities to breach the system. Maintaining access: Testing how long access can be sustained without detection. Analysis and reporting: Documenting findings, risks, and fixes. In the context of Section 6805 of the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which incorporates provisions from the SECURE IT Act (H.R. 6315), penetration testing is mandated as part of the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification process for voting system hardware and software. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) must implement this requirement within 180 days of enactment, with accreditation of testing entities handled through recommendations from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This ensures that voting systems used in federal elections undergo rigorous cybersecurity assessments to detect and mitigate vulnerabilities, enhancing election security Poll: Trump's Approval Rating Lands at 50 Percent, 9 Points Above Water President Donald Trump enjoys a 50 percent approval rating, with a net approval rating of plus 9 points, according to the latest polling from InsiderAdvantage.  Source: breitbart.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

The U.S. Department of Justice has strongly urged the Supreme Court to reject Ghislaine Maxwell's petition, which seeks to overturn her 20‑year sex‑trafficking conviction by invoking the 2007 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) Jeffrey Epstein secured with Florida federal prosecutors. Maxwell argued that a co‑conspirator clause in that agreement should shield her from prosecution in New York—but both the district court and the Second Circuit found that the NPA bound only the Southern District of Florida, and explicitly did not extend immunity to unnamed co‑conspirators in other jurisdictions.In its response, the DOJ emphasized that Maxwell's reading of the NPA is legally flawed and unsupported by the facts. Prosecutors maintained that Maxwell was not explicitly named in the agreement and that there was never any indication the Florida office intended to extend immunity to her. Moreover, the DOJ noted that only high-ranking Justice Department officials—not local prosecutors—could authorize an agreement with nationwide binding effect, which never occurred in this case. They argued Maxwell's petition does not present any new legal questions or conflicts among federal courts that would warrant Supreme Court intervention, and therefore, her conviction should stand without further review.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ urges Supreme Court to turn away Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal - ABC News

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

In November 2024, an individual identified as "John Doe" filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several of his affiliated companies, including Bad Boy Records LLC and Daddy's House Recordings Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:24-cv-08852-JPC). The plaintiff alleges that in 2022, during a house party in New York City, Combs drugged him with Rohypnol, causing him to lose consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, Doe claims he found Combs sexually assaulting him. The lawsuit includes charges of sexual assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, with Doe seeking compensatory and punitive damages.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632109.1.0_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Friday, December 22nd, 2023 Right after Judge Beryl Howell ordered the immediate enforcement of the $148M verdict against Giuliani, he filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York; Jack Smith has filed a response in the Trump immunity battle with SCOTUS; the Colorado Supreme Court justices face a flood of threats after ruling to remove Trump from the state primary ballot; a new lawsuit says Georgia's lt. gov should be disqualified for acting as a Trump elector; 16 states beyond Colorado have open legal challenges to Trump's eligibility for office; the NRA has hit rock bottom. Plus Allison and Dana deliver your good news. Our GuestJohn Fugelsanghttps://www.johnfugelsang.com/tmehttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-john-fugelsang-podcast/id1464094232 Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Geoffrey Berman's exit as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in June 2020 unfolded amid unusual public tension with the Justice Department and immediately raised red flags. Attorney General William Barr first announced that Berman was stepping down, only for Berman to respond that he had not resigned and intended to remain in office until a Senate-confirmed successor was appointed. The standoff drew national attention because of how rare it is for a sitting U.S. attorney to openly challenge an attorney general's authority. After several days of public back-and-forth, Berman ultimately agreed to leave once assurances were made that his deputy would assume the role, preserving continuity within the office. The episode was widely viewed as extraordinary and politically fraught. It underscored the sensitivity surrounding the Southern District of New York, long known for its independence and willingness to pursue powerful figures. Berman's departure immediately prompted questions about what pressures may have been at play behind the scenes.Those questions intensified because Berman's office had overseen the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, one of the most explosive criminal cases in decades. Although no definitive evidence has emerged showing that the Epstein case directly caused Berman's removal, the timing and context fueled speculation that ongoing or potential investigations connected to Epstein may have made the SDNY leadership inconvenient. Observers noted that Epstein's death in federal custody, unresolved questions about co-conspirators, and the political sensitivity of the case all loomed over the office at the time. Lawmakers and legal analysts questioned whether the attempt to remove Berman was part of a broader effort to exert control over an office handling politically dangerous matters. The Justice Department denied any improper motive, insisting the move was administrative. Still, the circumstances left lingering doubts. For many critics, Berman's exit became another chapter in the broader controversy surrounding Epstein and the institutions tasked with delivering accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Geoffrey Berman's exit as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in June 2020 unfolded amid unusual public tension with the Justice Department and immediately raised red flags. Attorney General William Barr first announced that Berman was stepping down, only for Berman to respond that he had not resigned and intended to remain in office until a Senate-confirmed successor was appointed. The standoff drew national attention because of how rare it is for a sitting U.S. attorney to openly challenge an attorney general's authority. After several days of public back-and-forth, Berman ultimately agreed to leave once assurances were made that his deputy would assume the role, preserving continuity within the office. The episode was widely viewed as extraordinary and politically fraught. It underscored the sensitivity surrounding the Southern District of New York, long known for its independence and willingness to pursue powerful figures. Berman's departure immediately prompted questions about what pressures may have been at play behind the scenes.Those questions intensified because Berman's office had overseen the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, one of the most explosive criminal cases in decades. Although no definitive evidence has emerged showing that the Epstein case directly caused Berman's removal, the timing and context fueled speculation that ongoing or potential investigations connected to Epstein may have made the SDNY leadership inconvenient. Observers noted that Epstein's death in federal custody, unresolved questions about co-conspirators, and the political sensitivity of the case all loomed over the office at the time. Lawmakers and legal analysts questioned whether the attempt to remove Berman was part of a broader effort to exert control over an office handling politically dangerous matters. The Justice Department denied any improper motive, insisting the move was administrative. Still, the circumstances left lingering doubts. For many critics, Berman's exit became another chapter in the broader controversy surrounding Epstein and the institutions tasked with delivering accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. Department of Justice has strongly urged the Supreme Court to reject Ghislaine Maxwell's petition, which seeks to overturn her 20‑year sex‑trafficking conviction by invoking the 2007 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) Jeffrey Epstein secured with Florida federal prosecutors. Maxwell argued that a co‑conspirator clause in that agreement should shield her from prosecution in New York—but both the district court and the Second Circuit found that the NPA bound only the Southern District of Florida, and explicitly did not extend immunity to unnamed co‑conspirators in other jurisdictions.In its response, the DOJ emphasized that Maxwell's reading of the NPA is legally flawed and unsupported by the facts. Prosecutors maintained that Maxwell was not explicitly named in the agreement and that there was never any indication the Florida office intended to extend immunity to her. Moreover, the DOJ noted that only high-ranking Justice Department officials—not local prosecutors—could authorize an agreement with nationwide binding effect, which never occurred in this case. They argued Maxwell's petition does not present any new legal questions or conflicts among federal courts that would warrant Supreme Court intervention, and therefore, her conviction should stand without further review.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ urges Supreme Court to turn away Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Featuring:MICHAEL CASTILLERO https://x.com/MikeC0921TRENISS EVANS https://x.com/CondemnedUSAShow Description:Tonight's program examines the claims of Michael Castillero, a former pre-IPO fund manager recently convicted of federal fraud charges in the Southern District of New York. Castillero alleges government misconduct, prosecutorial overreach, and corruption within the SEC and DOJ, and has publicly called for review—and clemency.This episode is not an advocacy platform. It is an evidence-based inquiry designed to distinguish between a legitimate investigative story and a clemency narrative. Viewers will hear the claims, the context, and the questions that must be answered before any conclusions are drawn.This is Steel News where truth survives pressure.Follow: ANN VANDERSTEEL https://AnnVandersteel.comFollow Ann Vandersteel on Pickax - https://pickax.com/annvandersteelSPONSORS:https://AmericanMadeFoundation.orghttps://AmericanMadeAction.orgHEALTHY FOOD & BEAUTYSUPERFOODS https://VandersteelHealth.comReady to save big on your superfoods purchase? Made in America, non GMO superfoods for your whole family and pets.SLEEP & MORE with My Pillow!https://MyPillow.com PROMO CODE “AV”C60 EVO HEALTH AND BEAUTY SECREThttps://www.c60evo.com/annvandersteel/ PROMO CODE “EVAV” 10% for radiant energy & mental focus, increased flexibility, immunity & longevity for people & petsRICHARDSON NUTRITIONAL STORE – laetrille / apricot seeds for healthhttps://RNCStore.com PROMO CODE “AV”RNC promotes wellness and healthy living through the use of safe and effective dietary supplements that support the body's natural healing processes.YOU TUBE https://www.youtube.com/@RealAnnVandersteelYOU TUBE https://www.youtube.com/@Ann-VandersteelRUMBLE https://rumble.com/c/SteelNewsRUMBLE https://rumble.com/c/AnnVandersteelGETTR https://gettr.com/user/annvandersteelFACEBOOK https://www.facebook.com/RightNowAnn/FACEBOOK https://www.facebook.com/ann.vandersteelTWITCH TV https://www.twitch.tv/annvandersteelTWITTER https://x.com/annvandersteelPlease consider supporting Operation Burning Edgehttps://givesendgo.com/burningedgeThis effort lead to the exposure of weaponized mass migration into the illegal migrants ravaging AmericaMAIL:Ann Vandersteel℅ P.O. BOX 386Palm City, Florida [34991]FOLLOW & SUBSCRIBE:https://AnnVandersteel.Substack.comhttps://x.com/annvandersteelhttps://truthsocial.com/@annvandersteelhttps://gettr.com/i/annvandersteelhttps://t.me/AnnVandersteelTruthhttps://annvandersteel.locals.comhttps://app.clouthub.com/#/users/u/AnnVandersteel/postshttps://gab.com/AnnVandersteelhttps://facebook.com/annvandersteelhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ann-vandersteel-312310260/FAIR USE NOTICE These pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, such material has been referenced to advance understanding of political, human rights, ecological, economic, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. This constitutes a "fair use" of any such material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

Elie Honig is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted more than 100 mobsters, including members of La Cosa Nostra, and the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He went on to serve as Director of the Department of Law and Public Safety at New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. He is currently Special Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler and a CNN legal analyst. For a transcript of Elie's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Federal prosecutors have recently presented new evidence to a grand jury in the Southern District of New York as part of the ongoing investigation into Sean "Diddy" Combs. This evidence includes testimony from Courtney Burgess, a former associate of Combs' late ex-girlfriend, Kim Porter. Burgess claims to possess significant materials, such as video footage and what he asserts is Porter's authentic memoir, which he believes substantiate allegations against Combs. He testified that federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security contacted him, leading to his grand jury appearance and the submission of these materials to prosecutors.In addition to Burgess's testimony, investigators have interviewed approximately ten male escorts regarding Combs' infamous "Freak Off" parties. These individuals, now in their 40s, have reportedly provided detailed accounts of the events, including allegations of being supplied with drugs and coerced into participation. Authorities are examining whether participants, particularly minors, were illegally forced into activities during these gatherings. Recent raids on Combs' residences resulted in the seizure of numerous items, including sexual paraphernalia and videos, as part of the broader investigation into allegations of sex trafficking and related offenses.In our second article...Ty Stiklorius, John Legend's longtime manager, recently shared a harrowing experience from nearly three decades ago at a New Year's Eve party hosted by Sean "Diddy" Combs in St. Barts. In an op-ed for The New York Times, she recounted being led into a bedroom by an unidentified man who then locked the door behind them. Stiklorius managed to escape by convincing the man to let her go, citing concern that her brother was looking for her. At the time, she dismissed the incident as an isolated case of inappropriate behavior at a party. However, after two decades in the music industry, she now views it as indicative of a pervasive culture that fosters sexual misconduct and exploitation.Stiklorius emphasized that such incidents are not anomalies but reflect a broader issue within the music industry, where power is often concentrated in the hands of male gatekeepers who exploit aspiring artists. She called for a cultural shift to dismantle this toxic environment, advocating for accountability and support for survivors. Stiklorius expressed hope that the industry can evolve beyond its current model, which has historically protected predators and their enablers, to create a safer and more equitable space for all artists.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean ‘Diddy' Combs: Grand jury hearing from witness who claims he has footage of Combs potentially victimizing celebrities | CNNsource:John Legend's manager escaped 'terrifying situation' at Sean 'Diddy' Combs party

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Elie Honig is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted more than 100 mobsters, including members of La Cosa Nostra, and the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He went on to serve as Director of the Department of Law and Public Safety at New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. He is currently Special Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler and a CNN legal analyst.  For a transcript of Elie's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices