Podcasts about Southern District

When Alex Acosta, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, agreed in 2008 to a plea deal that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to serve just 13 months in county jail despite federal sex-trafficking allegations, the agreement was widely criticized as outrageously lenient. But deeper reviews and federal court filings since have shown Acosta was not acting alone — the controversial non-prosecution agreement was effectively drafted and backed by officials in the main Department of Justice (DOJ), not just his local office. Documents and internal DOJ statements reveal that senior career prosecutors in Washington had negotiated the framework of the agreement, signed off on its unusually broad protections for Epstein and his associates, and limited the scope of charges in a way that prevented future federal prosecution. In this telling, Acosta served more as the frontman implementing a policy shaped and approved at the highest levels — including language that immunized unnamed co-conspirators and blocked state or federal prosecutors from bringing additional charges related to Epstein's trafficking network.Further underscoring that Acosta was not solely responsible, later Department of Justice reviews found that career prosecutors and supervisors in Washington had actively steered the deal's terms, and that many within the DOJ were aware of its extraordinary concessions. Rather than acting on his own judgment, Acosta was executing an agreement that DOJ leadership championed as the best way at the time to secure some form of accountability — a defense that has since been widely rejected. This perspective reframes the narrative: Acosta becomes a middleman who carried out a controversial deal designed, negotiated, and authorized by senior DOJ officials, rather than the lone architect of a lenient settlement that spared Epstein from the full weight of federal prosecution.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The lawsuits stem from parallel cases in the Southern District of New York: one brought by Jane Doe on behalf of Epstein's victims and another by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, both targeting JPMorgan Chase for its alleged role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. JPMorgan, in turn, filed third-party claims against former executive James Edward Staley, arguing that he should bear responsibility for any liability tied to Epstein, given his close personal and professional ties to the financier. These cases became highly significant in exposing the financial networks that allegedly allowed Epstein's crimes to flourish.In response, Staley filed a motion to exclude JPMorgan Chase's proffered expert opinions, challenging the credibility and admissibility of the bank's expert witnesses. His brief sought to limit the evidence that could be used against him, aiming to weaken JPMorgan's case for shifting liability onto him. This move reflects Staley's broader defense strategy of resisting being scapegoated as the primary enabler within JPMorgan, while the bank itself faced mounting scrutiny for its role in maintaining Epstein as a client despite numerous red flags.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

John talks with US Attorney for the Southern District of NY Jay Clayton about the NYPD's technological advancements, battling corruption and fiscal concerns. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mimi Rocah is an attorney who served as District Attorney of Westchester County, NY from 2021-2024.Prior to becoming DA, she served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York for nearly 17 years where she prosecuted and oversaw cases involving violent crime, organized crime, human trafficking, sex trafficking, child exploitation, frauds and public corruption. She's a frequent commentator on MSNOW, CNN, The Contrarian, Cafe, and numerous podcasts and radio shows on topics relating to law, justice and women's issues and has written and published dozens of opinion pieces on those topics. She's an expert in the rule of law, democracy and the corruption and abuse of the justice system and is currently an adjunct professor at Fordham University School of Law. And, Mimi is writing a book, “Justice Under Siege,” about the Trump Administration's political takeover of the DOJ and the heroes who have stood up, due out in September 2026. Mimi shares her thoughts on this week's Pam Bondi testimony at the House Judiciary Committee hearing as well as the overall weaponization of, and corruption at, the Justice Department. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

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

Today on Mea Culpa, I'm joined by Nick Akerman, former Assistant Special Watergate Prosecutor and Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to break down Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent hearing and what it reveals about the state of our government. We discuss accountability, prosecutorial power, and the growing strain the Trump administration has placed on the rule of law. Drawing on lessons from Watergate, Akerman explains how political interference, delayed justice, and selective enforcement have eroded public trust, and why DOJ independence matters now more than ever. We also examine the dangers of normalizing corruption, the reality of a two-tiered justice system, and what it will take to restore faith in American institutions before lasting damage is done. Subscribe to Michael's Substack: https://therealmichaelcohen.substack.com/ Subscribe to Michael's YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheMichaelCohenShow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

Lawmakers led by Jamie Raskin are demanding full transparency from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) over the abrupt termination of the investigation into alleged co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. According to the letter from Raskin, nearly fifty survivors supplied detailed testimony identifying at least twenty individuals as part of a sophisticated trafficking ring, yet the probe—originally active under the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York—was transferred to DOJ headquarters and effectively halted in January 2025. Investigators then issued a memo stating they had found no evidence warranting further charges, a conclusion Raskin faulted as ignoring the victims' credible disclosures.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:House Democrats press DOJ for details on Epstein co-conspirators probe that was "inexplicably killed" - CBS News

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The boys thought the San Francisco Super Bowl was so boring, we checked ourselves into Alcatraz! The random year generator spun 1979, a year we've visited in the past (Apocalypse Now Director's Cut, The Warriors, 1941, Mad Max), and “Escape From Alcatraz” was the perfect movie for this frigid February weekend. After John gave us a mini-review of “Send Help”, we grabbed some beers and discussed! linktr.ee/theloveofcinema - Check out our YouTube page!  Our phone number is 646-484-9298. It accepts texts or voice messages.  0:00 Intro; 06:04 “Send Help” mini-review; 12:28 1979 Year in Review; 30:19 Films of 1979: “Escape From Alcatraz”; 1:04:24 What You Been Watching?; 1:08:15 Next Week's Episode Teaser Additional Cast/Crew: Clint Eastwood, Don Siegel, Patrick McGoohan, Roberts Blossom, J. Campbell Bruce, Richard Tuggle, Sam Raimi, Rachel McAdams, Dylan O'Brien, Fred Ward, Paul Benjamin, Larry Hankin. Hosts: Dave Green, Jeff Ostermueller, John Say Edited & Produced by Dave Green. Beer Sponsor: Carlos Barrozo Music Sponsor: Dasein Dasein on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/77H3GPgYigeKNlZKGx11KZ 
Dasein on Apple Music: https://music.apple.com/us/artist/dasein/1637517407 Recommendations: Fallout, Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, They Live, John Carpenter, The Muppet Series, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, The Pitt.  Additional Tags: Golden Gate Bridge, Old Man Marley, Home Alone, Shawshenk Redemption, Gordon Ramsay, Thelma Schoonmaker, Stephen King's It, The Tenant, Rosemary's Baby, The Pianist, Cul-de-Sac, AI, The New York City Marathon, Apartments, Tenants, Rent Prices, Zohran Mamdani, Andrew Cuomo, Curtis Sliwa, Amazon, Robotics, AMC, IMAX Issues, Tron, The Dallas Cowboys, Short-term memory loss, Warner Brothers, Paramount, Netflix, AMC Times Square, Tom Cruise, George Clooney, MGM, Amazon Prime, Marvel, Sony, Conclave, Here, Venom: The Last Dance, Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, Oscars, Academy Awards, BFI, BAFTA, BAFTAS, British Cinema. England, Vienna, Leopoldstadt, The Golden Globes, Past Lives, Apple Podcasts, West Side Story, Adelaide, Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Melbourne, The British, England, The SEC, Ronald Reagan, Stock Buybacks, Marvel, MCU, DCEU, Film, Movies, Southeast Asia, The Phillippines, Vietnam, America, The US, Academy Awards, WGA Strike, SAG-AFTRA, SAG Strike, Peter Weir, Jidaigeki, chambara movies, sword fight, samurai, ronin, Meiji Restoration, plague, HBO Max, Amazon Prime, casket maker, Seven Samurai, Roshomon, Sergio Leone, Clint Eastwood, Stellan Skarsgard, the matt and mark movie show.The Southern District's Waratah Championship, Night of a Thousand Stars, The Pan Pacific Grand Prix (The Pan Pacifics), Jeff Bezos, Rupert Murdoch, Larry Ellison, David Ellison, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg.   

In July 2023, a woman identified as "Jane Doe" filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against billionaire investor Leon Black, alleging that he raped her in 2002 at Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. The complaint details that Doe, who was 16 years old at the time and had autism and mosaic Down syndrome, was trafficked by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She claims Epstein introduced her to Black, instructing her to provide him with a massage that would involve sexual intercourse. Black has denied these allegations, with his attorney describing the lawsuit as "frivolous and sanctionable." In September 2024, U.S. District Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke denied Black's motion to dismiss the case, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. Sourcesto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.152.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

Tim Heaphy is a former federal prosecutor and founding partner of the new law firm Heaphy Smith Harbach & Windom. He has extensive experience in complex investigations, white-collar litigation, crisis management and compliance counseling developed in public service, in-house, and private law firm practice. His clients include corporations across a wide array of industries, universities, and public entities facing federal investigations, investigative challenges, and business and reputational crises. He was also the chief investigative counsel for the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack at the U.S. Capitol. He is regularly called upon by major media outlets to provide insight and analysis on significant legal issues. David Harbach most recently served as an Assistant Special Counsel in the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith. His 21 years of service as a prosecutor include tours in the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia, the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice, the Harris County District Attorney's Office in Houston, Texas, and as an international war crimes prosecutor in The Hague. He also served a one-year detail as Special Counsel in the office of FBI Director James Comey, from 2014 to 2015. He has tried dozens of cases to juries in courts across the country and is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Tim and David discuss their new law firm with Jack Smith; Trump, Bondi, and the weaponizing of the Justice Department; the concern over interference in the midterm elections; SCOTUS , the lower courts and the judicial system serving as the critical check on the administration; and more. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

In July 2023, a woman identified as "Jane Doe" filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against billionaire investor Leon Black, alleging that he raped her in 2002 at Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. The complaint details that Doe, who was 16 years old at the time and had autism and mosaic Down syndrome, was trafficked by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She claims Epstein introduced her to Black, instructing her to provide him with a massage that would involve sexual intercourse. Black has denied these allegations, with his attorney describing the lawsuit as "frivolous and sanctionable." In September 2024, U.S. District Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke denied Black's motion to dismiss the case, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. Sourcesto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.152.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Meal Culpa welcomes to the show Michael's old friend and former lawyer, Danya Perry. Danya is a founding partner at Perry Guha LLP. She is a nationally recognized white-collar criminal defense attorney and commercial litigator. Danya is equally gifted at litigating high-profile matters in court and in the press as she is at navigating backchannels to obtain quiet victories for her clients. Danya has represented corporations and individuals from every walk of life. And her criminal defense practice includes representing clients in cases involving everything from fraud to sexual assault of both men and women. Prior to founding Perry Guha with Samidh Guha in 2019, Danya spent five years as the Chief of Litigation and Deputy General Counsel at MacAndrews & Forbes Incorporated. From 2002 to 2013, Danya served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Today she is a regular media commentator, on MSNBC, CNN, and BBC. She's also written a number of op-eds ...

February 7, 2026; 8am: The impact of “Operation Metro Surge” will be felt for weeks to come, especially for the courts. A group of former federal prosecutors and civil-rights attorneys have signed a letter to  Attorney General Pam Bondi demanding transparency in the Minnesota investigations. One of the lawyers who wrote that letter, former Federal Prosecutor and Chief of the Criminal Division in the Southern District of New York, Perry Carbone, joins “The Weekend” to discuss.For more, follow us on social media:Bluesky: @theweekendmsnow.bsky.socialInstagram: @theweekendmsnowTikTok: @theweekendmsnowTo listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

OA1233 - We are not conspiracy theorist type people. But... yeah man I don't know. But also, so much more in these files to talk about. If you know anything about the federal government's 2007 plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein you know that it was bad. But newly-released documents from the Epstein files show that it was actually much worse than that! Thanks to a newly-released legal memo, a draft indictment, and internal emails between prosecutors we now have a much better understanding of the disagreements within US Attorney for the District of Southern Florida Alex Acosta's office as they finalized the terms of a much-too-friendly agreement between the US government and a billionaire pedophile which a federal appeals court would later call “a national disgrace.” Matt has the receipts for this special emergency episode. You can also watch this episode on YouTube! Steve Bannon's Interview with Jeffrey Epstein (directly downloaded from the DOJ) Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of Its 2006–2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation (Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, 2020) Incident Report (Palm Beach Police Department, 2006)  Epstein indictment draft (United States Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, 2007) Appendix in The People of the State of New York v. Jeffrey E. Epstein (2013) Opinion - Alex Acosta acted with professionalism and integrity in handling the Jeffrey Epstein case (Miami Herald, 2/16/2019)  Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

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

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Before Ghislaine Maxwell's arrest in July 2020, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York conducted a secret grand jury investigation that quietly accelerated in the months following Jeffrey Epstein's death. The grand jury heard testimony from witnesses, reviewed financial records, communications, flight data, and other documentary evidence tied to Epstein's sex trafficking operation and Maxwell's alleged role in facilitating it. Subpoenas were issued, immunity agreements were reportedly used to compel cooperation, and prosecutors focused on building a case that could stand independently of Epstein, centering on recruitment, grooming, transportation, and coordination of underage victims over many years.Crucially, the grand jury probe unfolded while Maxwell remained publicly uncharged and largely out of sight, allowing prosecutors to work without alerting her to the full scope or timing of the case. By the time of her arrest, the investigation had already matured to the point where prosecutors felt confident proceeding without Epstein as a defendant, relying instead on corroborated victim testimony and documentary evidence. The secrecy of the grand jury process also meant that potential co-conspirators were shielded from public scrutiny during this phase, a fact that later fueled criticism once Maxwell was charged alone. In effect, the pre-arrest grand jury investigation laid the foundation for Maxwell's prosecution while simultaneously highlighting how narrowly the government chose to pursue accountability once the case entered the public stage.to contact me:bobbycapucciBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Tartaglione says that Maurene Comey — the federal prosecutor handling his case (and previously working in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York) — pressured or promised Jeffrey Epstein some form of preferential treatment or freedom if Epstein would implicate Tartaglione or assist in his prosecution. In essence: Tartaglione is asserting that Comey extended an inducement to Epstein in order to flip him or extract testimony, which in his account entangles the prosecutor in ethically questionable dealings.He also claims that Comey was intimately involved in suppressing or mis-handling key evidence that could have shown Tartaglione acted in a manner different from the official story—particularly regarding surveillance footage at the jail where Epstein and Tartaglione were cell-mates. In this version, Comey is cast not simply as a neutral prosecutor but as an actor in a cover-up: by failing to preserve or produce surveillance video (for example, outside Epstein's cell on July 23, 2019) and by branding Tartaglione culpable, the claim goes, Comey effectively helped seal a pre-determined narrative against him rather than conduct a fair investigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Lawmakers led by Jamie Raskin are demanding full transparency from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) over the abrupt termination of the investigation into alleged co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. According to the letter from Raskin, nearly fifty survivors supplied detailed testimony identifying at least twenty individuals as part of a sophisticated trafficking ring, yet the probe—originally active under the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York—was transferred to DOJ headquarters and effectively halted in January 2025. Investigators then issued a memo stating they had found no evidence warranting further charges, a conclusion Raskin faulted as ignoring the victims' credible disclosures.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:House Democrats press DOJ for details on Epstein co-conspirators probe that was "inexplicably killed" - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Federal prosecutors in New York confirmed that an active grand jury investigation into Ghislaine Maxwell and other potential Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirators is still underway, despite Maxwell's 2021 conviction. In court filings, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York revealed that the probe remains sealed, describing it as part of a broader effort to hold accountable anyone who participated in or enabled Epstein's trafficking network. The disclosure was made during legal arguments over unsealing additional materials from Maxwell's criminal case, with prosecutors warning that premature disclosure could interfere with “ongoing law-enforcement activity.”The revelation reignited public scrutiny over why, years after Epstein's death, no additional high-profile figures have been charged. It also underscored the enduring sensitivity of the case, as prosecutors continue to pursue evidence tied to Epstein's finances, logistics network, and associates. Legal experts noted that such a statement from federal authorities is rare, suggesting that investigators may still be gathering testimony or preparing potential indictments against individuals whose names surfaced during Maxwell's trial and related lawsuits.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Lawmakers led by Jamie Raskin are demanding full transparency from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) over the abrupt termination of the investigation into alleged co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. According to the letter from Raskin, nearly fifty survivors supplied detailed testimony identifying at least twenty individuals as part of a sophisticated trafficking ring, yet the probe—originally active under the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York—was transferred to DOJ headquarters and effectively halted in January 2025. Investigators then issued a memo stating they had found no evidence warranting further charges, a conclusion Raskin faulted as ignoring the victims' credible disclosures.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:House Democrats press DOJ for details on Epstein co-conspirators probe that was "inexplicably killed" - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Tartaglione says that Maurene Comey — the federal prosecutor handling his case (and previously working in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York) — pressured or promised Jeffrey Epstein some form of preferential treatment or freedom if Epstein would implicate Tartaglione or assist in his prosecution. In essence: Tartaglione is asserting that Comey extended an inducement to Epstein in order to flip him or extract testimony, which in his account entangles the prosecutor in ethically questionable dealings.He also claims that Comey was intimately involved in suppressing or mis-handling key evidence that could have shown Tartaglione acted in a manner different from the official story—particularly regarding surveillance footage at the jail where Epstein and Tartaglione were cell-mates. In this version, Comey is cast not simply as a neutral prosecutor but as an actor in a cover-up: by failing to preserve or produce surveillance video (for example, outside Epstein's cell on July 23, 2019) and by branding Tartaglione culpable, the claim goes, Comey effectively helped seal a pre-determined narrative against him rather than conduct a fair investigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

After Disney's quarterly results, CFO Hugh Johnston discusses the company's business, potential successors to Bob Iger, and Netflix's planned purchase of Warner Brothers Discovery's film assets. The Fed-critical Kevin Warsh is President Trump's pick for Federal Reserve chair. Former SEC Chair and current U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton discusses the choice and its impact on the investor sentiment. Plus, Clayton weighs in on the Epstein files and Don Lemon's arrest. Other stories in the headlines: silver and gold prices, resolving a partial government shutdown, and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang is clarifying details of the company's investments in OpenAI. Hugh Johnston - 18:27Jay Clayton - 34:55In this episode:Becky Quick, @BeckyQuickJoe Kernen, @JoeSquawkAndrew Ross Sorkin, @andrewrsorkinKatie Kramer, @Kramer_Katie Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Non Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein stands as one of the most controversial prosecutorial decisions in modern American legal history. Despite extensive, corroborated allegations that Epstein sexually abused dozens of underage girls over many years, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida declined to pursue federal charges and instead entered into a sweeping agreement that limited his exposure and shielded potential co-conspirators. At the time, officials justified the deal by citing evidentiary challenges and concerns about witness credibility, explanations that later appeared increasingly thin when contemporaneous emails revealed careful negotiation and strategic calculation rather than uncertainty. The agreement required Epstein to comply with specific conditions, including sex-offender registration and restrictions on contact with minors, yet records show he violated those terms repeatedly. Under normal circumstances, such breaches would have triggered revocation. In Epstein's case, they did not.The failure to revisit or void the agreement has remained a point of intense scrutiny for years, particularly as additional reporting and government reviews documented prosecutorial misconduct and violations of victims' rights. An Inspector General investigation found that prosecutors concealed the agreement from victims and coordinated closely with Epstein's legal team, undermining statutory protections meant to ensure transparency and participation. Despite those findings, the Department of Justice has largely treated the agreement as a closed chapter, framing it as a historical error rather than an active legal issue. Critics argue that this posture has allowed the agreement's immunity provisions to continue casting a shadow over unresolved questions about accountability for others involved. With the factual record well established and the legal authority to act undisputed, the central issue has shifted. It is no longer whether the deal was flawed, but whether federal authorities are willing to confront the consequences of leaving it intact.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Federal prosecutors in New York confirmed that an active grand jury investigation into Ghislaine Maxwell and other potential Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirators is still underway, despite Maxwell's 2021 conviction. In court filings, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York revealed that the probe remains sealed, describing it as part of a broader effort to hold accountable anyone who participated in or enabled Epstein's trafficking network. The disclosure was made during legal arguments over unsealing additional materials from Maxwell's criminal case, with prosecutors warning that premature disclosure could interfere with “ongoing law-enforcement activity.”The revelation reignited public scrutiny over why, years after Epstein's death, no additional high-profile figures have been charged. It also underscored the enduring sensitivity of the case, as prosecutors continue to pursue evidence tied to Epstein's finances, logistics network, and associates. Legal experts noted that such a statement from federal authorities is rare, suggesting that investigators may still be gathering testimony or preparing potential indictments against individuals whose names surfaced during Maxwell's trial and related lawsuits.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

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

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

In a recent joint update to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer and Judge Richard M. Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, top Department of Justice officials — including Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton — acknowledged the massive scope and challenges involved in releasing millions of pages of investigative materials related to the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. In a letter filed with both judges, the DOJ said it has reviewed “millions of pages” of files including documents, audio, and video recordings, and made “substantial progress” in identifying and redacting materials to protect victim identities. However, the department stressed that it cannot provide a specific completion date for when the entire review and release process will be finished, citing continued quality-control checks, document management preparation, and redaction efforts as necessary steps to comply with the law while safeguarding sensitive information.The update came amid political and legal pressure after the statutory deadline of Dec. 19, 2025 passed with only a small fraction of the files publicly released. While the DOJ insists it is working toward releasing the materials “in the near term,” lawmakers, victims' advocates, and the public have sharply criticized the slow pace and heavy redactions, arguing the department is failing to meet both the letter and spirit of the transparency law. Separate court actions around the same time saw Judges Engelmayer and Berman grant motions to unseal certain grand jury and investigative records in the Maxwell and Epstein matters — interpreting the new law as overriding traditional secrecy protections — but the broader document release effort remains ongoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ says it will finish releasing Epstein files "in the near term," but doesn't offer specific date - CBS News

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices