Episodios

  • Mega Edition: Multiple Epstein Survivors Sue Darren Indyke And Richard Kahn (Part 10-11) 2/8/26)

    Mega Edition: Multiple Epstein Survivors Sue Darren Indyke And Richard Kahn (Part 10-11) 2/8/26)
    Feb 8 2026
    The survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein’s closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others, alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein’s finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein’s daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein’s criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.


    The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn’s post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein’s crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein’s estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein’s lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.



    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    23 m
  • Mega Edition: Multiple Epstein Survivors Sue Darren Indyke And Richard Kahn (Part 7-9) 2/8/26)

    Mega Edition: Multiple Epstein Survivors Sue Darren Indyke And Richard Kahn (Part 7-9) 2/8/26)
    Feb 8 2026
    The survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein’s closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others, alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein’s finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein’s daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein’s criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.


    The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn’s post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein’s crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein’s estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein’s lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.



    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    33 m
  • Mega Edition: Multiple Epstein Survivors Sue Darren Indyke And Richard Kahn (Part 4-6) 2/7/26)

    Mega Edition: Multiple Epstein Survivors Sue Darren Indyke And Richard Kahn (Part 4-6) 2/7/26)
    Feb 8 2026
    The survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein’s closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others, alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein’s finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein’s daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein’s criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.


    The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn’s post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein’s crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein’s estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein’s lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.



    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    34 m
  • Mega Edition: Multiple Epstein Survivors Sue Darren Indyke And Richard Kahn (Part 1-3) 2/7/26)

    Mega Edition: Multiple Epstein Survivors Sue Darren Indyke And Richard Kahn (Part 1-3) 2/7/26)
    Feb 8 2026
    The survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein’s closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others, alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein’s finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein’s daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein’s criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.


    The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn’s post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein’s crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein’s estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein’s lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.



    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    34 m
  • Pomp, Perversion, and Poppers: The Ghislaine Maxwell Party at Sandringham

    Pomp, Perversion, and Poppers: The Ghislaine Maxwell Party at Sandringham
    Feb 8 2026
    Prince Andrew’s decision to host a party for Ghislaine Maxwell at Sandringham—where sex drugs like poppers were reportedly found—reads less like royal history and more like a bad dark comedy. The idea of a Queen’s residence being turned into something resembling a low-rent Sopranos episode is almost surreal. The whole scene feels like parody: the Duke of York, standing beneath portraits of British monarchs, presiding over a soirée that sounds like Downton Abbey crashing headfirst into Trainspotting. It’s especially grotesque given Epstein’s reputation for avoiding drugs himself—he didn’t need them, he used them on others. The thought of those same tools of control and exploitation making their way into a royal estate is equal parts absurd and revolting.

    What makes it worse is the total lack of accountability. The Palace still tries to frame these scandals as “private matters,” as though international sex trafficking and narcotics at royal residences can be brushed under the Windsor rug. Every new revelation cements Andrew as a man incapable of understanding—or even pretending to care about—the damage he’s done to the Crown’s image. Once considered a symbol of British decorum, Sandringham now sits as a monument to how far the monarchy has fallen, its history tainted by the stench of scandal and the arrogance of a prince who believed himself untouchable. In the end, Prince Andrew didn’t just disgrace himself—he made royal scandal feel like a recurring sketch in a show that refuses to end.



    to contact me:



    source:

    Sex drugs 'found at party' disgraced Andrew hosted for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in Sandringham, new Royal book claims | Daily Mail Online
    Más Menos
    16 m
  • Maureen Comey Has Been Fired In The Wake Of The Diddy Trial And Blowback Over Epstein

    Maureen Comey Has Been Fired In The Wake Of The Diddy Trial And Blowback Over Epstein
    Feb 8 2026
    Maureen Comey, a federal prosecutor and daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, was recently removed from her position following a series of high-profile prosecutorial failures, most notably her handling of the Sean “Diddy” Combs case and the ongoing fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. In the Diddy case, despite mounting public allegations, corroborating testimony, and a sprawling federal investigation, Comey failed to secure a conviction on key charges—prompting criticism from within the DOJ and from the public, who viewed it as yet another instance of the wealthy and powerful skirting justice. Her role in the Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell matters had already drawn skepticism, particularly over the slow pace of disclosures and missing evidence. Combined, these failures painted a picture of a prosecutor either unwilling or unable to push cases against elite defendants across the finish line.


    Comey's dismissal is being viewed by many as symbolic of a broader institutional failure. For years, she was positioned as a central figure in prosecutions that promised accountability for Epstein’s network of enablers, yet few meaningful outcomes followed. The fact that she is now gone—without fanfare, without accountability, and without explanation—only fuels suspicions that her presence was more about containment than prosecution. Her firing doesn’t feel like justice—it feels like an after-the-fact cleanup, a quiet reshuffling meant to relieve pressure while continuing to protect the same circles that have evaded consequences all along.



    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    DOJ fires Maurene Comey, daughter of James Comey and a prosecutor in Sean Combs' and Ghislaine Maxwell's cases
    Más Menos
    13 m
  • Andrew Is Summoned By The U.S. Congress To Answer Questions About Jeffrey Epstein

    Andrew Is Summoned By The U.S. Congress To Answer Questions About Jeffrey Epstein
    Feb 8 2026
    Congress, specifically the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform led by Robert Garcia and signed by 13–16 Democratic members, has formally written to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (formerly known as Prince Andrew) requesting that he provide a transcribed interview about his “long-standing friendship” with Jeffrey Epstein and his possible knowledge of Epstein’s co-conspirators, enablers and criminal operations. The letter points to flight logs, financial records (including notations such as “massage for Andrew”), an email from 2011 in which Andrew allegedly wrote “we are in this together”, and the fact that he traveled with Epstein to several locations. The committee asks for Andrew’s response by 20 November 2025.

    However, the request is not a binding subpoena: because Andrew is a foreign national no longer holding British royal immunity, Congress cannot compel his testimony in the same way it can U.S. citizens. He therefore may choose to decline without facing the usual legal penalties for ignoring a congressional subpoena. Congress and the committee stress that his cooperation is sought in the interest of justice for Epstein’s victims and to shed light on potential further misconduct.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    12 m
  • When Journalism Becomes PR: The Ian Maxwell Feature Nobody Asked For

    When Journalism Becomes PR: The Ian Maxwell Feature Nobody Asked For
    Feb 7 2026
    Ian Maxwell’s Spectator article reads less like a defense of justice and more like a tone-deaf PR memo from a family desperate to rewrite history. Cloaked in pseudo-sympathy and self-pity, Maxwell portrays his sister Ghislaine as some tragic heroine—a misunderstood victim of “media persecution” and an “inhumane” justice system. He spares no ink reminding readers that she was strip-searched, isolated, and treated unfairly, yet offers not a single ounce of genuine accountability for the teenage girls she groomed, exploited, or delivered into the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. The piece reeks of entitlement—the idea that the daughter of Robert Maxwell should be exempt from the consequences of her own actions simply because she’s “suffered enough.” It’s manipulative, self-serving, and deeply insulting to survivors who endured far worse.


    Rather than confronting the crimes or showing remorse, Ian Maxwell doubles down on the family’s trademark arrogance, spinning a narrative that his sister is a scapegoat for Epstein’s sins. He blames the justice system, the media, and public opinion—anyone and everyone except the person who trafficked minors across continents under the guise of philanthropy and power. His framing suggests that wealth and pedigree should shield one from public outrage, as if accountability were some vulgar thing reserved for commoners. What emerges isn’t a defense of due process—it’s the whining of a man unwilling to accept that his sister wasn’t “targeted” by the system; she was caught by it. And the only “injustice” here is the insult of pretending otherwise.



    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com




    source:

    Don't take Virginia Giuffre's memoir at face value - The Spectator World
    Más Menos
    23 m