Episodios

  • The Epstein Files: The DOJ Has the Crumbs, Langley Has the Cake (11/20/25)

    The Epstein Files: The DOJ Has the Crumbs, Langley Has the Cake (11/20/25)
    Nov 20 2025
    Jeffrey Epstein’s story has long been framed as a failure of the Department of Justice, but the emerging picture suggests something far larger, deeper, and more strategically protected than bureaucratic incompetence. While the DOJ files may eventually expose mid-level accomplices and enablers—from recruiters to financial fixers—those records are widely seen as the leftovers, not the main course. The patterns surrounding Epstein’s rise, protection, wealth, connections, plea deals, and death point toward a man operating not as an independent criminal, but as an intelligence asset whose true handlers operated far above prosecutors and judges. The extraordinary legal shielding he enjoyed for decades, the global scope of his operation, and the immediate clampdown on information following his arrest and death align more with a covert intelligence compromise operation than with the actions of a rogue financier.


    Increasingly, investigators and observers argue that the CIA, not the DOJ, holds the real archive—tapes, testimonies, leverage files, operational memos, and the materials that could explain how a former prep-school math teacher became the center of a multinational blackmail network involving presidents, billionaires, royalty, and corporate and scientific elites. The stakes are not embarrassment, but system collapse: public acknowledgment that Epstein was a U.S.-built intelligence tool used to manufacture leverage over global power figures would undermine the myth of democratic control and reveal the extent of unelected power inside American governance. The pressure to release DOJ documents is important, but the real battlefield is Langley, where the answers to the central question—who built Jeffrey Epstein, and why—remain sealed behind national-security justifications. Until that vault opens, the truth remains incomplete, and accountability remains impossible.


    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    22 m
  • Murder In Moscow: The IGG Closed Hearing Transcripts (Part 10)

    Murder In Moscow: The IGG Closed Hearing Transcripts (Part 10)
    Nov 20 2025
    On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.

    Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
    Más Menos
    15 m
  • The Devil Is Always In The Details: The 'Poison Pill' Inserted Into The Epstein Bill (11/20/25)

    The Devil Is Always In The Details: The 'Poison Pill' Inserted Into The Epstein Bill (11/20/25)
    Nov 20 2025
    In the Epstein Files Transparency Act (H.R. 4405), the small-print language in Section 2(c)(1)(C) allows the Department of Justice (DOJ) to withhold or redact “segregable portions of records … that would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary.” On its face this sounds reasonable, but in practice it gives the DOJ the ability to declare many documents “ongoing investigation” materials and thereby delay or avoid disclosure—even if the broader investigative posture is dormant, tangential or long past its active phase. Because the bill does not define strict deadlines or require the DOJ to demonstrate why the “ongoing investigation” exception remains valid in each case, the phrase becomes a flexible escape hatch for non-release.

    Additionally, while the Act mandates public availability of all unclassified records within 30 days of enactment (Section 2(a)), the exception language appears to give the Attorney General the power to claim that large swaths of documents remain subject to an active or future proceeding, thereby deferring release indefinitely. Advocacy analyses note this creates a “loophole” enabling executive branch discretion to deny transparency despite the bill’s intent.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    10 m
  • Stacey Plaskett Protected: Is Jeffrey Epstein Accountability Already Dead in Congress? (11/20/25)

    Stacey Plaskett Protected: Is Jeffrey Epstein Accountability Already Dead in Congress? (11/20/25)
    Nov 20 2025
    Stacey Plaskett was just saved from censure by Republicans — the same Republicans who have spent weeks pounding the podium about protecting children and holding Epstein-connected figures accountable. They backed off not out of principle, but to shield their own colleague Cory Mills, who is facing ethics violations of his own. It was a stunning collapse of supposed moral courage, with lawmakers folding like cheap lawn chairs when it came time to actually act. The GOP proved that all of their righteous fury was nothing more than stage lighting and sound effects. If they won’t even take action against someone they call an enemy, the idea that they would ever go after their own donors or allies is laughable. Every Democrat who voted against censure is just as complicit, exposing the hypocrisy of claiming moral high ground while protecting one of their own. Both parties showed their hand: preserving power matters more than accountability or truth.


    Stacey Plaskett shouldn’t just have been censured — she should be stripped of committees, cut off from party backing, and pressured to resign. Her actions and alliances are indefensible, and protecting her destroys any credibility either party claims to have in the fight for transparency and justice in the Epstein case. If Democrats want to be taken seriously in demanding full disclosure and real consequences for everyone tied to Epstein’s network, they must abandon the practice of shielding “favorites” and clean their own house first. You cannot scream about Trump while ignoring Plaskett. You cannot claim to defend victims while protecting someone who served as an institutional shield for a predator’s ecosystem. Until both parties stop rolling in the mud, neither can pretend to stand on higher ground. This isn’t going away. Accountability starts now — not when it’s convenient.


    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    15 m
  • Harvard Launches A New Investigation Into The Institution's Relationship With Epstein (11/20/25)

    Harvard Launches A New Investigation Into The Institution's Relationship With Epstein (11/20/25)
    Nov 20 2025
    Harvard has announced that it is launching a fresh review of its connections to Epstein after new emails and documents were released showing long -standing ties between Epstein and former Harvard president Lawrence Summers. The released materials show that Summers maintained communications with Epstein well after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for solicitation of prostitution of a minor, including advice-seeking messages and email exchanges in 2017-2019. The university’s statement says the review will look into “information concerning individuals at Harvard included in the newly released Epstein documents to evaluate what actions may be warranted.”


    This comes on the heels of a previous investigation (completed circa 2020) which found that Epstein had made sizeable donations to Harvard (about $9 million between 1998–2008) and had access to Harvard campus facilities — including an office — even after his conviction. The new probe focuses not only on Summers but also on other Harvard affiliates named in the documents (including Summers’s wife, Harvard professor Elisa New). The scandal is reopening questions about how institutions handled Epstein’s donations, access and post-conviction privileges.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    14 m
  • The Epstein Bill Passes Both Chambers Of Congress And Is Now Awaiting Trump's Signature (11/20/25)

    The Epstein Bill Passes Both Chambers Of Congress And Is Now Awaiting Trump's Signature (11/20/25)
    Nov 20 2025
    The Epstein Files bill blasted through Congress with numbers you almost never see anymore—427-1 in the House, and then it slid through the Senate with unanimous consent like it was greased. On paper, that looks like a triumph of transparency and a rare moment of unity. But let’s not kid ourselves: Washington doesn’t suddenly grow a conscience overnight. When politicians from both parties lock arms this tightly, it’s usually because they believe it protects them rather than exposes them. The speed of the vote and the lack of debate feel less like courage and more like a calculated move—an attempt to get ahead of a tidal wave they know is on the horizon.

    Now the bill sits on Trump’s desk, waiting for his signature, and everyone in D.C. is acting like this is the final step before sunlight floods the entire Epstein network. But the truth is, nothing is guaranteed. Signing a bill is not the same as releasing the records, and this administration has already signaled that “national security” and “ongoing investigations” will be used like bulletproof shields. If this turns into another stall tactic, another reroute, or another sanitized dump of heavily blacked-out PDFs, then this near-unanimous vote will go down not as a victory for transparency—but as the largest bipartisan cover-your-ass maneuver in modern political history. The real test isn’t the vote. It’s whether the files actually see daylight without being shredded, scrubbed, or neutered beyond recognition.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Senate expected to send Epstein files bill to Trump - ABC News
    Más Menos
    17 m
  • Mega Edition: Diddy And The Athlete Who Intervened (11/20/25)

    Mega Edition: Diddy And The Athlete Who Intervened (11/20/25)
    Nov 20 2025
    Sean "Diddy" Combs has collaborated with many influential figures in the music industry over the years. Here’s an update on some of his closest music industry associates:

    L.A. Reid: The music executive and co-founder of LaFace Records has been accused of sexual assault by former music executive Drew Dixon. Despite denying the allegations, Reid's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied in 2024, allowing the case to move forward.

    Russell Simmons: The Def Jam co-founder has faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, including a lawsuit filed in late 2022. Simmons has denied these claims and has been living in Bali, Indonesia, amid ongoing legal battles.

    Suge Knight: Co-founder of Death Row Records, Knight has been imprisoned since 2018 after a fatal hit-and-run. While serving his sentence, he continues to speak out about the music industry, often criticizing other executives and artists.

    Jay-Z: A prominent figure in the music and business worlds, Jay-Z has faced criticism for remaining silent about Combs’ legal troubles. He has not commented publicly on the allegations.



    In this episode, we take a look at what some of the other moguls in the music indsutry who acted as mentors to Diddy are up to these days and how they are all facing their own legal issues.


    (commercial at 12:52)

    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    Powerful pals – where is Sean 'Diddy' Combs' music industry inner circle now? | Fox News






    According to a lawsuit, Combs allegedly sexually assaulted a Los Angeles businessman during a Cîroc Vodka party in 2022. The businessman claimed that Combs made inappropriate advances and assaulted him during the event. An athlete, who was present at the party, reportedly intervened during the alleged assault.


    This allegation is part of a series of accusations against Combs, with multiple individuals coming forward with claims of sexual assault and misconduct. Combs has denied these allegations, and his legal team has stated that he intends to defend himself against these claims..


    Let's dive in!


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    'Well known' athlete intervened as Diddy groped young man at Ciroc vodka party, lawsuit claims | Daily Mail Online
    Más Menos
    31 m
  • Mega Edition: The Rough Road For Epstein's Estate When It Came To Unloading Zorro Ranch (11/20/25)

    Mega Edition: The Rough Road For Epstein's Estate When It Came To Unloading Zorro Ranch (11/20/25)
    Nov 20 2025
    The estate of Jeffrey Epstein faced major hurdles in trying to sell Zorro Ranch, his massive and infamous New Mexico property. Initially listed for roughly $27.5 million, the ranch sat on the market without a buyer for more than a year as the price steadily dropped, eventually being reduced to around $18 million in an effort to attract interest. Beyond the financial challenges, a clouded title emerged when a small religious nonprofit claimed it owned the land through a deed reportedly transferred from Epstein for $200—an allegation the estate argued was fraudulent. That dispute triggered legal complications that stalled any potential sale while the ownership question was argued in court.

    Even once the legal issues began to resolve, Zorro Ranch remained a toxic asset. The property was widely associated with allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking tied directly to Epstein’s network, and the public scrutiny made potential buyers reluctant to become involved. Questions surrounding how proceeds would be distributed, particularly as victim compensation processes were ongoing, added further uncertainty. After nearly two years on the market, the estate finally managed to sell Zorro Ranch, but the deal was disclosed at an undisclosed price and made through a newly formed corporation—hardly the clean, high-value transaction Epstein’s estate had originally expected.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    36 m