Episodios

  • The Department Of Justice And Their Argument To Keep El Chapo Behind Bars (Part 6)

    The Department Of Justice And Their Argument To Keep El Chapo Behind Bars (Part 6)
    Jan 17 2026
    Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, the former leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, has had his appeal to overturn his 2019 life sentence rejected by a U.S. court. Guzman was convicted on charges including drug trafficking, operating a criminal enterprise, and firearms violations. His legal team argued that his trial was unfair due to jury misconduct and the harsh conditions of his solitary confinement, which they claimed impacted his ability to mount a defense.

    Despite these arguments, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the original verdict, praising the trial judge's management of the high-profile case and rejecting the claims of juror misconduct. The court also dismissed the argument regarding Guzman's solitary confinement, stating it did not infringe on his right to a fair trial.

    In this episode, we take a look at the DOJ's El Chapo Brief.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

    source:

    Chapo-ca2-us-brief.pdf (courthousenews.com)
    Más Menos
    12 m
  • The Department Of Justice And Their Argument To Keep El Chapo Behind Bars (Part 5)

    The Department Of Justice And Their Argument To Keep El Chapo Behind Bars (Part 5)
    Jan 16 2026
    Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, the former leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, has had his appeal to overturn his 2019 life sentence rejected by a U.S. court. Guzman was convicted on charges including drug trafficking, operating a criminal enterprise, and firearms violations. His legal team argued that his trial was unfair due to jury misconduct and the harsh conditions of his solitary confinement, which they claimed impacted his ability to mount a defense.

    Despite these arguments, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the original verdict, praising the trial judge's management of the high-profile case and rejecting the claims of juror misconduct. The court also dismissed the argument regarding Guzman's solitary confinement, stating it did not infringe on his right to a fair trial.

    In this episode, we take a look at the DOJ's El Chapo Brief.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

    source:

    Chapo-ca2-us-brief.pdf (courthousenews.com)
    Más Menos
    14 m
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 14) (1/16/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 14) (1/16/26)
    Jan 16 2026
    In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein’s defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.


    At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta’s account, particularly regarding victims’ rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    EFTA00009229.pdf
    Más Menos
    14 m
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 13) (1/16/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 13) (1/16/26)
    Jan 16 2026
    In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein’s defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.


    At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta’s account, particularly regarding victims’ rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    EFTA00009229.pdf
    Más Menos
    12 m
  • Mother Jones Hits The BOP With A FOIA Lawsuit Due To The Ghislaine Maxwell Transfer (1/16/26)

    Mother Jones Hits The BOP With A FOIA Lawsuit Due To The Ghislaine Maxwell Transfer (1/16/26)
    Jan 16 2026
    Mother Jones filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Bureau of Prisons after the BOP stonewalled basic questions surrounding Ghislaine Maxwell’s abrupt and unusually opaque transfer following her conviction. The magazine sought records explaining why Maxwell was moved, who authorized it, what security assessments were conducted, and whether any deviations from standard BOP transfer protocols occurred. Instead of transparency, the BOP responded with heavy redactions, delays, and categorical refusals, even though Maxwell is one of the most high-profile federal inmates in modern history and her custody directly implicates public confidence in the system after Jeffrey Epstein’s death. Mother Jones argued that the BOP’s secrecy was not about safety, but about insulating itself from scrutiny after years of documented failures, incompetence, and credibility collapse tied to Epstein and his network.


    The lawsuit highlights how the BOP reflexively treats accountability as a threat rather than an obligation, especially when the case touches Epstein-related fallout. Mother Jones made clear that this was not a fishing expedition, but a narrow request aimed at understanding whether Maxwell received preferential treatment, whether political or institutional pressure influenced her placement, and whether the BOP was quietly rewriting its own narrative to avoid further embarrassment. The BOP’s resistance only reinforced suspicions, because routine transfers are normally documented, logged, and explainable. By forcing the issue into federal court, the lawsuit underscored a broader pattern in the Epstein-Maxwell saga: when transparency is most warranted, federal agencies choose silence, obstruction, and delay, daring the public to forget rather than proving they have nothing to hide.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Mother Jones Sues the Bureau of Prisons for Ghislaine Maxwell Records – Mother Jones
    Más Menos
    13 m
  • Congress Puts Columbia University On Notice Over Their Epstein Ties (1/16/26)

    Congress Puts Columbia University On Notice Over Their Epstein Ties (1/16/26)
    Jan 16 2026
    Jamie Raskin sent a pointed letter to Columbia University demanding answers about the institution’s historical ties to Jeffrey Epstein and whether the university had fully disclosed the extent of his involvement, influence, and access. The letter pressed Columbia on how Epstein was able to associate himself with the university, cultivate relationships with faculty and administrators, and leverage the institution’s prestige long after serious allegations about his conduct were widely known. Raskin questioned whether Columbia conducted adequate due diligence, whether any donations or benefits were accepted directly or indirectly, and how Epstein’s presence may have been normalized or concealed within academic circles. The tone of the letter made clear that this was not a casual inquiry but an accountability demand, rooted in the concern that elite institutions repeatedly failed to erect meaningful barriers against Epstein despite ample warning signs.

    Raskin’s letter also framed Columbia as part of a broader pattern in which powerful institutions insulated themselves with silence, procedural ambiguity, and selective memory. He emphasized that universities are not passive victims of association, but active gatekeepers whose decisions can legitimize predators and marginalize survivors. By demanding records, explanations, and transparency, Raskin signaled that Epstein’s academic enablers should not be treated as incidental footnotes to his crimes. The letter underscored that reputational laundering through academia was a key component of Epstein’s power and protection, and that Columbia’s answers would speak volumes about whether elite institutions are willing to confront their own role in that system. It was a warning shot that the era of “we didn’t know” defenses is no longer acceptable.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    11 m
  • Sean Hannity Gaslights Millions on Epstein While James Comer Looks the Other Way (1/16/26)

    Sean Hannity Gaslights Millions on Epstein While James Comer Looks the Other Way (1/16/26)
    Jan 16 2026
    During his interview with House Oversight Chair James Comer, Sean Hannity floated the bogus claim that Donald Trump was never on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane, presenting it as settled fact rather than a disputed assertion. Hannity didn’t hedge, qualify, or frame it as an open question. He stated it confidently, knowing full well that flight logs are incomplete, contested, and only part of a much larger evidentiary picture. The problem wasn’t just that the claim was misleading, it was that it functioned as narrative laundering in real time. Hannity used his platform to preemptively absolve Trump while discussing an investigation that is supposedly about transparency and accountability. By doing so, he turned what should have been a probing oversight conversation into a defensive media maneuver. It was less journalism than message control, dressed up as certainty.


    What made the moment especially telling was Comer’s silence. As the chair of an oversight committee tasked with following evidence wherever it leads, Comer had an obligation to correct the record or at least clarify the limits of what is known. He did neither. His failure to push back signaled political convenience over factual precision, reinforcing the perception that this investigation has guardrails depending on whose name comes up. Comer’s non-response allowed Hannity’s claim to harden into implied truth for the audience, despite the fact that flight logs are not exhaustive proof of absence and never have been. The silence spoke louder than a correction would have. In a scandal defined by selective scrutiny and protected figures, that moment exposed how quickly oversight can bend when media allies set the tone.






    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com




    source:

    Fox’s Sean Hannity claims Trump never flew on Epstein plane despite numerous flight log entries | The Independent
    Más Menos
    13 m
  • Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell And Her Version Of Events In The Lawsuit With Virginia (Part 4-5) (1/15/26)

    Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell And Her Version Of Events In The Lawsuit With Virginia (Part 4-5) (1/15/26)
    Jan 16 2026





    In the defamation lawsuit Giuffre v. Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell submitted a Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as part of her motion for summary judgment. This statement aimed to establish that there were no genuine disputes over key facts, thereby justifying a judgment in her favor without proceeding to trial. Maxwell's Rule 56.1 statement outlined her version of events, countering Virginia Giuffre's allegations that Maxwell had defamed her by denying involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking activities. The statement sought to demonstrate that Maxwell's public denials were not defamatory but rather responses to unfounded accusations.

    However, the court found that genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly concerning the truth or falsity of Maxwell's statements and her role in Epstein's activities. As a result, Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was denied, allowing the case to proceed to trial. This decision underscored the complexities involved in defamation cases, especially when intertwined with serious allegations of sexual misconduct and trafficking.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:


    Epstein Docs - DocumentCloud
    Más Menos
    31 m
adbl_web_global_use_to_activate_DT_webcro_1694_expandible_banner_T1