Episodios

  • Power Protects Power: Nancy Pelosi’s Backroom Rebuke Over the Epstein Subpoenas (1/26/26)

    Power Protects Power: Nancy Pelosi’s Backroom Rebuke Over the Epstein Subpoenas (1/26/26)
    Jan 26 2026
    Nancy Pelosi’s reaction to her own party voting to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt was less about principle and more about protecting power. Instead of defending the authority of Congress or the right of the Oversight Committee to enforce subpoenas, Pelosi reportedly scolded Democratic members for daring to treat the Clintons like any other witnesses. Her message was unmistakable: some people are simply too important to be subjected to the same rules as everyone else. By warning lawmakers that they should have waited and by dismissing the contempt vote as a mistake, Pelosi wasn’t defending procedure — she was reinforcing the idea that the Clintons remain untouchable inside the Democratic hierarchy, even when they refuse lawful subpoenas tied to one of the largest sex-trafficking scandals in modern history.

    The episode exposed a deeper hypocrisy that Pelosi never addressed. For years, Democrats — including Pelosi herself — championed contempt proceedings against Trump officials as a sacred defense of congressional authority. But when that same authority was aimed at the Clintons, suddenly restraint, patience, and party unity became more important than accountability. Pelosi’s scolding wasn’t about fairness or law; it was about damage control, shielding legacy figures whose testimony could reopen politically explosive questions about Epstein, elite protection, and institutional failure. In doing so, she sent a clear signal to rank-and-file Democrats: accountability is mandatory for outsiders, but optional for the powerful, especially when their last name is Clinton.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Exclusive: Pelosi privately blasts Democrats for vote to hold Clintons in contempt in Epstein probe | CNN Politics
    Más Menos
    24 m
  • Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 10) (1/26/26)

    Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 10) (1/26/26)
    Jan 26 2026
    In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild’s identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein’s representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case’s factual record


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    1027.pdf
    Más Menos
    11 m
  • Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 9) (1/26/26)

    Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 9) (1/26/26)
    Jan 26 2026
    In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild’s identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein’s representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case’s factual record


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    1027.pdf
    Más Menos
    15 m
  • Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 8) (1/26/26)

    Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 8) (1/26/26)
    Jan 26 2026
    In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild’s identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein’s representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case’s factual record


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    1027.pdf
    Más Menos
    13 m
  • Mega Edition: Judge Rakoff Makes A Ruling In The Survivors Suit Against USVI (Part 5-7) (1/26/26)

    Mega Edition: Judge Rakoff Makes A Ruling In The Survivors Suit Against USVI (Part 5-7) (1/26/26)
    Jan 26 2026
    Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.

    The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.

    The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
    Más Menos
    33 m
  • Mega Edition: Judge Rakoff Makes A Ruling In The Survivors Suit Against USVI (Part 3-4) (1/25/26)

    Mega Edition: Judge Rakoff Makes A Ruling In The Survivors Suit Against USVI (Part 3-4) (1/25/26)
    Jan 26 2026
    Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.

    The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.

    The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
    Más Menos
    25 m
  • Mega Edition: Judge Rakoff Makes A Ruling In The Survivors Suit Against USVI (Part 1-2) (1/25/26)

    Mega Edition: Judge Rakoff Makes A Ruling In The Survivors Suit Against USVI (Part 1-2) (1/25/26)
    Jan 26 2026
    Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.

    The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.

    The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
    Más Menos
    25 m
  • The United States Versus Vicente "Mayito" Zambada And The Sinaloa Cartel (Part 8)

    The United States Versus Vicente "Mayito" Zambada And The Sinaloa Cartel (Part 8)
    Jan 26 2026
    Vicente Zambada Niebla, also known as "El Vicentillo," is a prominent figure in Mexican organized crime, specifically associated with the Sinaloa Cartel. Born on February 14, 1975, in Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico, he is the son of Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, one of the top leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel. Vicente Zambada rose through the ranks within the cartel and became one of its key operatives.

    Zambada was implicated in various drug trafficking activities, including coordinating the transportation and distribution of narcotics, primarily cocaine and marijuana, into the United States. His role within the cartel involved managing logistics, negotiating with other criminal organizations, and overseeing drug shipments.

    In February 2009, Vicente Zambada was arrested by Mexican authorities in Mexico City. His arrest was a significant blow to the Sinaloa Cartel, as he was considered one of its highest-ranking members at the time. Zambada's capture highlighted the ongoing efforts by law enforcement to dismantle the cartel's leadership structure.

    During his trial in the United States, Zambada provided extensive testimony against other members of the Sinaloa Cartel, including his own father, Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, as well as Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, the infamous former leader of the cartel. His cooperation with U.S. authorities led to the conviction of numerous cartel members and provided valuable insights into the inner workings of the organization.

    Throughout the trial, Zambada's testimony shed light on the violence, corruption, and vast network of drug trafficking that characterized the Sinaloa Cartel's operations. His insights were crucial in building cases against other cartel leaders and dismantling key aspects of their criminal enterprise.

    One notable quote from Vicente Zambada during his trial emphasized the pervasive influence of the cartel: "The organization has more power than the government because the government itself is corrupt." This statement underscores the extent to which organized crime has infiltrated various institutions in Mexico.

    In October 2019, Vicente Zambada was sentenced to 15 years in prison by a U.S. federal court for his involvement in drug trafficking. Despite his cooperation with authorities, Zambada still faced significant legal consequences for his criminal activities.

    Then in 2023, that cooperation with the United States Government came to an end after a visit from a known Sinaloan sponsored lawyer.


    In this episode, we begin our exploration of the case brought by the United States of America against Vicente Zambada and what has transpired since.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:


    show_temp-3.pl-1.pdf (wired.com)
    Más Menos
    13 m