Episodios

  • Bill Clinton Has Time for Everything Except His Epstein Deposition

    Bill Clinton Has Time for Everything Except His Epstein Deposition
    Feb 9 2026
    Bill Clinton continues to dodge a formal deposition about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein despite having ample time for public appearances, marathons, and speeches. The same lawmakers who claim that “no one is above the law” have shown no urgency in questioning the former president who welcomed Epstein to the White House seventeen times, accepted his seed money for the Clinton Foundation, and invited Ghislaine Maxwell to his daughter’s wedding. While they posture about accountability, their silence and inaction reveal a political double standard that shields their own. Clinton’s carefully managed image — complete with polished smiles and “I don’t recall” evasions — remains intact because those in power prefer the illusion of justice to the risk of truth.


    The spectacle has become political theater. Committees hold hearings, the media offers soft profiles, and the powerful continue to protect each other while victims are left waiting for real answers. Clinton’s absence from the witness chair is more than an oversight — it’s proof that justice in America operates on a sliding scale determined by status and influence. Every public event he attends is a reminder that accountability is optional for the elite, and every unasked question deepens the rot at the core of the system that claims to serve justice but exists only to preserve power.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    17 m
  • Disgraced Prince Andrew Loses All His Titles And Honors. Now What?

    Disgraced Prince Andrew Loses All His Titles And Honors. Now What?
    Feb 8 2026
    A royal expert has warned that the fallout surrounding Prince Andrew’s continued disgrace remains a major problem for King Charles III, raising questions about how the monarch intends to handle his brother’s tainted legacy. Despite being stripped of royal duties, Andrew’s association with Jeffrey Epstein continues to cast a long shadow over the family, undermining Charles’s attempts to modernize the monarchy and project moral authority. The expert suggests that as long as Andrew clings to any form of royal privilege, the institution risks appearing tone-deaf and unwilling to enforce real accountability.


    King Charles now faces a defining challenge in determining whether to draw a permanent line between the Crown and his scandal-plagued brother. If he fails to do so, the damage could extend beyond Andrew himself—eroding public trust in the monarchy’s integrity and its claim to moral leadership.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    24 m
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 4) (2/8/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 4) (2/8/26)
    Feb 8 2026
    In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell’s deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz’s defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors’ allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein’s secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.


    The deposition also addresses Dershowitz’s accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz’s narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.




    to contact me:

    EFTA00594390.pdf
    Más Menos
    11 m
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 3) (2/8/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 3) (2/8/26)
    Feb 8 2026
    In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell’s deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz’s defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors’ allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein’s secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.


    The deposition also addresses Dershowitz’s accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz’s narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.




    to contact me:

    EFTA00594390.pdf
    Más Menos
    13 m
  • Written Receipts: How Epstein’s Emails Caught Prince Andrew Lying (2/8/26)

    Written Receipts: How Epstein’s Emails Caught Prince Andrew Lying (2/8/26)
    Feb 8 2026
    The newly released emails between Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew directly contradict the central claims Andrew made during his disastrous Newsnight interview, where he insisted he had severed contact with Epstein years earlier and had no meaningful relationship after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. The correspondence shows sustained, friendly communication well beyond the timeframe Andrew publicly acknowledged, including coordination around meetings, travel logistics, and tone that reflects familiarity rather than estrangement. This is not casual or incidental contact; the emails demonstrate continuity, comfort, and mutual access. Andrew’s insistence that he had “nothing to do” with Epstein post-conviction collapses when placed alongside written evidence showing otherwise. The language used undercuts any claim of a reluctant or distant association. Instead, it paints a picture of an ongoing relationship that Andrew later tried to erase retroactively. The gap between what he said on camera and what he wrote privately is no longer debatable. It is documented.


    Even more damaging is how the emails dismantle Andrew’s explanation for the now-infamous 2010 meeting at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, which he framed as a one-time, honorable attempt to “end the friendship.” The correspondence shows no clean break, no finality, and no discomfort—only continuity before and after that meeting. This makes Andrew’s Newsnight narrative read less like confusion and more like deliberate misrepresentation. The emails also undermine his claims about memory lapses, timing, and lack of awareness by anchoring events to specific dates and exchanges he cannot plausibly deny. Taken together, the record shows that Andrew didn’t merely misstate details; he constructed a false storyline designed to minimize exposure once Epstein’s crimes became impossible to ignore. The emails prove he wasn’t distancing himself—he was managing optics. And once those private words are read alongside his public denials, the conclusion is unavoidable: Prince Andrew lied, plainly and repeatedly, in an interview meant to salvage his credibility.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Girls coming 'after school' and $5,000 cash floats: The full sordid truth about Andrew's wild NINE-DAY visit to Jeffrey Epstein's New York mansion | Daily Mail Online
    Más Menos
    18 m
  • Mega Edition: Epstein’s Role as The Broker Between Mossad, CIA, and American Billionaires (2/8/26)

    Mega Edition: Epstein’s Role as The Broker Between Mossad, CIA, and American Billionaires (2/8/26)
    Feb 8 2026
    Jeffrey Epstein’s saga was never just the story of a sex-trafficking billionaire; it was the story of how power, intelligence, and money fuse into a single machine of influence. Documents released by the House Oversight Committee and reporting from outlets such as Drop Site revealed that Epstein’s Manhattan apartment hosted figures like Yoni Koren, a senior Israeli intelligence officer tied to former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Leaked emails and calendar entries show wire transfers, coded errands, and meetings that overlapped with Barak’s dealings with former CIA Director Leon Panetta and other defense officials. These records—paired with years of silence from major media—suggest that Epstein operated as a broker of access, moving seamlessly between finance, technology, and national-security circles while prosecutors, politicians, and governments looked the other way.


    Behind the procedural delays and partisan noise in Washington lies the same motive that shielded Epstein in life: protection of the powerful. The stalled congressional vote to release the full, unredacted “Epstein files” reflects bipartisan fear of what the documents might confirm—that the scandal wasn’t an anomaly but a glimpse of how the modern intelligence economy actually works. Epstein’s homes, jets, and investments formed a web where blackmail, espionage, and profit overlapped. Whether he acted as asset or opportunist remains unproven, but the surviving records make clear that his network touched the highest levels of state and corporate power. What’s at stake in the fight over those files isn’t gossip—it’s the map of a system built to ensure that truth itself remains classified.



    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    30 m
  • 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