Episodios

  • Court Mandates Leon Black Deposition in Jeffrey Epstein–Linked Bank of America Case (3/14/26)

    Court Mandates Leon Black Deposition in Jeffrey Epstein–Linked Bank of America Case (3/14/26)
    Mar 14 2026
    Billionaire financier Leon Black was ordered to sit for a deposition as part of a civil lawsuit brought by women who say they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein and who are now suing Bank of America for allegedly facilitating Epstein’s trafficking network. The lawsuit claims the bank failed to properly scrutinize suspicious financial activity tied to Epstein, including large payments that Black made to Epstein over several years. Those payments—reported to total more than $150 million between 2012 and 2017—were described by Black as compensation for tax and estate planning advice. Lawyers for the accusers argue that the money and related financial relationships helped sustain Epstein’s trafficking operation, making Black a critical witness in the broader effort to examine how Epstein’s financial network functioned.

    A federal judge ruled that Black must provide sworn testimony, though the deposition was briefly delayed and rescheduled for late March after his attorneys sought additional time, citing the possibility of settlement discussions in the case. The deposition is expected to last up to eight hours, with questioning divided between attorneys for Epstein’s accusers and lawyers representing Bank of America. Black has denied any knowledge of Epstein’s sex-trafficking crimes and maintains that his payments were solely for legitimate financial services. The lawsuit against the bank is part of a wider wave of litigation seeking accountability from financial institutions that allegedly handled Epstein’s accounts despite warning signs, following earlier settlements involving other major banks tied to Epstein’s financial dealings.


    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Leon Black, billionaire financier, to be deposed in Epstein victims' suit against Bank of America
    Más Menos
    11 m
  • Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 22-23) (3/14/26)

    Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 22-23) (3/14/26)
    Mar 14 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
    26 m
  • Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 19-21) (3/14/26)

    Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 19-21) (3/14/26)
    Mar 14 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
    56 m
  • Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 16-18) (3/14/26)

    Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 16-18) (3/14/26)
    Mar 14 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
    48 m
  • Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 13-15) (3/14/26)

    Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 13-15) (3/14/26)
    Mar 14 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
    38 m
  • Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 10-12) (3/12/26)

    Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 10-12) (3/12/26)
    Mar 14 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
    43 m
  • Epstein Survivors Blast The No Credible Evidence Claim Made By The FBI

    Epstein Survivors Blast The No Credible Evidence Claim Made By The FBI
    Mar 14 2026
    Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein were quick to condemn Kash Patel’s claim that there was “no credible evidence” of Epstein trafficking victims to anyone but himself. They pointed out that the public record alone undermines Patel’s statement. Virginia Giuffre’s sworn depositions, the Maxwell trial testimony, and multiple FBI interview summaries (FD-302s) make direct references to high-profile individuals. Survivors also reminded the public that members of Congress, including Rep. Thomas Massie, have already stated in hearings that victims named more than 20 powerful men—including billionaires, politicians, and a prince—to whom they were trafficked.

    They accused Patel of either ignoring or deliberately minimizing the mountain of corroborating evidence. Beyond official court documents and sworn testimony, survivors criticized him for deferring to prior DOJ conclusions without releasing the raw FBI reports or victim statements. They demanded transparency in the form of unsealed FD-302s, noting that nothing in Epstein’s controversial non-prosecution agreement prevents their disclosure. Survivors said Patel’s statement not only insults them but perpetuates the cover-up, and they called for immediate accountability.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Epstein Survivors Blast FBI Director Kash Patel For Claiming 'No Credible Information' Financier Trafficked Women to Others
    Más Menos
    17 m
  • Kash Me Outside: Kash Patel And His Crash Out During His Epstein Testimony

    Kash Me Outside: Kash Patel And His Crash Out During His Epstein Testimony
    Mar 14 2026
    Washington has long perfected the art of political theater, where outrage is loudly paraded before cameras only to evaporate when accountability is required. On the campaign trail, fiery speeches about corruption and justice come easy—rhetoric designed for applause, not action. Yet when those same figures sit under oath, the fire dies out, replaced by carefully hedged statements and dismissive legal jargon. It’s not about uncovering truth; it’s about protecting power.

    That’s the script Kash Patel followed to the letter. After crowing about Epstein’s crimes for political gain, he turned around and downplayed survivor testimony as “not credible” when speaking before the Senate. The hypocrisy couldn’t be clearer. What once served as an applause line became an inconvenient truth, quickly discarded in favor of denial. The mask slipped, the act collapsed, and what was revealed was not a defender of justice but yet another operator shielding the powerful under the guise of credibility.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    11 m