Episodes

  • Diddy Files a 100 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against NBCU/Peacock

    Diddy Files a 100 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against NBCU/Peacock
    Jan 22 2026
    Sean "Diddy" Combs has filed a $100 million defamation lawsuit against NBCUniversal, Peacock TV, and Ample Entertainment, alleging that their documentary, "Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy," contains false and malicious accusations. The lawsuit claims the documentary portrays Combs as a "monster" comparable to Jeffrey Epstein, accusing him of heinous crimes such as serial murder, rape of minors, and sex trafficking, without any credible evidence. Specific allegations include insinuations of Combs' involvement in the deaths of his ex-partner Kim Porter and rapper The Notorious B.I.G., as well as unfounded claims of sexual misconduct with minors. Combs' legal team argues that these baseless assertions have caused severe reputational and economic harm, and that the defendants prioritized sensationalism over journalistic integrity.

    The lawsuit emphasizes that the documentary advances unfounded conspiracy theories, relying on speculative interviews and discredited sources. Combs' attorneys assert that the defendants were aware of the falsehoods yet proceeded with broadcasting the documentary, thereby exploiting public interest for profit. They contend that this reckless dissemination of unverified information not only damages Combs' reputation but also jeopardizes his right to a fair trial, as he is currently awaiting trial on unrelated federal charges. Through this legal action, Combs seeks to hold the defendants accountable for the substantial harm caused by their actions.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Diddy launches $100m lawsuit against NBCUniversal over documentary... ahead of sex trafficking trial | Daily Mail Online
    Show more Show less
    13 mins
  • Diddy Scores A Victory In His Civil Lawsuit Battle Against April Lampros

    Diddy Scores A Victory In His Civil Lawsuit Battle Against April Lampros
    Jan 22 2026
    Diddy scored a significant partial win in April Lampros’s civil suit after a judge dismissed most of her claims—covering alleged rape, battery, and emotional distress from the 1990s—as time-barred by New York’s statute of limitations and lacking sufficient factual detail. Additionally, any claims against Bad Boy Records and Sony Music were dropped, narrowing the legal firestorm to focus almost exclusively on Combs himself.

    What’s left is a single active allegation under New York’s Gender‑Motivated Violence Protection Law. Lampros claims that in late 2000 or early 2001, Combs physically grabbed her and tried to force himself on her—a moment she says she resisted. With that as the only surviving allegation, both parties are now entering discovery. Diddy’s legal team sees the much narrower case as a major strategic win, while Lampros’s attorney emphasizes that the remaining claim keeps her pursuit of accountability alive.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    Diddy team claims legal win in April Lampros' sexual assault lawsuit
    Show more Show less
    11 mins
  • The Department Of Justice And Their Argument To Keep El Chapo Behind Bars (Part 26)

    The Department Of Justice And Their Argument To Keep El Chapo Behind Bars (Part 26)
    Jan 22 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)
    Show more Show less
    12 mins
  • The Department Of Justice And Their Argument To Keep El Chapo Behind Bars (Part 25)

    The Department Of Justice And Their Argument To Keep El Chapo Behind Bars (Part 25)
    Jan 21 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)
    Show more Show less
    11 mins
  • Why the Ghislaine Maxwell Transfer Feels Like Another Cover-Up (1/21/26)

    Why the Ghislaine Maxwell Transfer Feels Like Another Cover-Up (1/21/26)
    Jan 21 2026
    Outrage over Ghislaine Maxwell’s sudden transfer continues to intensify as the Department of Justice refuses to provide even the most basic explanations about why she was moved, who authorized it, and under what security or administrative rationale. For critics, the anger isn’t just about the transfer itself — it’s about the pattern it fits into. Maxwell is not a routine federal inmate; she is the sole convicted conspirator tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking network, a case already marred by secrecy, sealed records, and broken transparency promises. When the DOJ moves her quietly and then clamps down on information, it reinforces public suspicion that the system is still prioritizing institutional protection over accountability. Each day of silence fuels the belief that this was not a mundane bureaucratic decision, but a calculated move made without regard for public trust or the victims who were promised transparency.


    What has further inflamed the backlash is the DOJ’s absolute refusal to answer questions from Congress, journalists, or the public. No clear timeline, no stated justification, no acknowledgment of concern — just silence. That silence has become the story. Lawmakers are openly questioning whether the transfer was designed to limit access, control optics, or preempt future disclosures related to Epstein’s network. Survivors and advocates see it as another reminder that when it comes to Epstein-linked cases, the DOJ operates behind a wall of opacity that would never be tolerated in an ordinary prosecution. Instead of calming public concern, the DOJ’s stonewalling has done the opposite: it has turned the Maxwell transfer into yet another flashpoint in the growing belief that justice in the Epstein saga remains carefully managed, selectively transparent, and fundamentally untrustworthy.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Ghislaine Maxwell's cushy 'Camp Cupcake' prison deal - custom meals and unlimited loo roll - The Mirror
    Show more Show less
    17 mins
  • Six Percent Approval: America’s Verdict on the DOJ’s Epstein Cover-Up (1/21/26)

    Six Percent Approval: America’s Verdict on the DOJ’s Epstein Cover-Up (1/21/26)
    Jan 21 2026
    A brand-new CNN/SSRS poll shows overwhelming public dissatisfaction with how the Justice Department under the Trump administration has handled the release of documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. Only 6% of Americans say they’re satisfied with the amount of information released so far — even though Congress passed a law in late 2025 requiring the DOJ to disclose all unclassified Epstein-related files. The data reveal that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government is intentionally withholding information, a sentiment especially strong among Democrats and independents, though it crosses party lines. The low approval reflects frustration with heavy redactions, slow disclosure, and missed deadlines that have left less than a tiny fraction of the files public despite mounting calls for transparency.


    In a separate but related development, a large public installation appeared on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. around Epstein’s birthday: a replica of an alleged birthday card from Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein. The mock card, part of a protest art piece by an anonymous group, draws attention to the controversial relationship and the broader Epstein controversy. The artwork references a note reportedly found in Epstein’s “birthday book,” which Trump has denied writing, and invites visitors to leave messages criticizing the handling of the files and the administration’s response. It has become a focal point for discussion and protest, underscoring how the Epstein issue continues to resonate politically and culturally



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Six percent of Americans satisfied with amount of Epstein files released so far: Poll


    Giant Recreation of Birthday Message Trump Reportedly Sent to Epstein Displayed in D.C.
    Show more Show less
    16 mins
  • Sandringham Clears Its Rats and Rehouses a Two-Legged One Named Andrew (1/21/26)

    Sandringham Clears Its Rats and Rehouses a Two-Legged One Named Andrew (1/21/26)
    Jan 21 2026
    As workers continue preparing Marsh Farm on King Charles’s Sandringham estate for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s impending relocation, a pest control van from Command Pest Control was recently spotted at the property — a sign that staff are dealing with the kinds of rodents and other critters that often invade old country homes, especially in winter when rats and mice seek warmth indoors. Command Pest Control, which holds a Royal Warrant, specializes in removing unwanted pests like rats, mice, squirrels, and wasp nests, and sightings of the vehicle underscore the basic, unglamorous work involved in readying the modest five-bedroom farmhouse for the disgraced royal’s arrival.




    The moment is rich with unintended symbolism: as a man once enveloped in royal privilege is being moved into a far humbler estate residence, pest controllers are literally hunting rats at the place he’s set to occupy. That juxtaposition has not been lost on observers, who note the irony of a two-legged “rat” of scandal and controversy — Andrew, whose reputation has been shredded by his links to Jeffrey Epstein — being housed among four-legged rats, the kind property managers are actively trying to evict. It’s a vivid, almost satirical image of how drastically his circumstances have changed, from Windsor grandeur to rural pest preparation.





    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    Ratcatcher pest firm is spotted outside Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's new Sandringham home - while former prince rides horse near Royal Lodge as he prepares to move out | Daily Mail Online
    Show more Show less
    11 mins
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 23) (1/21/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 23) (1/21/26)
    Jan 21 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
    Show more Show less
    14 mins