Episodios

  • Kathryn Ruemmler Resigns After Epstein Documents Surface New Details (2/15/26)

    Kathryn Ruemmler Resigns After Epstein Documents Surface New Details (2/15/26)
    Feb 15 2026
    Kathryn “Kathy” Ruemmler — the Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel at Goldman Sachs and a former White House counsel — announced her resignation effective June 30, 2026 after newly released Department of Justice documents made public details of her relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The disclosures included emails showing she exchanged friendly messages with Epstein over several years, accepted expensive gifts from him, and at times referred to him with personal nicknames, which sparked intense media and public backlash and raised questions about her judgment and ties to him. Facing mounting scrutiny over those connections, Ruemmler concluded the attention had become too distracting for the firm, and she chose to step down.


    Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon said he respected her decision and praised her contributions, but the controversy surrounding her Epstein-related correspondence made her position untenable. The resignation followed weeks of reporting after the DOJ’s release of more than 3 million pages of Epstein-related records that flagged Ruemmler’s communications and gifts — a relationship she previously described as professional — and ultimately intensified internal and external pressure for her departure.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Jeffrey Epstein gave her a $9,350 handbag, but did Goldman Sachs' departing top lawyer violate any rules? | Reuters
    Más Menos
    16 m
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 13) (2/15/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 13) (2/15/26)
    Feb 15 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
    12 m
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 12) (2/15/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 12) (2/15/26)
    Feb 15 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
  • Mega Edition: Les Wexner's Best Friend Was Jeffrey Epstein...Until He Forgot Who He Was (2/15/26)

    Mega Edition: Les Wexner's Best Friend Was Jeffrey Epstein...Until He Forgot Who He Was (2/15/26)
    Feb 15 2026
    Les Wexner’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was not casual, fleeting, or peripheral. It was foundational. Wexner, the billionaire founder of L Brands and longtime head of Victoria’s Secret, handed Epstein extraordinary financial authority in the late 1980s, granting him sweeping power of attorney over his fortune—an almost unheard-of concession for a man with no formal wealth management credentials and a murky background. Epstein was not just an adviser; he was embedded. He controlled Wexner’s money, managed properties, and reportedly inserted himself into the culture of Wexner’s corporate empire, particularly as it related to the Victoria’s Secret modeling world that conveniently overlapped with Epstein’s trafficking pipeline. The transfer of a Manhattan townhouse—one of the largest private residences in the city—to Epstein for a nominal sum remains one of the most glaring symbols of that patronage. For years, Wexner allowed Epstein to operate under his name and prestige, giving Epstein the legitimacy that opened doors in finance, academia, politics, and philanthropy. Epstein’s entire aura of elite credibility can be traced in large part to the halo effect of Wexner’s wealth and status.


    After Epstein’s 2006 arrest and especially following the 2019 federal charges, Wexner abruptly attempted to recast himself as a victim—claiming Epstein had betrayed him, stolen from him, and misled him. He publicly severed ties, issued statements of regret, and emphasized that Epstein had been removed from his financial role years earlier. But that narrative strains credibility. Wexner was not an unsophisticated investor duped by a charming con man; he was one of the most powerful retail magnates in America with access to the best legal and financial minds in the world. The idea that Epstein could operate for years under his authority without scrutiny reflects either willful blindness or a level of negligence that borders on complicity. Wexner’s late-stage distancing felt less like moral clarity and more like reputational triage once the full scope of Epstein’s crimes became undeniable. His patronage built Epstein’s empire. His disavowal came only after the empire collapsed in public view.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    43 m
  • Mega Edition: Les Wexner, The Epstein Accusations And The Built In Escape Hatch (2/15/26)

    Mega Edition: Les Wexner, The Epstein Accusations And The Built In Escape Hatch (2/15/26)
    Feb 15 2026
    Leslie Wexner, the billionaire founder of L Brands (which once included Victoria’s Secret), has publicly claimed that Jeffrey Epstein betrayed his trust by misappropriating vast sums of money and engaging in unauthorized financial dealings on his behalf. According to Wexner’s account, Epstein was given broad authority over parts of his financial and personal affairs in the 1990s and early 2000s, which he later said Epstein exploited for personal gain. Wexner has suggested that Epstein used that trust to essentially enrich himself—reportedly diverting assets and profiting from deals without clear documentation or approval. This purported betrayal, in Wexner’s telling, was one of the factors that ultimately ended Epstein’s professional relationship with him. Wexner has characterized the financial conduct as deceitful and exploitative, suggesting Epstein’s financial acumen was a smokescreen for self-enrichment at Wexner’s expense.

    However, a skeptical reading of this narrative raises several unresolved questions and inconsistencies. For one, some details about the scope and mechanics of the alleged financial misconduct remain vague or unverified in public records, leading observers to wonder whether the claims reflect specific documented thefts or a broader, more generalized sense of “being cheated.” Epstein today is often portrayed as having inflated his financial expertise; this has led some analysts to speculate that any discrepancies in Wexner’s accounts might stem less from theft and more from sloppy bookkeeping, mutual misunderstanding, or projection after the relationship soured. Additionally, because Wexner’s statements have sometimes appeared defensive or self-serving—emphasizing his own victimization—the possibility arises that the narrative simplifies or amplifies elements of the relationship to deflect scrutiny from his judgment in empowering Epstein in the first place. Until more concrete evidence is produced, the precise nature and extent of any alleged financial misconduct by Epstein toward Wexner remains a subject of debate rather than settled fact.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    38 m
  • Mega Edition: Bill Gates And The Public Relations Tour After The Epstein Revelations (2/15/26)

    Mega Edition: Bill Gates And The Public Relations Tour After The Epstein Revelations (2/15/26)
    Feb 15 2026
    Over the past several years, Bill Gates has embarked on a media tour of sorts, sitting down with outlets like PBS, CNN, and other major networks in an effort to explain why he maintained contact with Jeffrey Epstein even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor. In interview after interview, Gates acknowledged that meeting with Epstein was a “mistake,” often repeating that he regretted the association and that there was no philanthropic outcome from their discussions. Yet the explanations consistently raised more questions than they answered. Gates initially suggested the meetings were centered around global health and charitable ambitions, but reporting later revealed multiple in-person visits to Epstein’s townhouse in New York, including at least one after his divorce announcement. The narrative that Epstein was simply a misguided gateway to philanthropic networking strained credibility, particularly given Epstein’s well-known status as a convicted sex offender by the time many of these meetings occurred.


    What ultimately undermined Gates’ attempts to contain the fallout was the shifting tone and evolving details across his public statements. In some interviews, he minimized the frequency of contact; in others, he admitted the meetings occurred several times. He framed the relationship as purely professional, yet he could not convincingly articulate what tangible benefit came from engaging Epstein at all. The repeated refrain of “it was a mistake” began to sound less like transparency and more like damage control. For critics, the issue was not simply that Gates met Epstein—it was that a billionaire with vast resources and global influence could not provide a clear, consistent account of why he chose to align, even briefly, with a man whose crimes were already public knowledge. The interviews, rather than resolving the controversy, reinforced a perception that the full story remains incomplete.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    1 h y 9 m
  • Mega Edition: Leon Black And the Motion To Hit Wigdor/Jeanne Christensen With Sanctions (Part 3-4) (2/15/26)

    Mega Edition: Leon Black And the Motion To Hit Wigdor/Jeanne Christensen With Sanctions (Part 3-4) (2/15/26)
    Feb 15 2026
    In Case No. 1:23-cv-06418, defendant Leon Black filed a memorandum supporting his motion for sanctions against Wigdor LLP and attorney Jeanne Christensen. Black contends that the plaintiff's legal team pursued baseless claims, lacking factual and legal merit, with the intent to damage his reputation and coerce a settlement. He argues that their actions constitute an abuse of the judicial process, warranting sanctions to deter such conduct and uphold the integrity of the court.

    Black's memorandum details instances where he believes Wigdor LLP and Christensen failed to conduct adequate investigations before filing the lawsuit, resulting in frivolous and defamatory allegations. He asserts that their behavior violates professional conduct standards and has caused him significant harm. Consequently, Black requests that the court impose appropriate sanctions, including financial penalties and disciplinary measures, to prevent similar misconduct in the future.


    (commercial at 7:46)

    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.54.0.pdf
    Más Menos
    23 m
  • Mega Edition: Leon Black And the Motion To Hit Wigdor/Jeanne Christensen With Sanctions (Part 1-2) (2/15/26)

    Mega Edition: Leon Black And the Motion To Hit Wigdor/Jeanne Christensen With Sanctions (Part 1-2) (2/15/26)
    Feb 15 2026
    In Case No. 1:23-cv-06418, defendant Leon Black filed a memorandum supporting his motion for sanctions against Wigdor LLP and attorney Jeanne Christensen. Black contends that the plaintiff's legal team pursued baseless claims, lacking factual and legal merit, with the intent to damage his reputation and coerce a settlement. He argues that their actions constitute an abuse of the judicial process, warranting sanctions to deter such conduct and uphold the integrity of the court.

    Black's memorandum details instances where he believes Wigdor LLP and Christensen failed to conduct adequate investigations before filing the lawsuit, resulting in frivolous and defamatory allegations. He asserts that their behavior violates professional conduct standards and has caused him significant harm. Consequently, Black requests that the court impose appropriate sanctions, including financial penalties and disciplinary measures, to prevent similar misconduct in the future.


    (commercial at 7:46)

    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.54.0.pdf
    Más Menos
    25 m