Episodes

  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 10) (2/14/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 10) (2/14/26)
    Feb 14 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
    Show more Show less
    11 mins
  • The Hallowed Halls Of Academia And The Epstein Reckoning That's On The Way (2/14/26)

    The Hallowed Halls Of Academia And The Epstein Reckoning That's On The Way (2/14/26)
    Feb 14 2026
    The newest tranche of documents from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Epstein Files shows that Jeffrey Epstein’s reach into academia was wider than previously understood, revealing communications and interactions between the disgraced financier and faculty, administrators, and fundraisers at major universities. Emails and records include discussions about potential donations, academic projects, and introductions to other scholars, with figures at institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and Bard College appearing in the files. At Harvard, for example, correspondence shows some faculty and leaders engaging with Epstein even after his 2008 conviction, while at Yale, two professors were named — one of whom has been removed from teaching while the university reviews his contact with Epstein. The documents illustrate how Epstein positioned himself as a potential benefactor to researchers and institutions, often offering a quicker route to funding than federal grants and prompting criticism about ethical compromises made in pursuit of private money.


    At Bard College, longtime president Leon Botstein’s name appears extensively in the files, with emails showing repeated contact with Epstein over several years regarding fundraising and events; these revelations have sparked student dismay and scrutiny of how the college handled the relationship. Other universities and scholars mentioned in the broader Epstein Files — including faculty ties at Ohio State University indirectly through connections like donors or trustees — reflect the broader trend of elite academic figures maintaining some form of correspondence with Epstein, sometimes long after his criminal conduct was public. Collectively, the disclosures raise questions about the influence of wealthy private donors on higher education and the oversight universities exercised when engaging with Epstein and his network.



    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Colleges face scrutiny over Epstein connections
    Show more Show less
    16 mins
  • Mega Edition: Judge Hippler's Order Denying Kohberger's Frank's Hearing Request (Part 5-6) (2/14/26)

    Mega Edition: Judge Hippler's Order Denying Kohberger's Frank's Hearing Request (Part 5-6) (2/14/26)
    Feb 14 2026
    In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defendant, Bryan C. Kohberger, filed a motion requesting a Franks hearing, aiming to challenge the validity of the search warrant affidavits by alleging intentional or reckless false statements or omissions by law enforcement. After thorough consideration, the court denied this motion on February 19, 2025, concluding that the defendant did not meet the necessary burden to warrant such a hearing. Specifically, the court found insufficient evidence to suggest that any false statements or omissions were made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth in the affidavits supporting the search warrants.


    Additionally, the defense had submitted multiple motions to suppress evidence obtained through various search warrants, including those related to AT&T, Google, USB, Apple, Amazon, arrest warrants, and searches conducted in Pennsylvania and Idaho. These motions were also denied by the court. In its ruling, the court determined that the search warrants in question were supported by probable cause and that the evidence obtained was lawfully acquired. Consequently, all challenged evidence remains admissible in the ongoing proceedings against Mr. Kohberger.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    021925-Order-Defedants-Moton-Franks-Hearing.pdf
    Show more Show less
    34 mins
  • Mega Edition: Judge Hippler's Order Denying Kohberger's Frank's Hearing Request (Part 3-4) (2/14/26)

    Mega Edition: Judge Hippler's Order Denying Kohberger's Frank's Hearing Request (Part 3-4) (2/14/26)
    Feb 14 2026
    In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defendant, Bryan C. Kohberger, filed a motion requesting a Franks hearing, aiming to challenge the validity of the search warrant affidavits by alleging intentional or reckless false statements or omissions by law enforcement. After thorough consideration, the court denied this motion on February 19, 2025, concluding that the defendant did not meet the necessary burden to warrant such a hearing. Specifically, the court found insufficient evidence to suggest that any false statements or omissions were made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth in the affidavits supporting the search warrants.


    Additionally, the defense had submitted multiple motions to suppress evidence obtained through various search warrants, including those related to AT&T, Google, USB, Apple, Amazon, arrest warrants, and searches conducted in Pennsylvania and Idaho. These motions were also denied by the court. In its ruling, the court determined that the search warrants in question were supported by probable cause and that the evidence obtained was lawfully acquired. Consequently, all challenged evidence remains admissible in the ongoing proceedings against Mr. Kohberger.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    021925-Order-Defedants-Moton-Franks-Hearing.pdf
    Show more Show less
    24 mins
  • Mega Edition: Judge Hippler's Order Denying Kohberger's Frank's Hearing Request (Part 1-2) (2/13/26)

    Mega Edition: Judge Hippler's Order Denying Kohberger's Frank's Hearing Request (Part 1-2) (2/13/26)
    Feb 14 2026
    In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defendant, Bryan C. Kohberger, filed a motion requesting a Franks hearing, aiming to challenge the validity of the search warrant affidavits by alleging intentional or reckless false statements or omissions by law enforcement. After thorough consideration, the court denied this motion on February 19, 2025, concluding that the defendant did not meet the necessary burden to warrant such a hearing. Specifically, the court found insufficient evidence to suggest that any false statements or omissions were made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth in the affidavits supporting the search warrants.


    Additionally, the defense had submitted multiple motions to suppress evidence obtained through various search warrants, including those related to AT&T, Google, USB, Apple, Amazon, arrest warrants, and searches conducted in Pennsylvania and Idaho. These motions were also denied by the court. In its ruling, the court determined that the search warrants in question were supported by probable cause and that the evidence obtained was lawfully acquired. Consequently, all challenged evidence remains admissible in the ongoing proceedings against Mr. Kohberger.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    021925-Order-Defedants-Moton-Franks-Hearing.pdf
    Show more Show less
    25 mins
  • Mega Edition: It's Time We Talk About Jeffrey Epstein's Zorro Ranch (2/14/26)

    Mega Edition: It's Time We Talk About Jeffrey Epstein's Zorro Ranch (2/14/26)
    Feb 14 2026
    Despite being one of Jeffrey Epstein’s most notorious properties, Zorro Ranch was never meaningfully searched, raided, or treated as a serious crime scene by New Mexico authorities. While Epstein’s residences in Florida, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands drew law-enforcement attention, Zorro Ranch—an isolated, sprawling compound repeatedly named by victims and witnesses—was effectively ignored. There was no comprehensive forensic sweep, no coordinated execution of search warrants during the height of the investigation, and no sustained effort to identify potential victims, associates, or criminal activity tied to the property. This omission is especially striking given the volume of allegations placing Epstein and underage girls at the ranch over multiple years, as well as its remote nature, which would have made it an ideal site for concealed criminal conduct.

    Equally troubling is the fact that New Mexico never conducted a serious, standalone investigation into Jeffrey Epstein himself. State and local authorities largely deferred, treating Epstein as someone else’s problem and relying on federal action that never fully materialized while he was alive. No grand jury was convened in New Mexico, no aggressive victim-outreach campaign was launched, and no public accounting was ever given for why such a high-profile location tied to a serial abuser escaped scrutiny. The result is a glaring accountability gap: a major Epstein crime scene left untouched, potential evidence lost to time, and an entire state effectively opting out of confronting one of the most significant criminal enterprises of the modern era.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Show more Show less
    43 mins
  • Mega Edition: Prince Andrew, The Picture With Virginia And Socialite Who Denies That It's Real (2/13/26)

    Mega Edition: Prince Andrew, The Picture With Virginia And Socialite Who Denies That It's Real (2/13/26)
    Feb 14 2026
    Victoria Hervey’s insistence that the photograph showing Jeffrey Epstein with Virginia Roberts is fake is not just reckless—it’s willfully dishonest in the face of established facts. Hervey has repeatedly floated conspiracy-tinged claims about the image being staged or manipulated, despite having no credible evidence to support that assertion. What makes her commentary particularly absurd is that it ignores sworn statements and documented admissions from the very people involved. This isn’t skepticism rooted in evidence; it’s denial dressed up as confidence, delivered with the casual arrogance of someone who has decided her opinion outweighs the record. In doing so, Hervey isn’t “asking questions”—she’s laundering doubt on behalf of a narrative that seeks to undermine victims by attacking proof.


    Prince Andrew also attempted to cast doubt on the authenticity of the photograph showing Jeffrey Epstein with Virginia Roberts, despite the fact that the image had already been accepted as real by those at the center of the case. In his public denials and later explanations, Andrew leaned into implausible technical objections and vague insinuations rather than confronting the substance of what the photo represented. This strategy fit a broader pattern of evasion—question the evidence just enough to muddy the water, even when the record doesn’t support the doubt. What made Andrew’s stance especially hollow was that he was questioning a photograph that Ghislaine Maxwell had confirmed as genuine and that Epstein himself never denied. Rather than offering clarity, Andrew’s attempt to discredit the image only reinforced the perception that denial, not truth, was his primary defense.





    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Show more Show less
    51 mins
  • Jeffrey Epstein...The King Of Slime

    Jeffrey Epstein...The King Of Slime
    Feb 14 2026
    Jeffrey Epstein earned the reputation as the proverbial king of slime because he thrived in the moral runoff of elite power, operating where money, secrecy, and exploitation overlapped. He attached himself to institutions, governments, financiers, academics, and royalty not through merit, but through usefulness, insinuation, and leverage. Epstein cultivated access by positioning himself as a fixer, a gatekeeper, and a discreet problem-solver for powerful people who wanted favors without fingerprints. He trafficked in secrets, introductions, and kompromat, making himself indispensable to those who feared exposure or craved influence. His wealth was opaque, his credentials dubious, yet doors opened for him everywhere because he knew how to flatter egos and exploit appetites. Epstein did not need legitimacy in the traditional sense; he borrowed it from the people and institutions willing to stand next to him. Like slime, he spread quietly, coating everything he touched while remaining difficult to fully grasp or contain. His power came not from respect, but from proximity to those who had everything to lose.


    What made Epstein especially corrosive was that he survived precisely because so many respectable systems absorbed and normalized him. Banks overlooked red flags, universities accepted donations, politicians took meetings, and law enforcement deferred when pressure was applied. Even after his criminality was publicly exposed, Epstein continued to move freely among elites, protected by legal deals, professional enablers, and a culture that treated him as an inconvenience rather than a threat. He embodied a kind of moral decay where exploitation was tolerated so long as it was profitable or politically inconvenient to confront. Epstein was not an aberration at the edge of society; he was a product of its worst incentives, thriving in spaces where accountability dissolved on contact with power. Like slime, he did not create the rot, but he fed on it and accelerated it. His story endures because it reveals how easily entire systems will debase themselves to protect the powerful, even when the cost is measured in human lives.









    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Show more Show less
    22 mins