Episodios

  • Making Da' Band Jane Doe And Her Diddy Allegations (Part 1)

    Making Da' Band Jane Doe And Her Diddy Allegations (Part 1)
    Jan 23 2026
    Sean "Diddy" Combs, a prominent music mogul and entrepreneur, has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault spanning several decades. One such allegation involves a woman identified as Jane Doe, who claims she was assaulted by Combs during an event related to the MTV reality show Making the Band.BackgroundIn 2004, Jane Doe, then 19 years old, was a college student in Brooklyn. She met Combs during a promotional event for Making the Band, a reality show he produced that aimed to form a new music group.
    According to Jane Doe's lawsuit:
    • Invitation to Hotel Room: Combs invited her and a friend to his hotel room in Manhattan under the pretense of discussing potential opportunities in the music industry.
    • Unwanted Advances: Once in the room, Combs allegedly made unsolicited sexual advances, including inappropriate touching and attempts to kiss her.
    • Physical Resistance: Jane Doe resisted his advances, leading to a physical struggle where she was reportedly pushed onto the bed.
    • Assault: She alleges that Combs then sexually assaulted her despite her protests.
    Following the alleged incident, Jane Doe states she experienced significant emotional distress, including feelings of shame and humiliation. She also claims to have faced professional setbacks as a result of the assault.


    Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Combs, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged assault. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York


    This allegation is part of a series of accusations against Combs, with multiple individuals coming forward with claims of sexual assault and misconduct. Combs has denied these allegations, and his legal team has stated that he intends to defend himself against these claims.

    (commercial at 7:57)

    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    combs-da-band-photoshoot-complaint.pdf
    Más Menos
    12 m
  • Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 2) (1/23/26)

    Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 2) (1/23/26)
    Jan 23 2026
    In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild’s identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein’s representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case’s factual record


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    1027.pdf
    Más Menos
    15 m
  • Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 1) (1/23/26)

    Courtney Wild And Her Jeffrey Epstein Related Deposition From 2017 (Part 1) (1/23/26)
    Jan 23 2026
    In the 2017 video deposition of Courtney E. Wild, taken as part of the civil case Epstein v. Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Wild testified under oath about her personal background, criminal history, and relevant circumstances before the court began substantive questions. The early portion of the deposition focuses on Wild’s identity and personal history, including her marriage, family situation, and her own past convictions, including a drug trafficking conviction for which she was serving a sentence at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Florida at the time of the deposition. Wild was sworn in and answered basic biographical questions about her life prior to moving into the heart of the civil litigation against Epstein’s representatives and others, establishing her presence and credibility as a witness in the case’s factual record


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    1027.pdf
    Más Menos
    13 m
  • The House Oversight Committee Votes In Favor Of Holding The Clinton's In Contempt (1/23/26)

    The House Oversight Committee Votes In Favor Of Holding The Clinton's In Contempt (1/23/26)
    Jan 23 2026
    The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has voted to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress after both refused to appear for deposition in the panel’s investigation into their connections — direct or indirect — with convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and related matters. The committee approved contempt resolutions on largely party-line votes (34-8 for Bill Clinton and 28-15 for Hillary Clinton), with support from a handful of Democrats alongside Republicans, signaling rare bipartisan frustration over their non-compliance with lawful subpoenas issued more than five months earlier. Committee Chairman James Comer argued that the Clintons’ repeated refusals, delay tactics, and negotiated “interview offers” short of formal, transcribed testimony flout congressional authority and impede efforts to uncover potential ties between powerful figures and Epstein’s abuse network. The measures now head to the full House, where a vote is expected in coming weeks that could formally refer the contempt matters to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution — an unprecedented step against a former president and first lady

    The Clintons’ camp has pushed back fiercely, dismissing the subpoenas as legally invalid and politically motivated, arguing that they lack a legitimate legislative purpose and far exceed customary congressional oversight. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton submitted sworn declarations denying substantive knowledge of Epstein’s criminal conduct and offered alternative forms of cooperation, including interviews outside formal committee settings; those offers were rejected by Comer, who insisted on transcribed, on-the-record testimony. Critics of the contempt push — including some Democrats and legal analysts — contend that singling out the Clintons amid broader delays by others (including the Justice Department itself) reflects selective pressure and political theater rather than a clear path to accountability. Nonetheless, the advancing contempt proceedings underscore the escalating tension between Congress and powerful former officials in the long, messy unraveling of the Epstein saga.


    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    9 Democrats vote to hold Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress for evading Epstein testimony - POLITICO
    Más Menos
    15 m
  • Contempt and Consequence: The Oversight Committee And The Clinton Contempt Hearing (1/23/26)

    Contempt and Consequence: The Oversight Committee And The Clinton Contempt Hearing (1/23/26)
    Jan 23 2026
    Congress’s contempt hearing for Bill and Hillary Clinton marked a rare and explosive moment in the Epstein investigation, as lawmakers openly accused two of the most powerful figures in modern American politics of defying lawful subpoenas and obstructing congressional oversight. Committee members laid out a record of repeated refusals, delay tactics, and carefully negotiated alternatives that avoided sworn, transcribed testimony, arguing that the Clintons were attempting to place themselves above the very authority they once wielded. Chairman James Comer framed the hearing as a test of whether congressional subpoenas still carry weight when directed at political royalty, emphasizing that no former president or cabinet official is exempt from oversight. Several lawmakers expressed open frustration that months of negotiations had produced nothing but written declarations and off-the-record offers, while the investigation into Epstein’s network remained stalled. The hearing underscored how extraordinary it is for Congress to contemplate contempt proceedings against a former president and first lady, yet also how determined the committee had become to force testimony at last. What had once seemed politically untouchable was now formally on the record as potential contempt.

    The Clintons’ defenders denounced the hearing as political theater, arguing the subpoenas lacked legitimate legislative purpose and were designed to generate headlines rather than facts. But supporters of the contempt push countered that the spectacle existed only because the Clintons refused to comply with the same legal obligations imposed on ordinary witnesses. Lawmakers warned that allowing such defiance to stand would permanently weaken congressional authority and signal that elite figures can simply run out the clock. The hearing made clear that this fight is no longer about Epstein alone, but about whether oversight applies equally to the powerful and the forgotten. With contempt resolutions advancing toward a full House vote and possible DOJ referral, the proceedings transformed the Epstein investigation into a constitutional confrontation between Congress and political legacy. More than a procedural dispute, the hearing became a public reckoning over accountability, privilege, and the long shadow Epstein still casts over American institutions.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    House Oversight Committee recommends holding Clintons in contempt in Epstein probe - CBS News
    Más Menos
    17 m
  • Millions of Documents, Zero Urgency: The DOJ’s Epstein Excuse Tour (1/23/26)

    Millions of Documents, Zero Urgency: The DOJ’s Epstein Excuse Tour (1/23/26)
    Jan 23 2026
    The Department of Justice has repeatedly argued that it cannot meet the congressionally mandated deadline to release all Jeffrey Epstein–related documents because of the massive volume of material and the need to review and redact sensitive information, particularly the identities of alleged victims, before publication. DOJ officials have said that millions of documents are still under review and that hundreds of attorneys and over 400 reviewers are working through the backlog, but they have also acknowledged that only a tiny fraction—less than 1 percent—of the files have been made public well past the Dec. 19, 2025 statutory deadline. The department further resisted efforts by lawmakers to appoint a special master or independent monitor to oversee compliance, claiming that Congress’s cosponsors lack standing in the Maxwell criminal case and that judges do not have authority to compel faster action. In letters to the court, DOJ representatives have emphasized the logistical burden of the review and insisted the effort is ongoing, framing the delays as a byproduct of the sheer scale of the task rather than intentional obstruction.

    Critics have seized on the department’s complaints as evidence of willful slowness, selective release, and a prioritization of protecting powerful individuals over transparency and accountability. Lawmakers, victims’ advocates, and commentators have blasted the pace and extent of the release as insufficient to satisfy the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, and some have suggested the DOJ’s invocation of redaction and procedural burden is being used as a pretext to conceal politically sensitive material. Bipartisan pressure has grown, with proposals for audits of the department’s compliance and threats of contempt proceedings against top DOJ officials for failing to meet the law’s requirements. Even a federal judge acknowledged the lawmakers’ concerns were “undeniably important,” though he declined to intervene directly. The frustration stems from the perception that the department’s complaints about being bogged down are enabling continued opacity, retraumatizing survivors, and undermining public trust in the justice system’s willingness to confront Epstein’s network fully.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Top federal prosecutors ‘crushed’ by Epstein files workload - POLITICO
    Más Menos
    18 m
  • Mega Edition: Will Prince Andrew Face Legal Consequences Amid The Epstein Fallout? (1/22/26)

    Mega Edition: Will Prince Andrew Face Legal Consequences Amid The Epstein Fallout? (1/22/26)
    Jan 23 2026
    The UK’s Metropolitan Police Service (Met) is now “actively looking” into fresh allegations that Prince Andrew allegedly used a taxpayer-funded police bodyguard to obtain the U.S. Social Security number and date of birth of his accuser, Virginia Giuffre — apparently to dig up “dirt” on her. These new allegations arise from leaked emails and Giuffre’s recently published posthumous memoir, and they have reignited calls for a full criminal inquiry in the UK after previous investigations by the Met opted not to open one. Sources suggest that if evidence is found that the royal improperly sought to direct or influence police resources, then the offence of misconduct in public office could be in play.

    Meanwhile, in the United States and in political circles, pressure is building for action — though no formal prosecution has yet been confirmed. U.S. lawmakers such as Nancy Mace have publicly demanded that any potential crimes by Prince Andrew on U.S. soil be pursued, and parliamentarians in the UK are calling for a mechanism to strip him of titles and privileges as accountability ramps up. The combination of renewed documentary claims, political uproar, and active investigation means that this may no longer be purely a reputational or civil matter — the threshold for possible criminal exposure appears to be closer than at any time in recent years.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Could Prince Andrew ever be prosecuted over his links to Jeffrey Epstein? | The Independent
    Más Menos
    30 m
  • Mega Edition: Prince Andrew And Jeffrey Epstein And The Bombshell New Emails (1/23/26)

    Mega Edition: Prince Andrew And Jeffrey Epstein And The Bombshell New Emails (1/23/26)
    Jan 23 2026
    In newly surfaced emails following the publication of a photograph linking Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Virginia Giuffre, Andrew appears to have communicated with Jeffrey Epstein in a tone of solidarity rather than distance. On February 28, 2011, the day after the photo was made public, he reportedly wrote to Epstein: “Don’t worry about me! It would seem we are in this together and will have to rise above it.” He also urged Epstein to “keep in close touch” and ominously added, “we’ll play some more soon!!!!” — a line that strongly undermines Andrew’s repeated claims that he severed ties with Epstein in December 2010.

    These messages cast Andrew’s denials of continuing association in a starkly different light, suggesting instead complicity or at least an unwillingness to genuinely distance himself. Rather than distancing, his language portrays a desire to jointly weather scandal and maintain a shared alliance — insinuating that he viewed their relationship as ongoing and durable, even in crisis. His use of phrases like “in this together” and talk of “playing more” with someone later convicted of orchestrating a vast trafficking enterprise projects callousness and entitlement, exposing not just personal cowardice but a deeply troubling willingness to remain entwined with criminal misconduct.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    34 m