Episodios

  • The Department Of Justice And Their Argument To Keep El Chapo Behind Bars (Part 22)

    The Department Of Justice And Their Argument To Keep El Chapo Behind Bars (Part 22)
    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)
    Más Menos
    11 m
  • The Department Of Justice And Their Argument To Keep El Chapo Behind Bars (Part 21)

    The Department Of Justice And Their Argument To Keep El Chapo Behind Bars (Part 21)
    Jan 20 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)
    Más Menos
    11 m
  • When Mockery Replaces Justice: Scott Jennings and the Art of Epstein Minimization (1/20/26)

    When Mockery Replaces Justice: Scott Jennings and the Art of Epstein Minimization (1/20/26)
    Jan 20 2026
    Scott Jennings’ remark that people shouldn’t get their “knickers twisted” over Jeffrey Epstein was a textbook example of elite minimization dressed up as pundit smugness. By framing outrage over Epstein as emotional overreaction, Jennings reduced an industrial-scale sex-trafficking operation—one protected by wealth, power, and institutional failure—into a nuisance topic people should simply move past. His comment treated Epstein not as the epicenter of a still-unresolved criminal network, but as an inconvenient media obsession that distracts from more “serious” political discourse. In doing so, Jennings implicitly scolded the public for caring too much about unanswered questions, uncharged accomplices, and a justice system that visibly bent itself into knots to protect powerful people.


    What made the comment especially galling was its timing and tone. Jennings wasn’t speaking from ignorance; he was speaking from comfort—the comfort of someone untouched by the consequences of elite impunity. Telling people not to get upset about Epstein functions as narrative control, whether intentional or not: it pressures the public to accept silence, forget victims, and normalize the idea that some crimes are simply too awkward to fully confront. It echoed a broader media instinct to downplay Epstein precisely because sustained scrutiny threatens institutions, donors, and political figures across party lines. In that sense, Jennings’ flippant phrasing wasn’t just dismissive—it was revealing, a small but telling glimpse into how casually the ruling class expects the public to swallow unfinished justice and move on.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    CNN’s MAGA pundit Scott Jennings says people shouldn’t ‘get our knickers in a twist’ over Epstein’s crimes | The Independent
    Más Menos
    14 m
  • The Epstein Fade-Out: GOP Leaders Decide It’s Time to Move On (1/20/26)

    The Epstein Fade-Out: GOP Leaders Decide It’s Time to Move On (1/20/26)
    Jan 20 2026
    Across both chambers, GOP senators and House members have largely treated the Epstein scandal as a closed chapter, not because the facts are settled, but because pursuing them is politically inconvenient. Once the headlines faded and the DOJ began slow-walking disclosures, Republicans who once thundered about elite corruption abruptly lost their voices. There has been no sustained push for enforcement of transparency laws, no coordinated effort to compel document production, and no real appetite to challenge DOJ defiance in court or through budgetary leverage. Instead, Epstein has been quietly downgraded from a supposed moral outrage to an archival nuisance—something to reference occasionally for clicks or talking points, but never to pursue with the seriousness it demands. The silence is not accidental; it is a choice.

    What’s most damning is that this retreat comes despite clear evidence that the DOJ has resisted congressional oversight at every turn. GOP lawmakers have the procedural tools to force accountability—subpoenas, contempt votes, appropriations pressure, and public hearings—but they have refused to use them. Rather than confront an executive branch that is openly stonewalling, most Republicans have chosen institutional comfort over confrontation, signaling that their outrage only extended as far as it was politically safe. Epstein, once framed as proof of a corrupt ruling class, now exposes something far simpler and uglier: a bipartisan unwillingness to challenge power when it threatens entrenched interests. By moving on and letting the DOJ dictate the terms, GOP lawmakers have effectively endorsed the cover-up they once claimed to oppose.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:


    'No longer in my hands': How Hill Republicans stopped caring about DOJ releasing the Epstein files
    Más Menos
    16 m
  • Who Enforces the Enforcers? DOJ’s Epstein Transparency Rebellion (1/20/26)

    Who Enforces the Enforcers? DOJ’s Epstein Transparency Rebellion (1/20/26)
    Jan 20 2026
    The Department of Justice has treated the Epstein transparency law like a suggestion, not a mandate, openly slow-walking disclosures, drip-feeding partial releases, and hiding behind bureaucratic excuses while insisting it is somehow in “substantial compliance.” What makes this moment especially brazen is that the law was designed specifically to prevent exactly this kind of stonewalling—years of selective secrecy justified by vague claims of privacy, process, or administrative burden. Instead of honoring the spirit of transparency the statute demands, DOJ leadership has effectively rebranded noncompliance as discretion, acting as though Congress merely asked nicely for records tied to one of the most consequential sex-trafficking cases in modern history. The result is a hollowed-out law that exists on paper but is functionally neutered in practice, with the DOJ deciding unilaterally what the public and lawmakers are “allowed” to see.


    Even more alarming is the DOJ’s posture toward Congress itself, which amounts to a quiet but unmistakable assertion that lawmakers have no real power to compel enforcement. Through delays, narrow interpretations, and procedural defiance, the Department has sent a clear message: oversight ends where DOJ inconvenience begins. Rather than treating congressional authority as co-equal and binding, the DOJ has behaved like a sovereign entity policing itself, daring Congress to escalate while betting—correctly so far—that it won’t. This is not just institutional arrogance; it is a constitutional stress test, and the DOJ is openly testing how far it can go without consequence. In doing so, it has transformed the Epstein transparency law into a case study in how executive agencies can undermine legislation without ever formally violating it—by simply refusing to take it seriously and daring anyone to stop them.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protoniail.com



    source:

    DOJ says congressmen seeking Epstein files should butt out of Ghislaine Maxwell case | Courthouse News Service
    Más Menos
    15 m
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 22) (1/20/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 22) (1/20/26)
    Jan 20 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
    12 m
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 21) (1/20/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 21) (1/20/26)
    Jan 20 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
    23 m
  • Mega Edition: Billionaire Playboy's Club...A Memoir By Virginia Roberts (Part 3) (1/20/26)

    Mega Edition: Billionaire Playboy's Club...A Memoir By Virginia Roberts (Part 3) (1/20/26)
    Jan 20 2026
    Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s unpublished memoir The Billionaire’s Playboy Club recounts her recruitment into Jeffrey Epstein’s world as a 16-year-old working at Mar-a-Lago, where she says Ghislaine Maxwell lured her in with promises of opportunity and travel. The manuscript describes how she became trapped in Epstein’s orbit, allegedly forced into sexual encounters with powerful men, including Prince Andrew, and ferried across his properties in New York, Florida, and the Virgin Islands. Giuffre paints a detailed picture of coercion, psychological manipulation, and the disturbing normalization of exploitation within Epstein’s high-society circle.


    In this episode, we begin our journey through that memoir.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    Virgina Giuffre Billionaire's Playboy Club | DocumentCloud
    Más Menos
    41 m