Episodes

  • Congress Questions Epstein’s Longtime Accountant About His Finances (3/13/26)

    Congress Questions Epstein’s Longtime Accountant About His Finances (3/13/26)
    Mar 13 2026
    The House Oversight Committee deposed Richard Kahn, Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime accountant, as part of its ongoing congressional investigation into Epstein’s finances and the broader network surrounding his operations. During the deposition, Kahn told lawmakers that he never saw any “red flags” in Epstein’s financial records that suggested sex trafficking or abuse. He said his relationship with Epstein was strictly professional and that he never witnessed misconduct or received complaints from victims while working for him. Kahn acknowledged that Epstein gave gifts to both men and women, but he characterized those expenses as a very small portion of Epstein’s overall spending and said they did not appear suspicious at the time. He also told investigators that Epstein had claimed his 2006 arrest in Florida was a mistake and that he did not realize the girls involved were underage, an explanation Kahn said he believed at the time. Kahn added that if he had known the full extent of Epstein’s crimes, he would have immediately ended his professional relationship with him.

    Kahn served as Epstein’s accountant for more than a decade and was deeply involved in managing the financier’s complex financial structure, which included numerous bank accounts, shell companies, and trusts. After Epstein’s death in 2019, Kahn and Epstein’s longtime attorney Darren Indyke became co-executors of his estate, which was initially valued at roughly $650 million before being reduced by settlements paid to victims. Some victims have alleged in lawsuits that Kahn and Indyke helped create and manage the financial infrastructure that allowed Epstein’s trafficking operation to function, including handling cash withdrawals and structuring accounts used within Epstein’s network. Both men have denied wrongdoing, and a recent class-action lawsuit brought by victims was settled for at least $25 million without any admission of liability. Lawmakers say the deposition could provide insight into how Epstein financed his lifestyle and payments to victims, as well as why investigators and prosecutors never questioned key financial figures like Kahn during earlier federal investigations into Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    Epstein's accountant says he didn't see any 'red flags' for abuse, trafficking - ABC News
    Show more Show less
    17 mins
  • Epstein Files Under Scrutiny as Senators Request GAO Investigation (3/13/26)

    Epstein Files Under Scrutiny as Senators Request GAO Investigation (3/13/26)
    Mar 13 2026
    A bipartisan group of U.S. senators has called for a formal investigation into how the Justice Department handled the release of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, arguing that the department may not have fully complied with the law requiring the disclosure of those files. The lawmakers asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct an independent review of the process used to collect, review, and release the records. Their request focuses on whether the Justice Department followed the requirements of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandated that the government make Epstein-related investigative records public while limiting redactions to specific categories such as protecting victims. Senators involved in the request raised concerns that the files released so far appear incomplete and contain inconsistent redactions, prompting questions about how decisions were made regarding what information was withheld or disclosed.


    The senators also asked investigators to examine the internal procedures used by the Justice Department when reviewing the Epstein materials, including staffing levels, guidance given to reviewers, and the transparency of the redaction process. Their concerns mirror earlier criticism from members of the House who helped write the disclosure law and have questioned why some documents appear heavily redacted while sensitive information about victims was reportedly left insufficiently protected in some cases. Attorney General Pam Bondi has defended the department’s handling of the files, stating that more than three million pages of records have been released and describing the effort as an unprecedented level of transparency. Nevertheless, lawmakers from both parties say the continuing questions surrounding the disclosures justify an outside audit to determine whether the Justice Department properly followed the law when releasing the Epstein files.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com




    source:

    Senators seek review of Justice Department’s handling of Epstein files - The Washington Post
    Show more Show less
    12 mins
  • Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 7-9) (3/13/26)

    Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 7-9) (3/13/26)
    Mar 13 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
    44 mins
  • Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 1-3) (3/13/26)

    Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 1-3) (3/13/26)
    Mar 13 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
    40 mins
  • Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 4-6) (3/13/26)

    Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 4-6) (3/13/26)
    Mar 13 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
    36 mins
  • From Fringe to Front Page: The Media’s Great Jeffrey Epstein Rewrite

    From Fringe to Front Page: The Media’s Great Jeffrey Epstein Rewrite
    Mar 13 2026
    The same voices that now brand themselves as guardians of truth spent years burying it. They didn’t just miss the story—they smothered it. When it mattered most, they mocked anyone who dared raise questions, dismissed survivors, and labeled investigators as “conspiracy theorists.” They weren’t protecting the public; they were protecting power, trimming out inconvenient facts to shield the reputations of their political favorites and social allies. Silence wasn’t ignorance—it was strategy.

    Now those same outlets stand on their platforms with furrowed brows and solemn voices, lecturing about justice as if they hadn’t tried to strangle the truth in its cradle. Yesterday’s “fringe” is today’s breaking news, and the very people who laughed off the facts are suddenly parading them as revelations. It’s not a moral awakening; it’s a performance. Their outrage isn’t about what happened—it’s about being forced to confront what they ignored. And that’s why their sudden righteousness rings hollow.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Show more Show less
    14 mins
  • Perjury as Privilege: The DOJ’s Gift to Ghislaine Maxwell

    Perjury as Privilege: The DOJ’s Gift to Ghislaine Maxwell
    Mar 13 2026
    Ghislaine Maxwell’s proffer session with the DOJ was less about truth and accountability and more about performance and deceit. The entire premise of a proffer is simple: you trade truth for a chance at leniency. But Maxwell didn’t come to the table with intelligence, evidence, or leads that could help dismantle Epstein’s far-reaching web. She came armed with a rehearsed script of lies and character assassinations. She weaponized her time in that room not to aid justice, but to smear survivors who had already borne the crushing weight of humiliation in courtrooms and the press. The newly released emails now strip away any doubt about what happened—they show that Maxwell didn’t stumble or misremember. She perjured herself over and over, carefully contradicting her own sworn statements. This was deliberate, malicious dishonesty. And yet, instead of being dragged back to court with perjury charges and buried under the consequences, she was inexplicably rewarded with cushier accommodations. Sitting across from her during this travesty was none other than Deputy Director Todd “Baby Billy” Blanche, a man who should have cut the session short the moment the lies started, but who instead sat back, nodded, and let justice be mocked.

    The fallout from this disaster stretches far beyond Maxwell herself. For survivors, it was another betrayal layered on top of years of indifference and ridicule. They were once again slandered, this time under the very nose of the government agency tasked with protecting them. Their truth, earned through blood and tears, was tossed aside so Maxwell could preserve her own skin. For the public, the message couldn’t be clearer: the Department of Justice is not an impartial arbiter of the law, but a stage where the rich and connected get to rewrite the script in their favor. Accountability was promised, but what America got instead was a rigged performance where lies were treated as cooperation, and perjury was treated as a perk. A real justice department would have treated her dishonesty as a direct assault on the rule of law, stacking charges on her until her arrogance collapsed. But instead, Blanche and his colleagues chose complicity over courage, shielding Maxwell from consequences and exposing to everyone watching that in America, justice isn’t blind—it looks the other way when power is in the room.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Show more Show less
    13 mins
  • Jeffrey Epstein And The Worlds Creepiest Chess Set

    Jeffrey Epstein And The Worlds Creepiest Chess Set
    Mar 13 2026
    The chess set—reported to be custom-carved so the pieces resembled Epstein and those in his orbit—wasn't a quirky conversation piece; it was theatrical signaling. A chessboard is a compact metaphor for control, hierarchy, and calculated sacrifice; to populate it with likenesses of yourself and your closest aides weaponizes that metaphor into an assertion: you stage the board, assign the roles, and you decide who moves and who gets sacrificed. The grotesque intimacy of turning people into game pieces collapses bodies and agency into objects of play, and that deliberate objectification is itself an accusation—an unsettling admission that the house was designed as a theatre of power, not a warm home.

    Worse, the set functioned as social shorthand for everyone who tolerated it. Sitting across from those carved pawns, Epstein’s guests were offered a choice: read the scene or pretend not to. That so many wealthy, powerful people treated such staging as “eccentric décor” rather than a glaring red flag reveals the moral rot behind the glamour. Either they were willfully blind, or they understood perfectly and accepted their place in the performance. Either way, the chess set stands as a tiny, obscene manifesto of an ecosystem built on predation and polished denial—taste turned into cover, symbolism into complicity.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    Epstein and his young female pawns: Billionaire paedophile had chess set made that featured him as the king… and had models pose to be turned into hand-crafted pieces | Daily Mail Online
    Show more Show less
    12 mins