Banks, Epstein, and Congress: Real Inquiry or Political Theater? (11/28/25)

During his interview with House Oversight Chair James Comer, Sean Hannity floated the bogus claim that Donald Trump was never on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane, presenting it as settled fact rather than a disputed assertion. Hannity didn’t hedge, qualify, or frame it as an open question. He stated it confidently, knowing full well that flight logs are incomplete, contested, and only part of a much larger evidentiary picture. The problem wasn’t just that the claim was misleading, it was that it functioned as narrative laundering in real time. Hannity used his platform to preemptively absolve Trump while discussing an investigation that is supposedly about transparency and accountability. By doing so, he turned what should have been a probing oversight conversation into a defensive media maneuver. It was less journalism than message control, dressed up as certainty.What made the moment especially telling was Comer’s silence. As the chair of an oversight committee tasked with following evidence wherever it leads, Comer had an obligation to correct the record or at least clarify the limits of what is known. He did neither. His failure to push back signaled political convenience over factual precision, reinforcing the perception that this investigation has guardrails depending on whose name comes up. Comer’s non-response allowed Hannity’s claim to harden into implied truth for the audience, despite the fact that flight logs are not exhaustive proof of absence and never have been. The silence spoke louder than a correction would have. In a scandal defined by selective scrutiny and protected figures, that moment exposed how quickly oversight can bend when media allies set the tone.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Fox’s Sean Hannity claims Trump never flew on Epstein plane despite numerous flight log entries | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Tammi 13min

Jamie Raskin sent a pointed letter to Columbia University demanding answers about the institution’s historical ties to Jeffrey Epstein and whether the university had fully disclosed the extent of his involvement, influence, and access. The letter pressed Columbia on how Epstein was able to associate himself with the university, cultivate relationships with faculty and administrators, and leverage the institution’s prestige long after serious allegations about his conduct were widely known. Raskin questioned whether Columbia conducted adequate due diligence, whether any donations or benefits were accepted directly or indirectly, and how Epstein’s presence may have been normalized or concealed within academic circles. The tone of the letter made clear that this was not a casual inquiry but an accountability demand, rooted in the concern that elite institutions repeatedly failed to erect meaningful barriers against Epstein despite ample warning signs.Raskin’s letter also framed Columbia as part of a broader pattern in which powerful institutions insulated themselves with silence, procedural ambiguity, and selective memory. He emphasized that universities are not passive victims of association, but active gatekeepers whose decisions can legitimize predators and marginalize survivors. By demanding records, explanations, and transparency, Raskin signaled that Epstein’s academic enablers should not be treated as incidental footnotes to his crimes. The letter underscored that reputational laundering through academia was a key component of Epstein’s power and protection, and that Columbia’s answers would speak volumes about whether elite institutions are willing to confront their own role in that system. It was a warning shot that the era of “we didn’t know” defenses is no longer acceptable.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Tammi 10min

CIA Director Bill Burns’ past meetings with Jeffrey Epstein have raised serious concerns about the extent of Epstein’s influence over powerful government figures. At the time of their encounters in 2014, Burns was serving as Deputy Secretary of State, while Epstein had already been a registered sex offender for six years following his 2008 conviction. Despite Epstein’s criminal record and widely known reputation, Burns reportedly met with him multiple times, including at Epstein’s townhouse in Manhattan. The alleged purpose of these meetings was to seek career advice on transitioning to the private sector—an explanation that only deepens the discomfort surrounding such a relationship. For a high-ranking diplomat to consult a convicted sex offender for professional guidance signals either shockingly poor judgment or a normalization of Epstein’s continued access to the elite.What makes the situation even more troubling is the lack of transparency from government institutions. The CIA has issued vague assurances that the meetings were harmless and limited, but they have not explained why a senior U.S. official would be turning to Epstein for any form of counsel in the first place. Meanwhile, the White House has refused to comment. These evasions come at a time when public trust in the Epstein investigation is already eroded, and they only reinforce the perception that Epstein’s true reach into the halls of power is being deliberately downplayed. Rather than distancing themselves, powerful figures like Burns engaged with Epstein long after it was publicly indefensible to do so—a pattern that continues to cast a shadow over the entire investigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein's Private Calendar Reveals Prominent Names, Including CIA Chief, Goldman's Top Lawyer (msn.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Tammi 34min

In the defamation lawsuit Giuffre v. Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell submitted a Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as part of her motion for summary judgment. This statement aimed to establish that there were no genuine disputes over key facts, thereby justifying a judgment in her favor without proceeding to trial. Maxwell's Rule 56.1 statement outlined her version of events, countering Virginia Giuffre's allegations that Maxwell had defamed her by denying involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking activities. The statement sought to demonstrate that Maxwell's public denials were not defamatory but rather responses to unfounded accusations.However, the court found that genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly concerning the truth or falsity of Maxwell's statements and her role in Epstein's activities. As a result, Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was denied, allowing the case to proceed to trial. This decision underscored the complexities involved in defamation cases, especially when intertwined with serious allegations of sexual misconduct and trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Tammi 31min

In the defamation lawsuit Giuffre v. Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell submitted a Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as part of her motion for summary judgment. This statement aimed to establish that there were no genuine disputes over key facts, thereby justifying a judgment in her favor without proceeding to trial. Maxwell's Rule 56.1 statement outlined her version of events, countering Virginia Giuffre's allegations that Maxwell had defamed her by denying involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking activities. The statement sought to demonstrate that Maxwell's public denials were not defamatory but rather responses to unfounded accusations.However, the court found that genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly concerning the truth or falsity of Maxwell's statements and her role in Epstein's activities. As a result, Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was denied, allowing the case to proceed to trial. This decision underscored the complexities involved in defamation cases, especially when intertwined with serious allegations of sexual misconduct and trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Tammi 40min

There have been many questions about how and where Kaylee, Madison and Xana came to the attention of Bryan Kohberger and there has been much speculation.Now, however, sources are revealing that Bryan Kohberger did, in fact, visit the Mad Greek, a restaurant that Xana and Madison worked at. This also comes on the heels of the source revealing that Bryan Kohberger was following Madison, Xana and Kaylee on instagram.So, what does it all mean?Let's dive in and try to sort it out.(commercial at 6:42)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho Suspect Bryan Kohberger Visited Restaurant Where Victims Worked (people.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Tammi 12min

From the archives: 1-11-23The Police use DNA on a daily basis to help them put the pieces of crimes together and the science has been proven to not only be accurate, but accurate to a level where it is hard to dispute. However, there have been times where the DNA evidence was wrong, or mishandled and that has led to the defendant beating the conviction.In this episode, we take another look at the DNA evidence and the critical role it has played so far and will continue to play as the trial of Bryan Kohberger gets underway.(commercial at 12:34)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho murders DNA evidence helps police. But is it foolproof? (nbcnews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Tammi 20min

Bryan Kohberger has been in custody for three weeks and in that three weeks, we have started to peel the layers back of who he is. In todays episode, we continue on that course as we hear from his neighbor who details how Bryan initiated a conversation with him about the murders and even offered up his opinion on the motive.(commercial at 6:47)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger told neighbor Idaho murders were 'a crime of passion' and 'cops had no leads' | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Tammi 10min