Ghislaine Maxwell Onboards Bobbi Sternheim To Her Legal Team

In 2013, Jared Kushner extended an invitation to Jeffrey Epstein for a Trump family event, a move that looks worse with every passing year and every new revelation. By that point, Epstein wasn’t some misunderstood financier or eccentric recluse. He was a convicted sex offender whose crimes were well-documented, widely reported, and inexcusable. Yet somehow, he still made the guest list for an event tied directly to one of the most image-obsessed families in American public life. Kushner’s spokesperson later tried to claim that Epstein never attended and that Kushner had never even met him, but the invitation alone exposes a damning level of proximity. It reveals a world where a man like Epstein still had enough social currency to be casually ushered toward the inner orbit of political royalty.What makes this even more infuriating is how aggressively people have tried to memory-hole this detail. Epstein wasn’t invited by some random cousin or a clueless PR assistant. He received an invitation linked to the husband of Ivanka Trump—someone who was not only a member of the family but a rising political strategist shaping the future of the Republican Party. Kushner’s attempt to distance himself after the fact doesn’t erase the paper trail or the undeniable truth that Epstein was still circulating among power brokers long after his conviction. It underscores a much larger pattern: the powerful knew exactly who Epstein was, and they still opened their doors for him. That is what makes the 2013 invitation so damning, and why no amount of post-hoc denial can scrub the stain of it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jared Kushner's company invited Jeffrey Epstein to star-studded NYC party with Trump and Harvey Weinstein | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Joulu 12min

Prince Andrew being stripped of the Order of the Garter marked one of the most severe and humiliating blows the Royal Family has dealt him yet. The Order of the Garter is not just any accolade. It is the oldest and most prestigious chivalric order in the United Kingdom, reserved for monarchs, prime ministers, and figures of national significance. Losing it wasn’t simply a matter of public relations. It was the Royal Family publicly acknowledging that Andrew’s entanglement with Jeffrey Epstein was no longer something they could distance themselves from with polite statements or vague platitudes. This was a symbolic execution: the monarchy cutting away a limb that had become too infected, too toxic, too indefensible to keep attached.The decision also made it abundantly clear that Andrew’s days of skating by on privilege were over. For decades, he lived as though the rules applied only to the peasants, never to him. But once the Epstein revelations reached a boiling point and the public recoil became impossible to ignore, even the Palace had to abandon the fantasy that Andrew could be rehabilitated through a carefully staged interview or a temporary retreat from public life. Stripping him of the Garter was the monarchy admitting, without saying it out loud, that he is a liability. A fallen prince, tarnished beyond repair, and a cautionary tale of what happens when scandal finally outweighs lineage.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:King Charles strips Prince Andrew of his final royal titles amid scandal | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Joulu 12min

Many people latch onto the idea that Jeffrey Epstein was simply a Mossad asset, but that narrow framing ignores the vast, tangled reality of how he operated. Epstein absolutely interacted with Israeli intelligence at times, but he was far from a one-nation operative. The emails, correspondence, and contacts that have surfaced reveal a man functioning as a geopolitical free agent—someone who cultivated influence with the British Royal Family, served as a broker between Russia and Western power players, embedded himself in Wall Street and academia, and navigated U.S. political circles with ease. His value came from his ambiguity. He was a dealer of access, leverage, and kompromat who aligned himself with any faction—American, British, Russian, Israeli, or otherwise—that furthered his personal agenda. Viewing Epstein as a single-country asset grossly oversimplifies a transnational operation that spanned governments, intelligence networks, and private power structures.The fixation on Mossad serves as a distraction that conveniently shields the many other institutions and elites who benefitted from Epstein’s activities. Reducing his network to a single foreign intelligence service allows U.S. political figures, European royalty, Wall Street executives, global banks, and academic power centers to slide out of the frame. It masks the deeper truth that Epstein was part of a multinational ecosystem of private influence that operated parallel to, and often above, governments. His power came from the kompromat he accumulated across continents, the secrets he mediated, and the access he controlled—making him dangerous not because he served one nation, but because he served himself. Simplifying him to a Mossad agent is not only inaccurate; it protects the sprawling network of global power players who enabled him and had every incentive to silence him before the full truth emerged.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Joulu 11min

The secrecy surrounding portions of the jury-selection process in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial became a point of controversy even before opening statements began. Maxwell’s legal team pushed aggressively to keep the written juror questionnaires and parts of the voir-dire process sealed from public view, arguing that the overwhelming media coverage and intense global interest could intimidate potential jurors and prevent them from answering truthfully. They claimed that only a private process could protect jurors from harassment and ensure fairness, effectively requesting an unprecedented level of confidentiality for a trial that was already under scrutiny for years of secrecy surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s conduct and the government’s handling of the case.This request was met with resistance from press organizations and transparency advocates, who argued that sealing juror questionnaires would undermine public trust in the judicial process and contradict the longstanding legal principle that jury selection should be open to public observation. The judge ultimately rejected the bid for an entirely closed process, but aspects of the selection — including the identities of jurors and the contents of certain responses — remained shielded. That decision fueled accusations that secrecy was being selectively deployed, especially after it emerged post-trial that a sitting juror had failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse on his questionnaire. The dispute highlighted the tension between protecting juror privacy and the public’s demand for full transparency in a case already marred by distrust and decades of hidden information.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Joulu 37min

The push for transparency in the Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell saga has been a long, exhausting battle that has stretched across years of legal maneuvering, sealed records, and aggressive attempts to keep critical information hidden from the public. Survivors, journalists, and advocates have been fighting since well before Epstein’s 2019 arrest to pry open documents and depositions that were locked behind layers of protection built by the wealthy and powerful. Even after Epstein’s death, the release of records has been a slow, grinding process involving repeated court filings, appeals, and interventions by media organizations demanding access. Each victory has required enormous pressure, and every release has underscored just how determined institutions were to keep the truth buried.Instead of an immediate and full accounting, the information has arrived in tiny, frustrating increments — a few documents at a time, heavily redacted, and often released late at night or around holidays when public attention is low. The unsealing of court records, the limited release of flight logs, the deposition transcripts, and the gradual exposure of names tied to Epstein and Maxwell have all come in drips, not in the flood that victims and the public deserve. This piecemeal release has fueled suspicion that transparency is being carefully managed to protect powerful individuals rather than to reveal the full scale of the operation. After years of trickle-down disclosures, the public is still waiting for the complete truth — and the slow pace of unsealing only reinforces the perception that those who enabled Epstein expect to outlast the outrage rather than answer for their roles.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Joulu 40min

The unsealing of Ghislaine Maxwell’s deposition in the defamation lawsuit brought against her by Virginia Roberts Giuffre marked a major turning point in the public’s understanding of the Epstein network and Maxwell’s role within it. The deposition, originally taken in 2016 and aggressively fought to remain sealed for years, came from Giuffre’s lawsuit accusing Maxwell of defamation after Maxwell publicly dismissed Giuffre’s allegations as lies. After a series of appeals, a federal judge ruled that the public interest outweighed Maxwell’s claims of privacy and reputational harm, ordering the documents to be released in stages. When the material was finally unsealed, it immediately generated intense scrutiny, offering one of the most detailed firsthand records of Maxwell’s attempts to distance herself from Epstein’s crimes.The transcripts showed Maxwell repeatedly denying any knowledge of underage trafficking and portraying her involvement as administrative and benign, insisting she only arranged “professional massages” and claiming Giuffre was fabricating her allegations. Yet the evasive nature of her answers, the visible frustration of attorneys during questioning, and her refusal to discuss many topics on the grounds of confidentiality and alleged safety concerns painted a very different picture than the polished public denials she had previously offered. The release also revealed hundreds of pages of exhibits, emails, flight information, and references to high-profile figures, fueling renewed outrage and accelerating demands for broader transparency around the Epstein case. For many observers, the unsealed deposition crystallized what survivors had long maintained: Maxwell was not a peripheral associate but a central architect in a system of exploitation built on lies, intimidation, and legal obstruction.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Joulu 48min

After Virginia Giuffre filed her lawsuit against Prince Andrew, major inconsistencies quickly emerged between Andrew’s formal legal claims and the established facts already in public record. Andrew repeatedly asserted in legal correspondence and interviews that he had no memory of ever meeting Giuffre — yet the well-known photograph showing Andrew with his arm around her waist, with Ghislaine Maxwell in the background, stands in direct conflict with that claim. In addition, Andrew insisted he had never been in locations tied to the allegations, including the London townhouse where the photo was taken and Epstein-connected properties. Flight logs, witness statements, and travel records, however, placed him in the same cities and environments at the same times cited in the lawsuit. These contradictions fueled widespread skepticism regarding his denials.Andrew also attempted to argue, through legal filings, that Giuffre’s 2009 settlement agreement with Epstein released him from liability, and tried to frame the case as outside the court’s jurisdiction. The known facts did not support those arguments. The settlement never named Andrew or clearly released unnamed third parties, and the judge ultimately rejected the effort to dismiss the case based on that claim. Furthermore, Andrew publicly insisted he could not have been with Giuffre on a date she identified because he was at a Pizza Express birthday party with his daughter — an alibi widely viewed as improbable and poorly substantiated. When the legal and factual record was compared to Andrew’s statements, the discrepancies only intensified the perception that he was attempting to distance himself through evasive explanations rather than truthfully addressing the allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Joulu 26min