Jeffrey Epstein And The Townhouse He Rented From The State Department

Prince Andrew continues to be coddled and protected by his friends in the U.K. government, even after his settlement with Virginia. In fact, not only are they still protecting him, they have now ramped up that protection by announcing that they will keep his file secret for 65 years instead of the usual 20 year period.Now anger is growing and people are asking a very simple question: Why is Andrew being protected?(commercial at 8:15)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Prince Andrew's Secret Government Files Spark Fury: 'No Justification' (newsweek.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

23 Joulu 12min

Leon Black has been engaged in a legal struggle with a woman who claims that he sexually abused her for years and then had her sign a NDA so that the abuse would never be made public. Part of the offensive that Leon Black has been on has been attempting to paint his accuser and his former partner of colluding to take him down. One court has already denied his attempt to seek redress using RICO statutes, now a second court has dismissed his attempt and this time, with prejudice.(commercial at 8:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Billionaire Leon Black’s Suit Over Rape Claim Gets Dismissed (thedailybeast.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

23 Joulu 12min

For years, Prince Andrew, Duke of York received counsel that undervalued the seriousness of his association with Jeffrey Epstein and over-emphasized the potential PR fixes. After Epstein’s first conviction for soliciting prostitution of a minor, Andrew continued to appear in Epstein’s orbit, stay at his residences, and cultivate the friendship — all despite obvious red flags. Advisors seem to have encouraged him to believe that a frank, high-profile interview (notably with the BBC) could stem the reputational bleeding, rather than first expressing genuine empathy for victims or full clarity over the depth of the association. This advice centered on saying his side, explaining misunderstandings, and trying to "clear the air," but did not sufficiently prepare him for critical scrutiny, emotional testimony, and public disbelief.When Andrew finally did submit to a televised interview, what unfolded was widely seen as catastrophic. The tone and substance of his responses came off as evasive, tone-deaf and lacking in remorse; rather than being a turning point, the interview intensified outrage and distrust. Some close to him admitted that the advisers had largely told him what he wanted to hear — that the interview would help, rather than warning how much worse things might get if not handled with full acknowledgment and contrition.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

22 Joulu 14min

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein’s 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government’s resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government’s possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney’s Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

22 Joulu 10min

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein’s 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government’s resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government’s possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney’s Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

22 Joulu 11min

The U.S. Department of Justice has come under fire after releasing thousands of pages of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, only to include extensive redactions that critics say undermine the law’s intent. Lawmakers and advocates argue the heavily blacked-out material—some pages entirely obscured and many more with large sections removed—fails to meet the statutory requirement for transparency. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the redactions, saying they were legally necessary to protect victims’ identities and sensitive information, but opponents counter that the lack of clear explanations for the edits fuels suspicion and diminishes public trust in the process. The Hill noted that even innocuous or puzzling redactions (such as non-substantive content) have drawn ire and raised questions about whether the DOJ is fully complying with the law.The controversy intensified as some documents initially published on the Justice Department’s website were removed without explanation just days after release, including files that appeared to contain a photograph featuring a former U.S. president alongside Epstein. Critics from both parties, including co-sponsors of the transparency legislation, accused the department of a “bare minimum” rollout that falls short of Congress’s mandate, and threatened further oversight or legal action to enforce compliance. DOJ officials maintain they are continuing to review and release additional materials on a rolling basis, but the dispute highlights ongoing tensions over how much of Epstein’s records should be public and how to balance survivor privacy with demands for accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:16 Epstein files, including photo of Donald Trump, disappear from DOJ website: ReportBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

22 Joulu 13min

New York prosecutors once advanced an argument that bordered on the surreal: that Jeffrey Epstein’s status as a sex offender should be downgraded because his conduct, they claimed, did not fit the most severe classification under New York law. Rather than centering the sheer scale of his abuse, the number of victims, or the pattern of predatory behavior that spanned years and continents, prosecutors leaned on narrow technical distinctions about charges, plea structures, and statutory thresholds. The argument treated Epstein not as a serial sexual predator with an industrialized abuse operation, but as a paperwork problem—someone whose crimes could be minimized through legal parsing. In doing so, the prosecution effectively reduced the lived experiences of victims to footnotes, subordinated to a legal strategy that prioritized administrative convenience and risk management over public safety and moral clarity.What made this effort especially damning was not just its substance, but its implication: that the justice system was willing to bend over backward to soften the label attached to one of the most notorious sex offenders in modern history. Downgrading Epstein’s offender status would have meant fewer restrictions, less scrutiny, and a public record that obscured the true gravity of his crimes. It signaled a prosecutorial mindset more concerned with avoiding litigation headaches and political discomfort than confronting the reality of Epstein’s conduct head-on. Instead of acting as a bulwark against predatory power, prosecutors appeared to act as its bureaucratic shield, reinforcing the perception that wealth, influence, and connections could still warp even the most basic mechanisms meant to protect the public from repeat sexual offenders.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.106.1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

22 Joulu 17min

The recent Epstein files dump has finally produced documentary confirmation of what Maria Farmer has said for decades: in 1996, she formally warned the Federal Bureau of Investigation about Jeffrey Epstein, and those warnings were effectively ignored. For years, the FBI refused to confirm or deny Farmer’s account, while she was publicly portrayed as unreliable or exaggerating. The newly released records show that federal authorities were aware of Epstein’s conduct far earlier than they ever admitted. This reframes the Epstein story away from bureaucratic incompetence and toward deliberate institutional inaction. The documents establish that Farmer was not speculating or theorizing—she was reporting crimes in real time. Instead of being treated as a key witness, she was sidelined. The result was years of unchecked abuse that could have been interrupted. The files now make clear that the FBI knew exactly who Epstein was long before his eventual prosecution.The unanswered question is why those warnings were ignored, and the files intensify—not resolve—that mystery. One plausible explanation, long suggested by Farmer and others, is that Epstein’s status as a potential or actual confidential informant made him untouchable. That possibility would explain the extraordinary resistance to releasing Farmer’s records and the institutional hostility she encountered.    One thing is for certain and is now backed by documentation: she told the truth as she understood it, and the authorities failed to act. The FBI’s silence and obstruction allowed Epstein to continue operating with impunity. History has now caught up to Farmer’s account. What remains is a moral reckoning for the institutions that ignored her—and an overdue acknowledgment that she was right from the beginning.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00006107.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

22 Joulu 14min