Ghislaine Maxwell: A Tale Of The Morally Bankrupt

Despite his deep and long-standing ties to Jeffrey Epstein, billionaire Les Wexner remains an almost untouchable figure in Columbus, Ohio—revered as a philanthropic titan and regional kingmaker. Wexner, the founder of L Brands and the man behind Victoria’s Secret, has wielded enormous influence over the city’s economic and cultural landscape for decades. From hospitals to art centers to Ohio State University, his name is etched into nearly every major institution, with donations totaling hundreds of millions. This civic dominance has insulated him from the level of scrutiny other Epstein-linked figures have received. In Columbus, Wexner is not just a businessman—he’s a legacy, a power broker whose wealth and prestige have bought loyalty, silence, or both.But beneath the surface, that reverence is increasingly uncomfortable. Epstein once held power of attorney over Wexner’s finances, lived in a Wexner-owned mansion, and was given an unusual level of control over Wexner’s personal and professional affairs—facts that have raised serious questions about just how much Wexner knew and when. Yet in Columbus, public officials and institutional leaders rarely speak of it. The media coverage is polite, the criticism muted, and the donor gratitude eternal. It’s as if the city made a conscious choice to separate Wexner the benefactor from Wexner the enabler, ignoring the fact that his empowerment of Epstein may have been a central piece of the larger abuse machinery. In any other city, he might be scrutinized. In Columbus, he’s still the king.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comhttps://www.columbusmonthly.com/story/lifestyle/features/2022/10/25/what-jeffrey-epstein-scandal-means-to-columbus-and-les-wexner/69589703007/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

31 Heinä 23min

The relationship between the Dubin family and Jeffrey Epstein is one of the most unsettling and perplexing in the entire scandal—and that’s saying something. Glenn Dubin, a billionaire hedge fund manager, and his wife Eva Andersson-Dubin, a former Miss Sweden and doctor, maintained a close friendship with Epstein long after he had been convicted of sex crimes. Even after Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor, the Dubins continued to socialize with him. Eva reportedly wrote a letter of support for Epstein during his sentencing, and Epstein had a disturbingly close relationship with their family, including their children. Multiple reports reveal that Epstein stayed overnight at the Dubins' home while their young children were present, even being allowed to visit for Thanksgiving and other holidays after his release from jail. That kind of access, post-conviction, is not just bizarre—it’s alarming.What makes the Dubin connection even darker are the specific allegations raised in court documents. One of Epstein’s survivors alleged that Epstein once told her he had a sexual interest in one of the Dubin daughters and that the girl had been groomed from a young age to potentially be one of his "favorites." While the Dubins have denied any wrongdoing and say they were unaware of Epstein’s criminal activities, the circumstantial details paint a deeply disturbing picture. Why would a family so publicly aware of Epstein’s conviction continue inviting him into their home? Why would Eva Andersson-Dubin, a medical doctor and mother, allow a convicted predator such proximity to her children? The answers remain murky, but the implications are damning. It’s not just a lapse in judgment—it suggests a willful blindness at best, and at worst, something far more sinister.To contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://nypost.com/2020/11/21/epstein-case-subpoena-seeks-docs-related-to-glenn-dubins-kids/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

30 Heinä 20min

JPMorgan Chase ended up spending at least $20 million in legal fees as part of its $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands over allegations of facilitating Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operations. This settlement included $55 million for local victim and enforcement programs, $10 million dedicated to mental health services for survivors, and $20 million explicitly earmarked for covering legal expenses tied to defending those claimsIn addition, the bank incurred substantial legal costs defending itself in a class-action lawsuit by Epstein’s victims, which resulted in a separate $290 million settlement. Although detailed breakdowns of legal fees for that settlement aren’t public, internal figures indicate that JPMorgan paid over $1 billion in total legal expenses over a recent six-month period, driven in large part by litigation related to Epstein and other controversies.(commercial at 7:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:JPMorgan legal fees in Jeffrey Epstein sex traffick cases revealed (cnbc.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

30 Heinä 11min

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein’s pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein’s circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein’s conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

30 Heinä 13min

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein’s pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein’s circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein’s conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

30 Heinä 10min

President Trump’s repeated denials and distractions are intensifying the Epstein controversy rather than defusing it. Despite his claims of cutting ties with Jeffrey Epstein—such as citing a falling-out over employees and denying visits to Epstein’s private island—Trump’s name reportedly appears in newly surfaced documents, and he was even briefed about Epstein-related matters by then–Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. His constant insistence that any questions about Epstein are a “hoax” has only deepened public suspicion, particularly among members of his own base who expected transparency and accountability. By refusing to address his past relationship with Epstein in a clear, candid way, Trump has allowed unanswered questions to fester.At the same time, Trump has leaned heavily into his usual playbook of political distractions—attacking opponents, manufacturing controversies, and pushing sensational narratives to draw attention away from his Epstein ties. He’s raged about everything from sports team names to the Federal Reserve, all while ignoring the growing pile of Epstein-related headlines that continue to surface. This strategy, once effective, now appears desperate and disjointed. The more Trump attempts to deflect, the more the Epstein issue dominates the conversation, undermining his credibility and fueling speculation. In trying to outrun the story, Trump is only dragging it closer.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

30 Heinä 10min

President Trump’s repeated denials and distractions are intensifying the Epstein controversy rather than defusing it. Despite his claims of cutting ties with Jeffrey Epstein—such as citing a falling-out over employees and denying visits to Epstein’s private island—Trump’s name reportedly appears in newly surfaced documents, and he was even briefed about Epstein-related matters by then–Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. His constant insistence that any questions about Epstein are a “hoax” has only deepened public suspicion, particularly among members of his own base who expected transparency and accountability. By refusing to address his past relationship with Epstein in a clear, candid way, Trump has allowed unanswered questions to fester.At the same time, Trump has leaned heavily into his usual playbook of political distractions—attacking opponents, manufacturing controversies, and pushing sensational narratives to draw attention away from his Epstein ties. He’s raged about everything from sports team names to the Federal Reserve, all while ignoring the growing pile of Epstein-related headlines that continue to surface. This strategy, once effective, now appears desperate and disjointed. The more Trump attempts to deflect, the more the Epstein issue dominates the conversation, undermining his credibility and fueling speculation. In trying to outrun the story, Trump is only dragging it closer.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

30 Heinä 13min

Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20‑year sentence for sex‑trafficking convictions, signaled willingness to testify before Congress—but only on a strict set of terms. In a letter to House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer, her attorney David Markus spelled out that Maxwell would require formal immunity from prosecution, advance access to all deposition questions, a venue outside of prison, and a delay in testimony until after her appeal, including a potential Supreme Court review, is resolved. Markus even floated the possibility of presidential clemency, stating that under such conditions, Maxwell would be “willing—and eager—to testify openly and honestly, in public, before Congress.” Otherwise, she plans to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to answer questionsHowever, the Oversight Committee promptly rejected her request to be granted immunity. In a response to Maxwell’s letter, the committee reaffirmed that it will not consider offering congressional immunity as a precondition for her testimony and has declined to accommodate her other stipulated conditions. With Maxwell’s cooperation effectively hinging on assurances that lawmakers have refused to entertain, the invitation to testify remains in a legal and political stalemate.Also:President Trump stated that he severed ties with Jeffrey Epstein after discovering that Epstein had repeatedly “stolen” young women who worked at the spa in Trump’s Mar‑a‑Lago resort—referring specifically to employees being “taken out of the spa, hired by him.” Trump said this betrayal prompted him to ban Epstein from the club, and when asked about Virginia Giuffre—one of Epstein’s most well-known accusers—he replied that he believed she worked at the spa and was among those “stolen,” despite having “no complaints” about Mar‑a‑Lago herself.     to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell wants immunity or a pardon before congressional deposition - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

30 Heinä 18min