Why Does The Legacy Media Continue To Protect The Clintons From The Epstein Maelstrom?

The original charges brought against Jeffrey Epstein in Florida in 2007 were laughably weak when weighed against the sheer scope of his crimes. Despite overwhelming evidence that he had trafficked and abused dozens of underage girls, he was allowed to plead guilty only to two state-level prostitution charges—one of them grotesquely labeling a minor as a "prostitute." This framing alone was an insult to his victims and a textbook example of the justice system bending over backwards to protect power. Rather than a serious prosecution, it was a carefully choreographed wrist slap designed to shield Epstein and the wealthy men around him from real scrutiny.The law itself compounded the travesty. Florida statutes at the time allowed prosecutors to downgrade Epstein’s conduct into charges that not only failed to reflect the gravity of child sexual abuse but actively mischaracterized it. By calling minors "prostitutes," the law criminalized victims while sanitizing the predator’s behavior. This legal loophole—exploited with the DOJ’s blessing through the infamous non-prosecution agreement—made a mockery of justice. It revealed a system that, when confronted with wealth and influence, preferred euphemism and minimization over accountability. What should have been a landmark prosecution of a serial child sex trafficker instead became one of the most grotesque miscarriages of justice in modern American legal history.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-1209-pitts-prostitute-20181205-story.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Elo 14min

The third amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York involves six plaintiffs—Jane Does 1 through 6—who have brought claims against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the estate itself and other unnamed defendants. The case, docketed as No. 1:19-cv-07675-GBD, seeks a jury trial and continues the broader wave of litigation aimed at holding Epstein’s estate accountable for his long history of alleged sexual abuse and exploitationThe complaint underscores the plaintiffs’ pursuit of justice against Epstein’s estate following his death, placing responsibility on those managing his assets to provide restitution for the harm they allege they suffered. By naming “Roes 2–10,” the filing also leaves room for additional defendants who may later be identified as complicit in Epstein’s crimes or responsible for enabling his conduct. This legal action highlights the ongoing efforts by Epstein’s victims to find accountability in civil court, given that his death cut short criminal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.45.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Elo 20min

The silence surrounding Stacey Plaskett’s lawsuit by Epstein survivors exposes the staggering hypocrisy of both lawmakers and the legacy media. Politicians who pound the table about justice and accountability fall mute when the accusations land inside their own chamber. Journalists who dissect every lurid detail of Epstein’s life suddenly find no headlines when survivors point to a sitting member of Congress. This selective outrage isn’t oversight—it’s complicity. Survivors are abandoned the moment their stories threaten insiders, and the system shows once again that accountability is conditional, not principled.That selective accountability corrodes credibility and turns justice into theater. By politicizing the scandal, lawmakers use survivors as pawns while letting the real villains—Epstein’s network of enablers—slip quietly back into the shadows. The result is a collapse of trust: citizens see investigations as performance, predators learn power protects power, and survivors are betrayed all over again. Epstein may be dead and Maxwell imprisoned, but the system that shielded them is alive and well—sustained by cowardice, silence, and the hypocrisy of institutions that pretend to defend justice while practicing selective blindness.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Elo 15min

The silence surrounding Stacey Plaskett’s lawsuit by Epstein survivors exposes the staggering hypocrisy of both lawmakers and the legacy media. Politicians who pound the table about justice and accountability fall mute when the accusations land inside their own chamber. Journalists who dissect every lurid detail of Epstein’s life suddenly find no headlines when survivors point to a sitting member of Congress. This selective outrage isn’t oversight—it’s complicity. Survivors are abandoned the moment their stories threaten insiders, and the system shows once again that accountability is conditional, not principled.That selective accountability corrodes credibility and turns justice into theater. By politicizing the scandal, lawmakers use survivors as pawns while letting the real villains—Epstein’s network of enablers—slip quietly back into the shadows. The result is a collapse of trust: citizens see investigations as performance, predators learn power protects power, and survivors are betrayed all over again. Epstein may be dead and Maxwell imprisoned, but the system that shielded them is alive and well—sustained by cowardice, silence, and the hypocrisy of institutions that pretend to defend justice while practicing selective blindness.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Elo 11min

Bill Barr’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s death was nothing short of a disgrace. From the moment Epstein was found dead in his cell, Barr rushed to reassure the public that there was “no evidence” of foul play, even though the facts on the ground screamed otherwise: guards asleep, cameras malfunctioning, and a high-profile prisoner left alone despite being an obvious suicide risk. Rather than treating the matter with the transparency and rigor demanded by such a monumental failure of federal custody, Barr instead leaned into the narrative of “bungling incompetence,” effectively steering the public away from the far more troubling possibility of corruption, complicity, or deliberate neglect. His role was less about seeking justice and more about protecting institutions from scrutiny.The aftermath only deepened the scandal. Barr presided over an investigation that was tepid, narrow in scope, and ultimately designed to close doors rather than open them. Instead of demanding accountability from the Bureau of Prisons and investigating the broader network of Epstein’s enablers, Barr allowed the focus to remain on low-level staff scapegoats while the powerful ties Epstein cultivated were quietly brushed aside. His public statements carried the hollow tone of someone managing damage control, not uncovering the truth. In the end, Barr’s stewardship of the case did not restore trust—it obliterated it. The public saw clearly what he was doing: protecting the system at all costs, even if it meant letting the most suspicious death in modern American history remain shrouded in doubt.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Elo 11min

Bill Barr’s involvement in the Epstein investigation was defined by hollow outrage and institutional protectionism. As Attorney General, he presided over the aftermath of the most suspicious prisoner death in modern history, delivering carefully staged soundbites instead of accountability. Under his watch, the DOJ allowed the narrative to be reduced to failed cameras, sleeping guards, and bureaucratic incompetence—explanations so implausible they insulted the public’s intelligence. Rather than pressing for an independent investigation or ensuring full transparency, Barr played the role of crisis manager, tamping down scrutiny and framing the disaster as little more than an internal mishap.In practice, Barr’s DOJ did nothing to resolve the deeper questions: how such a high-profile detainee with ties to the world’s elite could die in federal custody, and what names and networks his testimony might have exposed if he had lived. Instead, Barr’s leadership ensured that the Epstein scandal devolved into conspiracy chatter rather than a genuine reckoning. His refusal to deliver real accountability or expose the systemic rot surrounding Epstein was not mere incompetence—it was an active shield for the powerful interests that stood to lose the most. Under Barr, the Department of Justice didn’t investigate Epstein’s death; it buried it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:As attorney general, William Barr personally investigated Jeffrey Epstein's death. Now Congress has questions. - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Elo 20min

The lawsuits stem from parallel cases in the Southern District of New York: one brought by Jane Doe on behalf of Epstein’s victims and another by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, both targeting JPMorgan Chase for its alleged role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation. JPMorgan, in turn, filed third-party claims against former executive James Edward Staley, arguing that he should bear responsibility for any liability tied to Epstein, given his close personal and professional ties to the financier. These cases became highly significant in exposing the financial networks that allegedly allowed Epstein’s crimes to flourish.In response, Staley filed a motion to exclude JPMorgan Chase’s proffered expert opinions, challenging the credibility and admissibility of the bank’s expert witnesses. His brief sought to limit the evidence that could be used against him, aiming to weaken JPMorgan’s case for shifting liability onto him. This move reflects Staley’s broader defense strategy of resisting being scapegoated as the primary enabler within JPMorgan, while the bank itself faced mounting scrutiny for its role in maintaining Epstein as a client despite numerous red flags.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Elo 26min

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein’s criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Elo 29min