Alex Acosta Defends His Role In Jeffrey Epstein's "Deal Of A Lifetime" (9/23/25)

Bill Barr’s deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein’s death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr’s narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr’s evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump’s knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein’s death but couldn’t recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr’s testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Barr-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

23 Syys 11min

Bill Barr’s deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein’s death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr’s narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr’s evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump’s knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein’s death but couldn’t recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr’s testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Barr-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

23 Syys 16min

Donald Trump launched a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, its parent company Dow Jones, Rupert Murdoch, and other executives, accusing the outlet of falsely tying him to Jeffrey Epstein’s infamous 50th birthday book. The lawsuit claims the paper damaged Trump’s reputation by publishing a story that suggested he personally signed a crude and lewd birthday greeting in Epstein’s book back in 2003—something Trump flatly denies. Trump and his legal team argue that the WSJ deliberately pushed a false narrative for political and reputational harm, framing the report as part of a broader media effort to tarnish his image during his third run for the presidency.In response, the WSJ filed a motion to dismiss the case outright, contending that their reporting was factually accurate and legally protected. The paper argues that the letter referenced in their article matches the document released by Congress, making their reporting “substantially true.” They also stress that even if Trump did sign a bawdy note, such conduct would not be considered legally defamatory given his public persona and long history of controversial remarks. The Journal is asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, which would block Trump from re-filing it, and to order him to cover their legal fees. The court has already paused discovery proceedings—including Rupert Murdoch’s scheduled deposition—until the judge rules on the dismissal, underscoring the high-stakes battle over press freedom, defamation law, and Trump’s escalating war against media outlets.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:WSJ moves to dismiss Trump's $10B lawsuit over alleged letter in Epstein birthday book - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

23 Syys 16min

The chess set—reported to be custom-carved so the pieces resembled Epstein and those in his orbit—wasn't a quirky conversation piece; it was theatrical signaling. A chessboard is a compact metaphor for control, hierarchy, and calculated sacrifice; to populate it with likenesses of yourself and your closest aides weaponizes that metaphor into an assertion: you stage the board, assign the roles, and you decide who moves and who gets sacrificed. The grotesque intimacy of turning people into game pieces collapses bodies and agency into objects of play, and that deliberate objectification is itself an accusation—an unsettling admission that the house was designed as a theatre of power, not a warm home.Worse, the set functioned as social shorthand for everyone who tolerated it. Sitting across from those carved pawns, Epstein’s guests were offered a choice: read the scene or pretend not to. That so many wealthy, powerful people treated such staging as “eccentric décor” rather than a glaring red flag reveals the moral rot behind the glamour. Either they were willfully blind, or they understood perfectly and accepted their place in the performance. Either way, the chess set stands as a tiny, obscene manifesto of an ecosystem built on predation and polished denial—taste turned into cover, symbolism into complicity.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein and his young female pawns: Billionaire paedophile had chess set made that featured him as the king… and had models pose to be turned into hand-crafted pieces | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

23 Syys 12min

Prince Andrew has become a perpetual liability for the British monarchy, with his scandals continuing to overshadow the institution’s attempts at modernization and public service. His long association with Jeffrey Epstein and subsequent settlement with Virginia Giuffre, while never an admission of guilt, has cemented him in the public mind as a man of disgrace who cannot be trusted. Every time his name resurfaces, it drags the monarchy back into a mire of sleaze and scandal, reminding the world of his recklessness and arrogance. His inability to account honestly for his relationships and behavior, paired with his disastrous BBC “Newsnight” interview, exposed not only his own lack of judgment but also the monarchy’s tone-deafness in handling crises.Even after being stripped of official duties, Andrew remains a thorn in the side of the royal family, his mere presence at events sparking public outrage and critical headlines. His clinging to privilege, combined with his refusal to step aside completely, undermines the monarchy’s carefully managed image of dignity and service. Instead of fading into obscurity, his scandals linger as a living reminder of hypocrisy at the heart of the institution—a prince who used his position recklessly and now stains the legacy of the monarchy with every reemergence. His behavior continues to erode the trust and respect the monarchy depends on for survival in the modern era.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

23 Syys 36min

Jeffrey Epstein was able to secure political cover in the U.S. Virgin Islands through a combination of money, influence, and strategic alliances with elected officials. Court filings and investigative reports show that he funneled donations to politicians like Delegate Stacey Plaskett and leveraged his relationship with Cecile de Jongh, the former First Lady of the USVI, to shape local politics and policy in his favor. Epstein even enlisted de Jongh to help him track which politicians to support, while he quietly pushed for changes to sex-offender monitoring laws that would make it easier for him to move young women in and out of the territory. Despite his conviction, he continued to receive lucrative tax incentives and regulatory leniency, illustrating how deeply entrenched his influence was across the island’s power structure.The cover extended beyond donations into active suppression of accountability. Former Attorney General Denise George secured a $105 million settlement from Epstein’s estate and sued JPMorgan Chase for enabling his trafficking network, only to be abruptly fired shortly after filing the lawsuit. That firing, combined with legal dismissals in lawsuits alleging government complicity, reinforced suspicions that the USVI’s political establishment protected Epstein for years. While Epstein used the islands as his base of operations, the government that should have policed him instead appeared to enable him, providing the façade of legitimacy that allowed his crimes to continue unchecked.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

23 Syys 34min

Jean-Luc Brunel, a French modeling agent and long-time associate of Jeffrey Epstein, was under growing French criminal investigations since around 2019 for alleged sexual exploitation, rape, trafficking of minors, and supplying underage girls to Epstein. Brunel founded agencies such as Karin Models and MC2 Model Management (with Epstein’s financial backing) and has been accused by former models of years of abuse: drugging, sexual assault, and exploiting young women who were often from vulnerable backgrounds. French prosecutors officially charged him in December 2020 with rape of minors (over 15) and sexual harassment, among other offenses, and investigators were probing his role in a wider network of abuse connected to Epstein.However, Brunel’s case never reached a full trial. In February 2022, he was found dead in his cell at La Santé Prison in Paris, reportedly by suicide, while in pre-trial detention. His death came after multiple suicide attempts. The result: many of his alleged victims were denied the opportunity for legal closure in court. His passing both ended the criminal proceedings against him and left significant questions unanswered about the fullness of his culpability, the extent of networked complicity, and how much evidence was gathered and might still yet emerge.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

23 Syys 48min