Mega Edition: Danielle Bensky And The Lawsuit Filed Against Indyke And Kahn (Part 9-11) (10/27/25)

First Lady Melania Trump, via her lawyer Alejandro Brito, has demanded that Hunter Biden retract and publicly apologize for comments he made in an August interview with Andrew Callaghan—claims that convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump. Brito’s letter, sent August 6, called the remarks “false, defamatory and extremely salacious,” asserting they caused “overwhelming financial and reputational harm,” and warned that failure to comply by August 7 would prompt a lawsuit seeking more than $1 billion in damages.Next up...Attorney General Pam Bondi has come under scrutiny amid mounting accusations from House Democrats that the Justice Department orchestrated a suspiciously favorable transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell—from a high-security facility in Florida to a low-security prison camp in Texas—shortly after she met privately with Deputy AG Todd Blanche. Lawmakers allege this highly unusual move, combined with Blanche’s post-meeting interaction and the firing of a key prosecutor on the Epstein-Maxwell case, raises serious concerns of potential witness tampering and political influence. The DOJ has been pressed for documents, including meeting transcripts and details of the transfer decision, while critics argue the move may have violated standard protocols and breached DOJ and federal prison policies...to close things out...House Republicans are moving to reopen the Jeffrey Epstein case in Congress, with Oversight Committee Chair James Comer issuing a subpoena to the Justice Department for all records tied to Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement and the circumstances of his 2019 jailhouse death, demanding delivery by August 19. The push comes as an unusual bipartisan alliance—Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna—plans to bring Epstein’s accusers to Capitol Hill for public hearings in early September to press for passage of an “Epstein Files Transparency Act” that would require unsealing related documents. The effort has sharpened divisions within the GOP, as some members join Democrats in urging disclosure while former president Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson downplay the matterto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Melania Trump demands Hunter Biden retract 'extremely salacious' Epstein comments - ABC NewsPam Bondi accused of possible witness tampering with Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer - Raw StoryEpstein case to ignite Capitol Hill post-recessBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 21min

Jeffrey Epstein’s interest in transhumanism went far beyond idle curiosity—he saw it as a personal blueprint for shaping humanity’s future in his own image. Using his foundation and wealth, he funded research in genetics, neuroscience, AI, and evolutionary dynamics, forging ties with elite scientists and institutions. Publicly, this philanthropy framed him as a visionary; privately, it aligned with deeply narcissistic goals such as creating a genetically engineered bloodline via his “baby ranch” plan, preserving his brain and body through cryonics, and potentially merging his consciousness with advanced technology. These ambitions stripped transhumanism of its egalitarian ideals, twisting it into a vehicle for personal immortality, hereditary control, and dominance over human evolution.The scientific community’s willingness to accept his money—despite his criminal history—allowed Epstein to launder both his reputation and his dystopian ideas. Exclusive conferences, research grants, and one-on-one engagements gave him influence in shaping discourse on the future of humanity. His involvement underscores how speculative, high-stakes technologies can be exploited by the wealthy to entrench inequality and impose self-serving visions. Though Epstein’s death halted his plans, the infrastructure, relationships, and normalization of ethically perilous ideas he helped foster remain. His story stands as a cautionary tale: without strong ethical guardrails, the power to reshape life itself can slip into the hands of those driven not by the betterment of all, but by vanity, exploitation, and the desire to control the human future.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 12min

Jeffrey Epstein’s interest in transhumanism went far beyond idle curiosity—he saw it as a personal blueprint for shaping humanity’s future in his own image. Using his foundation and wealth, he funded research in genetics, neuroscience, AI, and evolutionary dynamics, forging ties with elite scientists and institutions. Publicly, this philanthropy framed him as a visionary; privately, it aligned with deeply narcissistic goals such as creating a genetically engineered bloodline via his “baby ranch” plan, preserving his brain and body through cryonics, and potentially merging his consciousness with advanced technology. These ambitions stripped transhumanism of its egalitarian ideals, twisting it into a vehicle for personal immortality, hereditary control, and dominance over human evolution.The scientific community’s willingness to accept his money—despite his criminal history—allowed Epstein to launder both his reputation and his dystopian ideas. Exclusive conferences, research grants, and one-on-one engagements gave him influence in shaping discourse on the future of humanity. His involvement underscores how speculative, high-stakes technologies can be exploited by the wealthy to entrench inequality and impose self-serving visions. Though Epstein’s death halted his plans, the infrastructure, relationships, and normalization of ethically perilous ideas he helped foster remain. His story stands as a cautionary tale: without strong ethical guardrails, the power to reshape life itself can slip into the hands of those driven not by the betterment of all, but by vanity, exploitation, and the desire to control the human future.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 14min

In early 2016, Virginia Giuffre, through her counsel, filed a motion seeking to compel Ghislaine Maxwell to produce documents that had been withheld based on objections and privilege claims deemed improper by the plaintiff. Giuffre’s motion challenged Maxwell’s broad assertions of attorney‑client privilege, work‑product doctrine, vagueness, overbreadth, and undue burden. The motion was accompanied by detailed declarations—most notably by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley—which laid out why many of Maxwell’s objections appeared unjustified and why the requested materials were relevant and necessary for Giuffre’s case.The court reviewed both the motion and Maxwell’s opposition, which included memoranda of law and declarations defending her objections and maintaining that providing certain documents would violate privacy rights or exceed the scope of discovery. Ultimately, in a partially favorable ruling for Giuffre, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, indicating that while some objections were valid, Maxwell was required to produce additional documents where privilege claims were not properly supported.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre v. Maxwell | MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . Document | CasetextBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 27min

In early 2016, Virginia Giuffre, through her counsel, filed a motion seeking to compel Ghislaine Maxwell to produce documents that had been withheld based on objections and privilege claims deemed improper by the plaintiff. Giuffre’s motion challenged Maxwell’s broad assertions of attorney‑client privilege, work‑product doctrine, vagueness, overbreadth, and undue burden. The motion was accompanied by detailed declarations—most notably by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley—which laid out why many of Maxwell’s objections appeared unjustified and why the requested materials were relevant and necessary for Giuffre’s case.The court reviewed both the motion and Maxwell’s opposition, which included memoranda of law and declarations defending her objections and maintaining that providing certain documents would violate privacy rights or exceed the scope of discovery. Ultimately, in a partially favorable ruling for Giuffre, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, indicating that while some objections were valid, Maxwell was required to produce additional documents where privilege claims were not properly supported.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre v. Maxwell | MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . Document | CasetextBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 28min

Ghislaine Maxwell filed a formal motion in January 2024 seeking sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 37(c), arguing that Virginia Giuffre had failed to comply with both a court-ordered discovery directive and Rule 26(a) disclosure requirements. Maxwell's team, led by attorney Laura Menninger, detailed repeated instances in which Giuffre withheld or failed to fully disclose critical medical records and the identities of treating health providers—information essential to assessing her claims for emotional and physical distress. They characterized these omissions as intentional and willful, highlighting Giuffre’s failure to identify providers like Dr. Lightfoot in Australia, among others, despite clear court orders and confirmations made during an April 21, 2016 hearing.Maxwell contended these violations had prejudiced her defense and undermined the integrity of the discovery process—arguing that lesser sanctions would be insufficient. Her motion sought a range of potential consequences under Rule 37(b), such as preclusion of Giuffre’s damages claims or striking portions of her case, as well as cost-shifting remedies available under Rule 37(c), including attorney’s fees and possibly an adverse inference against Giuffre. The motion emphasized that Giuffre and her counsel were well aware of the consequences of non-compliance and that her continued delays and omissions should trigger serious sanctions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:epstein-documents-943-pages - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 40min

From the archives: 1-6-23Now that the Affadavit has been released, we have learned a lot more about the way the investigators went about building the evidence against Bryan Koberger. Especially evidence of the digital variety.In this episode, we hear how Bryan Kohberger's phone pinged to the house where he allegedly murdered Kaylee, Madison, Ethan and Xana 12 times previously, going all the way back to August of last year. Not only that, he returned to the scene of the crime, according to cell phone data, the next morning at around 9 am where he lurked for roughly ten minutes before leaving.Let's unpack it.(commercial at 6:50)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger's phone pinged at Idaho murder scene hours after killings,12 times prior: investigators | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 17min

As we hit the one year mark of the murders in Moscow, the man who is on trial for those murders continues to await his fate after waiving his right to a speedy trial. As he waits, the prosecution continues to methodically collect evidence that they hope to use to secure a conviction when the trial finally arrives.In this episode, we take a look at the DNA evidence collected against Bryan Kohberger and how much weight that DNA evidence is going to carry with the jurors when the time finally arrives for Bryan Kohberger to face Judge and Jury in a courtroom in Idaho.(commercial at 7:56)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DNA evidence alone is not enough to convict Bryan Kohberger: trial expert (nypost.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Elo 11min