From the Clinton Cabinet to Epstein’s Inbox: Larry Summers’ Post-Arrest Emails (11/13/25)

The dive into the court documents continues in this episode as we begin our look at the order denying the AP request to have the gag order lifted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:06232023+Order+Denying+The+Associated+Presss+Motion+to+Vacate+The+Amended+Nondissemination+Order.pdf (amazonaws.com)read lessBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

20 Syys 16min

Jes Staley’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t just a lapse in judgment—it was a full-blown embrace of depravity dressed up as “networking.” Staley wasn’t dragged into Epstein’s orbit; he signed up for the frequent flyer program. He flew to the island, sent creepy “Snow White” emails, and played the role of banker, buddy, and image-launderer for a convicted sex offender. This wasn’t ignorance—it was arrogance. He knew exactly who Epstein was and decided that power, money, and access were worth more than decency, truth, or his own reputation.In the end, Staley will never be remembered for his banking career or “leadership.” His legacy is sealed as Epstein’s enabler, lapdog, and fool—the man who polished the monster’s image while survivors were left fighting for justice. He represents everything rotten about high finance: greed over morality, image over truth, connections over humanity. Staley thought he could walk hand-in-hand with Epstein and still be respected. Instead, he’s a permanent cautionary tale of complicity, corruption, and cowardice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

20 Syys 12min

Reports say that Musk once visited Epstein’s New York residence for about 30 minutes one afternoon, along with Talulah Riley. Musk has said the meeting was at her request, because she was curious, and that nothing inappropriate was observed—just “weird art.” He also says Epstein invited him more than once to visit his private island, an invitation Musk declinedMusk has also been vocal in demanding that files related to Epstein be made more public. He has made claims—without presenting evidence—that Donald Trump is named in still-sealed “Epstein files,” and that this is a key reason they have not been released. Musk has criticized the Trump administration for withholding them and said such transparency is important for public trust.to contact me:bobbycapucci@Protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

20 Syys 29min

Elon Musk has been loudly criticizing the DOJ and FBI over their handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, calling out what he sees as a disgraceful failure to hold powerful figures accountable. He presents himself as an outsider raging against the elite, demanding justice and transparency from the very institutions he claims are protecting predators. But there's a glaring contradiction that undercuts this entire performance: Musk himself once sat down at the same table as Jeffrey Epstein. At a private billionaire’s dinner, years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction was public knowledge, Musk broke bread with a man already known to be a convicted sex offender—making his current outrage feel more like calculated damage control than genuine moral concern.The hypocrisy is almost unbearable. You don’t get to dine with a monster, stay silent for over a decade, and then pretend to be the loudest voice in the room demanding accountability. Musk’s selective outrage reeks of self-preservation, not justice. He wasn’t just in the same room—he was a participant in the same closed-door culture of wealth, access, and impunity that allowed Epstein to thrive. And now, as public pressure mounts, he wants to rewrite the past, cast himself as a truth-teller, and hope no one remembers where he was when it mattered. But history has receipts—and the dinner napkin still has his name on it.Elon Musk isn’t the only one feigning moral outrage about Jeffrey Epstein while conveniently forgetting the dinner table they once shared. In 2011, at a private billionaires’ dinner during a TED conference, Musk, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, and other tech titans sat shoulder to shoulder with Epstein—a man already convicted of soliciting sex from a minor. These weren’t ignorant bystanders. Epstein’s name was radioactive by then, his crimes well documented. Yet these men, who now pretend to be disgusted by the cover-up, saw no issue sharing wine and strategy with him over filet mignon and handshakes. It was a who’s who of unchecked power pretending Epstein was just another quirky financier with connections.Fast-forward to now, and the same billionaires want to position themselves as the public’s moral compass—demanding justice, accountability, and answers from the government while playing dumb about their own proximity to the rot. Musk rails against the DOJ, Bezos hides behind silence, and the rest of them act like their invitations got lost in the mail. But this wasn’t some accident. They sat there. They talked. They mingled. And they helped normalize a predator. These men didn’t just witness the corruption—they were part of the network that allowed it to keep operating in plain sight. Now they want to shout from the rooftops as if they weren’t once whispering in the same room. That’s not courage. That’s cleanup.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:In 2011, Jeffrey Epstein Was A Known Sex Offender. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, And Sergey Brin Shared A Meal With Him AnywayBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

20 Syys 26min

Edward Bramson, through his investment vehicle Sherborne Investors, owned a ~5–6% stake in Barclays and repeatedly pushed the bank to address what he saw as governance failures tied to Jes Staley’s past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Bramson publicly criticized Staley for not being sufficiently transparent about those links, particularly his time at JPMorgan, and demanded that the board take decisive action—either requiring Staley to be removed or revoking support for his reappointment as CEO. Bramson also raised questions about whether Staley had appropriately severed ties with Epstein, even after compliance/legal teams had urged him to do so.Over time, however, Staley managed to resist most of Bramson’s pressure. By 2021 Bramson ended up selling Sherborne’s entire stake in Barclays, backing down from his campaign to force structural changes to the investment banking division and leadership removal. While the regulatory investigations into Staley’s Epstein connections continued and the issue caused reputational damage, Bramson was unable to gain enough shareholder or board support to force the changes he wanted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

20 Syys 40min

During the interview, Kim Iversen pressed Dershowitz about his associations with Jeffrey Epstein and asked probing questions that he appeared taken off-guard by. One key moment came when Iversen asked whether Epstein “killed himself,” to which Dershowitz responded that Epstein did not die entirely of his own doing—suggesting involvement of others, particularly guards. Dershowitz seemed visibly frustrated with the line of inquiry, complaining about what he felt was being “sandbagged”—i.e. caught unawares on shifting topics. When Iversen tried to connect the conversation back to Donald Trump and broader current events, Dershowitz challenged the framing, appearing to assert that certain issues were being conflated unfairly.Dershowitz ultimately ended the exchange by telling Iversen it would be “the last time” he appeared on her show, indicating that he felt the interview had crossed implicit boundaries. The interaction made headlines largely because of that tension, the unexpected speculation about Epstein’s death, and Dershowitz’s claim that questions about unrelated topics had been sprung without warning.Also...Alan Dershowitz has publicly said that Prince Andrew made “a terrible mistake” by settling the lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre in 2022 rather than taking the case to trial. Dershowitz believes Andrew could have won in court, arguing there were legal grounds to challenge jurisdiction, statute of limitations, and credibility of Giuffre’s claims. He suggests Andrew’s legal team—and possibly Queen Elizabeth II—pressured him into settling to avoid the embarrassment of a public deposition and the full airing of allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

20 Syys 28min

Alan Dershowitz filed a lawsuit against Netflix in 2021 over its docuseries Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, alleging defamation and breach of contract. He claimed the series unfairly presented Virginia Giuffre’s allegations against him without including exculpatory evidence he provided, and argued that producers had promised to air his side of the story but failed to do so. Netflix denied the allegations and filed a countersuit, insisting the program was accurate and that Dershowitz’s claims were meritless.Separately, Dershowitz became embroiled in a bitter legal fight with prominent attorney David Boies, who sued him for defamation after Dershowitz accused Boies of unethical conduct and pressuring Giuffre into making false statements. Dershowitz countered with his own claims that Boies had orchestrated a campaign to smear him. Both disputes—Dershowitz versus Netflix and Dershowitz versus Boies—ultimately ended in late 2022 when all parties agreed to dismiss their lawsuits with prejudice. Giuffre herself issued a statement acknowledging she may have misidentified Dershowitz, closing out the high-profile litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

20 Syys 31min

​Bryan Kohberger's defense team has recently filed motions to suppress certain evidence ahead of his August 11, 2025, trial for the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students. A former FBI special agent characterized these efforts as attempts to create an "illusion" of a weak prosecution case, aiming to influence potential jurors. The defense sought to exclude terms like "psychopath" and "sociopath" from the trial, a request partially granted by Judge Steven Hippler, who ruled such labels require expert validation. Additionally, the defense's motion to omit Kohberger's 2020 essay on crime scene handling was denied, and the judge indicated that the 911 call from the victims' roommate would likely be admitted, albeit possibly in a redacted formThe defense also argued that prosecutors were delaying discovery, a claim undermined when they acknowledged receiving all requested materials. Experts suggest these tactics aim to delay proceedings and cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Former FBI agent Jonathan Gilliam noted that the defense appears more focused on portraying the prosecution's case as insufficient rather than asserting Kohberger's innocence. Similarly, former D.C. homicide detective Ted Williams observed that the defense is employing a strategy of challenging various aspects of the case, hoping to find elements that might resonate with the jury.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger case: Fmr FBI agent says defense is trying to create 'illusion' | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

20 Syys 11min