Mega Edition: How The Legacy Media Sells You Epstein Outrage But Gives You No Answers (11/16/25)

In the deposition conducted by attorney Brad Edwards in March 2010, Jeffrey Epstein faced direct questioning regarding his alleged sexual abuse of minors and the recruitment of underage girls for sexual purposes. Throughout the session, Epstein invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than 200 times, refusing to answer nearly every question posed to him—including inquiries about the ages of the girls who visited his Palm Beach mansion, the payments made to them, and whether he had ever engaged in sexual contact with minors. His silence extended to questions about associates, travel records, and his relationship with law enforcement officials who had handled his prior case. The deposition painted a portrait of an uncooperative and evasive witness whose primary strategy was avoidance, offering no meaningful insight into his actions or his network.Edwards, representing multiple victims, later used Epstein’s refusals to support adverse inferences in civil court—essentially arguing that Epstein’s blanket use of the Fifth Amendment implied guilt or, at minimum, awareness of wrongdoing. The deposition reinforced the picture of Epstein as a powerful man shielded by money and influence, unwilling to confront the accusations directly. It became a key piece of evidence demonstrating his long-standing pattern of avoiding accountability, helping set the stage for renewed legal scrutiny years later when federal prosecutors in New York reopened the Epstein case in 2019.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Marras 14min

Enough is enough. The American people have been dragged through years of lies, manipulation, half-truths, and theatrical promises about the Epstein files. We were told transparency was coming — day one, they said. We were promised sunlight, subpoenas, answers, justice. Instead, what we got was political theater, influencer photo-ops, redactions thicker than concrete, and a bipartisan effort to bury the truth deeper than Epstein’s body ever went. Every excuse in the book has been thrown at us: investigations are ongoing, national security, sensitive information, legal complexities, timing issues — you name it. Meanwhile, the survivors grow older, the criminals grow richer, and the public grows angrier. At a certain point, the game becomes obvious: they are not stalling because of process, they’re stalling because of panic.And now, the line has been drawn. It is no longer a request — it is a demand. Release the files. All of them. No more curated leaks, no more “phase one,” no more political puppetry. The country deserves every page, every email, every black book entry, every flight log, every deposition, unredacted and unfiltered. The world is watching a government terrified of its own reflection, terrified of the names that will shatter the illusion of integrity. Justice delayed is justice denied, and justice in the Epstein case has been delayed for decades. If our leaders can’t handle the truth, then step aside and let someone who can. The survivors deserve closure. The public deserves honesty. The system deserves cleansing. Enough is enough — release the files and let the chips fall where they may.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Marras 11min

In a move widely criticized as politically motivated and structurally compromised, former SEC chairman Jay Clayton—who previously worked closely with Apollo Global Management, the private-equity firm led for decades by Jeffrey Epstein associate Leon Black—was appointed to oversee an investigation into Epstein’s alleged ties to Donald Trump’s political adversaries. Critics argue that placing someone so closely connected to a firm entangled in Epstein’s financial orbit fundamentally undermines the credibility of the inquiry. While the announcement was framed as a push for transparency, the decision raised immediate concerns about conflicts of interest and selective scrutiny. Observers note that when Trump publicly demanded investigations into his opponents, he conspicuously avoided referencing Black or Les Wexner, another figure long linked to Epstein, fueling allegations that the appointment was designed to protect insiders rather than expose them.The broader controversy highlights what many see as a calculated effort to contain the fallout from newly surfaced Epstein-related communications that could implicate individuals across both political parties. Rather than pursuing a comprehensive accounting, the administration’s strategy appears focused on limiting exposure and reframing the narrative toward partisan targets. Survivors of Epstein’s abuse and their advocates have expressed frustration that those with direct proximity to Epstein—financially and personally—continue to remain shielded while public attention is redirected. Critics contend that the government’s approach resembles damage control rather than a legitimate pursuit of justice, reinforcing suspicions that political and financial interests, rather than accountability, are driving decisions at the highest levels.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Marras 16min

In this appeal from a now-settled defamation case brought by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, the Second Circuit held that many of the documents under seal were properly treated as “judicial documents” to which a strong presumption of public access attached. The court reaffirmed that the status of a document as a judicial document is “fixed at filing” — meaning that if the filing was relevant to the court’s exercise of its Article III functions when filed, later events (e.g., the case being settled or the motion becoming moot) do not nullify the presumption of access. The court also clarified that a document does not lose the presumption of access simply because the court did not explicitly rely on it in rendering a decision, and that filings in connection with motions to seal or unseal are themselves judicial documents since they invoke the court’s supervisory power.At the same time, the Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s orders. It agreed that the lower court did not err in declining to unseal certain documents — for example, segments of Maxwell’s deposition involving her adult sexual relationships and redacted identifying information of pseudonymized third-parties — because in those instances countervailing privacy interests outweighed the access presumption. But the appellate court vacated the district court’s categorical refusal to treat certain undecided motions as judicial documents subject to access, and remanded for further individual review of those materials (including a Florida deposition transcript and filings by non-parties) consistent with the correct standard.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Marras 24min

From the moment Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in July 2020, she launched an aggressive series of bail attempts, all of which were rejected by federal judges who consistently found her to be an extreme flight risk. In her first effort, she requested release to home confinement with electronic monitoring, but prosecutors and the court highlighted her dual citizenships, extensive international ties, history of global travel, and large undisclosed financial resources. The court determined that no conditions—no matter how strict—could reasonably ensure that she would appear for trial. In December 2020, Maxwell’s legal team escalated their offer with a proposed $28.5 million bail package, secured by properties and supported by family members willing to act as guarantors. She also offered to waive her citizenships and abide by 24-hour armed guard monitoring, but the judge again ruled that her financial reach and international network made her uniquely capable of disappearing if released.Following that failure, Maxwell submitted multiple additional bail requests in early 2021, each one attempting to address prior objections and each one rejected. The court pointed to documented efforts she had made to evade law enforcement, including hiding on a secluded New Hampshire estate and transferring assets through shell accounts, as evidence that she could not be trusted to remain under supervision. Prosecutors emphasized that her wealth was deliberately obscured, her ties to countries that do not extradite were significant, and the allegations against her were extraordinarily serious. Even her appeals to the Second Circuit were denied, affirming the lower court’s conclusion that she posed a flight risk that no bail package could mitigate. Ultimately, her detention remained in place until trial and conviction.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Marras 55min

Bill Richardson’s political career in New Mexico has long been shadowed by persistent allegations of corruption that never fully disappeared, even after federal prosecutors declined to bring charges. The most serious accusations centered on a suspected “pay-to-play” network in which state investment contracts and pension-fund deals allegedly flowed to major campaign donors during his tenure as governor. Multiple reports detailed how financial firms that contributed heavily to Richardson’s political committees later secured lucrative placement fees or state investment mandates, raising questions about whether public funds were being used to reward political loyalty rather than financial merit. Additional claims — including accusations that judicial applicants were pressured to donate to Richardson-aligned campaigns — only deepened public suspicion that political access and personal advancement in the state were intertwined in ways that undermined transparency and trust.Because these allegations sit atop an already troubled history of political ethics scandals in New Mexico, watchdog groups and legal observers argue that the entire system demands a comprehensive, independent investigation. The state has endured a long pattern of corruption cases involving high-ranking officials, from state treasurers convicted of extortion and racketeering to judges implicated in political bribery schemes. Against that backdrop, the unresolved questions surrounding Richardson’s tenure — the investment deals, the political fundraising machinery, and the federal probe that forced him to withdraw from a Cabinet nomination — continue to raise legitimate concerns about oversight failures. A full, transparent examination of these issues is not only warranted but necessary if New Mexico hopes to repair public confidence and determine whether political influence distorted the management of taxpayer money.to contact me:bbbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Marras 45min

Steve Mnuchin’s ties to Jean-Luc Brunel surfaced when public corporate records showed Mnuchin listed as the official “state point of contact” for Next Management Corporation, the U.S. entity founded by Brunel and his brother in 1988. The designation placed Mnuchin on paperwork connected to Brunel’s modeling empire — the same empire later accused of funneling underage girls to Jeffrey Epstein. Mnuchin’s office publicly distanced him from the connection, claiming he had no memory of meeting Brunel, no involvement with the company, and no explanation for why his name appeared on the documents. But the linkage remains one of the many odd, unresolved overlaps in the Epstein network where powerful figures appear on paperwork nobody seems eager to explain.Robert F. Kennedy Jr. publicly acknowledged that he flew twice on Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet. He said the first flight was in 1993 when he was traveling to Florida with his wife and two children, and the second occurred on another occasion when he was joined by his wife and four children going to South Dakota “to go fossil hunting”. He asserted these trips took place about thirty years ago, before Epstein’s criminal conduct was widely known, and insisted he was never alone with Epstein.  Kennedy emphasized that his participation was incidental and familial in nature—he described the flights as carrying his family on leisure or research-oriented outings, not as part of any ongoing relationship with Epstein. He also called for full transparency around Epstein’s network and urged that the “high-level political people” involved in Epstein’s activities be subject to public disclosure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

16 Marras 38min