The Epstein Bill Passes Both Chambers Of Congress And Is Now Awaiting Trump's Signature (11/19/25)

On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein’s death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein’s survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Joulu 26min

On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein’s death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein’s survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Joulu 30min

In a videotaped deposition taken in April 2016, Maxwell was questioned under oath about Giuffre’s allegations of being groomed and trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell—allegations that she vehemently denied, calling Giuffre an “absolute liar” and asserting she had no involvement in recruiting or abusing her. Maxwell repeatedly refused to answer questions about alleged sexual activity with minors—labeling them as inquiries into “consensual adult sex”—and insisted she had no knowledge of underage abuse. She denied any wrongdoing or participation in Epstein’s trafficking network, attempting to distance herself from all aspects of Giuffre’s claims.Critics and federal prosecutors later pointed to this deposition as a key piece of evidence in her criminal indictment: they argue Maxwell knowingly made false statements under oath, which became the basis for two counts of perjury in her 2021 criminal charges. Despite her denials, corroborating evidence—including testimony about threesomes with minor girls, flight logs, and recruitment patterns—cast serious doubt on her credibility. Giuffre’s suit was ultimately settled in 2017, reportedly for millions of dollars, but the unsealed deposition—and Maxwell’s fierce denials—now serve as a stark contrast to the weight of testimony and documentation later vetted in court.source:Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Joulu 1h 2min

In a videotaped deposition taken in April 2016, Maxwell was questioned under oath about Giuffre’s allegations of being groomed and trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell—allegations that she vehemently denied, calling Giuffre an “absolute liar” and asserting she had no involvement in recruiting or abusing her. Maxwell repeatedly refused to answer questions about alleged sexual activity with minors—labeling them as inquiries into “consensual adult sex”—and insisted she had no knowledge of underage abuse. She denied any wrongdoing or participation in Epstein’s trafficking network, attempting to distance herself from all aspects of Giuffre’s claims.Critics and federal prosecutors later pointed to this deposition as a key piece of evidence in her criminal indictment: they argue Maxwell knowingly made false statements under oath, which became the basis for two counts of perjury in her 2021 criminal charges. Despite her denials, corroborating evidence—including testimony about threesomes with minor girls, flight logs, and recruitment patterns—cast serious doubt on her credibility. Giuffre’s suit was ultimately settled in 2017, reportedly for millions of dollars, but the unsealed deposition—and Maxwell’s fierce denials—now serve as a stark contrast to the weight of testimony and documentation later vetted in court.source:Ghislaine Maxwell Deposition Transcript - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Joulu 1h 4min

The government of the U.S. Virgin Islands alleged in court filings that Jamie Dimon, as chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, knew—or should have known—about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking activities while the bank maintained Epstein as a client. The USVI’s complaint argued that Epstein’s conduct was not hidden from view, citing internal bank communications, compliance warnings, and the volume and nature of transactions that allegedly raised red flags over many years. Prosecutors contended that senior leadership was repeatedly put on notice about Epstein’s reputation and risks, and that the bank nonetheless continued the relationship, providing services that enabled Epstein’s operations.The allegations framed Dimon’s knowledge as part of a broader institutional failure rather than a single lapse, asserting that information about Epstein circulated within JPMorgan at multiple levels, including among executives responsible for risk and compliance. While Dimon and the bank denied the claims—maintaining that Dimon had no direct awareness of Epstein’s crimes at the time—the USVI argued that the evidence showed a sustained pattern of warnings ignored or minimized. The dispute became central to the territory’s civil case against the bank, sharpening questions about executive accountability and whether Epstein’s abuse could have been curtailed had financial institutions acted sooner on what they allegedly knew.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Joulu 13min

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice publicly acknowledged that it had made “mistakes” in its handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s survivors, particularly in connection with the 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement in Florida. Federal officials conceded that prosecutors failed to properly notify victims about the deal and misled them about the status of the case, violations that ran afoul of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. The admission followed years of litigation brought by survivors who argued they were deliberately kept in the dark while Epstein secured an extraordinary plea agreement that shielded him from federal prosecution at the time.The DOJ’s acknowledgment came after a federal judge ruled that prosecutors had indeed violated victims’ rights, forcing the department to publicly reckon with its conduct. While officials expressed regret and described the failures as institutional errors, the admission stopped short of disciplinary action against those involved or a broader accounting of how the deal was approved. For survivors and their advocates, the statement underscored a painful reality: that the justice system not only failed to stop Epstein earlier, but also compounded the harm by excluding victims from decisions that directly affected their safety and legal rights.to  contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Joulu 30min

Prince Andrew repeatedly refused to cooperate with formal legal requests seeking his testimony about Jeffrey Epstein, denying at least three documented approaches from attorneys representing Epstein victims and, later, U.S. authorities. Lawyers for Virginia Giuffre first sought Andrew’s cooperation during civil litigation in the United States, requesting interviews and testimony about his relationship with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Andrew declined to participate. Subsequent formal requests—renewed as evidence mounted and court deadlines approached—were likewise rejected, with his legal team maintaining that he would not submit to questioning or provide a sworn account.That pattern continued even as pressure escalated. U.S. prosecutors publicly stated they had made repeated efforts to speak with Andrew as part of their Epstein investigation, only to be rebuffed each time. Legal experts noted that while Andrew was under no obligation to voluntarily cooperate as a foreign national, his refusal to engage stood in sharp contrast to public claims that he was eager to help authorities. The denials became a central feature of the case’s narrative, reinforcing criticism that Andrew avoided scrutiny not through legal immunity, but through strategic non-cooperation—declining every formal opportunity to explain his role in Epstein’s orbit under oath.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Joulu 17min

In this civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 31, 2010, the plaintiff—identified by the initials C.L.—accuses Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse and related misconduct. C.L., a resident of Palm Beach County at the time of the alleged incidents, brings this complaint based on events that occurred when she was underage and in vulnerable circumstances. The complaint outlines Epstein’s pattern of grooming and exploiting young girls in the Palm Beach area, suggesting that C.L. was one of his many victims targeted during a period when Epstein operated a network designed to recruit and abuse minors under the guise of offering financial help or mentorship.The suit claims Epstein engaged in a deliberate and manipulative scheme to solicit C.L. for sexually exploitative acts and that these acts resulted in significant emotional and psychological trauma. The complaint seeks damages for the abuse endured and accuses Epstein of violating both civil and statutory obligations designed to protect minors. Although this is just the first page, the document is consistent with the broader pattern of civil actions filed against Epstein in the wake of his non-prosecution agreement and subsequent revelations about his long-running sex trafficking operation.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

27 Joulu 22min