Two Million Pages of Silence: How the DOJ Is Still Sitting on the Epstein Files (1/6/26)

In the years leading up to Virginia Roberts (now Virginia Giuffre) filing her civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew in August 2021, a long history of allegations, legal filings, and public exposure set the stage. Giuffre first made allegations that she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and forced into sexual encounters with Andrew when she was 17 in court documents as early as 2014 and 2015—but those were largely buried or struck from cases at the time. When previously sealed filings from her 2015 defamation lawsuit against Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were unsealed in 2019, her detailed claims about being trafficked and having sexual contact with Andrew became widely publicized, sparking intense media scrutiny and criticism of the prince’s relationship with Epstein. That public exposure came amid broader outrage over Epstein’s crimes, Maxwell’s arrest and eventual conviction in 2021, and ongoing civil suits by survivors that underscored systemic failures to hold powerful people accountable.Capitalizing on the new legal opportunity created by New York’s Child Victims Act—designed to allow older claims that were previously time-barred to be filed—Giuffre’s lawyers formally sued Prince Andrew in U.S. federal court, alleging sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress tied to multiple encounters in the early 2000s when she was a minor trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell. The lawsuit cited a pattern of abuse, including travel to Epstein’s properties and coercion into sex with Andrew, and came after years of mounting evidence, survivor advocacy, and public pressure to confront powerful figures linked to Epstein’s network. The filing triggered a high-profile legal battle, including attempts by Andrew’s team to dismiss the case and disputes over service of process, before ultimately leading to an out-of-court settlement in early 2022.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

10 Jan 22min

Judicial Watch’s Epstein-related lawsuit is primarily a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action filed against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in late 2025, seeking the release of government records related to accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein that the group says have been improperly withheld from the public. The suit, Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:25-cv-04123), demands all documents that were subpoenaed by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, including what was provided in response and communications about that response, after the DOJ failed to adequately respond to an August 2025 FOIA request. The records sought include internal DOJ materials and communications with federal officials about the subpoena and the broader Epstein investigation — material that Judicial Watch argues the public has a right to see given the high-profile nature of the case and longstanding questions about transparency.In addition to the DOJ FOIA suit, Judicial Watch has filed related FOIA lawsuits seeking Epstein-related records from other federal agencies. These include a FOIA lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for any records concerning Epstein’s possible involvement with intelligence activities, his business dealings and travel, his contacts with influential figures, and documentation about his death, after the CIA failed to respond to a July 2025 FOIA request. Judicial Watch has also pursued DOJ and FBI records on the identities of Epstein’s clients or associates and records provided to the FBI by accuser Virginia Giuffre. Through these cases, the group aims to compel the release of materials that could illuminate undisclosed aspects of the Epstein investigation and potentially government handling of related evidence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

10 Jan 13min

Sarah Kellen came into focus during the Epstein investigation as one of the key figures within Jeffrey Epstein’s inner circle who allegedly helped run and manage many logistics of his sex-trafficking enterprise. She first drew attention in police and court documents from the 2000s, where a 2007 Palm Beach probable-cause affidavit named her and three other women as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the case that led to Epstein’s controversial non-prosecution deal — meaning she was identified as someone deeply involved in the operation but granted immunity at the time. Victims’ lawsuits and testimony in later proceedings, including during Ghislaine Maxwell’s 2021 trial and 2022 sentencing, repeatedly referenced Kellen as the person who scheduled Epstein’s “massage” appointments, coordinated travel, and communicated with girls who were brought to Epstein’s homes, often arranging their movements and facilitating contact with him. A federal judge in the Maxwell case even described her as a “knowing participant” and “criminally responsible participant” in the conspiracy, underscoring her central logistical roleDespite this spotlight, Kellen has never been charged with federal crimes related to Epstein’s sex trafficking and has avoided public prosecution, largely because of the broad immunity provisions in the 2008 agreement that protected possible co-conspirators. After Epstein’s 2019 death, her name resurfaced in unsealed litigation and civil actions, including lawsuits against Epstein’s estate where she was named as a defendant alongside Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly facilitating abuse. Additionally, investigative efforts such as the U.S. Virgin Islands’ civil case against JPMorgan Chase sought to depose her to shed light on financial and organizational aspects of Epstein’s network, further bringing her into focus as someone with critical knowledge about how the enterprise operated.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

9 Jan 11min

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein’s defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta’s account, particularly regarding victims’ rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

9 Jan 12min

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein’s defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta’s account, particularly regarding victims’ rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

9 Jan 13min

Dan Bongino’s podcasting comeback is being sold like a heroic return, but it reads more like a retreat dressed up as defiance. For years, he built an audience by pounding the table about Epstein, corruption, and elite protection, casting himself as the guy who would never bend, never sell out, never shut up. Then he took a leadership role inside the very institution that sat on Epstein, protected him, slow-walked accountability, and still refuses full transparency. When that moment demanded courage, confrontation, and follow-through, Bongino delivered silence, excuses, and eventually an exit. No bombshells. No whistleblowing. No scorched-earth truth. Just a quiet pivot back to podcasting, followed by a shrug and an implicit “it’s complicated.” The tough talk evaporated the second it required actual risk.What makes the whole act collapse is that Bongino now postures like nothing changed, as if the audience is supposed to forget the standard he set for everyone else. He didn’t expose a cover-up. He didn’t force disclosures. He didn’t resign in protest while naming names. Instead, he came back and redirected his anger toward safer targets while avoiding the one issue that defined his credibility. The Epstein failure isn’t a footnote, it’s the test he failed in real time. You can’t spend years branding yourself as the last honest man standing and then expect applause for returning to the mic empty-handed. The tough guy persona only works if it survives contact with power, and in the Epstein moment that mattered most, it folded completely.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

9 Jan 12min

Jeffrey Epstein violated the 2008 non-prosecution agreement repeatedly and blatantly, and yet faced no consequences from the same system that claimed the deal was conditional. The NPA required Epstein to comply with federal and state law, avoid further criminal conduct, and refrain from victim contact. Instead, after serving his sham county jail sentence, Epstein resumed trafficking behavior almost immediately. He continued to recruit young girls through the same network of associates, paid victims directly, traveled freely between jurisdictions, and maintained properties that were repeatedly identified by victims as sites of abuse. These were not technical or ambiguous violations. They were direct continuations of the very conduct the NPA was supposedly designed to stop. Under any normal interpretation, Epstein’s actions should have voided the agreement and reopened prosecution.What makes this more disturbing is that federal authorities were aware of many of these violations and still chose inaction. Complaints continued to surface, law enforcement agencies received new allegations, and civil cases produced sworn testimony describing post-NPA abuse. Yet prosecutors treated the agreement as untouchable, as if Epstein had been granted permanent immunity rather than conditional leniency. No hearings were held, no compliance reviews were triggered, and no penalties were imposed. The NPA became less a legal agreement and more a protective shield, enforced in Epstein’s favor regardless of his behavior. The message was unmistakable: the rules did not apply to him, and even open defiance of a federal agreement carried zero risk as long as the system decided not to look too closely.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00014110.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

9 Jan 10min

Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the bipartisan sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, have formally asked a federal judge to appoint a special master or independent monitor to oversee the Justice Department’s release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Their request comes after the DOJ missed the law’s December 19, 2025 deadline to make the documents public and has released only a small fraction of what it says is a multi-million document trove. In a letter to U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, Khanna and Massie argue that the DOJ’s slow pace, extensive redactions, and failure to submit legally required reports to Congress undermine compliance with the statute and could further traumatize survivors. They want a neutral third party empowered to assess whether the department is fully complying with the law and identify any improper redactions or other questionable conduct.The lawmakers have emphasized their lack of confidence in the DOJ’s ability to self-police this process and contend that without court-appointed oversight, full disclosure is unlikely. In their filing, they highlight inconsistencies in the DOJ’s reported figures on released versus remaining documents, and they stress that the department “cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act.” Massie has also threatened contempt proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi for ongoing noncompliance. By urging judicial intervention through a special master, Khanna and Massie aim to ensure the transparency envisioned by their law and compel the release of the full set of Epstein-related records despite departmental resistance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US congressmen ask judge to appoint official to force release of all Epstein files | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

9 Jan 11min