Ghislaine Maxwell's DOJ Interview: No Names, No Justice, No Surprise (8/23/25)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Nov 23min

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Nov 21min

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Nov 23min

Prince Andrew was branded an “egotist” by a former head of royal security after continued controversy over his insistence on keeping a taxpayer-funded £3 million-a-year police protection detail, despite no longer being a working royal. The former officer, who once oversaw protection for the royal household, accused the Duke of York of exhibiting an inflated sense of self-importance by refusing to accept that his public role—and the privileges that came with it—had long since ended. His remarks reflected broader frustration within both royal and policing circles, where many believed Andrew’s demands for elite security were rooted in pride rather than legitimate necessity.The criticism came at a time when Andrew’s reputation was already in tatters following his association with Jeffrey Epstein and his disastrous Newsnight interview. Once viewed as a key member of the royal family, he had become a figure of ridicule and embarrassment—isolated, stripped of official duties, and reliant on family resources to maintain his lifestyle. The “egotist” label encapsulated how many inside and outside the palace viewed him: as a man unable to let go of the trappings of a past life, clinging to status symbols that no longer reflected his reality.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Nov 12min

Prince Andrew held a shooting-party on his family-estate just days before he was due in court for first motions in a U.S. civil lawsuit alleging sexual assault, an event observers say sent a message of defiance. The timing raised eyebrows—while the legal case spearheaded by Virginia Giuffre was preparing to proceed, his decision to host a lavish, high-profile social event suggested he was either unconcerned or expecting the matter to fade.The shooting party’s timing couldn’t have been more tone-deaf. Just as the world was watching to see how he’d respond to the allegations of sexual assault from Virginia Giuffre, Prince Andrew was out playing lord of the manor—surrounded by guns, champagne, and aristocratic cronies. It painted the portrait of a man either completely detached from reality or defiantly clinging to the remnants of a privilege he believes still shields him. To many observers, it wasn’t a display of confidence—it was a performance of denial. As the lawsuit gathered steam in New York, Andrew seemed intent on pretending nothing had changed, that the old royal life still existed. But that illusion was already collapsing, and the optics of a disgraced duke hosting a country weekend amid accusations of sexual abuse only cemented how out of touch—and out of time—he truly was.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Nov 22min

Reports surfaced that Prince Andrew was making late-night visits to Queen Elizabeth II at Windsor Castle during the height of his public disgrace. According to multiple outlets, these visits were conducted “under the cover of darkness,” with Andrew allegedly slipping into the castle after hours to spend time with his mother away from prying eyes. The timing—coming just after his royal titles were stripped and the Epstein scandal reached a fever pitch—sparked widespread speculation about his motives. Some royal insiders claimed he was pleading his case, hoping to persuade the Queen to help rehabilitate his image or shield him from the full fallout of his disgrace.Others saw it as a sign of desperation: a son clinging to his last lifeline of relevance, knowing that the court of public opinion had already passed judgment. These nocturnal visits underscored the stark contrast between his diminished public standing and the private access he still enjoyed behind palace walls. Whether they were born of love, manipulation, or panic, they symbolized the surreal image of a disgraced prince haunting the corridors of Windsor under cover of night—his royal career dead, but his delusions of restoration still flickering in the dark.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Nov 15min

Prince Andrew's future within the British Royal Family appears increasingly constrained due to his tarnished reputation and strained familial relationships. His association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the subsequent settlement of a civil lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre have led to his withdrawal from public duties and the stripping of his military titles and royal patronages. Despite these measures, Andrew has resisted efforts to relocate from the 30-room Royal Lodge, a property requiring extensive and costly maintenance. King Charles III has reportedly cut Andrew's annual allowance and security funding, leading the Duke to secure a mysterious £3 million lifeline to maintain his residence, raising concerns about the source of these funds and the propriety of his associations.Public opinion remains largely unfavorable toward Prince Andrew, with many viewing his attempts to retain royal privileges as emblematic of entitlement and a lack of accountability. His refusal to vacate the Royal Lodge, despite financial pressures and the property's deteriorating condition, has been criticized as a display of arrogance and detachment from public sentiment. Experts suggest that Andrew's chances of returning to public life are negligible, advising that he should focus on leading a quiet, private existence to avoid further damaging the monarchy's reputation.   The ongoing tensions within the royal family, particularly between Andrew and King Charles, underscore the complexities of managing personal relationships alongside public responsibilities and the imperative to uphold the integrity of the institution.(commercial at 7:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What does the future hold for Prince Andrew - with disgraced royal entrenched at Royal Lodge | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

2 Nov 11min

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn’t justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta’s insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he’d been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

2 Nov 12min