Prince Andrew And His Moronic Group Of Advisers And "Friends"

The Department of Justice’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement is not a story of legal inevitability but one of institutional protection and betrayal. In 2008, prosecutors secretly struck a deal that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity, hiding it from victims in direct violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. When a federal judge confirmed that violation in 2019, the DOJ had the chance to admit the deal was unlawful and void it. Instead, it doubled down, filing a 35-page defense insisting there was “no legal basis” to undo the sweetheart deal. At the same time, it staged a hollow push to release grand jury records it knew the courts would never unseal—then blamed the judiciary for the failure. This was theater, designed to shift blame while burying what the DOJ actually controls: the rotten deal it authored.The truth is that the DOJ could dismantle the non-prosecution agreement tomorrow. Legal tools exist: declare it void for violating victims’ rights, for being unconscionable, or for undermining public policy. But the department refuses because dismantling it would expose its own complicity, the reputations it protected, and the powerful network Epstein served. By clinging to the deal, the DOJ isn’t upholding the law—it’s shielding itself and the elite beneficiaries of Epstein’s world. The result is a department that masquerades as a guardian of justice while acting as caretaker of corruption. The ultimate betrayal is clear: the very institution meant to protect victims instead became a predator’s last line of defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

25 Aug 21min

The Department of Justice’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement is not a story of legal inevitability but one of institutional protection and betrayal. In 2008, prosecutors secretly struck a deal that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity, hiding it from victims in direct violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. When a federal judge confirmed that violation in 2019, the DOJ had the chance to admit the deal was unlawful and void it. Instead, it doubled down, filing a 35-page defense insisting there was “no legal basis” to undo the sweetheart deal. At the same time, it staged a hollow push to release grand jury records it knew the courts would never unseal—then blamed the judiciary for the failure. This was theater, designed to shift blame while burying what the DOJ actually controls: the rotten deal it authored.The truth is that the DOJ could dismantle the non-prosecution agreement tomorrow. Legal tools exist: declare it void for violating victims’ rights, for being unconscionable, or for undermining public policy. But the department refuses because dismantling it would expose its own complicity, the reputations it protected, and the powerful network Epstein served. By clinging to the deal, the DOJ isn’t upholding the law—it’s shielding itself and the elite beneficiaries of Epstein’s world. The result is a department that masquerades as a guardian of justice while acting as caretaker of corruption. The ultimate betrayal is clear: the very institution meant to protect victims instead became a predator’s last line of defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

25 Aug 11min

Ghislaine Maxwell’s two‑day interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, spanning over 300 pages, offers a key insight: she never saw Donald Trump behave inappropriately. Maxwell described their relationship as strictly cordial, noting she had not witnessed him in any compromising situations—particularly massages or other intimate settings—and referred to him as “a gentleman in all respects.” She also asserted that there was no “client list” implicating powerful figures in Epstein’s network—debunking widespread speculation of a Black Book or secret registry—while expressing uncertainty over whether she attended any gatherings that could corroborate such claimsMaxwell similarly defended Bill Clinton, saying he was her friend—not Epstein’s—and that she never observed any misbehavior between them. She rejected claims involving Prince Andrew, going so far as to label allegations connecting him to Virginia Giuffre as “bullshit,” and suggested the infamous photograph depicting him with Giuffre may have been doctored. Regarding Epstein’s death, Maxwell dismissed theories of foul play as “ludicrous,” suggesting instead that a prison incident—such as a violent confrontation over commissary—was a more plausible explanation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:5 takeaways from Ghislaine Maxwell transcripts and audio filesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

25 Aug 18min

Ghislaine Maxwell, now a convicted sex trafficker serving a 20-year sentence, was surprisingly honored at the 2013 Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) conference—even as allegations of her involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring had already been publicly circulating. At the CGI, her nonprofit, the TerraMar Project, was spotlighted with a “Commitment to Action” recognition, and she received applause during an ocean-conservation luncheon. This recognition occurred despite a 2011 internal directive from Clinton aide Doug Band to bar her from Clinton-related events.Clinton Foundation officials stated that over 600 complimentary passes were authorized for the 2013 event at the staff level—including the office of former President Clinton—and insisted that the Clintons had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. Still, some sources suggest Maxwell’s inclusion may have required personal approval from Bill or Hillary Clinton, raising fresh scrutiny. The revelation comes amid new subpoenas issued by the House Oversight Committee to both Clintons as part of its broader investigation into Epstein’s network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell was celebrated at posh Clinton event years after sex crimes accusations emergedBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

25 Aug 15min

In her further reply, Virginia Roberts Giuffre urged the court to allow additional depositions beyond the standard limit, arguing that such expanded testimony is essential given the seriousness and complexity of the abuse and trafficking allegations. She noted that Ghislaine Maxwell had deliberately withheld crucial information and failed to fully comply with discovery requests, and that the additional deposition time would permit her legal team to explore new evidence, fill gaps in Maxwell's testimony, and address inconsistencies critical to her claims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein list: See all 40 unsealed documents (foxnews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

25 Aug 45min

In the case of Doe v. Black (Case No. 1:23-cv-06418-JGLC), Defendant Leon Black filed a reply memorandum supporting his motion to dismiss Plaintiff Jane Doe's complaint. Black's legal team argues that Doe's allegations are time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations and fail to meet the necessary legal standards for the claims presented. They assert that the complaint lacks specific factual details to substantiate the accusations, rendering the claims insufficient under federal pleading requirements.Additionally, the defense contends that certain claims are legally deficient, as they do not establish essential elements required for such causes of action. Black's attorneys emphasize that the complaint does not provide adequate grounds to proceed and request the court to dismiss the case in its entirety. The reply memorandum serves to reinforce these points, aiming to persuade the court to rule in favor of dismissal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.70.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

25 Aug 21min

In Case No. 1:23-cv-06418, Defendant Leon Black’s reply memorandum emphasizes his argument for imposing sanctions against Wigdor LLP and Jeanne Christensen, alleging that their conduct in pursuing litigation was improper and abusive. Black contends that the lawsuit filed by Wigdor LLP is frivolous and part of a larger campaign to damage his reputation, relying on baseless allegations that lack factual and legal merit. He asserts that the firm and its attorneys acted in bad faith, leveraging the judicial system as a tool for public relations and personal vendettas. Black underscores his position that the actions taken by Wigdor LLP not only violated ethical obligations but also inflicted significant harm on him, warranting the court's intervention through sanctions.The reply memorandum further argues that Wigdor LLP’s tactics amount to malicious litigation designed to intimidate and coerce, undermining the integrity of the legal process. Black urges the court to impose sanctions to deter similar misconduct in the future and to preserve judicial resources. He emphasizes the importance of holding attorneys accountable for their professional conduct to maintain fairness and justice within the legal system. Black’s filing includes requests for monetary sanctions and other appropriate remedies, signaling the seriousness of his claims against Wigdor LLP and Christensen.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.65.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

25 Aug 22min

Newly unsealed court filings from Virginia Giuffre’s civil case have raised questions about whether Jeffrey Epstein may have leveraged incriminating material to exert influence over Prince Andrew. During Epstein’s deposition under oath, he refused to answer whether he intended to obtain blackmail-worthy information on the Duke of York after Giuffre’s alleged encounter with him—choosing instead to invoke his Fifth Amendment right. Giuffre herself testified that Epstein required her to report in detail about the encounter, including whether Prince Andrew had “thanked” Epstein for arranging it—a line of questioning that suggests Epstein might have been cultivating compromising content.Despite these indications, a recent exhaustive review by the FBI and Department of Justice concluded that they found no credible evidence of a “client list” or a blackmail scheme involving Epstein and prominent individuals—including Prince Andrew. A memo released last month reaffirmed that the investigation found nothing actionable that would warrant further scrutiny or charges against third parties such as Prince Andrew.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12404386/jeffrey-epstein-something-on-prince-andrew-documentary/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

25 Aug 16min