Mega Edition:   The Court Apologizes To Epstein Survivors And Who Is Bruce Reinhart? (11/14/25)

Mega Edition: The Court Apologizes To Epstein Survivors And Who Is Bruce Reinhart? (11/14/25)

The court’s apology to the Jeffrey Epstein survivors came as a long-overdue acknowledgment of how profoundly the justice system had failed them. In open court, federal judges conceded that the victims had been deliberately misled during the original 2008 non-prosecution deal—kept in the dark while prosecutors secretly negotiated Epstein’s immunity and that of his co-conspirators. The apology recognized that these survivors were denied their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and that the system’s betrayal compounded their trauma, allowing Epstein years of freedom to continue abusing others. While symbolic, the apology served as a public admission that the government’s handling of the case was inexcusable, marking a rare moment of institutional accountability in a saga defined by corruption, influence, and silence.


Meanwhile...



Bruce Reinhart is a federal magistrate judge for the Southern District of Florida who became tied to the Jeffrey Epstein saga due to his career moves before taking the bench. Prior to becoming a judge, Reinhart served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the very office that was investigating Epstein during the 2006–2008 sex trafficking probe. In a move that raised serious ethical concerns, Reinhart abruptly resigned from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2008—just as Epstein’s sweetheart non-prosecution agreement was being finalized—and within days began representing several of Epstein’s employees, including pilots and schedulers who were viewed as potential co-conspirators. That revolving-door transition, from prosecutor to defense lawyer for Epstein’s inner circle, sparked outrage and remains one of the most glaring examples of the systemic coziness that surrounded Epstein’s first case.


Reinhart’s actions were later cited in lawsuits accusing the Department of Justice of mishandling the Epstein investigation, with questions raised about conflicts of interest and whether his departure influenced prosecutorial leniency. Though Reinhart denied any wrongdoing, the optics were damaging—particularly as more details surfaced about how the 2008 non-prosecution deal effectively protected Epstein and his associates from serious federal charges. Years later, Reinhart reentered public controversy when he signed off on the search warrant for former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, bringing renewed attention to his past ties to the Epstein affair. His name has since become emblematic of the quiet backroom dealings and blurred ethical lines that defined the first Epstein investigation and the broader failure of justice that followed.


to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Episoder(1000)

The Ghislaine Maxwell Tapes:  Transcripts From Ghislaine Maxwell DOJ Interview (Part 14) (8/31/25)

The Ghislaine Maxwell Tapes: Transcripts From Ghislaine Maxwell DOJ Interview (Part 14) (8/31/25)

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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

31 Aug 12min

Mega Edition: Virginia Roberts Responds To Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement Of Facts (Part 7-9) (8/31/25)

Mega Edition: Virginia Roberts Responds To Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement Of Facts (Part 7-9) (8/31/25)

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

31 Aug 39min

Mega Edition: Virginia Roberts Responds To Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement Of Facts (Part 5-6) (8/31/25)

Mega Edition: Virginia Roberts Responds To Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement Of Facts (Part 5-6) (8/31/25)

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

31 Aug 26min

Mega Edition: Virginia Roberts Responds To Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement Of Facts (Part 3-4) (8/31/25)

Mega Edition: Virginia Roberts Responds To Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement Of Facts (Part 3-4) (8/31/25)

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

31 Aug 25min

Mega Edition: Virginia Roberts Responds To Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement Of Facts (Part 1-2) (8/30/25)

Mega Edition: Virginia Roberts Responds To Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement Of Facts (Part 1-2) (8/30/25)

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

31 Aug 25min

The Idaho State Police And The Budget Proposed By The Governor In The Wake Of The Murders

The Idaho State Police And The Budget Proposed By The Governor In The Wake Of The Murders

From the archives: 2-16-23It costs a lot of money to investigate one homicide, never mind four and when you are dealing with a small town like Moscow, financial concerns are always close at hand. Thankfully, the Idaho State Police were able to assist with the investigation, but that help came with a hefty price tag and now, after a public records request we are learning just how much was spent on the inestigation by the Idaho State Police. The Moscow Police Departement decline the request, referring to the gag order as a reason why.(commercial at 7:17)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho State Police and POST support the Governor's proposed public safety budget | ktvb.comsource:How much has Idaho State Police spent on the Idaho murders? | ktvb.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

31 Aug 11min

Bryan Kohberger And The Revised Gag Order

Bryan Kohberger And The Revised Gag Order

A gag order, also known as a judicial gag order, is a legal order issued by a judge that restricts or prohibits certain individuals involved in a legal case from speaking about or disclosing certain information to the public or the media. It is typically employed to ensure a fair trial or to protect the integrity of ongoing legal proceedings.The purpose of a gag order is to prevent potential prejudice or bias that may arise from pretrial publicity or excessive media coverage.By limiting the dissemination of information, a gag order aims to safeguard the right of the accused to a fair trial and maintain the impartiality of the jury.A judge may impose a gag order on various parties involved in a case, including the prosecution, defense attorneys, witnesses, and even the media. The specific terms and scope of a gag order can vary, but it commonly restricts individuals from discussing case-related details, evidence, or opinions outside of the courtroom.Gag orders can be broad, prohibiting all communication on a case, or they can be more specific, focusing on certain topics or individuals. Violating a gag order can result in contempt of court charges, fines, or other legal consequences.While gag orders are intended to protect the legal process, they can also raise concerns about freedom of speech and the public's right to information. However, judges may consider the potential impact on the fairness of the trial or the privacy rights of those involved when deciding to issue a gag order.In this epsiode, we are diving into the court documents once again and we are taking a look at the amended gag order, order graning motion to take judicial notice of press coverage, order granting motion to intervene for limited purpose and the order reserving the issue of cameras in the courtroom.(commercial at 8:10)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:06232023 Revised Amended Nondissemination Order.pdf (idaho.gov)source:06232023 Order Granting Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Press Coverage.pdf (idaho.gov)source:06232023 Order Granting Motion to Intervene for Limited Purposes.pdf (idaho.gov)source:06232023 Order Reserving Ruling on the Issue of Cameras in the Courtroom.pdf (idaho.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

31 Aug 10min

Scott Peterson's Former Lawyer Weighs In On The Case Against Bryan Kohberger

Scott Peterson's Former Lawyer Weighs In On The Case Against Bryan Kohberger

It seems as if every lawyer on planet earth has weighed in on Bryan Kohberger and depending on their background, their commentary has been all over the place. If you let the former FBI agents and prosecutors tell it, they would have you believe that this is going to be a slam dunk for the prosecution. However, on the flipside of that, we hear from defense lawyesr about how each one of these pieces of evidence can have holes punched in it. The question is...who is right?Let's dive in and take a look!(commercial at 10:08)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Lara Yeretsian Tries to 'Poke Holes' in Bryan Kohberger Case (lawandcrime.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

30 Aug 15min

Populært innen Politikk og nyheter

giver-og-gjengen-vg
aftenpodden
aftenpodden-usa
forklart
popradet
fotballpodden-2
stopp-verden
det-store-bildet
dine-penger-pengeradet
bt-dokumentar-2
nokon-ma-ga
frokostshowet-pa-p5
rss-gukild-johaug
rss-dannet-uten-piano
aftenbla-bla
e24-podden
rss-ness
rss-penger-polser-og-politikk
lydartikler-fra-aftenposten
rss-borsmorgen-okonominyhetene