Pam Bondi’s Puppet Show: When the DOJ Hires Epstein’s Friends to Investigate Epstein’s Friends (11/15/25)

Tartaglione says that Maurene Comey — the federal prosecutor handling his case (and previously working in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York) — pressured or promised Jeffrey Epstein some form of preferential treatment or freedom if Epstein would implicate Tartaglione or assist in his prosecution. In essence: Tartaglione is asserting that Comey extended an inducement to Epstein in order to flip him or extract testimony, which in his account entangles the prosecutor in ethically questionable dealings.He also claims that Comey was intimately involved in suppressing or mis-handling key evidence that could have shown Tartaglione acted in a manner different from the official story—particularly regarding surveillance footage at the jail where Epstein and Tartaglione were cell-mates. In this version, Comey is cast not simply as a neutral prosecutor but as an actor in a cover-up: by failing to preserve or produce surveillance video (for example, outside Epstein’s cell on July 23, 2019) and by branding Tartaglione culpable, the claim goes, Comey effectively helped seal a pre-determined narrative against him rather than conduct a fair investigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

6 Nov 13min

Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s unpublished memoir The Billionaire’s Playboy Club recounts her recruitment into Jeffrey Epstein’s world as a 16-year-old working at Mar-a-Lago, where she says Ghislaine Maxwell lured her in with promises of opportunity and travel. The manuscript describes how she became trapped in Epstein’s orbit, allegedly forced into sexual encounters with powerful men, including Prince Andrew, and ferried across his properties in New York, Florida, and the Virgin Islands. Giuffre paints a detailed picture of coercion, psychological manipulation, and the disturbing normalization of exploitation within Epstein’s high-society circle.In this episode, we begin our journey through that memoir.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Virgina Giuffre Billionaire's Playboy Club | DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

6 Nov 12min

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.

6 Nov 27min

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.

6 Nov 24min

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.

6 Nov 22min

In June 2022, Prince Andrew was conspicuously absent from the public procession of the Order of the Garter Day ceremony at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, despite being a member of the order. It was revealed that this omission was due to a so-called “family decision” — reportedly influenced by Prince Charles and Prince William — aimed at avoiding potential public backlash given Andrew’s reputation at the time. His name still appeared in one version of the printed Order of Service but was omitted from the version distributed to the public.This exclusion drew criticism as a clear sign of his fall from favour within the royal family and the institution. While he did attend the private lunch and investiture portions of the ceremony, his absence from the public procession suggested a deliberate effort to sideline him in high-profile royal events, symbolising both the damage to his standing and the monarchy’s need to preserve its public image amidst territorial scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

6 Nov 15min

Andrew’s deepening scandal over his association with Jeffrey Epstein and his disastrous 2019 television interview forced the Queen into a difficult position: she ultimately approved his withdrawal from public duties and the removal of his royal patronages and military roles. His misjudgments and the ensuing public outrage embarrassed the monarchy, prompting Elizabeth II to act in damage-control mode. Meanwhile Charles, as heir and steward of the future institution, found himself increasingly at odds with Andrew’s behaviour, which he saw as a threat to the Crown’s reputation. Experts say Charles is now “furious with his brother” and “can barely tolerate him” given the ongoing scandal.Over time, the differences between the Queen and Charles on how to handle Andrew became stark. While the Queen sought to preserve the family’s coherence and shield Andrew from public collapse, Charles leaned toward decisive action and distancing Andrew from the institution. This divergence in strategy revealed a deeper fracture: a crown under pressure trying to reconcile loyalty to a brother with the survival of the monarchy itself. In doing so, Andrew’s fall from grace didn’t just embarrass him—it triggered a broader royal family conflict.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

6 Nov 16min

Former palace staffers have painted a disturbing portrait of Prince Andrew, Duke of York’s behaviour behind the scenes — revealing a man whose temper, demands and eccentricities ran rough-shod over those who worked for him. One ex-security officer recounted that waking him in the morning might provoke “a ‘fuck-off’ as good-morning” type of greeting, highlighting a habitual pattern of verbal abuse rather than gratitude. Another claimed that Andrew would become irrationally angry if his large collection of teddy bears on his bed was not arranged to his exacting specifications — a detail staff were expected to maintain daily or face his wrath.Beyond the mood swings and bizarre routines, the accounts describe a royal who treated staff as if they existed solely to serve his whims, not as individuals with dignity. According to staffers, he routinely dismissed them with contempt for trivial failings — even repositioning workers or transferring them because of a “tie that wasn’t silk” or a “mole he disliked” on their face. These stories underscore a deeper problem: Andrew’s sense of entitlement and the unchecked power he wielded in his private household, which helped fuel his broader fall from grace within the institution he once represented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

6 Nov 20min