Mega Edition: Disgraced Prince Andrew Is Banished In A Peacock Documentary (11/22/25)

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a motion in federal court in the Southern District of Florida requesting that grand-jury transcripts (and related protective orders) from the investigations of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell be unsealed. The motion cites the newly enacted Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandates the release of unclassified DOJ materials related to Epstein within 30 days, arguing that grand-jury transcripts should not be exempt from disclosure simply because of their status. The DOJ said it will make appropriate redactions for victim-identifying information and asks that any pre-existing protective orders be lifted so the records can be made public.In its filings, the DOJ highlighted that the transcripts in question stem from earlier investigations — including grand-jury sessions from 2005 and 2007 in Florida — and asserted that the public interest in transparency around Epstein’s crimes and network is compelling. The motion requests an expedited ruling to meet the 30-day deadline set by the Transparency Act. At the same time, the DOJ acknowledges that the law does not explicitly mention grand-jury material, but argues that court precedent allows unsealing where justified and that the transcripts do not contain “new” information that would pose unusual harm, when properly redacted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Nov 12min

Maxwell’s legal team has signalled that she will invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if she’s required to testify before the House Oversight Committee (or other congressional investigators) without pre-conditions being met. Specifically, her attorneys have said she will refuse to answer questions unless immunity from further prosecution is granted, the questions are provided in advance, her pending appeals (including to the Supreme Court) are resolved, and the setting is acceptable (for example, not in her prison facility). Without those safeguards, the firm position is that she will “plead the Fifth” and not participate.Because Congress has so far declined to provide the kind of immunity or guarantees Maxwell’s counsel demands, the committee chair (James Comer) has publicly stated that she “won’t answer any questions” and will invoke the Fifth. Thus, barring a change in those conditions, her testimony appears to be off the table and the committee may opt not to expend resources if she will simply refuse to engage.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Nov 12min

The renewed release of information surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s network has highlighted a striking shift among groups that previously positioned themselves as vocal crusaders against child exploitation and elite corruption. During the height of Epstein’s second arrest in 2019, many of the loudest online voices—particularly those aligned with the QAnon movement—used Epstein’s case as a rallying point, framing it as proof of a hidden global cabal and leveraging public outrage to fuel a sprawling conspiracy narrative. However, as real legal developments, survivor testimony, and documented links to high-profile individuals have resurfaced in recent months, those same factions have largely retreated from the discussion, offering little public support for transparency or accountability.Critics argue that the earlier conflation of the Epstein case with sensationalized conspiracy content served to obscure legitimate evidence and undermine public focus at a critical moment, ultimately benefiting the powerful figures and institutions implicated in the scandal. Today, instead of calling for investigations or defending survivors, many former activists have shifted to skepticism about Epstein’s crimes or have echoed narratives minimizing Ghislaine Maxwell’s role. The contrast between their previous public posture and their current silence has raised questions about motives, credibility, and whether the distraction generated at the peak of the case was accidental or strategic.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Infamous pro-Trump conspiracy theorists have been 'strangely muted' on the Epstein scandal - Alternet.orgBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Nov 17min

In November 2025, newly released documents from the estate of Jeffrey Epstein revealed that Stacey Plaskett (D-U.S. Virgin Islands) exchanged messages with Epstein during a February 2019 congressional hearing involving Michael Cohen. The texts showed Epstein offering advice on questioning strategy (including prompting “RONA – keeper of the secrets,” a reference to Trump executive assistant Rhona Graff) and congratulating Plaskett’s questioning with “Good work.” Plaskett’s office acknowledged Epstein as a constituent (he owned islands in the territory) but denied that he was directing her actions. A GOP-led motion to censure Plaskett and strip her from the House Intelligence Committee failed by a narrow margin.During the floor debate on the resolution, Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) defended Plaskett by saying Republicans were effectively “arraigning a Democratic member for taking a phone call from her constituent, Jeffrey Epstein” during a hearing. He argued there was no specific House rule forbidding such contact and that the resolution was premature—“you don’t get answers by rushing to judgment and turning the whole process upside-down,” he said. Raskin thus framed Plaskett’s interaction as part of her representative role rather than evidence of wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Nov 12min

Ghislaine Maxwell’s family released a new statement in response to the Department of Justice’s announcement that it is closing its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators. In it, they expressed “relief” that the probe has ended and argued that it validates their long-standing claim that Ghislaine was unfairly targeted and scapegoated. The family asserted that Ghislaine was prosecuted simply because of her association with Epstein, implying that her conviction was more about public pressure than actual culpability. They continue to frame her as a victim of circumstance, not a willing participant in the crimes for which she was convicted.The statement reads less like a defense and more like a soft relaunch of Ghislaine’s image—an attempt to reframe her legacy as unjustly ruined rather than rightly condemned. By invoking the DOJ’s decision as supposed proof of her innocence, the Maxwell family is working to erase the mountain of evidence, the survivor testimony, and the jury’s unanimous verdict that put her in prison. It’s a bold move—one that deliberately ignores the reality of what she did and who she helped. Their message isn’t justice-seeking; it’s reputation management dressed up as vindication.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell's family breaks their silence with bombshell claim as Trump decision to close Epstein case triggers MAGA civil war and cover-up claims | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Nov 29min

In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein’s company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein’s residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg’s deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Nov 22min

In her deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Johanna Sjoberg described being recruited to work for Jeffrey Epstein under the impression that it was a legitimate job opportunity. According to her testimony, she was initially hired to help with office work but was soon asked to give massages to Epstein—something she testified quickly evolved into inappropriate and unwanted conduct. Sjoberg stated that Ghislaine Maxwell played a central role in managing the household and was often present during these encounters, contributing to the atmosphere of control and pressure. Her deposition supported claims made by Giuffre and other women who alleged they were misled into situations where they were exploited.Sjoberg also testified about interactions with well-known individuals while in Epstein’s company, including an allegation involving Prince Andrew, which she said took place at Epstein’s residence. She described an incident in which Maxwell, Epstein, and others were present during a moment she considered inappropriate and unsettling. While the full extent of those interactions remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public interest, Sjoberg’s deposition contributed to the broader pattern of allegations suggesting a tightly controlled environment where young women were manipulated under false pretenses. Her account was one of several that added weight to the claims being investigated in both civil and criminal proceedings surrounding Epstein and Maxwell.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Nov 28min

After Jeffrey Epstein’s death in 2019, a fierce legal and financial battle erupted over control of his estate and the distribution of compensation to his victims. Epstein left behind an estate valued in the hundreds of millions, but the process became mired in disputes between the executors, attorneys for survivors, the Virgin Islands government, and various institutions seeking restitution. At the center was the question of whether the estate would be used primarily to compensate the women trafficked and abused by Epstein, or whether competing interests—including creditors, banks, and government claims—would erode the pool of available funds. The estate established a victims’ compensation program intended to provide settlements without forcing survivors into protracted court fights, but critics argued the structure allowed the estate to protect Epstein’s financial network while requiring survivors to sign away rights in exchange for relief.The fight intensified as allegations surfaced that those overseeing the estate had removed documents and assets, concealed information, and attempted to preserve Epstein’s financial relationships while limiting public exposure. The program paid out hundreds of millions of dollars, but many survivors described the process as adversarial, slow, and emotionally brutal, saying they felt pressured to accept settlements rather than pursue broader accountability. Meanwhile, separate litigation targeted banks and the Virgin Islands government for enabling Epstein, further complicating the financial picture. Years later, the estate remains symbolic of the larger struggle surrounding Epstein: a battle not just for money, but for truth, transparency, and justice that victims argue still feels unfinished.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Nov 17min