Katie Johnson and Donald Trump: Examining the Claims and the Silence (11/22/25)

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant’s actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Jan 11min

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant’s actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Jan 12min

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant’s actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

14 Jan 12min

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant’s actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

13 Jan 12min

Jeffrey Epstein manipulated financial markets not by traditional trading fraud but through influence, opacity, and access. He embedded himself inside the financial empires of billionaires like Les Wexner and Leon Black, gaining control of vast capital reserves under the guise of “exclusive money management.” By structuring himself as a gatekeeper rather than a trader, Epstein positioned his network at the intersection of elite capital and secrecy. Through Financial Trust Company, registered in the U.S. Virgin Islands, he exploited generous tax shelters, confidentiality protections, and regulatory blind spots to quietly move and obscure assets. These offshore structures let Epstein shift funds globally, mask ownership trails, and shield beneficiaries — creating the illusion of legitimate financial sophistication while actually leveraging loopholes and relationships.Epstein’s real power lay in his ability to manipulate liquidity and market perception through shell entities and credit instruments like repos and mortgage-backed securities. His Bermuda-based vehicle Liquid Funding Ltd. — partially financed by Bear Stearns — operated in debt and derivatives markets that allowed him to obscure leverage ratios and offload risk to counterparties. He also had historical ties to Towers Financial, a company later revealed to be a massive Ponzi scheme, where Epstein reportedly advised founder Stephen Hoffenberg on structuring debt packages that misled investors. Taken together, these networks enabled Epstein to influence pricing, conceal illicit inflows, and present himself as a mysterious financial genius while effectively manipulating money flows that blurred the line between investment and laundering.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

13 Jan 42min

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein’s defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta’s account, particularly regarding victims’ rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

13 Jan 15min

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein’s defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta’s account, particularly regarding victims’ rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

13 Jan 14min

For months, and most aggressively in its final public posture, the Department of Justice told the public that Jeffrey Epstein acted alone, that there were no co-conspirators worth pursuing, and that the case was effectively closed because the evidence led nowhere else. That claim was presented as the product of exhaustive investigation, a sober conclusion reached after following every lead. But the unsealed Epstein files expose that narrative as a manufactured endpoint, not a factual one. The DOJ’s public insistence that Epstein was a lone predator directly contradicts its own internal records, which show prosecutors and investigators repeatedly discussing other individuals, logistical facilitators, and potential co-conspirators. These weren’t vague references or speculative names. The emails reveal active consideration of witnesses who could implicate others, debates over how far the investigation should go, and deliberate choices to narrow the scope of exposure. In public, the DOJ spoke in absolutes. In private, they spoke in contingencies. That gap is the story.The newly unsealed emails make clear that the absence of co-conspirators was not a discovery, it was a decision. Prosecutors expressed concern about expanding the case, about the consequences of naming or charging others, and about preserving agreements that would collapse under scrutiny if the full picture came out. Internal communications reference ongoing leads, cooperation strategies, and awareness that Epstein’s crimes required infrastructure and assistance, yet none of that translated into indictments or even transparent explanations. Instead, the DOJ retroactively sold inaction as resolution. By the time officials told the public there was “no evidence” of co-conspirators, their own records showed they had stopped looking long before the evidence ran out. The unsealed emails don’t just undermine the DOJ’s claim, they obliterate it. What was framed as a lack of proof was, in reality, a lack of will, and the insistence that Epstein operated alone now reads less like a conclusion and more like a cover story built to survive public scrutiny rather than judicial review.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00037366.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

13 Jan 11min