Thanksgiving at Camp Bryan: A Ghislaine Maxwell Holiday Tale (11/27/25)

The newly unsealed court filing shows that Ghislaine Maxwell and her attorneys fought aggressively to block discovery into her finances, specifically objecting to requests seeking detailed information about potential funding for her nonprofit, The TerraMar Project, from the Clinton Foundation and related Clinton entities. In the filing, Maxwell’s legal team argued that the request for financial documents was excessively broad and inappropriate, stating that it demanded “literally every piece of financial information about Ms. Maxwell” over a two-year period, extending beyond her personal accounts to nonprofit organizations she was involved in. The filing explicitly names potential financial ties to the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Foundation, and the Clinton Foundation Climate Change Initiative as areas plaintiffs were seeking to examine — suggesting that attorneys believed there may have been donations or financial support flowing from Clinton-controlled organizations into Maxwell’s charity.Maxwell’s attorneys claimed that the discovery request was designed to “harass and embarrass” their client rather than legitimately assess her net worth for punitive-damages purposes, and insisted that the scope of inquiry was disproportionate and irrelevant. By attempting to shut down any questioning about whether TerraMar received funding from Clinton-linked organizations, the filing effectively reveals that such funding was considered a sensitive issue worth shielding from public scrutiny. While the filing does not confirm whether the Clintons did or did not provide such funding, the legal effort to prevent disclosure highlights the level of concern surrounding potential ties between Maxwell’s nonprofit and the Clinton philanthropic network — and raises questions about why those financial records were viewed as too damaging to expose.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Clinton Foundation Funded Ghislaine Maxwell Charity Despite Underage Victims' Rape Allegations: Unsealed DocsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Nov 17min

Former U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Denise George attempted to depose Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime executors, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, as part of her civil lawsuit alleging that Epstein operated a criminal trafficking enterprise out of the USVI with the assistance of powerful financial institutions and enablers. George argued that Indyke and Kahn were more than just estate administrators—claiming they were deeply embedded within Epstein’s financial and logistical operations, and therefore possessed critical knowledge regarding the movement of money, the recruitment structure, and potential co-conspirators. She sought sworn testimony that could clarify how assets were handled before and after Epstein’s death, as well as whether the executors helped facilitate Epstein’s access to victims or participated in concealing criminal conduct.However, her attempt ultimately fell apart when Indyke and Kahn’s legal teams aggressively fought the depositions, arguing attorney-client privilege, Fifth Amendment protections, and irrelevance to the civil claims at issue. The court did not compel testimony before George was abruptly removed from her position by Governor Albert Bryan—just days after she filed a major lawsuit against JPMorgan and announced intentions to dig deeper into Epstein’s financial network. Without her authority behind the push, the effort to force the executors under oath collapsed, leaving many to wonder whether political pressure and institutional fear of what they might reveal played a role in shutting the door. The result: the two people who arguably know more than almost anyone about Epstein’s inner workings have never had to answer a single public question under oath about what they saw and what they did.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Nov 14min

In a comparison that continues to disturb a lot of people paying attention, the charges filed against R. Kelly versus those filed against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell reveal a glaring imbalance in how the federal government chooses to deploy its most powerful legal tools. R. Kelly was charged under RICO—the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act—because federal prosecutors argued that he ran his abuse operation like a criminal enterprise, using managers, bodyguards, assistants, and a network of enablers to recruit and control underage victims. The government treated his inner circle as a coordinated structure, recognizing that the abuse was not random, accidental, or isolated. It was organized. And because of RICO, prosecutors were able to bring in a sweeping range of evidence, establish a conspiracy framework, and secure a conviction that reflected the totality of the crimes and how they were carried out.But when you turn to Epstein and Maxwell—an operation that was global, involved billionaires, prime ministers, presidents, intelligence-linked financiers, private bankers, pilots, recruiters, assistants, secretaries, foundations, shell companies, and a private island—the government suddenly forgot RICO existed. Despite Epstein having a documented network of employees and co-conspirators, flight logs, phone books, funded recruiters, private jets, and a literal island used for trafficking, the DOJ only hit Maxwell with basic sex trafficking counts, while Epstein’s richest, most powerful co-conspirators walked free under a sweetheart non-prosecution agreement. The very definition of RICO—a coordinated criminal enterprise spanning states and countries—describes Epstein’s machine far more clearly than Kelly’s. Yet one got the hammer, and the other got protection. And that is the question that continues to haunt anyone looking at this with a functioning brain: Why was RICO unleashed on a musician, but not on the most well-connected trafficking ring in modern history?to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

27 Nov 43min

As another Thanksgiving rolls around, I want to take a moment to speak directly from the heart and say thank you. I’m fully aware that the most valuable thing any of us have in life is time—and you choose to spend yours here with me, show after show, episode after episode, year after year. That’s not something I take lightly, and it’s not something I’ll ever forget. From the day this journey started, you’ve shown up with passion, curiosity, and backbone, refusing to look away from the uncomfortable truths and refusing to settle for the polished, sanitized version the powerful want you to swallow. You’ve stuck with me through every high and every low, every delay, every late-night rant, every new lead, every twist in this insane story, and I am genuinely humbled.I’m humbled knowing that people across the world—different countries, languages, beliefs, and backgrounds—are united around one demand: Release the Epstein files. That unity is rare, powerful, and historic, and I’m grateful even for the people who listen out of anger or disagreement, because participation means pressure, and pressure is what makes the powerful sweat. Today is for family, rest, and appreciation—for stepping back long enough to remember why we fight at all. I hope everyone gets to spend the day with people who bring warmth and peace into their life. But tomorrow, the swords come back out. Tomorrow, we push harder. Tomorrow, we demand justice like we always have. We’re nowhere near finished, and I’m not going anywhere.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

27 Nov 11min

According to Andrew Lownie — as discussed on a recent podcast interview and in media coverage of his new book Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York — Epstein reportedly became “increasingly paranoid” toward the end of his life, fearing exposure. Lownie claims that Epstein “spoke to a hitman who was a former member of a British special-forces unit,” i.e. an ex-SAS sniper, and allegedly sought to hire him to “silence” Prince Andrew, Duke of York and Sarah Ferguson (his ex-wife) — supposedly to prevent them from disclosing damaging information about Epstein’s crimes. Lownie says the allegation comes from two sources, including a former FBI agent and a source in Paris.Lownie further argues that if the plot had been real and had advanced beyond talk, the potential assassination of a royal couple would dramatically reframe how far Epstein’s reach went — from sex-trafficking financier to someone allegedly willing to murder to protect his network. He also suggests this may help explain continuing ties: that fear — not just convenience — may have motivated ongoing contacts between Epstein and people like Ferguson, even after Epstein’s conviction.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein 'plotted to hire ex-SAS sniper to silence the Yorks when he feared his crimes could be exposed'Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

27 Nov 13min

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein — through their lawyers — have strongly condemned the recent release of documents by U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that left dozens of their names unredacted. Their attorneys argue that this is not just negligence, but a gross violation of their dignity and privacy: “These women are not political pawns,” the filing reads, emphasizing that many of the victims are “mothers, wives, and daughters,” and that exposing their identities without consent — especially when some were minors at the time of abuse — re-victimizes them and undermines any promise of protection.Moreover, the lawyers warn that the scope of the oversight failure suggests the DOJ “either does not know the identities of all the victims … and thus cannot apply proper redactions,” or is “intentionally failing to protect victims from public exposure.” They’re pressing a federal judge to demand a more robust redaction process — including asking the DOJ for a full list of known victims so they can ensure no one else is inadvertently exposed.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Law firm representing alleged Epstein victims sends scathing letter over DOJ document release - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

27 Nov 18min

Steve Bannon’s newly surfaced email exchanges with Jeffrey Epstein reveal a level of familiarity and cooperation that sharply contradicts the public image Bannon built as a crusader against elite corruption and sex trafficking networks. The tone of the correspondence shows two men who were not distant acquaintances or professional collaborators but comfortable insiders speaking the shorthand of established allies. The messages reportedly occurred while Bannon held influence inside the Trump White House, meaning Epstein had a direct conversational line into one of the most powerful political environments in the country. That proximity raises serious questions about access, influence, and what each man stood to gain from the relationship—especially given Epstein’s long-documented role as a financier and broker of high-level connections.What makes this revelation particularly explosive is the contrast between Bannon’s public persona and the private reality revealed in the emails. While he publicly positioned himself as a warrior exposing hidden predators and elite abuse networks, behind the scenes he was maintaining a cordial, strategic, and seemingly cooperative relationship with the most infamous trafficker of the era. Critics argue that this is more than hypocrisy—it represents a profound betrayal of the people who trusted Bannon to speak truth to power, including survivors of trafficking whose trauma he leveraged rhetorically. The silence now coming from his defenders, once loudly calling for accountability against anyone adjacent to Epstein, underscores the political and moral double standard now exposed. The implications of these communications are broader than personal embarrassment—they suggest a deeper rot inside institutions that were claiming to fight the very evil they were quietly standing beside.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

27 Nov 14min