Trump and Epstein: What the New York Times Revealed About Their Real Relationship (Part 2) (12/20/25)

Mark Epstein has consistently argued that the official account of his brother Jeffrey Epstein’s death in federal custody is inadequate and incomplete, repeatedly calling for a far more robust, independent investigation. He has publicly questioned the findings of the New York City medical examiner, emphasizing that the determination of suicide was not unanimous and that at least one prominent forensic pathologist concluded the injuries were more consistent with homicide. Mark Epstein has also pointed to the extraordinary number of failures at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night of Jeffrey Epstein’s death, including malfunctioning cameras, guards who allegedly fell asleep, and lapses in required welfare checks. In his view, these breakdowns were too numerous and consequential to be dismissed as mere coincidence. He has stressed that his concerns are not rooted in defending his brother’s crimes, but in establishing what actually happened in a federal facility that was supposed to be under constant supervision. For Mark Epstein, unanswered questions surrounding the death undermine public trust in the justice system. He has maintained that transparency, not closure, should be the priority.Beyond disputing the medical and custodial conclusions, Mark Epstein has repeatedly criticized the scope and depth of the federal response, arguing that investigations have focused more on ending scrutiny than resolving contradictions. He has called for a fully independent inquiry with subpoena power, one that examines not only the immediate circumstances of the death but also potential external pressures, conflicts of interest, and institutional incentives to avoid embarrassment or liability. Mark Epstein has also questioned why no senior officials faced serious consequences despite the acknowledged failures at MCC, framing this lack of accountability as emblematic of a broader reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths. He has stated that without a comprehensive investigation, suspicions will persist regardless of official statements or reports. His continued advocacy reflects a belief that the case has been prematurely closed rather than thoroughly resolved. In his view, the handling of his brother’s death represents a missed opportunity for institutional reckoning. Until those gaps are addressed, Mark Epstein has said, the public will be left with doubt rather than facts.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

24 Dec 15min

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein’s conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

24 Dec 11min

The recent news linking Larry Nassar and Jeffrey Epstein stems from a document that appeared in a large federal release of Epstein-related records, described as a handwritten letter from Epstein to Nassar. Almost immediately, officials said the letter was not authentic, citing technical issues with handwriting, mailing details, and dates. On paper, that explanation is straightforward. But given the long history of mishandled evidence, delayed disclosures, and shifting narratives in the Epstein case, it is not unreasonable that the appearance of such a document—however brief—triggered questions before being dismissed.The government’s position is that there is no verified connection between Epstein and Nassar beyond this disputed item, and no evidence the two ever corresponded. Still, the episode highlights a recurring problem with how Epstein material has been released: documents surface without context, provenance, or explanation, leaving the public to parse authenticity after the fact. Even if the letter is exactly what authorities say it is, the way it entered the public record reinforces skepticism—not about any specific claim, but about a process that repeatedly introduces confusion into a case where clarity and credibility have already been in short supply.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Letter to Larry Nassar, signed by ‘J. Epstein,’ cites “our president” | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

24 Dec 15min

The U.S. Department of Justice released another massive tranche of Epstein-related materials early Tuesday under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, bringing the total to tens of thousands of new pages and media now publicly searchable online. Reports indicate nearly 30,000 additional documents and video clips were posted, though many remain heavily redacted or unclear in significance. The new files include emails, surveillance footage, evidence logs, and other investigative records connected to Epstein’s case and associates, drawing renewed attention to his criminal network and the scope of federal investigation. The DOJ’s release notes that some claims contained in the documents — including allegations about public figures — are unverified or sensationalist and were included to comply with the law’s transparency requirements rather than as evidence of criminal conduct. Victims’ advocates continue to criticize the pace and depth of disclosure, and political controversy has flared as some files released earlier this week were removed without explanation.Among the notable contents in this December 23 dump are emails suggesting previously unseen communications involving Ghislaine Maxwell and a sender linked to “Balmoral,” possibly tied to a British royal, as well as flight records and correspondence referencing former President Donald Trump’s travel on Epstein’s jet more often than previously documented — though context and implications remain heavily redacted. The release also reportedly contains surveillance materials from the timeframe around Epstein’s death, adding to ongoing public distrust and speculation about transparency in the case. High-profile reactions include political pushback over reputational concerns, continued disputes over redaction practices, and calls from lawmakers for enforcement of the transparency law after deadlines were missed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein files live updates as Justice Department releases huge new set of documents, photosBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

24 Dec 18min

Recently unsealed Department of Justice records show that **Jeffrey Epstein named Jes Staley and Larry Summers as potential executors in earlier draft versions of his estate planning documents from the 2010s, though neither appeared in the final will he signed in 2019. According to the newly released materials under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Staley first appeared in a 2012 draft as a “successor executor” and was later listed as a full executor in versions from 2013 and 2014, while Summers was named a successor executor in a 2014 revision. These designations would have given both men significant authority over Epstein’s vast estate if the primary executors were unable or unwilling to serve — a striking inclusion given their high public profiles. However, in the final will drafted shortly before Epstein’s death, both men were removed and are absent from the 2019 document that ultimately governs the estate.Oh these are the guys we’re supposed to tiptoe around for? These are the delicate reputations the system keeps clearing its throat to protect? A Wall Street lifer who can’t explain his Epstein emails without tripping over himself, and an academic power broker who spent years pretending his association with Epstein was some innocent clerical error? These are the men whose good names require sealed files, careful wording, and institutional panic? Give me a break. If the truth about a dead sex trafficker’s will is enough to embarrass you, then maybe the embarrassment isn’t the problem — maybe it’s the résumé. The idea that the public must be shielded from learning that Jeffrey Epstein trusted these guys with his estate isn’t discretion, it’s comedy. And not even good comedy — it’s the kind that only plays in boardrooms where accountability has been dead longer than Epstein himself.to conact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein named Larry Summers, Jes Staley as estate executors in draft wills | New York PostBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

24 Dec 15min

The latest Epstein document release further reinforces how deeply Prince Andrew was entangled in Jeffrey Epstein’s orbit and how aware authorities were of his potential exposure long before public accountability set in. Newly surfaced investigative materials show that prosecutors believed Andrew had direct knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell’s role in recruiting young women and sought to question him formally about his relationship with Epstein, his presence around victims, and his continued contact after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. The documents make clear that Andrew was not viewed as a peripheral figure, but as someone investigators considered central enough to warrant detailed questioning under caution. Despite this, no interview ever took place, underscoring the long-standing gap between investigative interest and actual enforcement when it came to a senior royal.The files also highlight the extraordinary degree of institutional hesitation surrounding Andrew, both in the United Kingdom and internationally. While investigators outlined lines of questioning and compiled evidence, diplomatic sensitivities and royal privilege effectively stalled progress. Andrew’s refusal to cooperate was tolerated for years, even as civil litigation and survivor testimony mounted, and British authorities showed little urgency in compelling his participation. The documents illustrate a pattern in which reputational risk to the monarchy consistently outweighed accountability, allowing Andrew to avoid meaningful scrutiny until public pressure became impossible to ignore. Rather than revealing new allegations, the release confirms what survivors and journalists have long argued: that Prince Andrew was shielded not by a lack of concern, but by a system unwilling to confront power.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Andrew 'knew Ghislaine was a sex madam', Epstein cops believed - as new docs reveal efforts to quiz royal under cautionBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

24 Dec 22min

Ghislaine Maxwell attempted to leverage her long-standing proximity to powerful political figures—most notably the Clintons—as part of a broader effort to recast herself as a peripheral player rather than a central architect of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. In post-conviction filings and behind-the-scenes advocacy, Maxwell emphasized her access to former presidents, donors, and global elites as evidence of a life rooted in high-level social and political circles, implicitly arguing that such status made the prosecution’s portrayal of her as a hands-on trafficker implausible. The subtext was clear: she sought to frame herself as a social facilitator who moved among the famous and influential, not as a criminal mastermind deserving of a decades-long sentence.That strategy extended to highlighting her connections to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, suggesting—without producing exculpatory evidence—that her associations with prominent Democratic power brokers reflected legitimacy and respectability rather than criminality. Prosecutors and the court rejected this framing, noting that elite access does not negate culpability and that Maxwell’s role was proven through victim testimony, corroborating evidence, and a clear pattern of conduct. Ultimately, the court made plain that political proximity would not mitigate the severity of the crimes, and Maxwell’s attempt to use her relationships with the Clintons as a softening narrative failed to move the needle at sentencing.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

24 Dec 38min

Skepticism about the “security concerns” explanation has grown precisely because it relies so heavily on implication rather than documented fact. While it was hinted that Ghislaine Maxwell’s safety was at risk after her DOJ meeting, neither the Bureau of Prisons nor prosecutors ever provided concrete evidence of a specific, credible threat necessitating an interstate transfer. High-profile inmates routinely meet with federal authorities without being uprooted across the prison system, and vague references to “safety” are a standard, catch-all justification that conveniently avoids scrutiny. In Maxwell’s case, the absence of incident reports, disciplinary records, or disclosed threats raises the possibility that the security narrative functioned more as a smokescreen than a genuine explanation.A more plausible interpretation is that the move was driven by administrative, legal, or strategic considerations unrelated to imminent danger—such as managing media exposure, controlling access to Maxwell, or placing her in a facility better suited for isolation, monitoring, or long-term housing. Transfers framed as protective measures often coincide with moments when the government wants tighter control over an inmate’s environment, communications, or visibility rather than out of fear for their life. Seen through that lens, the timing of Maxwell’s relocation after her DOJ meeting may say less about threats against her and more about institutional risk management by the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons. In short, the “safety” explanation remains unproven, untested, and entirely dependent on official silence—hardly a reassuring foundation for such a consequential move.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

24 Dec 31min