Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 19) (1/19/26)

Prince Andrew has reportedly been cut off by his daughter Princess Eugenie as the fallout from his Epstein scandal continues to metastasize inside the royal family. According to multiple UK press reports citing royal insiders, Eugenie has ended regular contact with her father and deliberately distanced herself from him both privately and publicly. This represents a sharp reversal from earlier years, when she was widely seen as Andrew’s most loyal defender and emotional support, even as the rest of the family froze him out. The shift reportedly became unavoidable as Andrew’s refusal to fully accept responsibility and the renewed attention on Epstein-related disclosures made continued proximity untenable.For Prince Andrew, the estrangement is particularly devastating because it underscores how completely he has been isolated. Financially cut off, barred from public royal duties, and sidelined by senior family members, Eugenie had been his last meaningful personal connection within the monarchy. Her decision to sever ties is widely understood as an act of self-preservation, protecting her own family and future from being permanently tethered to a scandal that refuses to die. In practical terms, the message is unmistakable: Andrew’s disgrace is now so toxic that even paternal bonds have collapsed under its weight, leaving him not just institutionally disgraced, but personally abandoned.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Devastated Princess Eugenie has 'cut off all contact' with disgraced father Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor over Epstein scandal | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Jan 12min

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.

19 Jan 16min

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.

19 Jan 20min

James Michael Austrich—identified in deposition documents as a former boyfriend of Virginia Roberts (now Virginia Giuffre)—testified about their relationship in the late 1990s. He offered insights into Roberts' employment at Mar-a-Lago and detailed her interactions with Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein during that time period. Austrich corroborated key aspects of Giuffre’s testimony, including how she came into contact with Maxwell and was subsequently introduced to Epstein. His hearing provides supporting context for Giuffre’s allegations about recruitment, travel, and grooming, reinforcing the broader narrative of Epstein’s network beyond Giuffre’s own accountAustrich’s deposition also addressed logistical details—dates, movements, and living situations—that helped frame the timeline of Giuffre’s experiences. While he did not testify about sexual abuse directly, his recollections bolster Giuffre’s broader claims that Maxwell facilitated Roberts' entry into Epstein’s orbit. By corroborating aspects of Giuffre’s presence at Epstein-linked locations and confirming Maxwell’s involvement in arranging those introductions, Austrich’s testimony added credibility to the factual foundation of the case—and further undermined Maxwell’s defamatory denials.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Jan 25min

In her Washington Post op-ed, Sarah Ransome recounts how surviving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s trafficking operation did not end with their convictions but instead marked the beginning of another battle: being disbelieved, dismissed, and blamed because she was an adult when she was trafficked. Ransome explains that media coverage often centers on underage victims while overlooking the many women who, like her, were legally adults yet manipulated, coerced, and abused over prolonged periods. She describes the pervasive “gaslighting” she faced from society, friends, family, and authorities who questioned her credibility, branded her with derogatory labels, and minimized the horrors she endured simply because she was not a minor at the time. For years, this skepticism compounded her trauma, making recovery even more difficult and isolating her from support.Ransome also reflects on the catharsis of hearing Ghislaine Maxwell’s shackles at sentencing and finally reading her impact statement in court, which she views as a significant step toward reclaiming her voice and self-worth. She emphasizes that justice remains incomplete while powerful enablers and institutions that allowed Epstein and Maxwell to operate with impunity have not been fully held accountable. Ransome urges broader recognition of all survivors — regardless of age at the time of abuse — and calls for societal change in how adult trafficking victims are understood and supported.to contact me:bobbyapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Jan 32min

Jeffrey Epstein utilized the high-end art market as a financial fog machine, a place where enormous sums can move with minimal scrutiny and subjective valuations do most of the work. Art provided him a perfect vehicle to park money, shift value, and obscure income because prices are flexible, private sales are common, and provenance questions are often treated as inconveniences rather than red flags. Epstein reportedly bought, sold, and traded expensive artwork through intermediaries and shell structures, allowing him to convert cash into “assets” that could appreciate quietly while remaining largely invisible to tax authorities. Unlike traditional income streams, art transactions often escape standardized reporting, especially when handled through private dealers, offshore entities, or discreet auctions. This allowed Epstein to maintain the appearance of immense wealth without clearly defined revenue sources. Art wasn’t just decoration for Epstein; it was a financial strategy.The art market also helped Epstein reinforce legitimacy while masking criminal proceeds. Hanging valuable works in his homes signaled sophistication and status, making his wealth appear organic rather than suspicious. At the same time, art could be used as collateral, transferred between entities, or quietly sold to generate liquidity without triggering the same scrutiny as financial accounts. This opacity is exactly why art has long been attractive to money launderers, oligarchs, and criminals, and Epstein exploited those weaknesses to the fullest. The lack of transparency benefited not just Epstein, but the institutions and individuals who preferred not to ask hard questions about where his money came from. In this way, the art world functioned as both shield and accomplice, providing Epstein a culturally respectable way to hide income, move value, and maintain the illusion of untouchable wealth.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Jan 38min

From the archives: 11-19-22According to new reports, the family members of the four slain university students are calling on the authorities to be more transparent with their investigation. We are also getting more information about the phone calls that were made to "Jack" by Kaylee and Madison right before their murder. We also hear that Kaylee might have had a stalker, according to Mark Fuhrman.(commercial at 8:11)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11447075/Two-female-Idaho-students-four-killed-phoned-mystery-man-called-Jack-ten-times.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

19 Jan 12min