Morning Update: Epstein Survivors Are Invited To The Capitol By Thomas Massie And Ro Khanna (8/12/25)

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn’t justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta’s insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he’d been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Okt 12min

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn’t justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta’s insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he’d been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Okt 15min

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn’t justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta’s insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he’d been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Okt 12min

In early 2021, the Maxwell family launched a website called RealGhislaine.com, which they described as a factual information hub designed to counter what they called “media distortions” about their sister. The family positioned the site as a defense against “character assassination,” featuring photos, statements, and claims that Ghislaine Maxwell was being unfairly treated in U.S. custody. The website portrayed her as a wrongfully targeted woman enduring “cruel and unusual” prison conditions, denied fair bail, and vilified because of her association with Jeffrey Epstein. The site also included a section where her siblings—most vocally Ian and Kevin Maxwell—asserted that she was being used as a scapegoat for the failures of U.S. authorities to properly monitor Epstein before his death. It was a deliberate PR strategy meant to shift attention away from the charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy that had already led to her conviction, reframing her image from enabler to victim.The family’s broader campaign extended far beyond the website. They conducted coordinated interviews, published op-eds, and gave statements to outlets like the BBC, The Independent, and The Telegraph, all echoing similar talking points: that Ghislaine’s trial was “tainted by media bias,” that she was “denied due process,” and that she was “paying the price for Epstein’s crimes.” Critics, including lawyers for Epstein’s victims, slammed the PR campaign as tone-deaf and manipulative, accusing the family of whitewashing her crimes and retraumatizing survivors by trying to rewrite the narrative. Victim advocates said the site and interviews were an attempt to maintain Maxwell’s social reputation and influence elite opinion, especially in Britain, where the family retained connections in media and politics. Even after her conviction, the family kept the site active and continued issuing statements insisting that her appeal would “expose systemic injustice” rather than re-examine her crimes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@Protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Okt 1h 2min

In regard to Maxwell, Edwards described her role as central and monstrous — saying she “fed a monster” and that “without Ghislaine’s help, Jeffrey Epstein could never have abused more than 500 victims.” He said that Maxwell ought to answer questions fully about her business relationship with Epstein, “to the victims, to law enforcement and to the public,” not simply hide behind her reputation. After her conviction, Edwards hailed the outcome as a sign that “our system works,” noting it was a “major victory” for survivors and that it showed “nobody is above the law.” At the same time he pointed out that her courtroom remarks amounted only to a passive acknowledgement of pain, rather than full accountability.Turning to Prince Andrew, Edwards has been sharper and more accusatory — though he also notes legal constraints around saying more. He has asserted that Andrew’s connections to Epstein’s network are undeniable and warrant deeper scrutiny, saying Andrew does have information and that the settlement in the civil case does not equate to truth or innocence. In one interview he went as far as suggesting the Prince is “living a life of ridicule for his stupidity” in the way he handled the allegations and the fallout. He emphasized that while the settlement avoided a trial, it still leaves serious questions unanswered about complicity, accountability, and the broader ecosystem of abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Okt 39min

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate’s affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein’s estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate’s affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate’s value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims’ Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein’s victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate’s assets and the status of the victims’ claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein’s Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein’s estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate’s management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein’s criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein’s estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims’ Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Okt 22min

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate’s affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein’s estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate’s affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate’s value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims’ Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein’s victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate’s assets and the status of the victims’ claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein’s Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein’s estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate’s management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein’s criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein’s estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims’ Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Okt 22min

Rachel Cooke, a 19-year-old college student from Georgetown, Texas, disappeared without a trace on January 10, 2002, during a routine jog near her family’s home. Despite extensive searches, media attention, and ongoing investigations, no significant leads or evidence emerged. Over the years, several suspects and theories were considered, but each ultimately led to dead ends, leaving her case unsolved. In 2022, on the 20th anniversary of her disappearance, law enforcement reopened the investigation, utilizing advanced forensic technologies in hopes of uncovering new clues. While the case remains a mystery, her family continues to seek answers, holding on to the hope that modern science may finally bring closure to one of Texas’s most haunting missing person cases.(commercial at 7:49)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

26 Okt 10min