CIA Kompromat 101: Jeffrey Epstein and the CIA’s Culture of Compromise (Part 1) (8/23/25)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

6 Nov 23min

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

6 Nov 28min

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

6 Nov 26min

When the U.S. Department of Justice filed a formal Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request with the U.K. Home Office in 2020 to question Prince Andrew as part of its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s network, the Duke’s legal team immediately went on the defensive. They issued a statement claiming Andrew had “on at least three occasions offered his assistance” and accused U.S. prosecutors of violating confidentiality rules by publicly asserting that he had not cooperated. His lawyers framed the MLA request as unnecessary “political theater,” implying that the DOJ’s statements were meant to pressure the Duke through media embarrassment rather than legitimate procedure. The legal team presented Andrew as a willing witness, not a suspect — arguing that any suggestion he was stonewalling the investigation was both “false” and “misleading.”However, U.S. officials directly contradicted those assertions, saying that Andrew had “zero cooperation” despite repeated outreach. The Southern District of New York prosecutors maintained that Andrew’s team refused to schedule interviews or provide substantive assistance. Legal experts in both the U.S. and U.K. noted that while an MLA request could theoretically compel cooperation through formal channels, it was diplomatically sensitive and rarely used against a member of the Royal Family. The optics were terrible: while the Duke’s lawyers publicly insisted on transparency, his continued silence and refusal to appear under oath only deepened perceptions that he was hiding behind privilege and procedure to avoid accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

6 Nov 17min

In late May 2022, Justin Welby, then the Church of England’s Archbishop of Canterbury, was asked during an interview about Prince Andrew and the public reaction to him. Welby said that “forgiveness really does matter” and that “we have become a very, very unforgiving society,” adding that there is a “difference between consequences and forgiveness.” He noted that regarding Prince Andrew, “we all have to step back a bit. He’s seeking to make amends and I think that’s a very good thing.” At the same time, he acknowledged that issues of alleged abuse are “intensely personal and private for so many,” which means no one can dictate how others should respond.Following a backlash, Welby’s office clarified that his comments on forgiveness were not intended to apply specifically to Prince Andrew, but rather were a broader comment about the kind of more “open and forgiving society” he hoped for around the time of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. The statement emphasised that while consequences remain important, forgiveness is also part of Christian understanding of justice, mercy and reconciliation — but it explicitly did not amount to a call for the public to re-embrace the prince or dismiss accountability.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

6 Nov 17min

During the civil lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Prince Andrew, the Duke’s legal team was widely mocked for appearing to scrape the bottom of the barrel in search of credible character witnesses. Instead of producing anyone with real moral weight or first-hand knowledge to vouch for him, Andrew’s defense relied on weak, contradictory claims — including his infamous “I don’t sweat” explanation and statements attempting to discredit Giuffre’s recollection of events. His lawyers even sought broad discovery into Giuffre’s past finances, social life, and mental health, a tactic viewed by many as desperate and irrelevant. The strategy looked less like a robust defense and more like an attempt to sling mud in the absence of evidence or credible allies willing to stand beside him.Observers noted that the Duke’s inability to produce legitimate witnesses spoke volumes about his crumbling credibility and isolation. Instead of respected public figures, his legal team leaned on peripheral associates and technical arguments that only underscored how far he had fallen from royal grace. Even the court pressed for testimony from Giuffre’s husband and psychologist — a clear sign that Andrew’s side had failed to offer anyone of substance. By the time the case was heading toward trial, the optics were catastrophic: a once-powerful prince reduced to scavenging for defenders while the walls of public opinion and legal scrutiny closed in around him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

6 Nov 20min

Prince Andrew was branded an “egotist” by a former head of royal security after continued controversy over his insistence on keeping a taxpayer-funded £3 million-a-year police protection detail, despite no longer being a working royal. The former officer, who once oversaw protection for the royal household, accused the Duke of York of exhibiting an inflated sense of self-importance by refusing to accept that his public role—and the privileges that came with it—had long since ended. His remarks reflected broader frustration within both royal and policing circles, where many believed Andrew’s demands for elite security were rooted in pride rather than legitimate necessity.The criticism came at a time when Andrew’s reputation was already in tatters following his association with Jeffrey Epstein and his disastrous Newsnight interview. Once viewed as a key member of the royal family, he had become a figure of ridicule and embarrassment—isolated, stripped of official duties, and reliant on family resources to maintain his lifestyle. The “egotist” label encapsulated how many inside and outside the palace viewed him: as a man unable to let go of the trappings of a past life, clinging to status symbols that no longer reflected his reality.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

5 Nov 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.

5 Nov 11min