The Ghislaine Maxwell Tapes: Transcripts From Ghislaine Maxwell DOJ Interview (Part 2) (8/23/25)
On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein’s death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein’s survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
23 Aug 15min
The Ghislaine Maxwell Tapes: Transcripts From Ghislaine Maxwell DOJ Interview (Part 1) (8/23/25)
On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein.In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein’s death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein’s survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
23 Aug 15min
Ghislaine Maxwell's DOJ Interview: No Names, No Justice, No Surprise (8/23/25)
The Department of Justice’s release of the Ghislaine Maxwell transcripts is nothing but theater—a sham staged to protect the powerful and slam the door shut on the Epstein saga. Maxwell, a convicted trafficker, was granted immunity and a microphone to mock survivors, erase the notion of a client list, and cast doubt on Epstein’s death, all while the DOJ used her denials as a shield. The scandal isn’t that these transcripts were released—it’s that the interview happened at all, that the government legitimized a predator’s voice and tried to use it as “closure” for the most explosive trafficking scandal of our time.But this isn’t closure—it’s desperation. They want the public exhausted, numb, and willing to accept Maxwell’s lies as the final word. Yet those who’ve been in the trenches since the beginning know better. This doesn’t end because she says it ends. Every denial and every carefully managed release only proves the cover-up is alive, the names are still hidden, and the truth is still too dangerous to reveal. The DOJ can trot out Maxwell as their mouthpiece, but it won’t work—this fight isn’t over, and when the reckoning comes, it won’t be Maxwell or the elites doing the laughing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
23 Aug 15min
Ghislaine Maxwell Responds To Virginia Roberts Request To Exceed The 10 Deposition Limit (8/23/25)
Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal team opposed Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s request to exceed the ten-deposition limit, arguing that the motion was overreaching and unnecessary. Maxwell’s attorneys maintained that the rules of civil procedure set the limit for good reason, and that Giuffre’s attempt to expand the scope was a tactic designed to harass Maxwell and drag out the proceedings. They contended that the case, at its core, was a straightforward defamation dispute—not a sprawling criminal investigation—and therefore did not warrant an exception to the established limits.Maxwell’s response emphasized efficiency and proportionality, claiming that Giuffre already had ample opportunity to gather evidence within the allowed parameters. Her lawyers argued that permitting more depositions would unfairly burden Maxwell, increase costs, and create an undue spectacle around the case. They framed Giuffre’s request as an attempt to broaden discovery into areas irrelevant to the specific defamation claim, painting it as a fishing expedition aimed more at media headlines than legal necessity.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein list: See all 40 unsealed documents | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
23 Aug 16min
In Their Own Words: Virginia Robert's And The Complaint That Sunk A Prince (8/23/25)
Virginia Roberts Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew in 2021, accusing him of sexual assault when she was a minor under the control of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The complaint alleged that Prince Andrew knowingly participated in Epstein’s trafficking scheme, forcing her into sexual encounters in London, New York, and on Epstein’s private island in the early 2000s. Giuffre’s legal team argued that Andrew was fully aware of her underage status and the coercive circumstances, and that his conduct constituted both sexual abuse and intentional infliction of emotional distress.The lawsuit also emphasized the imbalance of power between a teenage trafficking victim and a member of the British royal family, highlighting how Epstein and Maxwell facilitated these encounters as part of their broader scheme. By filing in U.S. federal court under the Child Victims Act, Giuffre sought accountability for Prince Andrew’s alleged role in Epstein’s network, marking a historic moment in which a royal faced legal exposure over sex trafficking allegations. The case eventually drew worldwide attention before being settled out of court in 2022, with Andrew making no admission of liability but agreeing to a financial settlement reportedly in the millions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
23 Aug 24min
Judge Sweets Order Denying Maxwell's Request For Summary Judgement Against Virginia (Part 5-6) (8/23/25)
In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell’s defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
23 Aug 21min
Judge Sweets Order Denying Maxwell's Request For Summary Judgement Against Virginia (Part 3-4) (8/23/25)
In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell’s defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
23 Aug 29min
Judge Sweets Order Denying Maxwell's Request For Summary Judgement Against Virginia (Part 1-2) (8/22/25)
In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell’s defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
23 Aug 25min
