Ghislaine Maxwell And Her State Of Mind Before Sentencing

In July 2020, New York state regulators fined Deutsche Bank $150 million for its failure to properly monitor its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, along with other high-risk clients. The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) determined that the bank ignored clear warning signs while maintaining Epstein as a client from 2013 to 2018, years after his 2008 sex-crime conviction. Regulators found that Deutsche Bank processed millions in suspicious transactions for Epstein, including payments to women with Eastern European surnames and large cash withdrawals that should have triggered scrutiny. The DFS concluded that the bank chose profit over compliance, prioritizing Epstein’s business despite internal concerns that he posed legal and reputational risks.The fine was the first major enforcement action against a financial institution for its role in facilitating Epstein’s activities. Regulators detailed how Deutsche Bank repeatedly failed to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) despite obvious red flags tied to Epstein’s network of shell companies and payments structured to look like consulting or tuition expenses. The settlement required Deutsche Bank to improve oversight and compliance systems, but it also underscored a larger problem: financial institutions were essential enablers of Epstein’s empire, allowing him to move money and maintain access to elite circles even after his conviction. The $150 million penalty was significant in size, yet critics argued it was still a slap on the wrist for a global bank that had enabled Epstein’s financial maneuvering for years.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/07/jeffrey-epstein-case-deutsche-bank-fined-150-million-penalty-for-relationship.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Aug 28min

According to eyewitnesses reported by The Daily Beast, Kathryn Ruemmler—who served as White House Counsel under both the Clinton and Obama administrations—was present at Jeffrey Epstein’s arraignment in July 2019. Observers noted she was seated behind Epstein’s defense team, and characterized her presence as a “professional relationship,” possibly serving as a show of support. Importantly, Epstein’s longtime attorney, Martin Weinberg, clarified that Ruemmler did not represent Epstein, stating with certainty that she had not appeared at any hearing on his behalf.Further press coverage and court filings revealed that even after her White House tenure, Ruemmler had multiple interactions with Epstein. The Wall Street Journal noted Epstein’s schedule included dozens of meetings with her between her White House service and her later work at Goldman Sachs. He had entries for planned meetings in Paris in 2015 and on his private Caribbean island in 2017; Ruemmler denied that those occasions occurred. She also commented in those reports: “I regret ever knowing Jeffrey Epstein.”(commercial at 12:40)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein referred Obama White House counsel to JPMorgan (cnbc.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

24 Aug 19min

Jeffrey Epstein had many people who were standing up for his 'character' after his first arrest and they sent glowing letters to the prosecutors and judge. In today's episode, we take a look at some of those letters and some of the people who sent them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7690411/Jeffrey-Epsteins-2007-biography-prosecutors-described-man-principles.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

23 Aug 16min

The Wall Street Journal’s release of Jeffrey Epstein’s private calendar revealed that, even after his 2008 conviction as a sex offender, he maintained access to prominent figures in politics, finance, and academia. The calendar included scheduled meetings with individuals such as CIA Director William Burns, renowned academic Noam Chomsky, Goldman Sachs lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler, Bard College President Leon Botstein, and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. These entries demonstrated that Epstein, despite his notoriety, was still actively engaging with power players, securing sit-downs that suggested his influence and connections remained intact well after his fall from grace.Responses to the revelations highlighted both defensiveness and distancing. Chomsky confirmed some interactions but dismissed the significance, telling reporters that who he met “is none of your business.” Burns’s camp insisted his meeting with Epstein was merely a brief introduction arranged during his transition out of government and that he had no relationship with him. The broader disclosure underscored the depth of Epstein’s reach and the discomfort it continues to cause for those whose names surfaced on his calendar years after his crimes were well known.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein Documents, Part 2: Dinners with Lawrence Summers and Movie Screenings With Woody Allen (msn.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

23 Aug 26min

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

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 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’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