Mega Edition: Julie K. Brown And Defamation Lawsuits (10/19/25)

The official story has always painted Alex Acosta as the man solely responsible for Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement, but that version is designed to mislead. Acosta was a mid-level figure, a convenient scapegoat set up to absorb public outrage while the real decisions were made in Washington. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, and other senior DOJ brass were the ones who met with Epstein’s powerful legal team, signed off on the immunity clause, and ensured the deal protected not only Epstein but his co-conspirators. Acosta merely carried out orders that had already been determined above him, and when the truth started to unravel, he was offered up as the fall guy to shield the institution.The failure to subpoena everyone involved—from state prosecutors to Main Justice leadership—reveals that Congress is more interested in theater than accountability. By focusing blame on Acosta, the system preserved itself, kept survivors from the truth, and avoided admitting the uncomfortable reality that DOJ itself bent the law to protect a billionaire predator. True justice requires putting every official who touched the deal under oath, including Mukasey and Filip, to expose how the NPA was engineered. Until that happens, the scandal remains unresolved and the cover-up intact, with Acosta remembered not as the architect of Epstein’s freedom, but as the shield sacrificed to keep the powerful safe.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

26 Aug 11min

The allegations that the Clintons vacationed at Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch are more than just idle rumor—they strike at the heart of the Clintons’ long pattern of lying, minimizing, and hiding behind carefully scripted denials. Reports claimed Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea all spent time at the New Mexico compound, a place now forever tied to child trafficking and sexual exploitation. Bill Clinton’s spokesman responded with a smug “simply not true. Period.” But that kind of arrogant brush-off is exactly the problem. It’s the same playbook the Clintons have used for decades: deny, deflect, and bank on their political clout to keep the media from asking hard questions. When it comes to Epstein, this tactic is especially grotesque. Even the appearance of vacationing at a pedophile’s desert fortress should be scandal enough—but the Clintons expect people to take their word at face value and move on, as if their history with Epstein never existed.Meanwhile, survivors testified that Zorro Ranch wasn’t a retreat; it was a nightmare. Court records describe underage girls being groomed, abused, and trafficked there, some as young as 15. Against that backdrop, the allegations that the Clintons used the ranch as a getaway make their denials sound hollow and self-serving. Epstein’s black book listed the “Office of Bill Clinton,” proving at least documented contact. Yet instead of accountability, the Clintons have relied on the protective bubble of political privilege, shrugging off serious allegations as if they were beneath response. Critics argue this is moral rot at its finest: powerful elites vacationing where children were allegedly trafficked, and then waving away any connection as if their word is gospel. If this is the best the Clintons can do, it isn’t a defense—it’s an indictment of how untouchable they think they are.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill and Hillary Clinton were frequent guests at 'Jeffrey Epstein's New Mexico ranch | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

26 Aug 16min

The House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer, has subpoenaed Jeffrey Epstein’s estate for a broad collection of records, including financial documents, correspondence, Epstein’s will, agreements with prosecutors, and what has been described as the “birthday book.” That book, presented to Epstein on his 50th birthday, contained notes and letters from acquaintances and has been cited as a potential source of information on his personal and professional connections. The committee stated the request is part of its wider probe into how Epstein’s crimes were handled and what federal authorities may have overlooked or failed to disclose.In addition, the committee has scheduled former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta for a transcribed interview on September 19. Acosta, who approved the 2008 non-prosecution agreement that shielded Epstein from federal charges, is expected to be questioned about the decision-making process behind that deal and the extent of Justice Department involvement. His testimony, combined with the subpoena for the estate’s records, represents a new stage of congressional scrutiny into the broader handling of Epstein’s case and the officials tied to it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:House committee to question Alex Acosta in Jeffrey Epstein probeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

26 Aug 14min

Metropolitan Police—commonly known as Scotland Yard—announced in 2019 that it would not reopen its investigation into Virginia Giuffre’s claims that she had been trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and coerced into sex with Prince Andrew in London when she was 17. Senior officials argued that the case was largely centered overseas and therefore outside their jurisdiction, effectively closing the door on UK law enforcement scrutiny. When the matter resurfaced in 2021, Scotland Yard once again dropped the investigation, sparking criticism that the decision looked less like jurisdictional caution and more like deliberate avoidance. These refusals coincided with repeated reports that Prince Andrew had not cooperated with U.S. prosecutors, raising suspicions that British institutions were ensuring the royal remained insulated from serious investigation.Critics argue that this institutional reluctance effectively shielded Prince Andrew from the consequences of his Epstein ties. Former U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman recounted that his team was stonewalled when they tried to reach the Duke of York, further fueling the belief that UK authorities deliberately protected him from accountability. While no charges were ever brought, the optics were damning: Scotland Yard’s stance, combined with Andrew’s legal evasions, created the appearance of a protective bubble that prioritized the monarchy’s image over justice for Epstein’s victims.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://knewz.com/lust-lies-spies-part-2-how-the-enormous-power-of-the-british-police-force-provided-a-protection-racket-for-prince-andrew-and-covered-up-epstein-maxwells-criminal-ente/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

26 Aug 1h 3min

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley’s motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank’s standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

26 Aug 30min

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley’s motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank’s standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

26 Aug 25min

In early August 2025, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff sharply cautioned JPMorgan Chase and its attorneys during the discovery phase of litigation over Jeffrey Epstein-related claims. He accused the bank of a “blatant slow walk of evidence,” signaling that delaying or withholding documents would not be tolerated, and explicitly warned that the court would hold JPMorgan in contempt if it failed to comply with the agreed-upon production schedule.Despite this stern warning, there’s been no widely reported follow-up indicating that JPMorgan faced any actual sanctions or contempt findings as a result. In other words, while the judge clearly articulated the stakes, the expected consequences—like court-imposed penalties or expedited orders—apparently never materialized. The implicit message: the warning raised expectations of enforcement, but no tangible disciplinary action seems to have followed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge warns JPMorgan Chase in Jeffrey Epstein evidence issue (cnbc.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

26 Aug 13min

In 2023, JPMorgan Chase paid nearly $365 million in settlements tied to Jeffrey Epstein—$290 million to survivors of his abuse and another $75 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands, which accused the bank of enabling his trafficking operations. Survivors argued the bank ignored glaring red flags while continuing to profit from Epstein as a client. These settlements provided financial compensation but allowed JPMorgan to resolve the cases without admitting wrongdoing or exposing itself to deeper legal liability.What was expected after such payouts—sweeping institutional reform, regulatory overhauls, or real accountability—never materialized. JPMorgan treated the settlements as a cost of doing business, and because the sums were small relative to its vast revenues, the financial and reputational damage was limited. No new compliance mandates were imposed, no executives faced consequences, and the systemic issues that allowed Epstein to operate remained largely untouched. The money changed hands, but the reckoning never came.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:JPMorgan’s Epstein settlement will change how all banks act (afr.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

26 Aug 13min