Is this investigation A Search For Truth Or An Attempt To Bury The Epstein’s Files Forever? (Part 2) (11/17/25)

Jes Staley’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t just a lapse in judgment—it was a full-blown embrace of depravity dressed up as “networking.” Staley wasn’t dragged into Epstein’s orbit; he signed up for the frequent flyer program. He flew to the island, sent creepy “Snow White” emails, and played the role of banker, buddy, and image-launderer for a convicted sex offender. This wasn’t ignorance—it was arrogance. He knew exactly who Epstein was and decided that power, money, and access were worth more than decency, truth, or his own reputation.In the end, Staley will never be remembered for his banking career or “leadership.” His legacy is sealed as Epstein’s enabler, lapdog, and fool—the man who polished the monster’s image while survivors were left fighting for justice. He represents everything rotten about high finance: greed over morality, image over truth, connections over humanity. Staley thought he could walk hand-in-hand with Epstein and still be respected. Instead, he’s a permanent cautionary tale of complicity, corruption, and cowardice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

19 Sep 12min

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein were quick to condemn Kash Patel’s claim that there was “no credible evidence” of Epstein trafficking victims to anyone but himself. They pointed out that the public record alone undermines Patel’s statement. Virginia Giuffre’s sworn depositions, the Maxwell trial testimony, and multiple FBI interview summaries (FD-302s) make direct references to high-profile individuals. Survivors also reminded the public that members of Congress, including Rep. Thomas Massie, have already stated in hearings that victims named more than 20 powerful men—including billionaires, politicians, and a prince—to whom they were trafficked.They accused Patel of either ignoring or deliberately minimizing the mountain of corroborating evidence. Beyond official court documents and sworn testimony, survivors criticized him for deferring to prior DOJ conclusions without releasing the raw FBI reports or victim statements. They demanded transparency in the form of unsealed FD-302s, noting that nothing in Epstein’s controversial non-prosecution agreement prevents their disclosure. Survivors said Patel’s statement not only insults them but perpetuates the cover-up, and they called for immediate accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Survivors Blast FBI Director Kash Patel For Claiming 'No Credible Information' Financier Trafficked Women to OthersBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

19 Sep 17min

The story of Alexander Acosta and Kash Patel reveals how two different stages of the Jeffrey Epstein saga were managed by institutions more interested in containment than justice. Acosta, as U.S. Attorney in 2008, has long been portrayed as the architect of Epstein’s sweetheart plea deal, but in reality he acted as a middleman executing a decision sanctioned by Main Justice. The immunity clause that protected Epstein’s co-conspirators was not his invention; it was authorized at higher levels of the DOJ. Acosta ultimately became the convenient scapegoat, forced to resign years later and repeatedly grilled by Congress, while the true architects of Epstein’s leniency remained untouched and hidden from public view.Patel’s more recent denial before Congress that there was “no credible evidence” Epstein trafficked girls to others represents the next phase of institutional failure. His statement directly dismissed sworn survivor testimony and years of documented evidence, effectively signaling that the FBI had no interest in exposing Epstein’s wider network. Instead of closing the book, Patel reignited demands for transparency, with lawmakers and survivors calling for the release of sealed FBI interview files. Together, Acosta and Patel’s roles illustrate how the system managed Epstein’s case: first by gutting prosecution, then by narrowing investigation, both times protecting the powerful while leaving survivors unheard.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

19 Sep 17min

The new wave of outrage from lawmakers over Jeffrey Epstein is less a moral awakening than a stage play. For years, these same politicians happily accepted his money, attended his events, and ignored survivors’ pleas. Now, with the cameras rolling, they’ve reinvented themselves as crusaders for justice. Their speeches are choreographed performances — complete with dramatic pauses and crocodile tears — designed to look like courage but reeking of political survival. Survivors don’t need applause lines or hashtags; they needed action years ago, when it might have made a difference.What we’re really watching is hypocrisy in motion. The very people who enabled Epstein’s influence machine now use outrage as a costume to launder their reputations. They hope the public will forget the donations, the fundraisers, and the Rolodex connections, but the record doesn’t disappear just because they suddenly discovered empathy. This isn’t justice, it’s theater — and if they believe they can posture without being called out, they’ve underestimated how much the audience has been paying attention.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

19 Sep 14min

Edward Bramson, through his investment vehicle Sherborne Investors, owned a ~5–6% stake in Barclays and repeatedly pushed the bank to address what he saw as governance failures tied to Jes Staley’s past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Bramson publicly criticized Staley for not being sufficiently transparent about those links, particularly his time at JPMorgan, and demanded that the board take decisive action—either requiring Staley to be removed or revoking support for his reappointment as CEO. Bramson also raised questions about whether Staley had appropriately severed ties with Epstein, even after compliance/legal teams had urged him to do so.Over time, however, Staley managed to resist most of Bramson’s pressure. By 2021 Bramson ended up selling Sherborne’s entire stake in Barclays, backing down from his campaign to force structural changes to the investment banking division and leadership removal. While the regulatory investigations into Staley’s Epstein connections continued and the issue caused reputational damage, Bramson was unable to gain enough shareholder or board support to force the changes he wanted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

19 Sep 40min

Alan Dershowitz filed a lawsuit against Netflix in 2021 over its docuseries Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, alleging defamation and breach of contract. He claimed the series unfairly presented Virginia Giuffre’s allegations against him without including exculpatory evidence he provided, and argued that producers had promised to air his side of the story but failed to do so. Netflix denied the allegations and filed a countersuit, insisting the program was accurate and that Dershowitz’s claims were meritless.Separately, Dershowitz became embroiled in a bitter legal fight with prominent attorney David Boies, who sued him for defamation after Dershowitz accused Boies of unethical conduct and pressuring Giuffre into making false statements. Dershowitz countered with his own claims that Boies had orchestrated a campaign to smear him. Both disputes—Dershowitz versus Netflix and Dershowitz versus Boies—ultimately ended in late 2022 when all parties agreed to dismiss their lawsuits with prejudice. Giuffre herself issued a statement acknowledging she may have misidentified Dershowitz, closing out the high-profile litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

19 Sep 31min

During the interview, Kim Iversen pressed Dershowitz about his associations with Jeffrey Epstein and asked probing questions that he appeared taken off-guard by. One key moment came when Iversen asked whether Epstein “killed himself,” to which Dershowitz responded that Epstein did not die entirely of his own doing—suggesting involvement of others, particularly guards. Dershowitz seemed visibly frustrated with the line of inquiry, complaining about what he felt was being “sandbagged”—i.e. caught unawares on shifting topics. When Iversen tried to connect the conversation back to Donald Trump and broader current events, Dershowitz challenged the framing, appearing to assert that certain issues were being conflated unfairly.Dershowitz ultimately ended the exchange by telling Iversen it would be “the last time” he appeared on her show, indicating that he felt the interview had crossed implicit boundaries. The interaction made headlines largely because of that tension, the unexpected speculation about Epstein’s death, and Dershowitz’s claim that questions about unrelated topics had been sprung without warning.Also...Alan Dershowitz has publicly said that Prince Andrew made “a terrible mistake” by settling the lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre in 2022 rather than taking the case to trial. Dershowitz believes Andrew could have won in court, arguing there were legal grounds to challenge jurisdiction, statute of limitations, and credibility of Giuffre’s claims. He suggests Andrew’s legal team—and possibly Queen Elizabeth II—pressured him into settling to avoid the embarrassment of a public deposition and the full airing of allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

19 Sep 28min

During the run up to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial there were more than a handful of bail attempts and each of them was less successful than the next. In this look back episode, we hear from Maxwell's lawyers, and they provide us with 8 reasons why she should be sprung. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ghislaine-maxwells-lawyers-came-up-with-8-reasons-alleged-jeffrey-epstein-accomplice-should-get-bail/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

19 Sep 26min