Claim Ownership
Jeffrey Epstein: The Coverup Chronicles
Jeffrey Epstein: The Coverup ChroniclesSubscribed: 34Played: 2,535
Subscribe
© Bobby Capucci
Description
Jeffrey Epstein: The Coverup Chronicles is a podcast dedicated to examining not just who Epstein was and what he did, but how so many people and institutions worked—then and now—to keep it all hidden. This series cuts past the headlines and digs into the documentation: court filings, deposition transcripts, plea deals, sealed exhibits, and the bureaucratic paper trail that still tells the real story. Our focus isn’t on speculation or recycled outrage. It’s on facts—and the deliberate efforts to keep those facts out of public view.
Each episode will feature in-depth analysis of newly surfaced records and underreported legal developments, alongside expert commentary that connects them to the broader machinery of power that shielded Epstein for decades. We’ll revisit the timeline from his first arrests through his 2008 plea deal, and into the re-investigations that followed his 2019 death in federal custody. And we won’t stop there—we’ll look closely at the current state of affairs: the closed probes, the lingering co-conspirators, the civil suits, and the glaring gaps in accountability.
What makes The Coverup Chronicles different is that we’re not here to sensationalize the story—we’re here to document the ongoing concealment of it. This isn’t just about reliving Epstein’s crimes. It’s about following the networks that enabled them, protected him, and continue to obscure the truth. If you want an honest look at what’s still being hidden—by whom, and why—this is the podcast that pulls those threads.
And I should know—I’ve spent over six years uncovering every dark corner of this case. My name is Bobby Capucci, and I’ve dedicated those same six years exposing the truth about Epstein and the powerful figures who enabled him. From on-the-ground investigations at Epstein’s Zorro Ranch, where I spoke with insiders, to national appearances on Tucker Carlson, I’ve followed this story farther than most are willing to go.
Who helped Epstein build his empire? Who protected him? And who is still pulling the strings? The answers lie in the shadows of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal empire. .
This is the truth they don’t want you to hear. And I’m here to make sure you do.
Each episode will feature in-depth analysis of newly surfaced records and underreported legal developments, alongside expert commentary that connects them to the broader machinery of power that shielded Epstein for decades. We’ll revisit the timeline from his first arrests through his 2008 plea deal, and into the re-investigations that followed his 2019 death in federal custody. And we won’t stop there—we’ll look closely at the current state of affairs: the closed probes, the lingering co-conspirators, the civil suits, and the glaring gaps in accountability.
What makes The Coverup Chronicles different is that we’re not here to sensationalize the story—we’re here to document the ongoing concealment of it. This isn’t just about reliving Epstein’s crimes. It’s about following the networks that enabled them, protected him, and continue to obscure the truth. If you want an honest look at what’s still being hidden—by whom, and why—this is the podcast that pulls those threads.
And I should know—I’ve spent over six years uncovering every dark corner of this case. My name is Bobby Capucci, and I’ve dedicated those same six years exposing the truth about Epstein and the powerful figures who enabled him. From on-the-ground investigations at Epstein’s Zorro Ranch, where I spoke with insiders, to national appearances on Tucker Carlson, I’ve followed this story farther than most are willing to go.
Who helped Epstein build his empire? Who protected him? And who is still pulling the strings? The answers lie in the shadows of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal empire. .
This is the truth they don’t want you to hear. And I’m here to make sure you do.
1584 Episodes
Reverse
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)
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)
If the IRS Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CI) were targeting someone like Jeffrey Epstein, the case would start with forensic financial analysis designed to trace unreported income, hidden assets, and offshore structures. Epstein’s wealth—largely private, complex, and tied to shell companies and foreign accounts—would trigger red flags for potential violations of tax evasion statutes (26 U.S.C. § 7201). Agents would begin with data analytics, subpoenas to banks and trust administrators, and whistleblower information to uncover discrepancies between reported income and actual financial activity. They would examine private jets, properties, and luxury assets as potential laundering channels or under-reported business expenses, often using the “net worth” method to compare lifestyle against declared earnings. IRS-CI would also coordinate with agencies such as FinCEN and the Department of Justice’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section to investigate any violations of Title 31—such as failure to report large transactions or suspicious activity involving foreign financial institutions.If the evidence suggested intentional concealment or laundering, IRS-CI would elevate the case to a full criminal investigation. Epstein’s network of offshore accounts, charitable foundations, and LLCs would be scrutinized for the use of nominee owners, false invoices, and circular transfers to disguise the origin of funds. Agents would rely on Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) to obtain foreign banking records, coordinate with Treasury to trace wire transfers, and reconstruct income streams through forensic accounting. Once they established willful intent to defraud the government, the IRS could refer the case to the Department of Justice for prosecution, pursuing charges of tax evasion, money laundering, and conspiracy. In short, an IRS agent targeting someone like Epstein wouldn’t just look for missing tax filings—they’d dismantle the entire financial infrastructure that enabled his empire of secrecy.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
According to a former housekeeper at Epstein’s New Mexico property (Zorro Ranch), during a stay by Prince Andrew at the ranch, he was allegedly accompanied by a “beautiful young and brilliant” woman — described as a neurosurgeon — whose role, the housekeeper claims, was to “keep him company.” The woman reportedly asked for herbal teas intended to make Andrew “more horny,” as the housekeeper recounted. The Sun reported that the woman was “given” to Andrew by Epstein for the duration of his visit.The story places Andrew at the ranch in a self-contained guest house, ostensibly unsupervised by Epstein, during which this woman allegedly stayed with him for three days, according to the housekeeper’s testimony. The implication drawn is that Epstein orchestrated not just the location but the company and context for Andrew’s stay. While the claim remains unverified in terms of independent evidence and has not been substantiated by publicly available official records, the tabloid narrative highlights how far the web of associations around Epstein extended — and how the involvement of high-profile individuals like Andrew continues to generate new, sensational allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
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 Drive
The state of New Mexico’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes remains one of the most glaring examples of governmental negligence in recent memory. Despite Epstein owning the massive Zorro Ranch property near Stanley, where multiple survivors alleged they were trafficked and abused, state authorities failed to bring a single charge against him. Even after Epstein’s 2008 Florida conviction, he was not required to register as a sex offender in New Mexico due to a technicality in the state’s laws and the lack of proactive enforcement by local officials. Investigations launched by the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office were sluggish, underfunded, and seemingly designed to avoid confrontation with the powerful interests connected to Epstein. The inaction effectively allowed one of the most notorious predators in modern history to operate with impunity on New Mexico soil.Now, amid mounting public anger and renewed scrutiny, New Mexico lawmakers are attempting to atone through the creation of a “truth commission” — a bipartisan investigative body designed to examine how the state’s institutions failed. The commission would probe how Epstein was able to buy land, operate businesses, and allegedly abuse victims with no oversight. Its goal is to uncover which officials knew about Epstein’s activities, why red flags were ignored, and how state systems can be reformed to prevent such catastrophic negligence in the future. Supporters describe it as a long-overdue reckoning with the failures of law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and political leadership, though critics warn that it may amount to little more than symbolic damage control unless it carries real investigative authority and public transparency.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
The newly released correspondence reveals Maxwell gushing that life at Bryan is “much, much happier,” describing the kitchen as “clean,” the staff as “polite,” and boasting she “haven’t seen a single fight, drug deal, passed-out person or naked inmate running around”—in her words, “I feel like I have dropped through Alice in Wonderland’s looking-glass.” In stark contrast, she painted her old facility, Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee, as so unsanitary that “possums falling from ceilings… frying on ovens” mingled with the food served. The tone is one of relief mingled with smugness, and it raises profound questions about how a person convicted of aiding a vast sex-trafficking scheme is enjoying conditions so clearly characterized as unusually comfortable.But the emails don’t just stop at praise—they touch off a firestorm of claims from fellow inmates and corrections experts that Maxwell is receiving “VIP treatment.” Leaks argue that she gets meals delivered to her dorm, late-night showers when others are asleep, access to the warden for legal help, and in one alarming twist, some inmates say they were threatened or transferred for speaking out about her. Experts say such privileges are unheard-of for someone with Maxwell’s conviction and sentence, suggesting she’s been moved to a “country club” style prison camp despite federal rules that restrict sex-offender convicts from such facilities. The implications are explosive: favor or influence, justice subverted, and a system that seems to bow for big names while normal inmates rot under far harsher rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell praises cushy prison for cleanliness, lack of possums falling from ceiling
The Jeffrey Epstein investigation has been defined by a decades-long trail of corruption, influence, and protection that spans both political parties and powerful institutions. From the very beginning, Epstein’s connections to elite figures—from Wall Street moguls and intelligence officials to presidents and royals—seemed to grant him immunity from normal legal consequences. The 2008 non-prosecution agreement in Florida, brokered in secret by federal prosecutors under Alex Acosta, remains one of the clearest examples of systemic rot: a sweetheart deal negotiated behind closed doors that shielded Epstein’s co-conspirators and effectively nullified justice for dozens of victims. Even as federal agents collected evidence of trafficking and witness tampering, the powerful leaned on their connections to ensure the case was quietly buried.When Epstein was re-arrested in 2019, that same machinery of protection reappeared—just more desperate and more visible. His suspicious “suicide” inside one of the most secure jails in the country occurred amid camera failures, sleeping guards, and missing logs, all while key financial and political figures scrambled to distance themselves. Every step since—sealed records, vanishing evidence, selective prosecutions, and lenient treatment of Ghislaine Maxwell—has reeked of containment rather than accountability. What began as a criminal case against one man has become a case study in institutional corruption, where the truth about Epstein’s network of power remains locked behind the same walls that failed to keep him alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
In regard to Epstein’s death, Kuvin has expressed strong skepticism that it was a straightforward suicide. He notes that in his mediations with Epstein the financier never displayed the mindset of someone considering ending his own life — Epstein was “overly self-confident” and apparently believed he would beat the system. In one interview he said the “evidence is circumstantial but overwhelming” that Epstein did not die by his own hand, pointing to protocol failures in the jail (absent cellmate, sleeping guards, camera failures) and Epstein’s attitude as major red flags.On the question of Prince Andrew’s connection to Epstein, Kuvin has been openly critical. He argues that the Prince’s denials and limited admissions do not erase the years of association with Epstein and others in that orbit. He has labelled Andrew’s 2019 interview and other statements as “despicable” for failing to fully acknowledge the breadth of the friendship and what it meant for victims, and has said that until Andrew transparently cooperates with U.S. authorities, his avoidance only reinforces the perception of guilt.Finally, on Epstein’s estate, Kuvin has called attention to the rights of victims and the need for full transparency in how that estate is being managed. He has pointed out that he represents multiple claimants against the estate and lauded the establishment of the victims’ compensation program as a “huge victory” for survivors. He has also underscored that the estate remains a critical vehicle not just for compensation, but for uncovering the scope of Epstein’s network and financial dealings — something he says is far from finished.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
After her sentencing, Ghislaine Maxwell immediately began pushing for special treatment, arguing that her imprisonment should be served in the United Kingdom rather than in the U.S. federal system. Her legal team claimed she was being unfairly treated compared to other inmates and that she should be allowed to serve her time closer to her family. Maxwell cited her British citizenship, her alleged “difficult” prison conditions, and her supposed lack of fair treatment throughout the trial as grounds for leniency. In effect, she was attempting to frame herself as a victim of the system — not an enabler of Epstein’s crimes — while using diplomatic channels and her powerful connections to petition for a transfer under international prisoner-exchange agreements.She also sought a drastically reduced sentence, claiming she was being punished for Epstein’s sins and that her role was exaggerated. Maxwell’s lawyers argued that her upbringing, reputation loss, and media scrutiny should be taken into account, painting her as a scapegoat for a man who could no longer be tried. This push for leniency and relocation was seen by victims’ advocates as a continuation of the entitlement that defined her life — a refusal to accept accountability or face the same justice as ordinary offenders. Rather than remorse, her response after sentencing reflected the same privilege and arrogance that had protected her and Epstein for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
When it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, the world’s most powerful people all seem to suffer from a highly selective strain of amnesia. Presidents, princes, professors, and billionaires who once took his calls, rode his planes, and cashed his checks suddenly can’t recall how they knew him or why. Bill Clinton can’t quite remember how many times he flew on Epstein’s jet. Prince Andrew claims he doesn’t remember that infamous photo with Virginia Giuffre. Les Wexner “doesn’t recall” signing over his mansion. Ehud Barak “barely knew the man.” Even Alan Dershowitz, who was practically Epstein’s legal shadow, insists any contact was purely academic. It’s like the entire upper crust of global power suddenly developed synchronized memory loss the moment the cameras turned on.This “collective amnesia” isn’t accidental—it’s a survival mechanism. The same people who built and benefited from Epstein’s network now pretend they barely knew the guy who managed their money, funded their projects, and connected them to each other. Their stories always change, their timelines blur, and their denials sound like rehearsed lines from the same crisis-management manual. When it comes to Epstein, the elite don’t just forget—they professionally unremember.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Prince Andrew, Duke of York attempted a comeback into public royal life after formally stepping back in 2019, but the efforts were swiftly frozen by the senior royal family amid mounting scandal. After his disastrous BBC interview and the civil settlement with Virginia Giuffre in 2022, Andrew quietly hoped to rehabilitate his reputation and re-emerge at low-key royal events. Instead, in October 2025 the palace confirmed he would no longer use his Duke of York title or royal honours — a decision reportedly made in close consultation with his brother King Charles III and his son Prince William, Prince of Wales, who both viewed Andrew’s presence as a continuing distraction to the monarchy.Despite murmurs of a comeback strategy — appearances at charitable events, discreet patronage involvement — the monarchy drew a hard line. Andrew’s titles, honours and privileged residence at Royal Lodge near Windsor Castle were revoked or set for removal, signalling that any revival would not be sanctioned. Charles’ decision to strip Andrew of his official capacity not only ended the comeback effort but demonstrated the institution’s priority: preserving its integrity over personal loyalty. Analysts say the move cements an irreversible cut-off and makes any future public role for Andrew extremely unlikely.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Drive
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 Drive
Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s unpublished memoir The Billionaire’s Playboy Club recounts her recruitment into Jeffrey Epstein’s world as a 16-year-old working at Mar-a-Lago, where she says Ghislaine Maxwell lured her in with promises of opportunity and travel. The manuscript describes how she became trapped in Epstein’s orbit, allegedly forced into sexual encounters with powerful men, including Prince Andrew, and ferried across his properties in New York, Florida, and the Virgin Islands. Giuffre paints a detailed picture of coercion, psychological manipulation, and the disturbing normalization of exploitation within Epstein’s high-society circle.In this episode, we conlcude our journey through that memoir. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Virgina Giuffre Billionaire's Playboy Club | DocumentCloud
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)
Comments
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States