Episodios

  • Jamie Raskin And His Shameless Defense Of Stacey Plaskett

    Jamie Raskin And His Shameless Defense Of Stacey Plaskett
    Apr 12 2026
    In November 2025, newly released documents from the estate of Jeffrey Epstein revealed that Stacey Plaskett (D-U.S. Virgin Islands) exchanged messages with Epstein during a February 2019 congressional hearing involving Michael Cohen. The texts showed Epstein offering advice on questioning strategy (including prompting “RONA – keeper of the secrets,” a reference to Trump executive assistant Rhona Graff) and congratulating Plaskett’s questioning with “Good work.” Plaskett’s office acknowledged Epstein as a constituent (he owned islands in the territory) but denied that he was directing her actions. A GOP-led motion to censure Plaskett and strip her from the House Intelligence Committee failed by a narrow margin.


    During the floor debate on the resolution, Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) defended Plaskett by saying Republicans were effectively “arraigning a Democratic member for taking a phone call from her constituent, Jeffrey Epstein” during a hearing. He argued there was no specific House rule forbidding such contact and that the resolution was premature—“you don’t get answers by rushing to judgment and turning the whole process upside-down,” he said. Raskin thus framed Plaskett’s interaction as part of her representative role rather than evidence of wrongdoing.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    13 m
  • How the FBI Spent Nearly a Million Dollars to “Accidentally” Expose Epstein’s Victims

    How the FBI Spent Nearly a Million Dollars to “Accidentally” Expose Epstein’s Victims
    Apr 12 2026
    Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein — through their lawyers — have strongly condemned the recent release of documents by U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that left dozens of their names unredacted. Their attorneys argue that this is not just negligence, but a gross violation of their dignity and privacy: “These women are not political pawns,” the filing reads, emphasizing that many of the victims are “mothers, wives, and daughters,” and that exposing their identities without consent — especially when some were minors at the time of abuse — re-victimizes them and undermines any promise of protection.

    Moreover, the lawyers warn that the scope of the oversight failure suggests the DOJ “either does not know the identities of all the victims … and thus cannot apply proper redactions,” or is “intentionally failing to protect victims from public exposure.” They’re pressing a federal judge to demand a more robust redaction process — including asking the DOJ for a full list of known victims so they can ensure no one else is inadvertently exposed.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com




    source:

    Law firm representing alleged Epstein victims sends scathing letter over DOJ document release - ABC News
    Más Menos
    18 m
  • Trump’s Epstein Problem: The Myth Meets the Files

    Trump’s Epstein Problem: The Myth Meets the Files
    Apr 11 2026
    Donald Trump has long attempted to minimize his association with Jeffrey Epstein, dismissing their ties as insignificant and framing himself as a political outsider willing to take on entrenched power networks. Yet the historical record complicates that narrative. Epstein moved comfortably within Trump’s social orbit for years, appearing at his clubs, parties, and alongside individuals who later scrambled to deny their proximity. Even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction, he remained close enough to the Trump-Kushner circle that he was reportedly invited to a 2013 family-associated event—an invitation Kushner’s team now denies despite its documented existence. As more flight logs, guest lists, photographs, and emails surface, Trump’s reflexive insistence that he “barely knew” Epstein becomes increasingly untenable. His more recent claim that Epstein’s criminal enterprise was a “hoax” collapses under the weight of actual victims, sworn testimony, financial settlements, and years of verified documentation.


    The emerging picture is not merely politically inconvenient for Trump; it poses a direct threat to the persona he has spent a decade constructing. The Epstein files risk exposing him not as a crusader against corruption, but as someone who existed within the same elite ecosystem that enabled Epstein for decades. This potential reframing—rooted in evidence rather than speculation—explains Trump’s escalating defensiveness as new material comes to light. For a public figure who built his brand on fearlessness and disruption, the Epstein scandal represents the one narrative he cannot control, dismiss, or bully into silence. Its power lies in its documentation, not its rhetoric. And if the remaining sealed material confirms what the circumstantial record already suggests, the greatest damage to Trump will not come from his political adversaries, but from the truth he hoped would remain buried.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Más Menos
    13 m
  • Inside The OIG Interview: The Warden's Statement Detailing The Death Of Jeffrey Epstein (Part 6) (4/11/26)

    Inside The OIG Interview: The Warden's Statement Detailing The Death Of Jeffrey Epstein (Part 6) (4/11/26)
    Apr 11 2026
    Lamine N'Diaye, in his interview with the Office of the Inspector General, essentially tried to turn the Metropolitan Correctional Center into a scapegoat while positioning himself as a bystander to its failures. He leaned heavily on the narrative that the facility was already broken—staff shortages, overtime abuse, infrastructure decay—as if that somehow absolved him of responsibility rather than underscoring the urgency of his role. What stands out is not just what he admitted, but what he avoided: there is little evidence in his account of decisive leadership, no clear record of aggressive intervention, and no meaningful acknowledgment that the buck was supposed to stop with him. Instead, he described a system failing in slow motion while he remained at the helm, fully aware of the cracks but unwilling—or unable—to reinforce them before they gave way.

    Even more troubling is how his interview reflects a pattern of deflection that mirrors broader institutional behavior in the wake of Jeffrey Epstein’s death. N’Diaye pointed to correctional officers missing rounds, falsifying logs, and working under extreme fatigue, but failed to explain why those conditions were tolerated under his command, especially after Epstein had already been flagged as a high-risk inmate following a prior incident. The responsibility didn’t disappear into the system—it sat squarely in his office, and his testimony reads less like accountability and more like damage control. The overall picture is not of a warden overwhelmed by circumstances, but of a leader who allowed a known crisis environment to persist unchecked, then attempted to retroactively frame it as inevitable once the worst-case scenario unfolded.



    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    EFTA00119019.pdf
    Más Menos
    13 m
  • Inside The OIG Interview: The Warden's Statement Detailing The Death Of Jeffrey Epstein (Part 5) (4/11/26)

    Inside The OIG Interview: The Warden's Statement Detailing The Death Of Jeffrey Epstein (Part 5) (4/11/26)
    Apr 11 2026
    Lamine N'Diaye, in his interview with the Office of the Inspector General, essentially tried to turn the Metropolitan Correctional Center into a scapegoat while positioning himself as a bystander to its failures. He leaned heavily on the narrative that the facility was already broken—staff shortages, overtime abuse, infrastructure decay—as if that somehow absolved him of responsibility rather than underscoring the urgency of his role. What stands out is not just what he admitted, but what he avoided: there is little evidence in his account of decisive leadership, no clear record of aggressive intervention, and no meaningful acknowledgment that the buck was supposed to stop with him. Instead, he described a system failing in slow motion while he remained at the helm, fully aware of the cracks but unwilling—or unable—to reinforce them before they gave way.

    Even more troubling is how his interview reflects a pattern of deflection that mirrors broader institutional behavior in the wake of Jeffrey Epstein’s death. N’Diaye pointed to correctional officers missing rounds, falsifying logs, and working under extreme fatigue, but failed to explain why those conditions were tolerated under his command, especially after Epstein had already been flagged as a high-risk inmate following a prior incident. The responsibility didn’t disappear into the system—it sat squarely in his office, and his testimony reads less like accountability and more like damage control. The overall picture is not of a warden overwhelmed by circumstances, but of a leader who allowed a known crisis environment to persist unchecked, then attempted to retroactively frame it as inevitable once the worst-case scenario unfolded.



    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    EFTA00119019.pdf
    Más Menos
    16 m
  • Inside The OIG Interview: The Warden's Statement Detailing The Death Of Jeffrey Epstein (Part 4) (4/11/26)

    Inside The OIG Interview: The Warden's Statement Detailing The Death Of Jeffrey Epstein (Part 4) (4/11/26)
    Apr 11 2026
    Lamine N'Diaye, in his interview with the Office of the Inspector General, essentially tried to turn the Metropolitan Correctional Center into a scapegoat while positioning himself as a bystander to its failures. He leaned heavily on the narrative that the facility was already broken—staff shortages, overtime abuse, infrastructure decay—as if that somehow absolved him of responsibility rather than underscoring the urgency of his role. What stands out is not just what he admitted, but what he avoided: there is little evidence in his account of decisive leadership, no clear record of aggressive intervention, and no meaningful acknowledgment that the buck was supposed to stop with him. Instead, he described a system failing in slow motion while he remained at the helm, fully aware of the cracks but unwilling—or unable—to reinforce them before they gave way.

    Even more troubling is how his interview reflects a pattern of deflection that mirrors broader institutional behavior in the wake of Jeffrey Epstein’s death. N’Diaye pointed to correctional officers missing rounds, falsifying logs, and working under extreme fatigue, but failed to explain why those conditions were tolerated under his command, especially after Epstein had already been flagged as a high-risk inmate following a prior incident. The responsibility didn’t disappear into the system—it sat squarely in his office, and his testimony reads less like accountability and more like damage control. The overall picture is not of a warden overwhelmed by circumstances, but of a leader who allowed a known crisis environment to persist unchecked, then attempted to retroactively frame it as inevitable once the worst-case scenario unfolded.



    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    EFTA00119019.pdf
    Más Menos
    12 m
  • Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 41-45) (4/9/26)

    Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 41-45) (4/9/26)
    Apr 11 2026
    The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein’s 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein’s high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.

    Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.


    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:


    dl (justice.gov)
    Más Menos
    45 m
  • Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 38-40) (4/9/26)

    Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 38-40) (4/9/26)
    Apr 11 2026
    The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein’s 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein’s high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.

    Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.


    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:


    dl (justice.gov)
    Más Menos
    45 m