Pam Bondi Heads To DC For A Closed Door Epstein Related Meeting With Congress (5/29/26)

Ghislaine Maxwell's Undisputed Statement Of Facts Pursuant To Virginia's Allegations (Part 1)

Ghislaine Maxwell’s Rule 56.1 request in the defamation lawsuit brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre was a procedural move designed to narrow the case before trial by asking the court to treat Maxwell’s version of certain facts as undisputed. Under Local Rule 56.1, parties seeking summary judgment have to lay out the material facts they claim are not genuinely in dispute, with citations to admissible evidence. Maxwell argued that Giuffre’s response failed that test because, in Maxwell’s view, Giuffre did not properly support many of her denials with admissible evidence. Maxwell also objected to Giuffre adding her own supposedly “undisputed facts,” arguing that Giuffre had not filed her own cross-motion for summary judgment and therefore could not use the Rule 56.1 process to smuggle in a competing fact narrative. The request mattered because it was not just a dry filing dispute; it went directly to how Maxwell wanted the court to view the foundation of Giuffre’s claims. Maxwell sought to have several facts deemed admitted, including points about Giuffre’s earlier media interviews, the 2011 and 2015 statements issued on Maxwell’s behalf, the way Giuffre’s allegations appeared in prior court filings, and whether media republication of Maxwell’s denials could legally be pinned on Maxwell. In plain English, Maxwell was trying to box Giuffre in procedurally: if the court accepted Maxwell’s Rule 56.1 position, it would weaken Giuffre’s ability to argue that there were disputed facts requiring a jury trial. But the broader context is that this was part of Maxwell’s aggressive defense strategy in the 2015 defamation case, where Giuffre sued after Maxwell publicly branded her allegations false; the case eventually settled, while the sealed filings later became a major source of Epstein-related disclosures. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Pam Bondi Heads To DC For A Closed Door Epstein Related Meeting With Congress (5/29/26)

Pam Bondi’s congressional appearance today is centered on her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files while she was attorney general, especially the messy rollout, the shifting public explanations, and the lingering questions about what the Justice Department released, withheld, redacted, or claimed did not exist. Bondi is appearing before the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door, transcribed interview rather than a public, televised hearing, which is already a major source of criticism because the subject is supposed to be transparency. Lawmakers are expected to press her on her earlier public suggestion that an Epstein “client list” was on her desk, the later DOJ/FBI memo saying there was no evidence of such a chargeable list, the release of millions of pages of Epstein-related material, and the backlash from survivors and members of Congress who argue the process still left too many unanswered questions. The DOJ missed the act’s December 19 deadline and later released documents in a way that drew criticism over redactions, survivor privacy concerns, and whether the most important institutional questions were being dodged. Bondi is expected to defend the department’s handling of the files, while House Oversight members are likely to focus on whether the release was truly comprehensive or another stage-managed disclosure designed to quiet public outrage without fully explaining how Epstein operated, who benefited, and why the system protected him for so long. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Pam Bondi testifies behind closed doors in House committee's Epstein probe - CBS News [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pam-bondi-epstein-files-house-oversight-committee/]

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez Links Alleged Attack to Her Epstein Ranch Investigation (5/29/26)

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, a former newspaper reporter and bestselling novelist who has spent recent years investigating Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch in New Mexico, says she has left her home and is preparing to leave the United States after what she claims were “directed energy weapon” attacks connected to her Epstein reporting. She has alleged that her work on Zorro Ranch, local cover-up claims, and possible intelligence-linked trafficking networks made her a target, and she described suffering symptoms she compared to “Havana syndrome,” including neurological pressure-type effects. She claimed the attacks came in multiple episodes, possibly from equipment on or near her roof or from a semi-truck parked near her home. There is no public evidence confirming that she was attacked with directed energy weapons or that her claims about buried victims, military contractors, or intelligence-linked retaliation have been substantiated. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Reporter who investigated Jeffrey Epstein is 'fleeing' the US after alleged attack [https://nypost.com/2026/05/26/media/reporter-who-investigated-jeffrey-epstein-is-fleeing-the-us-after-alleged-attack/]

The Strange Arrangement That Kept Andrew and Sarah Ferguson Tied Together (5/29/26)

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Sarah Ferguson are being portrayed as a scandal-bound royal duo whose relationship long outlived their marriage because it benefited both of them. Royal author Andrew Lownie describes them as the royal family’s “Bonnie and Clyde,” arguing that their post-divorce bond was built around mutual loyalty, shared self-interest, financial survival, and the preservation of status. Andrew gave Sarah continued access to royal proximity, prestige, and money-making opportunities, while Sarah remained fiercely loyal to Andrew even as his public image collapsed. Their history includes the 1986 wedding, the 1996 divorce, tabloid scandals, Andrew’s reputation as “Air Miles Andy” and “Randy Andy,” Sarah’s own controversies, and the unusual fact that they continued living closely together long after their marriage ended. The Epstein fallout has turned that long-running royal arrangement into something far more damaging. Andrew’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, Virginia Giuffre’s allegations, his disastrous Newsnight interview, the loss of his royal duties and titles, and years of public scrutiny have made his name toxic. Sarah has also been pulled back into the scandal because of her own past dealings with Epstein, including accepting money from him after publicly condemning him. The broader point is that Andrew and Sarah’s relationship now looks less like eccentric royal loyalty and more like a survival pact between two people trapped inside the same reputational wreckage. What once played as tabloid weirdness has become part of the larger Epstein stain on the House of York. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Former Prince Andrew, Fergie were 'Bonnie and Clyde' of royal scandal: author | Fox News [https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/former-prince-andrew-sarah-ferguson-dubbed-royal-familys-bonnie-clyde-epstein-fallout-grows-author]

Trump Refiles the $10 Billion Epstein Lawsuit Against the Wall Street Journal (5/29/26)

Donald Trump has refiled a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over its reporting on his alleged ties to Jeffrey Epstein, specifically an article describing a birthday card to Epstein as bearing Trump’s signature. The new filing came after a federal judge threw out Trump’s earlier complaint in April, ruling that it failed to meet the “actual malice” standard required in defamation cases involving public figures. Trump’s lawyers argue that the paper either recklessly disregarded the truth or deliberately avoided discovering it, while Trump maintains the card is fake, even after lawmakers investigating Epstein released it publicly. The lawsuit names Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones, News Corp, CEO Robert Thomson, and two Wall Street Journal reporters as defendants, claiming the reporting caused Trump major reputational and financial harm. Dow Jones has defended the reporting and said it will fight the case. The broader significance is that the lawsuit sits inside a larger pattern of Trump using defamation actions against media organizations while the Epstein issue continues to haunt his political orbit. It also keeps the Epstein connection alive in court rather than burying it, because every filing, defense response, discovery fight, and judicial ruling has the potential to drag the underlying questions about Trump, Epstein, the card, and the paper trail back into public view. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Trump refiles $10bn lawsuit against WSJ over report on alleged Epstein ties | Donald Trump | The Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/28/trump-refiles-10bn-lawsuit-against-wsj-over-report-on-alleged-epstein-ties]