Todd Blanche Defends the DOJ’s Handling of the Epstein Case (7/16/26)

Todd Blanche Defends the DOJ’s Handling of the Epstein Case (7/16/26)

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told senators during his July 15 confirmation hearing that the Justice Department has not permanently closed the door on prosecuting additional people connected to Jeffrey Epstein. Blanche said the department would investigate, indict and prosecute anyone if credible new evidence emerged showing that person participated in Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. He distinguished between the DOJ’s completed review of its existing Epstein records and the department’s continuing authority to open new criminal cases. Although the prosecutions of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell have ended, Blanche insisted that investigators remain prepared to act immediately if victims, attorneys or other witnesses provide information capable of supporting charges. Blanche also defended the DOJ against accusations that it has abandoned Epstein’s survivors, saying officials have met with representatives of more than 30 victims and will continue speaking with anyone who comes forward. He encouraged victims and their lawyers to contact the FBI with additional evidence, promising that the department would investigate it fully. His comments came amid criticism of the government’s handling of the Epstein records, including the earlier DOJ and FBI conclusion that investigators found no evidence of a formal “client list” and no justification for additional public disclosures. Blanche’s position is that the existing document review may be finished, but the broader possibility of prosecuting new suspects remains open if evidence strong enough to sustain a criminal case is produced. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Todd Blanche says Epstein prosecution remains open to new evidence | Fox News [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/todd-blanche-says-no-closed-investigations-epstein-case-vows-doj-pursue-new-suspects]

JPMorgan, Jamie Diamond, Jeffrey Epstein and the Battle Over Britain’s Banker Tax (7/16/26)

Senator Elizabeth Warren is demanding answers from JPMorgan chief executive Jamie Dimon about whether he acted on advice connected to Jeffrey Epstein while lobbying against a proposed British tax on bankers’ bonuses. Warren’s questions follow the release of a 2009 email exchange in which Epstein asked then-Labour minister Peter Mandelson whether Dimon should pressure UK chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. Mandelson reportedly replied that Dimon should “mildly threaten” Darling, and Dimon later warned that JPMorgan could reconsider investments in Britain, including plans for a new London headquarters. Warren said the communications raise serious questions about the extent of JPMorgan’s relationship with Epstein and what Dimon Dimon testified in 2023 that he had never met Epstein and had not heard his name until Epstein’s 2019 arrest. JPMorgan continues to insist that Dimon never communicated with Epstein, never sought his advice and was not involved in decisions involving Epstein’s accounts. The bank has also rejected former executive Jes Staley’s claim that he discussed Epstein with Dimon, describing Staley’s testimony as unreliable. JPMorgan acknowledged that maintaining Epstein as a client was a mistake but said the bank ended the relationship in 2013 and would have acted sooner had it known he was continuing to commit crimes. Warren is now seeking a fuller accounting of whether Dimon’s lobbying efforts were influenced, directly or indirectly, by Epstein and his political connections. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: JP Morgan boss pressed by US senator about contact with Jeffrey Epstein | JP Morgan | The Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/13/jp-morgan-boss-jamie-dimon-us-uk-jeffrey-epstein-elizabeth-warren]

Mega Edition: Judge Kaplan Blasts Prince Andrew And His Legal Team (7/16/26)

Judge Lewis Kaplan made it clear early in Virginia Giuffre’s civil lawsuit that he would not allow Prince Andrew’s attorneys to bury the case beneath procedural disputes or use technical arguments to postpone confronting the allegations. When Andrew’s legal team challenged whether he had been properly served with the lawsuit, Kaplan authorized Giuffre to deliver the papers through Andrew’s American attorneys and pushed the parties toward addressing the substance of the case. The judge indicated that the litigation should not be made unnecessarily complicated, rejecting the idea that disputes over international service rules should be permitted to stall the proceedings indefinitely. Andrew’s lawyers had argued that formal service had to proceed through British legal channels, while Giuffre’s attorneys accused the prince of avoiding service and playing a prolonged game of procedural hide-and-seek. Kaplan’s rulings removed that obstacle and established that Andrew would have to respond rather than continue contesting how the papers reached him. Kaplan showed the same impatience when Andrew’s attorneys later attempted to dismiss the lawsuit through a series of legal technicalities, including Giuffre’s residency, the constitutionality of New York’s Child Victims Act and the wording of her earlier settlement with Jeffrey Epstein. During oral arguments, Kaplan directly cut off claims that Giuffre had failed to include enough factual detail in her complaint, telling Andrew’s lawyer that she had no obligation to provide that level of specificity at the pleading stage and that dismissal on that basis was “not going to happen.” He ultimately denied Andrew’s motion to dismiss in all respects, finding that the Epstein settlement was too ambiguous to clearly release Andrew from liability and allowing discovery to proceed. The message was unmistakable: Andrew’s legal team was entitled to mount a defense, but procedure would not be transformed into a mechanism for endlessly delaying Giuffre’s opportunity to have her claims heard. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: Jeffrey Epstein And His Rolodex Full Of Powerful Friends (7/16/26)

Jeffrey Epstein’s relationships with Michael Wolff, Bill Clinton and Bill Gates differed in purpose and duration, but each demonstrates how Epstein sought access to influential people who could enhance his legitimacy. Wolff developed an unusually close source relationship with Epstein, conducting extensive interviews and exchanging emails with him over several years. Released correspondence suggested that Wolff sometimes moved beyond simply gathering information and offered Epstein advice about media strategy, particularly concerning Donald Trump and questions about Epstein’s past. Wolff has defended the contact as an aggressive journalistic effort to extract information from a uniquely knowledgeable source, but the tone of some exchanges raised questions about whether the relationship became too collaborative. Clinton’s connection to Epstein was more public and socially advantageous to Epstein. After Clinton left office, he traveled aboard Epstein’s aircraft on multiple international trips connected to humanitarian and Clinton Foundation work, accompanied by staff, supporters and, according to Clinton’s office, Secret Service personnel. Epstein also cultivated connections within Clinton’s political and philanthropic circle, while Clinton has maintained that he knew nothing about Epstein’s criminal conduct and ended contact years before Epstein’s 2019 arrest. Epstein’s relationship with Bill Gates began much later, after Epstein had already pleaded guilty in Florida and become a registered sex offender. Gates met with Epstein repeatedly beginning in 2011, largely during discussions about philanthropy, global health initiatives and the possibility that Epstein could help attract wealthy donors to major charitable projects. Gates later acknowledged that the meetings were a serious error in judgment and said Epstein never delivered the philanthropic funding he claimed he could assemble. More recent congressional testimony and released communications have added another dimension, with Gates saying Epstein learned private information about his extramarital affairs and later made what Gates characterized as veiled threats to expose them. Gates has denied Epstein’s more sensational allegations and has not been accused of participating in Epstein’s crimes. In all three relationships, Epstein appeared to benefit from proximity itself: Wolff offered access to the media and political intelligence, Clinton supplied enormous prestige and international credibility, and Gates connected Epstein to the highest levels of technology and global philanthropy. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: Prince Andrew Plans A Comeback But His Brother The King Has Other Plans (7/15/26)

Prince Andrew repeatedly attempted to rebuild his public position after stepping away from royal duties in 2019, but those efforts were firmly resisted by his older brother Charles while he was still Prince of Wales. Andrew reportedly viewed appearances at Prince Philip’s memorial service, the Order of the Garter ceremony and Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee as opportunities to demonstrate that he remained part of the monarchy’s public life. Charles, supported by Prince William, believed that allowing Andrew to return in any meaningful capacity would reopen the Epstein scandal and further damage the institution. Andrew was ultimately prevented from participating publicly in the Order of the Garter procession in June 2022, despite retaining membership in the order, and his wider hopes of resuming official duties went nowhere. By that point, he had already lost his military affiliations, royal patronages and permission to use the style “His Royal Highness” in an official capacity. After Queen Elizabeth’s death and Charles’s accession to the throne in September 2022, the barrier standing between Andrew and a comeback became even stronger. As king, Charles continued to permit his brother to attend certain private family gatherings and ceremonial occasions, but he refused to restore Andrew as a working royal or give him an official public platform. The distinction was deliberate: Andrew could remain a member of the family, but he would not again represent the Crown. Charles understood that every attempted rehabilitation risked making the monarchy appear indifferent to the allegations surrounding Andrew’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and the civil lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre, which Andrew settled in 2022 without admitting liability. Andrew’s strategy depended heavily on the protection and affection of his mother, but once Charles became king, that avenue effectively closed, leaving his repeated comeback campaigns blocked by the same brother who had opposed them while waiting for the throne. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com