The State vs. Tyler Robinson: Inside the Charlie Kirk Murder Trial (Part 1) (7/9/26)

Lesley Groff And The Transcript From Her Epstein Related Trip to Congress (Part 14) (7/11/26)

Lesley Groff told the House Oversight Committee that she worked for Jeffrey Epstein from February 2001 until July 2019 as his secretary/administrative assistant, handling scheduling, calls, travel coordination, calendars, and staff logistics. Her central position was that Epstein kept her separated from his criminal life, that she never witnessed abuse, never had a victim disclose abuse to her, and did not knowingly help Epstein or Maxwell commit crimes. She described Epstein as a “master manipulator” who lied to her and kept his “legitimate” world apart from his abuse, while acknowledging that she scheduled massage appointments when Epstein provided names and numbers, sometimes circulated calendars that included those appointments early on, and understood the massages as routine at the time. She said she did not personally meet the massage providers, did not know they were minors or young women, and assumed they were masseuses, even though members pressed her on why an extremely wealthy man would use rotating names and phone numbers instead of a professional massage service. The questioning also focused heavily on Epstein’s network and whether Groff had knowledge of powerful men being provided access to girls or young women through Epstein or Maxwell. Groff repeatedly answered no when asked whether she had arranged massages for prominent figures, knew of sexual activity involving minors or young women, or knew of anyone who knowingly facilitated Epstein’s crimes. She acknowledged scheduling or connecting Epstein with high-profile contacts, including Prince Andrew, Ehud Barak, Larry Summers, George Mitchell, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Bill Clinton-related circles, and Donald Trump phone calls, but denied arranging Trump travel during her employment and denied knowledge of Trump-related law enforcement communications. She also said she never suspected Epstein or Maxwell of working with any intelligence service. Overall, Groff’s testimony was defensive and narrow: she admitted to being part of the machinery that kept Epstein’s calendar and contacts moving, but insisted she never saw the criminal operation underneath it and never knowingly enabled it. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source:   Lesley-Groff-Transcript.pdf [https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Lesley-Groff-Transcript.pdf]

Mega Edition: Leon Black And The Direct Line To Jeffrey Epstein (7/11/26)

Leon Black and Jeffrey Epstein were not just casual acquaintances or two wealthy men who occasionally crossed paths. The relationship was far closer, more sustained, and more financially entangled than Black first publicly suggested. Black paid Epstein enormous sums for tax, estate, and philanthropic advice, with Apollo’s own commissioned review saying Black paid Epstein roughly $158 million, while Senate investigators later said their review identified even more money flowing through the relationship. Black has insisted the work Mega Edition:  Leon Black And The Direct Line To Jeffrey Epsteinwas legitimate and that Epstein was never involved in Apollo business, but the size of the payments, Epstein’s lack of conventional tax-law credentials, and the length of the relationship made the explanation difficult for critics to swallow. Black himself later called the relationship a “horrible mistake,” but the controversy only deepened as investigators kept uncovering more details about how central Epstein was to Black’s personal financial world Epstein appears to have had direct access into Black’s family office orbit, including links to Elysium Management and relationships with bankers and financial figures connected to Black’s wealth-management structure. Reporting and congressional scrutiny have also focused on whether Epstein acted as more than a tax adviser, with Senator Ron Wyden alleging that Epstein’s role included unexplained payments, possible payments to women, and even surveillance-related conduct tied to Black; Black has broadly denied wrongdoing and has not been criminally charged. But the larger point is clear: Epstein was not merely someone Black unfortunately hired once. He was embedded close enough to receive staggering sums, move in Black’s personal financial ecosystem, and become a recurring figure in the paper trail that investigators are still trying to untangle. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell And The Juror She Says Shouldn't Have Been Empaneled (7/11/26)

Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal team tried to use juror Scotty David as the crowbar to pry open her conviction, arguing that he should never have been seated on the jury because he failed to disclose his own history of sexual abuse during jury selection. After Maxwell was convicted, David gave media interviews saying that he had been abused as a child and that he used that experience during deliberations to explain why victims might delay reporting abuse or misremember certain details. Maxwell’s lawyers seized on that immediately, arguing that his answers on the juror questionnaire were false or misleading, that his presence tainted the jury, and that Maxwell had been denied her right to a fair and impartial panel. Their argument was simple: if David had answered truthfully, the defense would have had grounds to question him more deeply, challenge him, or strike him from the jury altogether. The problem for Maxwell was that Judge Alison Nathan held a hearing, questioned David under oath, and ultimately found that his failure to disclose the abuse was not intentional dishonesty designed to get onto the jury. David testified that he had rushed through the questionnaire, made a mistake, and did not remember the question the way Maxwell’s lawyers framed it after the fact. The court concluded that Maxwell had not proven juror bias, had not shown that David deliberately lied, and had not met the legal standard required for a new trial. So what Maxwell’s team tried to turn into a constitutional crisis became, in the court’s view, an insufficient basis to disturb the verdict. In the end, the Scotty David issue gave Maxwell a post-trial opening, but it did not give her a way out. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta, The 2011 Statement About Epstein And The Missing Emails (7/11/26)

The missing Acosta emails refer to a nearly year-long gap in the inbox of Alexander Acosta, then the U.S. Attorney in Miami, during the most critical stretch of the Jeffrey Epstein negotiations. According to reporting on a court filing by attorneys for Epstein survivor Courtney Wild, the DOJ had not turned over significant documents tied to the 2007 non-prosecution agreement and had not clearly disclosed that Acosta’s inbox had a “data gap.” That gap reportedly ran from May 2007, when a draft federal indictment had been prepared, to April 2008, just before Epstein’s state plea effectively ended the federal case. That timing matters because it overlapped with Epstein’s legal team aggressively lobbying Acosta’s office and senior DOJ officials to avoid a federal indictment and secure the state-based resolution instead. The DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility said the gap did not affect Acosta’s sent mail, found no evidence of intentional deletion, and attributed it most likely to a technological error. But that explanation has never erased the larger problem: the missing inbox material landed exactly where the historical record needed to be strongest. OPR later concluded that Acosta exercised “poor judgment” in resolving the case through the NPA and failing to ensure victims were properly notified, but the missing emails left survivors’ attorneys arguing that the government’s record was incomplete at the very moment the most consequential decisions were being made. In plain terms, the emails matter because they could have shown what Acosta was receiving, who was influencing him, what pressure was being applied, and how much of the Epstein deal was driven by internal DOJ judgment versus external lobbying by Epstein’s powerful defense machine. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: Prince Andrew And The Relationship That Cost Him Everything (7/11/26)

Prince Andrew’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein ended up becoming the defining scandal of his life because it did not stay buried in the past — it kept resurfacing, each time with more damage attached. His friendship with Epstein, his association with Ghislaine Maxwell, the infamous New York visit after Epstein’s 2008 conviction, the photograph with Virginia Giuffre, and his catastrophic BBC Newsnight interview all combined to destroy the public image he had spent decades living behind. What began as an elite social connection turned into a permanent stain on the monarchy, because Andrew could never offer an explanation that sounded believable, moral, or even remotely aware of the seriousness of the allegations around him. Instead of looking like a prince caught in the orbit of a predator, he looked like a man who expected rank, money, and royal insulation to carry him through the wreckage. The cost was enormous. Andrew lost his public duties, military patronages, royal patronages, official role, credibility, and much of the protective distance the palace had once provided. His settlement with Virginia Giuffre kept him out of a civil trial, but it also hardened the public perception that he had paid to escape a reckoning rather than cleared his name. From that point forward, he became less a working royal than a liability management problem for King Charles and the institution itself. Epstein did not just cost Andrew reputation; he cost him purpose, status, access, and the illusion that royal blood could make consequences disappear. to contact me: bobbycappucci@protonmail.com