Lesley Groff And The Transcript From Her Epstein Related Trip to Congress (Part 17) (7/12/26)

Survivors in Limbo: How DOJ Contradictions Are Delaying Justice in the Epstein Case

The situation surrounding the Epstein files has become increasingly tangled inside the Trump-era Justice Department, with conflicting signals creating more confusion than clarity. After former attorney general Pam Bondi failed to comply with a congressional subpoena over her handling of the files, lawmakers began threatening contempt proceedings, arguing that her departure from the role does not absolve her of the obligation to testify. At the same time, her replacement, Todd Blanche—who has close ties to Donald Trump—has tried to strike two different tones: publicly suggesting support for transparency and victim hearings, while also downplaying missed deadlines and inconsistencies tied to the release of documents under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. That contradiction has fueled growing skepticism from legal experts, victims’ advocates, and members of Congress, who argue that the Justice Department’s approach looks less like disorganization and more like strategic ambiguity. Survivors’ attorneys have emphasized that accountability hinges on enforcing subpoenas and fully releasing records, while critics question whether Blanche’s position and past relationship with Trump compromise the likelihood of meaningful action. The broader picture is one of mounting frustration, with bipartisan pressure building for enforcement and transparency, even as victims and their representatives warn that the process risks becoming yet another instance of delayed or incomplete justice. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: What’s next in the Jeffrey Epstein saga? Trump’s justice department sends mixed messages | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/20/trump-doj-epstein-files-victims]

Lesley Groff And The Transcript From Her Epstein Related Trip to Congress (Part 17) (7/12/26)

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]

The Same Grifters, the Same Tactics, a New Case (Part 2) (7/12/26)

The same grifters who spent years polluting the Epstein case with unsupported claims, selective evidence, manufactured certainty, and endless insinuation are now applying the same playbook to the murder of Charlie Kirk and the prosecution of Tyler Robinson. Instead of carefully separating verified facts from rumor, they seize on every incomplete detail, every disputed forensic issue, and every unanswered question as proof that the entire case is fraudulent. They present normal investigative gaps as evidence of conspiracy, distort testimony from court proceedings, and ignore evidence that contradicts the narrative they have already sold to their audience. The goal is not to determine what happened, but to keep the mystery alive because confusion, outrage, and suspicion generate clicks, subscriptions, and influence. Just as they turned the Epstein case into a marketplace of speculation where every absence of evidence became evidence of a cover-up, they are now portraying the Robinson case as a predetermined frame-up before the legal process has even run its course. The damage caused by this approach is not merely rhetorical. It poisons public understanding, makes legitimate scrutiny harder, and buries serious questions beneath mountains of exaggeration and misinformation. In the Epstein case, these figures often treated survivors, court records, financial evidence, and documented institutional failures as secondary to whatever sensational theory attracted the most attention. With Charlie Kirk’s murder, they are once again elevating rumor over testimony, speculation over forensic evidence, and internet sleuthing over the evidentiary record presented in court. None of this means prosecutors should escape scrutiny or that every aspect of the case must be accepted without question. It means criticism must be grounded in facts rather than engineered suspicion. The same people who helped turn the Epstein investigation into a circus of competing fantasies are now trying to do the same thing to the Tyler Robinson trial, and unless their tactics are confronted directly, the pursuit of truth will once again be drowned out by the pursuit of profit. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Same Grifters, the Same Tactics, a New Case (Part 1) (7/12/26)

The same grifters who spent years polluting the Epstein case with unsupported claims, selective evidence, manufactured certainty, and endless insinuation are now applying the same playbook to the murder of Charlie Kirk and the prosecution of Tyler Robinson. Instead of carefully separating verified facts from rumor, they seize on every incomplete detail, every disputed forensic issue, and every unanswered question as proof that the entire case is fraudulent. They present normal investigative gaps as evidence of conspiracy, distort testimony from court proceedings, and ignore evidence that contradicts the narrative they have already sold to their audience. The goal is not to determine what happened, but to keep the mystery alive because confusion, outrage, and suspicion generate clicks, subscriptions, and influence. Just as they turned the Epstein case into a marketplace of speculation where every absence of evidence became evidence of a cover-up, they are now portraying the Robinson case as a predetermined frame-up before the legal process has even run its course. The damage caused by this approach is not merely rhetorical. It poisons public understanding, makes legitimate scrutiny harder, and buries serious questions beneath mountains of exaggeration and misinformation. In the Epstein case, these figures often treated survivors, court records, financial evidence, and documented institutional failures as secondary to whatever sensational theory attracted the most attention. With Charlie Kirk’s murder, they are once again elevating rumor over testimony, speculation over forensic evidence, and internet sleuthing over the evidentiary record presented in court. None of this means prosecutors should escape scrutiny or that every aspect of the case must be accepted without question. It means criticism must be grounded in facts rather than engineered suspicion. The same people who helped turn the Epstein investigation into a circus of competing fantasies are now trying to do the same thing to the Tyler Robinson trial, and unless their tactics are confronted directly, the pursuit of truth will once again be drowned out by the pursuit of profit. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: Why Did Wall Street Enable Jeffrey Epstein? (7/12/26)

Some of the most powerful figures and institutions on Wall Street treated Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal history as a manageable reputational problem rather than a reason to cut him off. JPMorgan Chase kept Epstein as a client until 2013, five years after he pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor, while he continued moving large sums of money, withdrawing substantial amounts of cash and maintaining relationships with senior bankers. Evidence disclosed through litigation showed that employees and executives were aware of his status as a sex offender and repeatedly encountered warning signs surrounding his accounts, yet the bank continued serving him while Epstein introduced wealthy prospects and cultivated his relationship with executive Jes Staley. JPMorgan later agreed to pay $290 million to settle claims brought on behalf of Epstein’s survivors and another $75 million to resolve the U.S. Virgin Islands’ allegations that the bank had enabled and financially benefited from his trafficking operation, without admitting liability. When JPMorgan finally dropped Epstein, Deutsche Bank accepted him as a client despite his conviction, sex-offender registration and widely reported history. New York regulators later found that the bank failed to properly monitor millions of dollars in suspicious transactions, including payments to women, cash withdrawals and legal expenses connected to alleged co-conspirators, resulting in a $150 million penalty. Wealthy financiers also continued dealing personally with Epstein long after his conviction. Apollo co-founder Leon Black paid Epstein approximately $158 million for tax and estate-planning advice between 2012 and 2017, demonstrating how Epstein remained financially valuable and socially acceptable within elite circles even after his crimes were public knowledge. The pattern was not simply one of people failing to notice what Epstein was. Banks, executives and billionaires repeatedly encountered information that should have ended the relationships, but continued them because Epstein generated fees, offered access to wealthy clients and occupied a protected position inside the financial establishment. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com