Jeffrey Epstein: The Coverup Chronicles

Leon Black And His Epstein Related Congressional Transcript (Part 1) (7/19/26)

20 min · Gisteren
aflevering Leon Black And His Epstein Related Congressional Transcript (Part 1) (7/19/26) artwork

Beschrijving

Leon Black used his appearance before the House Oversight Committee to defend his long-running relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and explain the extraordinary $158 million he paid him between 2013 and 2017. Black maintained that the money purchased legitimate tax, estate-planning and family-office services that allegedly saved him between $1 billion and $2 billion. He said Epstein deceived him about the deductibility of his fees, exaggerated his influence and repeatedly demanded more money, eventually causing Black to end their relationship in 2018. Black denied knowing about Epstein’s trafficking operation, abusing any woman, having sex with anyone underage, paying Epstein for access to women or being blackmailed by him. At the same time, he acknowledged spending considerable time around Epstein, meeting prominent figures through him and contributing a birthday poem describing Epstein’s interest in attractive women around the world. Although Black later insisted Epstein was not a “dear friend,” the birthday message itself called him exactly that and was signed “love and kisses.” The questioning became confrontational when committee investigators turned to Black’s relationships with women and nondisclosure agreements. Black acknowledged a six-year extramarital affair and confirmed a settlement that included monthly payments, loan forgiveness and money connected to a British visa, while saying he regarded the woman’s demands as blackmail and had discussed the situation with Epstein. He and his attorneys then refused to disclose how many NDAs he had signed, their terms or who else in his social circle had such agreements, arguing that confidentiality provisions prevented him from answering during a voluntary interview. Committee officials rejected that position and served Black with subpoenas for relevant documents and a later deposition. His lawyers denounced the move as a political stunt and abruptly ended the interview before lawmakers could fully question him about the $158 million in payments or the broader allegations surrounding his association with Epstein. To contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Reacties

0

Wees de eerste die een reactie plaatst

Meld je nu aan en word lid van de Jeffrey Epstein: The Coverup Chronicles community!

Probeer gratis

Probeer 14 dagen gratis

€ 9,99 / maand na proefperiode. · Elk moment opzegbaar

  • Podcasts die je alleen op Podimo hoort
  • 20 uur luisterboeken / maand
  • Gratis podcasts

Alle afleveringen

998 afleveringen

aflevering Mega Edition: The Names Of Alleged Participants In Epstein's Abuse Have Been Known For Years (7/20/26) artwork

Mega Edition: The Names Of Alleged Participants In Epstein's Abuse Have Been Known For Years (7/20/26)

Virginia Roberts Giuffre named the men she said had abused her or participated in Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s trafficking operation long before the Epstein scandal became a worldwide obsession. Years before Epstein’s 2019 arrest, she had already provided names in sworn testimony, legal filings, interviews and communications with investigators, including Prince Andrew and other wealthy, politically connected figures. She described how Epstein and Maxwell allegedly used her as a teenager, moved her between properties and directed her into sexual encounters with powerful men. These allegations were not suddenly invented when the scandal exploded; many had been documented, litigated and publicly reported for years. For a long time, however, Giuffre’s claims were treated as peripheral, inconvenient or too dangerous to pursue aggressively because the people she named possessed money, influence and access to elite institutions. She endured attacks on her credibility while repeatedly telling substantially the same story and demanding that authorities and the public examine the wider network surrounding Epstein. When sealed records were later released and public interest surged, many people reacted as though the names and allegations were new, even though Giuffre had been pointing toward them for years. The real failure was not that survivors had remained silent, but that powerful institutions, journalists and authorities had failed to listen when Virginia Roberts Giuffre was already naming names. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

20 jul 202637 min
aflevering Mega Edition: Jes Staley Looks To Wiggle Free Of The Epstein Survivor Lawsuit (7/20/26) artwork

Mega Edition: Jes Staley Looks To Wiggle Free Of The Epstein Survivor Lawsuit (7/20/26)

Jes Staley asked a federal court to dismiss JPMorgan Chase’s third-party lawsuit against him, which arose from the class-action case brought by survivors who accused the bank of enabling Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. JPMorgan sought to make Staley personally responsible for any damages it might owe, arguing that he concealed what he knew about Epstein, protected Epstein’s relationship with the bank and committed misconduct that exposed JPMorgan to liability. Staley countered that the bank was attempting to turn him into a scapegoat for institutional decisions made over many years. He argued that JPMorgan’s claims for indemnification and the return of compensation were legally defective, insufficiently supported and dependent upon allegations that had not been proven. Staley’s motion maintained that JPMorgan could not simply transfer its potential liability to a former employee when the survivors’ claims concerned the bank’s own conduct, compliance failures and continued servicing of Epstein. His lawyers argued that the complaint failed to establish that Staley had a contractual or legal duty to reimburse JPMorgan for settlements, judgments or legal expenses connected to the Epstein litigation. JPMorgan responded that Staley had been central to the relationship, had withheld material information and should repay compensation if his alleged conduct caused the bank’s losses. Judge Jed Rakoff rejected Staley’s effort to dismiss the case, allowing JPMorgan’s claims against him to continue before the dispute was eventually resolved as part of the broader Epstein-related litigation. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

20 jul 202652 min
aflevering Mega Edition: Todd Blanche And The Still Unexplained Chat With Ghislaine Maxwell (Part 1-3) (7/19/26) artwork

Mega Edition: Todd Blanche And The Still Unexplained Chat With Ghislaine Maxwell (Part 1-3) (7/19/26)

On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released redacted transcripts and audio recordings of a two-day interview it conducted in July with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring. During the interview, Maxwell denied ever seeing any inappropriate behavior by former President Donald Trump, describing him as a “gentleman in all respects,” and insisted she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” She also rejected the existence of a so-called “client list,” countering years of speculation, and claimed to have no knowledge of blackmail or illicit recordings tied to Epstein. In addition to defending high-profile figures, Maxwell expressed doubt that Epstein’s death was a suicide, while also rejecting the notion of an elaborate conspiracy or murder plot. The release of the transcripts—handled under the Trump-era Justice Department—has stirred sharp political debate. Trump allies have framed her remarks as vindication, while critics and Epstein’s survivors question her credibility, pointing to her conviction and suggesting her words may be aimed at influencing potential clemency or political favor. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdf [https://www.justice.gov/storage/audio-files/Interview%20Transcript/Interview%20Transcript%20-%20Maxwell%202025.07.24%20(Redacted).pdf]

20 jul 202644 min
aflevering Leon Black Responds To The New York Times artwork

Leon Black Responds To The New York Times

Leon Black has repeatedly tried to narrow and sanitize his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein by describing it as a regrettable but strictly professional arrangement centered on tax planning, estate matters and financial advice. After the scale of the relationship became public, Black called his decision to work with Epstein a “horrible mistake” and portrayed himself as someone who had been deceived by a sophisticated manipulator. He has denied knowing about Epstein’s continuing abuse, denied paying for access to women and insisted that the enormous sums transferred to Epstein were compensation for legitimate services. That framing has allowed Black to acknowledge the relationship without fully embracing what made it so disturbing: he continued employing and paying Epstein for years after Epstein had already been convicted of soliciting a minor. The problem for Black is that each new disclosure has made the relationship appear broader, more expensive and more complicated than his carefully limited description suggests. Investigators have examined payments totaling at least $158 million, with Senate investigators later saying the financial transfers may have reached roughly $170 million, while Black also paid $62.5 million to settle potential claims brought by the U.S. Virgin Islands without admitting wrongdoing. When congressional investigators pressed him about nondisclosure agreements and payments involving women connected to Epstein, lawmakers accused him of refusing to cooperate and issued subpoenas demanding documents and further testimony. Black has consistently denied criminal conduct, but his public strategy has remained largely the same: concede poor judgment, blame Epstein for deceiving him and characterize the relationship as technical financial work, even as the expanding record has made that explanation increasingly difficult to separate from the wider machinery surrounding Epstein. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

20 jul 202623 min
aflevering Jeffrey Epstein Refuses To Answer Questions About Prince Andrew During A Deposition artwork

Jeffrey Epstein Refuses To Answer Questions About Prince Andrew During A Deposition

During a 2016 deposition connected to Virginia Giuffre’s defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when attorneys questioned him about his sexual conduct and relationships with powerful associates. When the questioning turned to Prince Andrew, Epstein refused to provide substantive answers, relying on the Fifth rather than confirming or denying details about Andrew’s visits, his interactions with Giuffre, or Epstein’s alleged role in arranging sexual encounters. His refusal came amid Giuffre’s allegations that Epstein and Maxwell trafficked her to the prince on multiple occasions, claims Andrew consistently denied before settling Giuffre’s civil lawsuit in 2022 without admitting liability. Invoking the Fifth was not legally an admission that Epstein’s allegations involving Andrew were true, but it allowed him to avoid testimony that might expose him to additional criminal liability or contradict the accounts he and his associates had presented. Epstein used the privilege broadly throughout the deposition, declining to answer numerous questions about abuse, trafficking and the people within his circle. In practical terms, his silence ensured that one of the central figures in the scandal never gave a sworn explanation of what Prince Andrew knew, why he spent time at Epstein’s properties or whether Epstein facilitated the encounters described by Giuffre. The deposition therefore became another example of Epstein using legal protections to prevent direct scrutiny of the relationships at the heart of his trafficking network. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

20 jul 202615 min