The Bill Gates Epstein Related Congressional Transcripts (Part 12) (6/29/26)

One Percent Truth: How the DOJ Gutted the Epstein Transparency Law

By the DOJ’s own actions, what was promised as a meaningful step toward transparency has instead turned into a masterclass in bad faith. Despite a clear legal mandate requiring the release of Epstein-related records by December 19th, the Department of Justice has released roughly 1% of what it was obligated to disclose. Not 1% of what was convenient. Not 1% of what they felt like parting with. One percent of the total universe of documents they have publicly acknowledged possessing. This is not a paperwork hiccup or a minor delay—it is an institutional refusal to comply with the spirit or the letter of the law. For decades, the DOJ has insisted that Epstein was thoroughly investigated, that the evidence was reviewed, that the case was handled—yet when transparency is finally required, the files suddenly become too numerous, too complex, and too sensitive to release on time. The contradiction is glaring: either these materials were already organized and understood, or the DOJ has been misleading the public for years about the depth and seriousness of its investigation. For survivors, this isn’t just bureaucratic nonsense—it’s a direct insult. Many of them waited decades to be believed, to see the system acknowledge what was done to them and who enabled it. Releasing a token sliver of records while slow-walking the rest sends a clear message: institutional self-protection still outweighs accountability. To the American public, it’s an unmistakable middle finger—proof that even when Congress acts, even when the law is explicit, the DOJ believes it can stall, obfuscate, and wear people down through attrition. Transparency delayed is transparency denied, and in this case, the delay isn’t accidental. It reinforces the same power imbalance that allowed Epstein to operate in plain sight for so long, signaling that when powerful interests are implicated, justice remains optional and accountability remains negotiable. to  contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Justice Department has released only 1% of Epstein files, new filing says [https://www.scrippsnews.com/us-news/crime/epstein-files/justice-department-has-released-only-1-percent-of-epstein-files-new-filing-says#google_vignette]

Lesley Groff And The Transcript From Her Epstein Related Trip to Congress (Part 3) (7/3/26)

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]

Lesley Groff And The Transcript From Her Epstein Related Trip to Congress (Part 2) (7/3/26)

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]

Judge Warns Melania Trump’s Lawyers Over Sanctions Push Against Michael Wolff (7/3/26)

A Manhattan federal judge warned Melania Trump’s lawyers to be careful as they pursue sanctions against journalist and Trump biographer Michael Wolff, even after the court had already dismissed Wolff’s anti-SLAPP lawsuit against her. Wolff had filed the case after Melania Trump threatened a $1 billion defamation suit over comments he made linking her to Jeffrey Epstein, allegations her side has rejected. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil previously dismissed Wolff’s lawsuit as an improper attempt to head off a defamation case before it was filed, but when Trump’s lawyers said they still wanted sanctions against Wolff, the judge cautioned that sanctions require more than simply arguing that the lawsuit was weak or wrong. The hearing framed the fight as a continuing legal clash over press speech, defamation threats, and courtroom strategy. Melania Trump’s team argued that Wolff’s lawsuit was frivolous and deserved punishment, while Wolff’s side argued the sanctions push was another escalation meant to intimidate and drain him financially. Vyskocil appeared skeptical of turning the dismissed case into a sanctions battle, noting the high bar for punishment and warning Trump’s attorneys not to overreach. The result is that Melania Trump won the first round by getting Wolff’s case tossed, but the judge signaled that trying to keep the fight alive through sanctions may be a much harder sell. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Judge cautions Melania Trump against trying to sanction journalist Michael Wolff | Courthouse News Service [https://courthousenews.com/judge-cautions-melania-trump-against-trying-to-sanction-journalist-michael-wolff/]

DOJ Refuses to Release More Epstein Files After Court Order (7/3/26)

The Department of Justice declined to provide additional unredacted Epstein-related files after U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the department either to turn over more material or explain why it had been withheld. DOJ Associate U.S. Attorney General Stanley Woodward argued that the redactions were lawful and necessary, saying some materials contained sensitive victim information, personally identifiable details, or records that were already properly withheld under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The DOJ also asked Sullivan to either delay the deadline by 60 days or accept the department’s explanation and disregard the production order. The dispute centers on several categories of withheld material, including emails with concealed senders and recipients, a draft 2007 indictment from the Southern District of Florida, and handwritten interview notes involving a woman who made unsubstantiated assault allegations against Donald Trump, which Trump has denied. DOJ claimed some names were redacted to protect victims, said the draft indictment was already redacted in the original file it possessed, and argued that handwritten notes posed a higher risk of accidental disclosure of victim information. Sullivan had previously rejected DOJ’s arguments and found that the Public Interest Project had shown harm from the withheld records, while the DOJ continues to insist it has not violated the law and has complied with its obligations. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: DOJ declines to turn over additional Epstein files, says redactions were appropriate - ABC News [https://abcnews.com/Politics/doj-declines-turn-additional-epstein-files-redactions/story?id=134430675]