Former Prince Andrew Still Has Some Supporters In His Corner (6/23/26)

Wexner Dismisses Congress, but the Epstein Questions Remain (6/23/26)

Les Wexner framed his nearly six-hour congressional deposition about Jeffrey Epstein as a political stunt, calling it “silly,” “a nothing burger,” and accusing House Democrats of using the session for “airtime” rather than serious oversight. He claimed he had “nothing to hide,” repeated that he knew nothing about Epstein’s criminal conduct, and cast himself as another person deceived by Epstein — financially wounded, personally embarrassed, but not responsible. That posture is convenient, but it also dodges the central problem: Wexner was not some casual acquaintance. He was one of Epstein’s most powerful patrons and most prominent clients, and the idea that he could hand Epstein extraordinary access, trust, and legitimacy while remaining completely unaware of the warning signs is exactly why lawmakers and the public remain skeptical. Wexner also attacked Democrats for leaving the room, holding press events, and asking questions he believed were designed for campaign material, including one about his donations to Ohio Sen. Jon Husted. But that criticism works only if you accept Wexner’s premise that his role has already been fully explained, and it has not. His complaints about optics do not erase the deeper issue: Epstein’s access to elite institutions depended on men like Wexner giving him credibility, wealth, and proximity to power. Wexner may want the deposition to be “one and done,” but his insistence that there was nothing meaningful to ask sounds less like closure and more like an attempt to reduce years of unresolved questions into an annoyance he believes he has outgrown. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Wexner Calls Congressional Epstein Deposition ‘Silly,’ Says Democrats Used It as ‘Photo Op’ | News | The Harvard Crimson [https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2026/6/19/wexner-says-deposition-silly/]

Former Prince Andrew Still Has Some Supporters In His Corner (6/23/26)

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is portrayed as someone whose public charm and privileged image always sat alongside a much uglier reputation behind the scenes. His former girlfriend Sandi Jones described him as a “real character” who liked making people laugh and was popular with women, but that softer image is contrasted with accounts of Andrew as loud, spoiled, arrogant, and difficult from childhood onward. The broader portrait is of a man indulged by royal status, treated as the Queen’s favorite son, and allowed to move through life with a sense that ordinary rules did not apply to him. That personality profile becomes part of the larger explanation for his downfall: Andrew was once marketed as the handsome war-hero prince, especially after serving as a helicopter pilot during the Falklands, but the old “Randy Andy” image curdled into something far darker as his behavior, judgment, friendships, and entitlement came under scrutiny. The same traits once dismissed as cheeky royal mischief — arrogance, self-importance, vulgar humor, and a need to be catered to — are presented as warning signs that followed him into adulthood, through his failed marriage, his trade envoy controversies, his Epstein association, the disastrous Newsnight interview, and finally his collapse into disgrace. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's ex-girlfriend sums up his 'real personality' in four words | Royal | News | Express.co.uk [https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/2220362/Andrew-Mountbatten-Windsor-ex-real-personality]

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 16-18) (6/20/26)

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein’s defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith. At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta’s account, particularly regarding victims’ rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade. to  contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: EFTA00009229.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%207/EFTA00009229.pdf]

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 13-15) (6/20/26)

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein’s defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith. At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta’s account, particularly regarding victims’ rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade. to  contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: EFTA00009229.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%207/EFTA00009229.pdf]

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 9-12) (6/20/26)

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein’s defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith. At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta’s account, particularly regarding victims’ rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade. to  contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: EFTA00009229.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%207/EFTA00009229.pdf]