Folgen

  • Truth or Consequences: The Jeffrey Epstein Cover-Up In New Mexico (2/23/26)

    Truth or Consequences: The Jeffrey Epstein Cover-Up In New Mexico (2/23/26)
    Feb 23 2026
    The state of New Mexico’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes remains one of the most glaring examples of governmental negligence in recent memory. Despite Epstein owning the massive Zorro Ranch property near Stanley, where multiple survivors alleged they were trafficked and abused, state authorities failed to bring a single charge against him. Even after Epstein’s 2008 Florida conviction, he was not required to register as a sex offender in New Mexico due to a technicality in the state’s laws and the lack of proactive enforcement by local officials. Investigations launched by the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office were sluggish, underfunded, and seemingly designed to avoid confrontation with the powerful interests connected to Epstein. The inaction effectively allowed one of the most notorious predators in modern history to operate with impunity on New Mexico soil.


    Now, amid mounting public anger and renewed scrutiny, New Mexico lawmakers are attempting to atone through the creation of a “truth commission” — a bipartisan investigative body designed to examine how the state’s institutions failed. The commission would probe how Epstein was able to buy land, operate businesses, and allegedly abuse victims with no oversight. Its goal is to uncover which officials knew about Epstein’s activities, why red flags were ignored, and how state systems can be reformed to prevent such catastrophic negligence in the future. Supporters describe it as a long-overdue reckoning with the failures of law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and political leadership, though critics warn that it may amount to little more than symbolic damage control unless it carries real investigative authority and public transparency.


    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    11 Min.
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 13) (2/23/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 13) (2/23/26)
    Feb 23 2026
    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
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    12 Min.
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 12) (2/22/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 12) (2/22/26)
    Feb 23 2026
    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
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    14 Min.
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 11) (2/22/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 11) (2/22/26)
    Feb 23 2026
    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
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    14 Min.
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 10) (2/22/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 10) (2/22/26)
    Feb 23 2026
    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
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    15 Min.
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 9) (2/22/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 9) (2/22/26)
    Feb 23 2026
    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
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    15 Min.
  • Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 8) (2/22/26)

    Epstein Files Unsealed: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 8) (2/22/26)
    Feb 22 2026
    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
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    15 Min.
  • Uninformed and Proud of It: The Epidemic of Lazy Epstein Coverage (2/22/26)

    Uninformed and Proud of It: The Epidemic of Lazy Epstein Coverage (2/22/26)
    Feb 22 2026
    The Dunning-Kruger effect—the psychological phenomenon where people with little knowledge or competence in a subject overestimate their understanding—has become the defining disease of modern Epstein coverage. Too many pundits, influencers, and so-called “experts” have substituted shallow familiarity for deep research, parroting surface-level talking points as if they’ve cracked some grand conspiracy. They recycle half-truths, ignore court filings, and build entire narratives off memes and rumor. The irony is brutal: the loudest voices in the room are often the least informed, drowning out serious investigators who have actually read the depositions, subpoenas, and financial disclosures. In the vacuum left by lazy journalism, self-appointed “truth-tellers” have turned the Epstein case into a carnival of ego and misinformation—performing knowledge rather than pursuing it.

    Mainstream media, for its part, hasn’t fared much better. Too often, networks have framed the Epstein story through sanitized press releases and “safe” angles that protect institutional interests rather than expose them. The Dunning-Kruger effect here is institutional—the press acts as though summarizing a few court documents equals investigative rigor, while ignoring the broader ecosystem of corruption, finance, and government complicity that kept Epstein untouchable for decades. The result is a grotesque parody of journalism: cable anchors and Twitter theorists both convinced they understand the full scope of a case that even prosecutors failed to unravel. Epstein’s coverage has become a hall of mirrors reflecting ignorance, arrogance, and cowardice—and the public, desperate for truth, is left staring into the void where accountability should be.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    11 Min.