During a House Judiciary Committee hearing in September 2025, Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) moved to subpoena the CEOs of four major banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, and Deutsche Bank—for “suspicious activity reports” these banks allegedly filed related to Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. The motion claimed that roughly $1.5 billion in transactions tied to Epstein had been flagged as suspicious.

However, in a narrow vote (20-19), Republicans on the committee led by Chairman Jim Jordan moved to table the motion—effectively killing it—so the subpoena did not proceed. Only Rep. Thomas Massie broke ranks with his party to support the subpoena. The blocking of the subpoena came amid broader efforts by Democrats to force more disclosure about Epstein’s financial transactions through banks, as well as the handling of Epstein files by law enforcement.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

GOP shuts down House Democrats' move to subpoena Jeffrey Epstein banks

Former Attorney General William Barr resurfaced in the Epstein debate this week, testifying before Congress that Jeffrey Epstein’s 2019 death was “undoubtedly suicide.” Barr acknowledged severe lapses in prison security, including broken cameras and inattentive guards, but maintained that these amounted to negligence, not conspiracy. His certainty, however, reignited public skepticism, as many critics argue the unanswered questions surrounding Epstein’s death make any definitive conclusion premature.

Meanwhile, FBI Director Kash Patel faced heated questioning in a separate congressional hearing about the bureau’s handling of Epstein’s files. Patel insisted the FBI has complied with all legal obligations but admitted he had not personally reviewed the materials, a revelation that angered lawmakers and survivor advocates. Democrats accused him of stonewalling to shield powerful figures, while Republicans defended his position that releasing certain documents could compromise ongoing cases.

Adding further intrigue, Patel confirmed the FBI is open to investigating whether a disputed 2003 signature in Epstein’s “birthday book” belongs to Donald Trump. Trump has denied its authenticity, calling it a forgery, but Democrats quickly demanded an independent forensic review. With Barr closing the door on further questions about Epstein’s death, Patel hedging on transparency, and the Trump signature stirring new controversy, the scandal remains unresolved—continuing to haunt America’s political, legal, and social institutions six years after Epstein’s death.



to contact me:

[email protected]

During his deposition, former Attorney General Bill Barr confirmed that Prince Andrew was always someone the Southern District of New York wanted to question in connection with the Jeffrey Epstein case. Barr explained that Andrew was regarded as a witness the DOJ hoped to interview, given the allegations raised by Virginia Giuffre and the supporting evidence investigators had compiled, such as travel and hotel records. He noted there was an ongoing “dispute” regarding Andrew’s cooperation, highlighting how prosecutors publicly stated he wasn’t cooperating, while Andrew’s camp insisted otherwise.

Barr also clarified that, despite the SDNY’s interest, he did not recall ever being informed that Andrew had been officially elevated to the level of a “subject” or “target” of the investigation. In Barr’s account, Andrew remained in that gray zone of being a “person of interest” — someone the DOJ wanted information from, but not someone the department was actively moving to prosecute or extradite. This distinction reinforced how Andrew’s royal status and wealth seemed to keep him shielded from the more aggressive legal pursuit others in Epstein’s orbit faced.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

Prince Andrew was 'at least' a witness in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, reveals former chief US prosecutor as he recalls 'zero cooperation' press conference in newly-released Epstein files | Daily Mail Online

The relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Les Wexner is still shrouded in secrecy. There is no logical explanation for how Epstein was able to not only able to gain Wexner's confidence so quickly but also how he was able to wrest control of the finances away from Wexner's long time money manager. In this episode, we meet that man.





To contact me:

[email protected]


source:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9668449/How-Jeffrey-Epstein-squeezed-financial-advisor-Les-Wexner.html

Elon Musk has always denied knowing Ghislaine Maxwell and has maintained that the photograph of them together at a Vanity Fair party was nothing more than him being photobombed by her.

However, according to a  source who was at the event, it seems there's a little more to the encounter.

So, let's dive in and see what's up!

(commercial at 14:32)

to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11304327/Ghislaine-Maxwell-asked-Elon-Musk-DESTROY-internet-pic-Vanity-Fair-reporter-reveals.html

The U.S. Virgin Islands subpoenaed Elon Musk as part of its lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase over the bank’s alleged role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation. The subpoena does not accuse Musk of wrongdoing but seeks documents from 2002 onward that might show whether Epstein referred Musk to JPMorgan as a client, or whether there were communications linking Musk, Epstein, and the bank. The USVI specifically requested records of any fees paid to Epstein or JPMorgan on Musk’s behalf, as well as any communications referencing Epstein’s involvement in trafficking.

Musk has flatly denied any connection, calling suggestions that Epstein advised him “absurd.” The territory’s attorneys moved to serve the subpoena through Tesla after difficulty locating Musk directly. The move is part of a broader strategy to show JPMorgan ignored red flags and profited while providing Epstein financial services. At present, the subpoena is about gathering evidence relevant to JPMorgan’s liability, not alleging that Musk himself was involved in Epstein’s trafficking network.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

Elon Musk faces subpoena in Jeffrey Epstein lawsuit against JPMorgan (cnbc.com)

Edward Bramson, through his investment fund Sherborne Investors, became a prominent activist shareholder in Barclays starting in 2018, with a stated goal of pushing the bank to scale back its investment banking arm and refocus on more stable retail operations and shareholder returns. Over time, Bramson intensified his criticism of Jes Staley, Barclays’ CEO, especially after reports surfaced in 2020 that U.K. regulators (the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority) were investigating whether Staley had been sufficiently transparent about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Bramson argued that the board's unanimous recommendation to re-elect Staley was “extremely ill-advised,” saying Staley’s ties to Epstein had introduced reputational risk and that the board should reconsider whether he was “suitable” to lead Barclays.

Despite Bramson’s campaign, his efforts were unsuccessful. Barclays’ strategy around its investment banking division showed better performance, especially during market volatility, which helped Staley defend his leadership. In 2021, Bramson sold his entire ~6% stake in Barclays, effectively ending the activist challenge. Staley remained CEO until regulators released findings from their probe into how he had characterized his Epstein ties, at which point he stepped down.

to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

https://www.ft.com/content/febd924d-fccf-4525-bc6a-c65460d394c3

During the run up to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial there were more than a handful of bail attempts and each of them was less successful than the next. In this look back episode, we hear from Maxwell's lawyers, and they provide us with 8 reasons why she should be sprung.



to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ghislaine-maxwells-lawyers-came-up-with-8-reasons-alleged-jeffrey-epstein-accomplice-should-get-bail/

The cases of Jeffrey Epstein and Sean “Diddy” Combs highlight the complexities of holding powerful individuals accountable for systemic abuse and exploitation. Epstein, a financier with global connections, operated an international sex trafficking network for decades, leveraging his wealth and influence to evade scrutiny. Despite overwhelming evidence, a controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to escape significant consequences, sparking outrage and exposing flaws in the justice system. His 2019 arrest, fueled by survivor advocacy and public outcry, marked a turning point, but his subsequent death in custody left many questions unanswered and denied survivors the full justice they sought. Epstein’s case exposed systemic failures, from complicit enablers to legal loopholes, and has since become a symbol of how privilege can distort accountability.

Diddy’s case, though distinct in scope, reveals similar dynamics of power and impunity within the entertainment industry. Accused of sexual abuse, physical violence, and intimidation, Diddy allegedly used his status as a music mogul to exploit and silence victims for decades. His remand to custody in 2023 reflects a growing cultural shift toward accountability in an industry often criticized for its culture of silence and complicity. Both cases underscore the systemic structures that enable abuse, challenging society to confront these power dynamics and demand reform. While their outcomes remain pivotal, Epstein and Diddy’s cases serve as stark reminders that justice must be blind to status, and that societal complicity must be dismantled to protect the vulnerable.





to contact me:

[email protected]

Jeffrey Epstein was deeply embedded in the socialite world, cultivating friendships and influence among some of the richest, most powerful, and most famous people globally. His circle included high-profile figures such as Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, Leon Black, Les Wexner, and Alan Dershowitz. These ties ranged from superficial social interactions—attending elite parties, being included in birthday books, and hobnobbing at private estates—to deeper personal and professional arrangements. Epstein also associated with powerful facilitators like Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite who helped him gain entrée into upper-class society and allegedly assisted him in recruiting girls.


A more nuanced aspect of Epstein’s socialite friendships is the blend of charm, glamour, secrecy, and power these relationships enabled. Some reciprocated gestures—messages in the “birthday book” (like that from Leon Black), lavish gifts, and patronage—while others later claimed ignorance or deniability when accusations arose. Many have since faced scrutiny for how close they were, whether they benefitted materially or socially, and whether they turned a blind eye to Epstein’s crimes. Maxwell is central to this network—not only as a social figure but also as the linchpin facilitating connections, orchestrating social entry for Epstein, and allegedly being complicit in illegal schemes.

to contact me:

[email protected]

source:

https://pagesix.com/2022/08/24/caroline-stanbury-accused-of-being-in-jeffrey-epsteins-black-book/