The Epstein Chronicles

Ghislaine Maxwell’s family released a new statement in response to the Department of Justice’s announcement that it is closing its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators. In it, they expressed “relief” that the probe has ended and argued that it validates their long-standing claim that Ghislaine was unfairly targeted and scapegoated. The family asserted that Ghislaine was prosecuted simply because of her association with Epstein, implying that her conviction was more about public pressure than actual culpability. They continue to frame her as a victim of circumstance, not a willing participant in the crimes for which she was convicted.

The statement reads less like a defense and more like a soft relaunch of Ghislaine’s image—an attempt to reframe her legacy as unjustly ruined rather than rightly condemned. By invoking the DOJ’s decision as supposed proof of her innocence, the Maxwell family is working to erase the mountain of evidence, the survivor testimony, and the jury’s unanimous verdict that put her in prison. It’s a bold move—one that deliberately ignores the reality of what she did and who she helped. Their message isn’t justice-seeking; it’s reputation management dressed up as vindication.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

Ghislaine Maxwell's family breaks their silence with bombshell claim as Trump decision to close Epstein case triggers MAGA civil war and cover-up claims | Daily Mail Online

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A Utah judge has scheduled the capital murder trial of Tyler Robinson, the 23-year-old accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk, to begin with jury selection on June 21, 2028. District Judge Tony Graf rejected the defense team's request to postpone proceedings until 2029, instead setting aside 105 trial days, approximately five months, for the case. Robinson faces aggravated murder and related charges stemming from the September 10, 2025, shooting of Kirk during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University, where prosecutors allege he fired from a rooftop overlooking a crowd of approximately 4,000 people. Prosecutors indicated they could be ready for trial by October 2027 but preferred an early 2028 start, while Robinson's attorneys argued that the enormous volume of evidence and complexities of a potential death penalty case required additional preparation. Graf ultimately selected a date between the competing proposals, emphasizing the need to balance the defendant's constitutional rights with the public's interest in a timely resolution.

The decision drew sharp criticism from Kirk's family, particularly his widow, Erika Kirk, who had pushed for proceedings to begin in 2027 and argued that further delays would prolong the family's suffering. Attorneys representing the family also criticized the growing expense of Robinson's publicly funded defense, which they claimed had already generated approximately $1.6 million in legal bills. Prosecutors have alleged that Robinson targeted Kirk because of his political and social views, pointing to text messages and other evidence they believe establish his motive. Robinson's defense attorneys have challenged the reliability of the prosecution's video and DNA evidence while disputing allegations concerning his motivations. Robinson has pleaded not guilty, and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, which could potentially be carried out by firing squad under Utah law. With the trial now scheduled for the summer of 2028, the proceedings are expected to involve extensive legal arguments over forensic evidence, jury selection, potential sentencing, and whether Robinson can receive a fair trial amid the extraordinary publicity surrounding Kirk's assassination.


to contact me:

[email protected]




source:

Trial date set for Tyler Robinson, accused assassin of Charlie Kirk

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

During the 2021 federal sex trafficking trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, a British woman testifying under the pseudonym "Kate" described how Maxwell allegedly groomed her for sexual encounters with Jeffrey Epstein after they met in Paris in 1994, when Kate was 17 years old. Kate testified that she admired Maxwell's wealth, sophistication, and social standing and initially believed their relationship would develop into a meaningful friendship. Maxwell subsequently invited her to a London residence, introduced her to Epstein, and encouraged her to massage his feet. According to Kate, Maxwell later contacted her claiming that Epstein needed a massage because his regular massage therapist was unavailable. Despite having no professional massage experience, Kate agreed, and Maxwell escorted her into a bedroom, provided massage oil, and closed the door behind her. Kate testified that Epstein initiated sexual contact during the encounter and that Maxwell subsequently praised her, telling her she was a good girl and one of Epstein's favorites. She also described subsequent encounters at Epstein's properties in New York, Palm Beach, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, including an incident in Florida when Maxwell instructed her to wear a schoolgirl outfit while serving Epstein tea. Kate further testified that Maxwell discussed Epstein's frequent sexual demands and asked whether she knew other young, attractive girls who might be willing to perform sexual acts for him.

Kate's testimony provided prosecutors with evidence of Maxwell's alleged methods of cultivating relationships with vulnerable young women, gaining their trust, and gradually introducing them to sexual activity with Epstein. She explained that her admiration for Maxwell and desire for acceptance made it difficult to recognize the exploitation she was experiencing, while her fear of Epstein and Maxwell's powerful connections contributed to her continued association with them. Kate acknowledged maintaining contact with Epstein for years afterward, explaining that distancing herself would have forced her to confront what had happened. During cross-examination, Maxwell's defense attorneys attempted to undermine her credibility by questioning her history of substance abuse, continued communications with Epstein, and a $3.25 million settlement she received through an Epstein victims' compensation arrangement. Kate rejected suggestions that her substance use had distorted her recollection of the significant events she described. Because she was above the applicable age of consent during the alleged encounters, Judge Alison Nathan instructed jurors that Kate was not a victim of the offenses charged against Maxwell and that her testimony could not independently establish Maxwell's guilt. Nevertheless, prosecutors presented her account as evidence of the broader pattern of recruitment and grooming they alleged Maxwell employed to facilitate Epstein's sexual exploitation of young women and underage girls.



to contact me:


[email protected]




source:

Ghislaine Maxwell Trial Transcript, 12.6.21

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

During the 2021 federal sex trafficking trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, a British woman testifying under the pseudonym "Kate" described how Maxwell allegedly groomed her for sexual encounters with Jeffrey Epstein after they met in Paris in 1994, when Kate was 17 years old. Kate testified that she admired Maxwell's wealth, sophistication, and social standing and initially believed their relationship would develop into a meaningful friendship. Maxwell subsequently invited her to a London residence, introduced her to Epstein, and encouraged her to massage his feet. According to Kate, Maxwell later contacted her claiming that Epstein needed a massage because his regular massage therapist was unavailable. Despite having no professional massage experience, Kate agreed, and Maxwell escorted her into a bedroom, provided massage oil, and closed the door behind her. Kate testified that Epstein initiated sexual contact during the encounter and that Maxwell subsequently praised her, telling her she was a good girl and one of Epstein's favorites. She also described subsequent encounters at Epstein's properties in New York, Palm Beach, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, including an incident in Florida when Maxwell instructed her to wear a schoolgirl outfit while serving Epstein tea. Kate further testified that Maxwell discussed Epstein's frequent sexual demands and asked whether she knew other young, attractive girls who might be willing to perform sexual acts for him.

Kate's testimony provided prosecutors with evidence of Maxwell's alleged methods of cultivating relationships with vulnerable young women, gaining their trust, and gradually introducing them to sexual activity with Epstein. She explained that her admiration for Maxwell and desire for acceptance made it difficult to recognize the exploitation she was experiencing, while her fear of Epstein and Maxwell's powerful connections contributed to her continued association with them. Kate acknowledged maintaining contact with Epstein for years afterward, explaining that distancing herself would have forced her to confront what had happened. During cross-examination, Maxwell's defense attorneys attempted to undermine her credibility by questioning her history of substance abuse, continued communications with Epstein, and a $3.25 million settlement she received through an Epstein victims' compensation arrangement. Kate rejected suggestions that her substance use had distorted her recollection of the significant events she described. Because she was above the applicable age of consent during the alleged encounters, Judge Alison Nathan instructed jurors that Kate was not a victim of the offenses charged against Maxwell and that her testimony could not independently establish Maxwell's guilt. Nevertheless, prosecutors presented her account as evidence of the broader pattern of recruitment and grooming they alleged Maxwell employed to facilitate Epstein's sexual exploitation of young women and underage girls.



to contact me:


[email protected]




source:

Ghislaine Maxwell Trial Transcript, 12.6.21

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

During the 2021 federal sex trafficking trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, a British woman testifying under the pseudonym "Kate" described how Maxwell allegedly groomed her for sexual encounters with Jeffrey Epstein after they met in Paris in 1994, when Kate was 17 years old. Kate testified that she admired Maxwell's wealth, sophistication, and social standing and initially believed their relationship would develop into a meaningful friendship. Maxwell subsequently invited her to a London residence, introduced her to Epstein, and encouraged her to massage his feet. According to Kate, Maxwell later contacted her claiming that Epstein needed a massage because his regular massage therapist was unavailable. Despite having no professional massage experience, Kate agreed, and Maxwell escorted her into a bedroom, provided massage oil, and closed the door behind her. Kate testified that Epstein initiated sexual contact during the encounter and that Maxwell subsequently praised her, telling her she was a good girl and one of Epstein's favorites. She also described subsequent encounters at Epstein's properties in New York, Palm Beach, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, including an incident in Florida when Maxwell instructed her to wear a schoolgirl outfit while serving Epstein tea. Kate further testified that Maxwell discussed Epstein's frequent sexual demands and asked whether she knew other young, attractive girls who might be willing to perform sexual acts for him.

Kate's testimony provided prosecutors with evidence of Maxwell's alleged methods of cultivating relationships with vulnerable young women, gaining their trust, and gradually introducing them to sexual activity with Epstein. She explained that her admiration for Maxwell and desire for acceptance made it difficult to recognize the exploitation she was experiencing, while her fear of Epstein and Maxwell's powerful connections contributed to her continued association with them. Kate acknowledged maintaining contact with Epstein for years afterward, explaining that distancing herself would have forced her to confront what had happened. During cross-examination, Maxwell's defense attorneys attempted to undermine her credibility by questioning her history of substance abuse, continued communications with Epstein, and a $3.25 million settlement she received through an Epstein victims' compensation arrangement. Kate rejected suggestions that her substance use had distorted her recollection of the significant events she described. Because she was above the applicable age of consent during the alleged encounters, Judge Alison Nathan instructed jurors that Kate was not a victim of the offenses charged against Maxwell and that her testimony could not independently establish Maxwell's guilt. Nevertheless, prosecutors presented her account as evidence of the broader pattern of recruitment and grooming they alleged Maxwell employed to facilitate Epstein's sexual exploitation of young women and underage girls.



to contact me:


[email protected]




source:

Ghislaine Maxwell Trial Transcript, 12.6.21

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A report released by the Republican-led House Oversight Committee on November 10, 2026, detailed years of institutional failures, questionable prosecutorial decisions, and preferential treatment that allowed Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to continue sexually abusing and exploiting young women and girls. The investigation scrutinized Epstein’s controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement, potential conflicts of interest involving former federal prosecutors Matthew Menchel and Bruce Reinhart, and the failure to recover potentially significant evidence removed from Epstein’s Palm Beach residence. It also examined Epstein’s extraordinarily lenient jail arrangements, which allegedly allowed him to continue abusing women while serving his sentence. The committee recommended further investigation into former Epstein employees Sarah Kellen and Lesley Groff, as well as allegations involving former Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine and celebrity hairstylist Frédéric Fekkai, both of whom denied wrongdoing.

The report also examined Epstein’s relationships with powerful figures, including Howard Lutnick, Bill Gates, Leon Black, Kathryn Ruemmler, and Stacey Plaskett, raising questions about the financial, political, and institutional connections that survived his 2008 conviction. Investigators highlighted Black’s approximately $158 million to $170 million in payments to Epstein, Lutnick’s previously undisclosed 2012 island visit, and Epstein’s continued access to influential individuals. The committee reported finding no evidence implicating Donald Trump in Epstein’s criminal activities and did not overturn the official determination that Epstein died by suicide. It also criticized the Justice Department for missing document disclosure deadlines and exposing survivors’ private information. While recommending additional investigations, witness interviews, and institutional reforms, the report left unresolved the central question of why so many individuals connected to Epstein’s operation have never faced meaningful scrutiny or accountability.


to contact me:


[email protected]



source:


House Oversight report says prosecutorial failures enabled Epstein abuse | Fox News

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A new BBC investigation has raised serious questions about the role of modeling agencies and their executives in Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse and trafficking operation, revealing how young women were allegedly directed into his orbit under the pretense of legitimate professional opportunities. One survivor, identified as Roza, described how MC2 Model Management sent her to two supposed photoshoots at Epstein’s Palm Beach residence in 2009, when she was just 18 years old and had recently arrived in the United States from Uzbekistan. At the time, Epstein was serving a jail sentence for soliciting a minor but was permitted to leave custody for work. Roza alleged that the photoshoots, conducted by Epstein’s associate Nadia Marcinko rather than a professional photographer, were staged to introduce her to the financier, who subsequently employed her as an assistant and repeatedly raped her. She accused Jeff Fuller, then president of MC2’s American operations, of failing to protect her despite knowing where she was being sent. Although Fuller previously claimed he did not know she was going to Epstein’s home, the BBC obtained an expense statement suggesting he personally arranged her return flight after the second photoshoot. Department of Justice records also revealed that at least ten MC2 models met or communicated with Epstein after his 2008 conviction and that Epstein had provided the modeling agency with $1 million in 2005, contradicting earlier public statements minimizing his involvement. Following Epstein’s arrest in 2019, MC2’s American division dissolved, and Fuller established another agency, The Source Models, which reportedly absorbed approximately 50 former MC2 models and continues operating. Fuller did not respond to the BBC’s latest allegations, although he previously maintained that he was unaware Roza was being abused.

The investigation also examined the activities of other modeling industry figures connected to Epstein, including former agent Ramsey Elkholy and agency director Faith Kates, whose relationships with the financier appeared in newly released Justice Department documents. Investigators discovered that Elkholy attempted to connect 34 women with Epstein, including an 18-year-old student, and that correspondence suggested arrangements in which Epstein’s female assistants would establish relationships with prospective recruits before introducing them to him. One woman told the BBC that Epstein sexually assaulted her during their first meeting at his Manhattan townhouse when she was 19. Elkholy denied knowingly facilitating abuse, insisting that he believed Epstein’s explanation of his earlier criminal case and had intended only to provide professional opportunities. Another survivor, identified under the pseudonym Simona, alleged that Epstein raped her more than 200 times after she became involved in his world through the modeling industry. Attorney Sigrid McCawley, who represents more than 100 Epstein survivors, emphasized that modeling scouts and agents played a critical role in identifying young women who fit Epstein’s preferences, while victims were frequently manipulated through threats to their livelihoods and professional ambitions. The findings have intensified questions about why individuals who allegedly helped facilitate Epstein’s access to vulnerable women have largely escaped criminal scrutiny. New York State Senator Zellnor Myrie is now proposing legislation that would strengthen authorities’ ability to investigate individuals who enabled sexual trafficking operations, challenging the Justice Department’s previous position that investigators had uncovered insufficient evidence to justify further investigations of uncharged third parties. The revelations highlight the continuing controversy surrounding Epstein’s network of recruiters, professional intermediaries, and associates, many of whom have never been required to publicly account for their relationships with him.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

'There is no justice' - Epstein survivor on how model agency sent her to abuser's home


Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Congressional Democrats are preparing to renew scrutiny of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein following their victories in the 2026 midterm elections, with lawmakers signaling that the former prince could face additional pressure to cooperate with American investigators. Democratic Representative Suhas Subramanyam, a member of the House Oversight Committee, indicated that Andrew’s connections to Epstein would be examined as Democrats assume control of the House in January 2027. Subramanyam questioned Andrew’s longstanding reluctance to cooperate with investigators examining Epstein’s sexual abuse and trafficking operation, suggesting that refusing to provide information raises serious concerns about what he might know. Investigators could seek testimony and evidence from Epstein’s former employees, assistants, and other associates to reconstruct Andrew’s involvement with the disgraced financier. Andrew has repeatedly denied allegations of sexual misconduct, including those made by Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of sexually abusing her when she was 17. He reached a multimillion-pound civil settlement with Giuffre in 2022 without admitting liability. Democrats also intend to continue pressuring the Department of Justice to provide British authorities with unredacted Epstein documents relevant to Scotland Yard’s investigation involving former British ambassador Peter Mandelson, whose relationship with Epstein led to his dismissal. Although Subramanyam acknowledged that Congress cannot directly compel the DOJ to turn over records to British police, he suggested lawmakers could pursue alternative sources of information if the department continues withholding material. The renewed congressional scrutiny threatens to place Andrew’s Epstein connections back under a powerful investigative spotlight, potentially exposing him to additional demands for testimony and documentary evidence after years of avoiding direct questioning by American authorities.

Ohio State University has decided to keep Leslie Wexner’s name on its campus buildings despite hundreds of requests demanding its removal over his longstanding relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and questions surrounding his potential knowledge of sexual abuse committed by former university physician Dr. Richard Strauss. The decision, announced November 6, 2026, by interim Executive Vice President and Provost Trevor Brown, effectively halted a university review process that had received 512 petitions between January and September. Petitioners raised concerns about Wexner’s decades-long association with Epstein, as well as allegations involving Strauss, whose sexual abuse of students and athletes became one of the largest scandals in Ohio State’s history. Brown defended the decision by arguing that university policy requires substantial evidence of misconduct before removing a donor’s name from university facilities, emphasizing that Wexner has not been criminally charged. He also maintained that the university’s naming committee was never intended to function as a criminal investigative body and concluded that additional examination of the matter was unwarranted at this time. The decision comes amid continued scrutiny of Wexner’s connections to Epstein and criticism of Ohio State’s handling of allegations involving influential figures associated with the institution. Wexner previously avoided attempts to serve him with a subpoena concerning the Strauss abuse scandal, while survivors of Strauss reached a final settlement with the university in June 2026. Although Brown left open the possibility of reconsidering the naming decision if additional evidence emerges, the university’s refusal to proceed with a more comprehensive review means that Wexner’s name will remain prominently displayed across Ohio State facilities despite the continuing controversy surrounding his relationship with Epstein.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

Democrats to review Andrew's links to Jeffrey Epstein and demand unredacted files are handed over to British police | Daily Mail Online

Les Wexner’s name to remain on Ohio State buildings despite requests for removals - WHIO TV 7 and WHIO Radio



Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky has emerged as one of the most determined advocates for transparency in the Jeffrey Epstein case, repeatedly confronting President Donald Trump, House Republican leadership, and the Justice Department over their handling of the Epstein files. Massie's battle intensified in July 2025 when he joined Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna to introduce the Epstein Files Transparency Act, legislation designed to compel the Justice Department to release its investigative records concerning Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Facing opposition from Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, Massie pursued a discharge petition to bypass Republican leadership and force a vote, eventually securing the necessary 218 signatures with support from Democrats and a small group of Republicans willing to defy the president. Throughout the fight, Trump publicly attacked Massie and other Republicans demanding disclosure, turning the controversy into a bitter confrontation within his own party. Massie refused to retreat, arguing that the American people and Epstein's survivors deserved access to the records regardless of whose reputations might be damaged. His persistence ultimately paid off in November 2025 when the House overwhelmingly approved the legislation by a vote of 427 to 1, forcing Trump to reverse his opposition and sign the bill into law. However, what appeared to be a landmark victory quickly became another battle when the Justice Department missed its December disclosure deadline and subsequently released millions of pages containing extensive redactions and omissions. Massie accused the administration of disregarding the law's requirements and argued that passing transparency legislation meant little if the officials responsible for enforcing it could simply refuse to comply.

Rather than declaring victory and moving on, Massie continued pressing the administration throughout 2026, accusing the Justice Department of unlawfully withholding millions of Epstein-related records while failing to provide satisfactory explanations for its redactions. Alongside Khanna, he sought judicial scrutiny of the department's compliance and introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act II in July 2026, legislation intended to give survivors, members of Congress, and state attorneys general the ability to sue the federal government to compel disclosure. The proposal also sought to provide survivors with access to unredacted records concerning their own abuse and make investigative materials available to state and local prosecutors pursuing Epstein-related cases. Massie subsequently launched another discharge petition, once again challenging Republican leadership and attempting to force a vote despite resistance from members of his own party. His campaign gained additional attention as lawmakers questioned whether the Justice Department was using legal privileges and excessive redactions to conceal material that Congress had already ordered released. With the 2026 midterm elections producing a Democratic congressional majority, Massie's efforts gained renewed momentum, although his impending departure from Congress in January 2027 created additional urgency for the legislation. His fight has distinguished him from Republicans who publicly championed Epstein transparency while resisting measures that would compel the administration to deliver it. By repeatedly challenging Trump, confronting congressional leadership, and seeking enforceable legal consequences for noncompliance, Massie has made the Epstein files a defining issue of his final years in Congress, demonstrating a willingness to break with his own party over a scandal that continues to raise serious questions about government secrecy and accountability.



to contact me:

[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The House Oversight Committee's attempt to question Ghislaine Maxwell about Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation ended exactly as anyone familiar with her history should have expected: with the convicted sex trafficker refusing to answer substantive questions. Congress subpoenaed Maxwell in July 2025, hoping to obtain information about Epstein's associates, potential co-conspirators, and the institutional failures that allowed their criminal enterprise to operate for years. However, Maxwell's attorneys immediately began maneuvering to control the circumstances of her testimony, initially demanding immunity and later announcing that she would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. When she finally appeared virtually before the committee on February 9, 2026, Maxwell repeatedly invoked that constitutional protection, refusing to answer questions about her relationship with Epstein or her involvement in trafficking young women and girls. Chairman James Comer expressed disappointment, but the outcome was hardly surprising. Maxwell had spent years denying responsibility for her crimes, fighting her conviction, and pursuing every available legal avenue to escape her 20-year prison sentence. Expecting someone with that history to suddenly provide Congress with a candid accounting of Epstein's operation was extraordinarily naive. Maxwell was never a credible candidate for a voluntary exercise in truth-telling, and congressional investigators should have anticipated that she would use every legal protection available to avoid answering uncomfortable questions.


What made Maxwell's performance particularly infuriating was the contrast between her refusal to cooperate with Congress and her apparent willingness to speak when she believed doing so might benefit her personally. Just months earlier, she had participated in discussions with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche without invoking the Fifth Amendment, yet when confronted with questioning under oath by elected representatives, she suddenly had nothing substantive to say. Her attorney then suggested that Maxwell would cooperate fully if President Donald Trump granted her clemency, even offering assurances about Trump's innocence despite Maxwell's refusal to answer investigators' questions. The spectacle reinforced the perception that Maxwell was treating information about Epstein's crimes as a bargaining chip rather than something she had any moral obligation to disclose. This was a woman convicted of helping recruit and groom vulnerable girls for sexual abuse, yet she continued attempting to negotiate her way toward freedom while the survivors remained without many of the answers they had spent decades seeking. Her right to remain silent was constitutionally protected, but that did not make her behavior admirable, nor did it erase the calculated self-interest surrounding her efforts to secure leniency. Congress had every reason to investigate what Maxwell knew, but lawmakers should never have confused her willingness to negotiate with a genuine willingness to cooperate. Her refusal to answer questions was entirely predictable, and her attempt to tie cooperation to presidential clemency only strengthened the argument that Maxwell remained primarily concerned with protecting herself. The responsibility now falls on congressional investigators to pursue documents, financial records, corroborating witnesses, and other evidence rather than allowing a convicted trafficker to dictate the terms of an investigation into the crimes she helped commit.


to contact me:


[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.