The U.S. Department of Justice has quietly restored an Epstein-related document that had been deleted from its public release—one that referenced Donald Trump—after outside scrutiny made the omission impossible to ignore. The initial disappearance of the file raised immediate concerns about selective disclosure, especially given the DOJ’s repeated assurances that the Epstein release would be comprehensive and politically neutral. By restoring the document only after it was flagged, the department reinforced the perception that the process was reactive rather than transparent, driven more by damage control than a commitment to full disclosure. The episode added to longstanding criticisms that the Epstein materials are being curated in real time, with politically sensitive references handled differently from the rest of the archive.

Critically, the restoration does not resolve the deeper problem—it underscores it. The DOJ has offered no clear explanation for why the file was removed in the first place, who authorized the deletion, or how many other documents may have been altered, withheld, or temporarily scrubbed before publication. Restoring a single document after public pressure does little to rebuild trust when the broader release remains heavily redacted and inconsistently managed. Instead of closing the credibility gap, the reversal highlights a pattern that has plagued the Epstein case for years: piecemeal transparency, shifting narratives, and a justice system that appears more concerned with controlling fallout than confronting the full scope of the record head-on.


to contact me:


[email protected]



source:

Trump photo restored to Epstein files by DOJ after review | Fox News

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In his 2025 congressional deposition, Bill Barr largely reiterated the position he has maintained since leaving office: that Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide and that there was no evidence of homicide or outside interference. Barr emphasized the findings of the medical examiner, the DOJ’s internal reviews, and the conclusions reached by the FBI and Bureau of Prisons investigations, framing the failures at MCC as severe negligence rather than conspiracy. He acknowledged the catastrophic breakdowns in staffing, camera coverage, and supervision but resisted claims that those failures pointed to intentional misconduct. Throughout the deposition, Barr portrayed the persistence of alternative theories as driven more by public mistrust and the extraordinary nature of Epstein’s crimes than by substantiated evidence uncovered during federal reviews.

That explanation, however, did little to quiet long-standing skepticism surrounding Barr’s narrative. Lawmakers pressed him on the speed and certainty with which he publicly declared Epstein’s death a suicide, the reliance on internal investigations rather than independent inquiries, and the unresolved questions created by missing footage, altered records, and contradictory statements from jail officials. Critics noted that Epstein’s unique status, political connections, and intelligence-adjacent history make the “ordinary negligence” explanation difficult for many to accept, especially given the stakes involved. The deposition ultimately underscored a central tension that has followed the case for years: Barr insists the matter is settled by evidence and procedure, while a significant portion of the public—and some members of Congress—remain unconvinced that the full truth about Epstein’s death has ever been disclosed.



to contact  me:


[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Sarah Ransome’s deposition offers a disturbing account of her exploitation by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She described being lured to New York under false pretenses and quickly forced into a world of manipulation and abuse. Ransome testified to being coerced into group sexual acts, including one incident involving a well-known attorney. She recounted life on Epstein’s private island and inside his New York mansion as being tightly controlled and openly sexual, where young women were “lent out” to powerful men and Maxwell ran the properties like a brothel. She spoke of being subjected to weight demands, emotionally broken down, and even attempting to escape by swimming away—only to be caught and returned.


Ransome also claimed Epstein kept extensive flight logs, took photos and videos of sexual encounters, and may have used them as leverage over high-profile associates. However, her credibility was later challenged after she sent emails alleging the existence of sex tapes involving major political and business figures—claims she later admitted were fabricated in a desperate attempt to draw attention to her situation. She expressed remorse for those statements and acknowledged that they were false. Still, her deposition remains one of the most revealing inside views of how Epstein’s trafficking operation functioned—highlighting both the calculated cruelty of the system and the lasting psychological toll it inflicted on its victims.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

DE 701-1 — Sarah Ransome depo - DocumentCloud

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

It seems as if every lawyer on planet earth has weighed in on Bryan Kohberger and depending on their background, their commentary has been all over the place. If you let the former FBI agents and prosecutors tell it, they would have you believe that this is going to be a slam dunk for the prosecution. However, on the flipside of that, we hear from defense lawyesr about how each one of these pieces of evidence can have holes punched in it. The question is...who is right?



Let's dive in and take a look!

(commercial at 10:08)

to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

Lara Yeretsian Tries to 'Poke Holes' in Bryan Kohberger Case (lawandcrime.com)

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Prince Andrew continues to be coddled and protected by his friends in the U.K. government, even after his settlement with Virginia. In fact, not only are they still protecting him, they have now ramped up that protection by announcing that they will keep his file secret for 65 years instead of the usual 20 year period.

Now anger is growing and people are asking a very simple question: Why is Andrew being protected?




(commercial at 8:15)

to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

Prince Andrew's Secret Government Files Spark Fury: 'No Justification' (newsweek.com)

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Leon Black has been engaged in a legal struggle with a woman who claims that he sexually abused her for years and then had her sign a NDA so that the abuse would never be made public. Part of the offensive that Leon Black has been on has been attempting to paint his accuser and his former partner of colluding to take him down. One court has already denied his attempt to seek redress using RICO statutes, now a second court has dismissed his attempt and this time, with prejudice.


(commercial at 8:27)

to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

Billionaire Leon Black’s Suit Over Rape Claim Gets Dismissed (thedailybeast.com)

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

For years, Prince Andrew, Duke of York received counsel that undervalued the seriousness of his association with Jeffrey Epstein and over-emphasized the potential PR fixes. After Epstein’s first conviction for soliciting prostitution of a minor, Andrew continued to appear in Epstein’s orbit, stay at his residences, and cultivate the friendship — all despite obvious red flags. Advisors seem to have encouraged him to believe that a frank, high-profile interview (notably with the BBC) could stem the reputational bleeding, rather than first expressing genuine empathy for victims or full clarity over the depth of the association. This advice centered on saying his side, explaining misunderstandings, and trying to "clear the air," but did not sufficiently prepare him for critical scrutiny, emotional testimony, and public disbelief.


When Andrew finally did submit to a televised interview, what unfolded was widely seen as catastrophic. The tone and substance of his responses came off as evasive, tone-deaf and lacking in remorse; rather than being a turning point, the interview intensified outrage and distrust. Some close to him admitted that the advisers had largely told him what he wanted to hear — that the interview would help, rather than warning how much worse things might get if not handled with full acknowledgment and contrition.


to contact me:

[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein’s 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.

Edwards further argues that the government’s resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government’s possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney’s Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.



to contact me:


[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein’s 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.

Edwards further argues that the government’s resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government’s possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney’s Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.



to contact me:


[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The U.S. Department of Justice has come under fire after releasing thousands of pages of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, only to include extensive redactions that critics say undermine the law’s intent. Lawmakers and advocates argue the heavily blacked-out material—some pages entirely obscured and many more with large sections removed—fails to meet the statutory requirement for transparency. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the redactions, saying they were legally necessary to protect victims’ identities and sensitive information, but opponents counter that the lack of clear explanations for the edits fuels suspicion and diminishes public trust in the process. The Hill noted that even innocuous or puzzling redactions (such as non-substantive content) have drawn ire and raised questions about whether the DOJ is fully complying with the law.

The controversy intensified as some documents initially published on the Justice Department’s website were removed without explanation just days after release, including files that appeared to contain a photograph featuring a former U.S. president alongside Epstein. Critics from both parties, including co-sponsors of the transparency legislation, accused the department of a “bare minimum” rollout that falls short of Congress’s mandate, and threatened further oversight or legal action to enforce compliance. DOJ officials maintain they are continuing to review and release additional materials on a rolling basis, but the dispute highlights ongoing tensions over how much of Epstein’s records should be public and how to balance survivor privacy with demands for accountability.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

16 Epstein files, including photo of Donald Trump, disappear from DOJ website: Report

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.