Tier One Predator: Epstein Admits What He Really Was During An Interview With Steve Bannon (2/2/26)

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors’ attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein’s residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre’s statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz’s lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre’s side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein’s trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:[email protected]:1257-12.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a recently disclosed video from the massive DOJ release under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is shown in a sit-down interview with former Trump strategist Steve Bannon, during which he directly labels himself a “Tier One” sexual predator. When pressed about what that means, Epstein bizarrely insists that “Tier One” is the lowest level of such categorization, effectively acknowledging his criminal status while trying to minimize how it’s perceived. The footage — recorded shortly before his July 2019 arrest — also includes Epstein defending the legality of his wealth and pointing to philanthropic donations (like polio vaccine funding) to argue against the idea that his money was “dirty money.”The interview reveals Epstein navigating ethical accusations with evasive and self-aware language, trying to reframe both his image and legacy even as the conversation turns to his notoriety. Challenged about whether he is akin to the “devil himself,” he refuses to accept that label outright, offering cryptic responses about mirrors and moral complexity. This peculiar self-classification — admitting he is a predator yet framing it as the lowest tier — adds another unsettling dimension to his portrayal of himself in the final years before his death, and underscores how he attempted to shape public perception even amid overwhelming evidence of his crimes.to contact me:[email protected]:Jeffrey Epstein calls himself 'Tier One' sex predator in newly released Steve Bannon interviewBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The latest release of more than 3 million Justice Department documents related to Jeffrey Epstein suggests that his sex-trafficking operation may have been broader than previously acknowledged, potentially involving third parties despite earlier official claims that there wasn’t enough evidence to investigate others. Among the newly disclosed materials are victim testimonies and FBI memos indicating that Epstein may have directed girls and young women to other powerful men, including allegations linked to figures such as movie producer Harvey Weinstein and financier Leon Black, although neither has been charged in connection with Epstein’s crimes. The files also contain internal government materials and references to explicit content, prompting renewed scrutiny of how law enforcement handled information about other individuals’ involvement and raising questions about prior assertions that no evidence existed to pursue such inquiries.Attorneys for Epstein’s survivors have criticized authorities for failing to fully investigate or disclose the involvement of third parties and for protecting powerful individuals while exposing victim details. The documents reinforce long-standing suspicions that Epstein and his close associate Ghislaine Maxwell used sex trafficking not only to exploit minors but also to foster influence over prominent figures. The release is part of an ongoing disclosure process under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but it has already reignited debate over accountability, transparency, and whether all relevant records — including potential evidence about other participants — have been adequately disclosed.to contact me:[email protected]:New Epstein files reveal he may have trafficked girls to others despite official denials | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. Department of Justice has released a massive trove of documents — more than three million pages of files, images and emails related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — under the federal Epstein Files Transparency Act. Among the newly available material are previously unseen images and correspondence involving high-profile figures, including former U.S. President Donald Trump (who is mentioned thousands of times in the documents and has claimed the release “absolves” him), and British figures such as Lord Peter Mandelson and Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. The files include emails suggesting Mandelson communicated with Epstein on policy matters, and appear to show images of Andrew in compromising situations; the revelations have intensified scrutiny of both men’s past associations with Epstein. The release has also brought up curious items like an alleged email from Sarah Ferguson congratulating Epstein on the birth of an alleged secret child.The fallout from the material has been swift and political: Lord Mandelson resigned from the UK Labour Party to avoid further embarrassment and may be summoned to testify before U.S. lawmakers about his ties to Epstein, with bank records reportedly showing significant payments linked to the financier. Meanwhile, Prince Andrew continues to deny wrongdoing even as visuals and exchanges from the files draw renewed attention to his relationship with Epstein. The release also includes millions of pages that critics say reveal disturbing content and raise questions about elite associations, though U.S. authorities maintain they have found no basis for new criminal charges based on the files alone.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking network and their lawyers have blasted the U.S. Department of Justice over its release of around 3 million documents related to the case, calling the handling shoddy and harmful. Attorneys like Sigrid McCawley and Jennifer Freeman described “ham-fisted redactions” that repeatedly revealed victims’ identities, re-traumatized survivors, and obscured the roles of alleged abusers and enablers. They argue that instead of transparency, the release exposed survivors while shielding powerful individuals mentioned in the files, contravening both the spirit of the Epstein Files Transparency Act and the congressional deadline to publish the records. Lawyers and survivor groups insisted that the document dump was more performative than accountable, and some bipartisan lawmakers demanded access to unredacted files to properly assess the Justice Department’s compliance.The survivors’ representatives also accused the government of one of the largest law enforcement failures in U.S. history, saying the release failed to protect those harmed while leaving alleged facilitators unnamed and unprosecuted. They pointed out that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s strategy of providing girls to elite figures for leverage over them was confirmed in the documents, reinforcing long-standing survivor claims. Bipartisan pressure is building in Congress to review unredacted files and ensure oversight, while DOJ officials have pledged to correct redaction mistakes and defend their process, insisting victims’ identifying information was intended to be withheld.to contact me:[email protected]:Handling of Epstein files is ‘outrageous’, say attorneys of his sex trafficking survivors | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The myth of the “perfect victim” is the poisonous illusion that a person must be flawless, pure, and morally spotless to deserve justice—and it’s the very lie that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to operate in plain sight. He built his empire on exploiting society’s prejudices, targeting poor and vulnerable girls precisely because he knew people would doubt them. When his crimes surfaced, the world didn’t ask how he got away with it; it asked what his victims had done wrong. That obsession with perfection became his greatest shield—turning every imperfection into a reason for disbelief, every scar into supposed evidence of guilt.This narrative isn’t just cruel—it’s complicit. It teaches the powerful that they can destroy lives as long as their victims don’t fit the fairy-tale mold of innocence. It conditions the public to defend predators and question survivors, ensuring the next Epstein will thrive in the same moral vacuum. The truth is, real victims are messy, human, and imperfect—and that humanity should never disqualify them from justice. The “perfect victim” never existed; she was invented by monsters who needed a way to keep their hands clean. The sooner we kill that myth, the sooner we end the culture that keeps making predators untouchable.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) was supposed to guarantee fairness and transparency for victims—making sure they were informed, included, and respected in the legal process. But when Jeffrey Epstein came along, that promise evaporated. Federal prosecutors secretly cut a Non-Prosecution Agreement that protected not only Epstein but also his “potential co-conspirators,” violating the very law designed to stop such backroom deals. The victims weren’t told; they found out months later from the press. The same Department of Justice that preaches accountability deliberately hid the deal, broke federal law, and then argued that the CVRA didn’t apply because no federal charges were filed—an argument so twisted it turned their own crime into a loophole.Instead of punishment, Epstein got 13 months in county jail with daily work release, while the prosecutors who betrayed the victims got promotions. The courts sided with the government, ruling that since the feds never formally charged Epstein, the survivors technically weren’t “victims” under the CVRA. The result was a legal farce that showed how easily the system bends for the powerful. The law that was supposed to protect victims ended up protecting predators, proving once again that in America, justice isn’t blind—it just looks away when the wrong people are involved.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Annemarie Ettekoven publicly described Jean-Luc Brunel as a predatory figure who operated with impunity inside Jeffrey Epstein’s orbit, portraying him as a man who openly trafficked in young girls and treated sexual exploitation as routine. She stated that Brunel moved comfortably among powerful people, leveraged his modeling connections to access vulnerable girls, and acted with a confidence that suggested he believed he was protected. Ettekoven emphasized that Brunel was not a peripheral player but an active participant in the same abuse ecosystem that sustained Epstein, and she made clear that his behavior was widely known within certain circles long before authorities intervened.Ettekoven also pointed to the importance of the evidence provided by Virginia Roberts Giuffre to French authorities, describing it as detailed, specific, and corroborative of long-standing allegations against Brunel. Giuffre’s testimony included accounts of being trafficked by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to Brunel in France, along with descriptions of locations, timelines, and conduct that French investigators treated as credible enough to form the backbone of their case. Ettekoven underscored that Giuffre’s cooperation was central to establishing jurisdiction and momentum in France, and that without her evidence, Brunel likely would have continued to evade serious legal scrutiny for years longer than he did.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Originally known as the Herbert N. Straus House, this imposing Upper East Side mansion was designed by architect Horace Trumbauer and completed in 1932. Although commissioned for Herbert Straus—the son of Macy’s co-owners—he never lived in it. In 1944, Straus’s heirs, facing prohibitive property costs, donated the unfinished building to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, which initially used it as a hospital. Later, from 1962 to 1989, the mansion served as the location for the Birch Wathen School, a private K–12 academy, before being sold to retailer Leslie Wexner (for $13.2 million), who renovated the opulent interior. Eventually, Jeffrey Epstein came to reside in the mansion from the mid-1990s until his death.Over the decades, the building transformed dramatically—from a rare, institutional-like school and hospital to one of Manhattan’s largest private residences (estimated at over 20,000 sq ft and spanning nine lavish floors). Under Epstein, it took on a darker reputation, becoming the site of serious criminal investigations into underage sex trafficking. After his death, the townhouse was sold in 2021 for around $51 million, though its legacy—rooted in education and later tainted by abuse—remains a deeply complex chapter in New York’s architectural and social history.To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.heraldsun.com/latest-news/article238269028.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former CEO of Barclays, saw roughly £22 million in bonuses and deferred compensation frozen in 2022 as regulators dug into his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The freeze included unvested share payouts and long-term incentive plans that Staley had been promised but had not yet received. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) launched their review after concerns emerged over how Staley characterized his personal relationship with Epstein, a man whose reputation was already well-tarnished by his 2008 sex-offense conviction. The decision marked a significant step for Barclays, signaling just how seriously the bank’s board and regulators were taking any whiff of reputational risk tied to Epstein.The matter didn’t end with the freeze. In 2023, the FCA moved to ban Staley from holding senior positions in the UK financial industry, citing his misleading accounts of the Epstein connection. Alongside the ban, regulators initially proposed a £1.8 million fine, which was later reduced to about £1.1 million. Staley ultimately forfeited around £18 million in bonuses and deferred pay. For a man who had once been a Wall Street heavyweight, it was a public and financial fall from grace that demonstrated the long shadow Epstein’s scandal continues to cast over those in his orbit.to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.wsj.com/articles/barclays-profit-falls-on-slowdown-in-investment-banking-11645603658Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.