Andrew Is Summoned By The U.S. Congress To Answer Questions About Jeffrey Epstein (11/6/25)

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn’t justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta’s insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he’d been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:[email protected]:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Congress, specifically the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform led by Robert Garcia and signed by 13–16 Democratic members, has formally written to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (formerly known as Prince Andrew) requesting that he provide a transcribed interview about his “long-standing friendship” with Jeffrey Epstein and his possible knowledge of Epstein’s co-conspirators, enablers and criminal operations. The letter points to flight logs, financial records (including notations such as “massage for Andrew”), an email from 2011 in which Andrew allegedly wrote “we are in this together”, and the fact that he traveled with Epstein to several locations. The committee asks for Andrew’s response by 20 November 2025.However, the request is not a binding subpoena: because Andrew is a foreign national no longer holding British royal immunity, Congress cannot compel his testimony in the same way it can U.S. citizens. He therefore may choose to decline without facing the usual legal penalties for ignoring a congressional subpoena. Congress and the committee stress that his cooperation is sought in the interest of justice for Epstein’s victims and to shed light on potential further misconduct.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A royal expert has warned that the fallout surrounding Prince Andrew’s continued disgrace remains a major problem for King Charles III, raising questions about how the monarch intends to handle his brother’s tainted legacy. Despite being stripped of royal duties, Andrew’s association with Jeffrey Epstein continues to cast a long shadow over the family, undermining Charles’s attempts to modernize the monarchy and project moral authority. The expert suggests that as long as Andrew clings to any form of royal privilege, the institution risks appearing tone-deaf and unwilling to enforce real accountability.King Charles now faces a defining challenge in determining whether to draw a permanent line between the Crown and his scandal-plagued brother. If he fails to do so, the damage could extend beyond Andrew himself—eroding public trust in the monarchy’s integrity and its claim to moral leadership.to  contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Tartaglione says that Maurene Comey — the federal prosecutor handling his case (and previously working in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York) — pressured or promised Jeffrey Epstein some form of preferential treatment or freedom if Epstein would implicate Tartaglione or assist in his prosecution. In essence: Tartaglione is asserting that Comey extended an inducement to Epstein in order to flip him or extract testimony, which in his account entangles the prosecutor in ethically questionable dealings.He also claims that Comey was intimately involved in suppressing or mis-handling key evidence that could have shown Tartaglione acted in a manner different from the official story—particularly regarding surveillance footage at the jail where Epstein and Tartaglione were cell-mates. In this version, Comey is cast not simply as a neutral prosecutor but as an actor in a cover-up: by failing to preserve or produce surveillance video (for example, outside Epstein’s cell on July 23, 2019) and by branding Tartaglione culpable, the claim goes, Comey effectively helped seal a pre-determined narrative against him rather than conduct a fair investigation.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s unpublished memoir The Billionaire’s Playboy Club recounts her recruitment into Jeffrey Epstein’s world as a 16-year-old working at Mar-a-Lago, where she says Ghislaine Maxwell lured her in with promises of opportunity and travel. The manuscript describes how she became trapped in Epstein’s orbit, allegedly forced into sexual encounters with powerful men, including Prince Andrew, and ferried across his properties in New York, Florida, and the Virgin Islands. Giuffre paints a detailed picture of coercion, psychological manipulation, and the disturbing normalization of exploitation within Epstein’s high-society circle.In this episode, we begin our journey through that memoir.   to contact me:[email protected]:Virgina Giuffre Billionaire's Playboy Club | DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In June 2022, Prince Andrew was conspicuously absent from the public procession of the Order of the Garter Day ceremony at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, despite being a member of the order. It was revealed that this omission was due to a so-called “family decision” — reportedly influenced by Prince Charles and Prince William — aimed at avoiding potential public backlash given Andrew’s reputation at the time. His name still appeared in one version of the printed Order of Service but was omitted from the version distributed to the public.This exclusion drew criticism as a clear sign of his fall from favour within the royal family and the institution. While he did attend the private lunch and investiture portions of the ceremony, his absence from the public procession suggested a deliberate effort to sideline him in high-profile royal events, symbolising both the damage to his standing and the monarchy’s need to preserve its public image amidst territorial scandal.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Andrew’s deepening scandal over his association with Jeffrey Epstein and his disastrous 2019 television interview forced the Queen into a difficult position: she ultimately approved his withdrawal from public duties and the removal of his royal patronages and military roles. His misjudgments and the ensuing public outrage embarrassed the monarchy, prompting Elizabeth II to act in damage-control mode. Meanwhile Charles, as heir and steward of the future institution, found himself increasingly at odds with Andrew’s behaviour, which he saw as a threat to the Crown’s reputation. Experts say Charles is now “furious with his brother” and “can barely tolerate him” given the ongoing scandal.Over time, the differences between the Queen and Charles on how to handle Andrew became stark. While the Queen sought to preserve the family’s coherence and shield Andrew from public collapse, Charles leaned toward decisive action and distancing Andrew from the institution. This divergence in strategy revealed a deeper fracture: a crown under pressure trying to reconcile loyalty to a brother with the survival of the monarchy itself. In doing so, Andrew’s fall from grace didn’t just embarrass him—it triggered a broader royal family conflict.to  contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.