The House Oversight Committee Questions Hillary Clinton on Epstein (2/27/26)

The Institutional Investor piece recounts how JPMorgan Chase faced intense scrutiny over its long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who was awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges when he died in 2019. Citing a New York Times investigation, the article explains that JPMorgan’s compliance staff had recommended ending Epstein’s accounts after his 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor, but senior management resisted and kept him as a profitable private-banking client until 2013. Internal debate over whether to cut ties was reportedly heated, with at least one compliance officer quitting and top executives ultimately overruling warnings about legal and reputational risk.The article also highlights how Epstein leveraged relationships inside the firm — particularly with executives like Jes Staley, who helped bring Epstein connections and business — to maintain his access despite red flags. It notes that Epstein’s network helped JPMorgan win wealthy clients and deals, which complicated internal efforts to drop him. JPMorgan publicly pushed back against the Times report, with spokespeople denying senior leaders overruled compliance to retain Epstein. The bank eventually ended the relationship amid heightened regulatory scrutiny and changes in leadership, but the episode raised questions about how Wall Street institutions balance risk, reputation, and money.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Senior executives at JPMorgan Chase continued to meet with Jeffrey Epstein years after the bank said it had cut him off as a client in 2013, according to reporting based on internal documents and people familiar with the matter. Bankers, including one named Justin Nelson, held about half a dozen meetings with Epstein at his Manhattan townhouse between 2014 and 2017, even though JPMorgan had formally ended its banking relationship with him. Some of those meetings involved discussions about other clients or introductions Epstein could make, rather than direct financial dealings, but they demonstrate that contact between the disgraced financier and bank personnel continued long after the official split.The disclosures have fueled broader questions about how deeply Epstein’s network remained embedded with Wall Street institutions and whether JPMorgan’s review and severing of ties in 2013 reflected the full scope of its engagement. While the bank maintains it ended the relationship and has denied prior wrongdoing, the continued interactions with Epstein and other executives’ past contacts with him have become part of ongoing litigation and scrutiny over whether the bank appropriately handled red flags associated with Epstein’s conduct.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. has asked the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by Alvin Bragg, to turn over certain records and documents as part of the federal lawsuits the bank is facing over its business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The requests came amid litigation by Epstein accusers and the U.S. Virgin Islands that alleges JPMorgan enabled Epstein’s sex-trafficking network by maintaining him as a client for years, including after his 2008 conviction. JPMorgan is seeking statements and other materials from Bragg’s office that could relate to claims by a woman suing the bank — identified in court filings as “Jane Doe” — about what the bank knew regarding Epstein and his activities, and whether senior executives, such as former JPMorgan banker Jes Staley, had first-hand knowledge of his operations.A federal judge ordered the Manhattan DA’s office to provide a privilege log describing the documents JPMorgan wants and later ruled that certain statements made by a plaintiff to one of the DA’s prosecutors must be turned over to the bank. The judge’s rulings underscore how the evidence held by prosecutors in New York — including victim statements — may play a role in the civil cases against JPMorgan by shedding light on what the bank and its former executives may have known about Epstein’s criminal conduct during their interactions with him.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Michael Thomas was a veteran correctional officer employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan — a federal detention facility — where Jeffrey Epstein was being held in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Thomas had been with the Bureau of Prisons since about 2007 and, on the night of Epstein’s death (August 9–10, 2019), was assigned to an overnight shift alongside another officer, Tova Noel, responsible for conducting required 30-minute inmate checks and institutional counts in the SHU. Because Epstein’s cellmate had been moved and not replaced, Epstein was alone in his cell, making regular monitoring all the more crucial under bureau policy.Thomas became a focal figure in the official investigations into Epstein’s death because surveillance footage and institutional records showed that neither he nor Noel conducted the required rounds or counts through the night before Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell early on August 10. Prosecutors subsequently charged both officers with conspiracy and falsifying records for signing count slips that falsely indicated they had completed rounds they had not performed. Thomas and Noel later entered deferred prosecution agreements in which they admitted falsifying records and avoided prison time, instead receiving supervisory release and community service. Investigators concluded that chronic staffing shortages and procedural failures at the jail contributed to the circumstances that allowed Epstein to remain unmonitored for hours before his death, which was officially ruled a suicide by hanging.to contact me:[email protected]:EFTA00113577.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared for a closed-door deposition before the House Oversight Committee as part of its ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his network of associates. Lawmakers questioned her about what she knew regarding Epstein’s activities, his connections to prominent political and philanthropic circles, and whether she had any direct knowledge of his conduct or access to his properties. Clinton stated under oath that she never met Epstein in person, never visited his residences, and had no involvement in or awareness of his criminal behavior during the period in question. The deposition focused in part on her husband’s documented interactions with Epstein, including travel and social contact, and whether she had been aware of those connections at the time.The session took place amid heightened political scrutiny following the release of Epstein-related documents under federal transparency measures. Committee members sought to clarify the extent of the Clintons’ association with Epstein and to address public concerns about accountability and oversight involving powerful figures. Clinton denied wrongdoing and characterized the inquiry as politically motivated, while lawmakers indicated the transcript and video of the deposition would be released publicly. The testimony marked a rare instance of a former secretary of state providing sworn congressional testimony tied to a high-profile criminal investigation with continuing political and legal ramifications.to contact me:[email protected]:Hillary Clinton testifies in House Epstein investigation | AP NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Recently released federal documents revealed that Jeffrey Epstein had been the subject of a previously undisclosed Drug Enforcement Administration investigation beginning in 2010 that examined potential drug trafficking and prostitution-related financial activity tied to the U.S. Virgin Islands and New York. The 69-page memo, heavily redacted and marked “law enforcement sensitive,” identified Epstein and more than a dozen others as targets within an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces probe that reportedly remained active for years. Despite the scope suggested by the document, no drug trafficking charges were ever brought, prompting Sen. Ron Wyden to demand fuller disclosure and an explanation of why the investigation did not result in prosecutions.Separately, documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act included a photograph of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick standing with Epstein on Little St. James, Epstein’s private Caribbean island. The image was initially made public within the Justice Department’s online archive before being temporarily removed and later restored, raising questions about how Epstein-related records are curated and reviewed. The brief removal triggered bipartisan calls for clarification, with critics questioning the explanation that the image had been flagged under standard review procedures. Together, the disclosures added to broader concerns about transparency, oversight, and the handling of evidence connected to Epstein’s network and associations.to contact me:[email protected]:Senator calls for DEA to provide info on "incredibly disturbing" Epstein drug investigation - CBS NewsPhoto of Lutnick on Epstein's island removed from Justice Department files now restored - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Former President Bill Clinton is set to appear today before the Republican-led U.S. House Oversight Committee for a closed-door deposition tied to the ongoing congressional probe into Jeffrey Epstein and his network of powerful associates. The deposition follows six hours of testimony yesterday from his wife, Hillary Clinton, who repeatedly denied personal knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and stated she never met him or visited his properties — remarks that have fueled political debate. Clinton’s testimony today in Chappaqua, New York, will focus on his past connections with Epstein, which included known social interactions and documented flights aboard Epstein’s private jet, even as both Clintons have denied any involvement in his criminal conduct.The session marks an unusual moment in congressional oversight: it is one of the rare instances a former U.S. president has been compelled to testify under oath before lawmakers. Committee Republicans, led by Chair Rep. James Comer, argue Clinton’s deposition will shed light on Epstein’s network, how he avoided accountability for years, and whether powerful figures benefited from or obscured his conduct. Clinton has denied wrongdoing related to Epstein and maintains that his interactions were social or philanthropic, not criminal, and that he ceased contact long before the breadth of Epstein’s abuse became widely known. Both sides expect the full transcript and video of the deposition to be released later, making today’s testimony a significant moment in the broader debate over transparency, influence, and accountability in the Epstein cases.to contact me:[email protected]:Bill Clinton to face lawmakers in Epstein probe for rare testimony by a former presidentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Framing the current push for accountability in the Jeffrey Epstein case as a modern “satanic panic” mischaracterizes both the evidence and the nature of the underlying crimes. The satanic panic of the 1980s was marked by unfounded ritual-abuse allegations, moral hysteria, and prosecutions built on unreliable testimony. By contrast, the Epstein case involved documented victim statements, financial records, flight logs, plea agreements, federal indictments, and a criminal conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell for sex trafficking minors. Jeffrey Epstein himself pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting a minor and later faced federal sex-trafficking charges in 2019 before his death. The accountability effort today centers on transparency around prosecutorial decisions, institutional failures, and the scope of his network — not occult conspiracy theories or fabricated ritual claims.Equating calls for full disclosure and institutional scrutiny with moral hysteria also misses what made Epstein distinct: he operated within elite financial, political, and academic circles while exploiting minors, and he secured unusually favorable treatment in earlier legal proceedings. The central questions are about how that system functioned, who enabled it, and whether oversight mechanisms failed — not about imagined secret cults. Reducing legitimate demands for records, grand jury materials, and accountability to “panic” rhetoric shifts focus away from documented abuse and systemic breakdowns. At its core, the debate is about rule of law, transparency, and whether powerful networks are held to the same standards as everyone else.to contact me:[email protected]:The Epstein files and the new Satanic PanicBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leaked correspondence between Jes Staley—former CEO of Barclays and long-time JPMorgan executive—and Jeffrey Epstein laid bare more than just casual business exchanges; they revealed a troubling bond rooted in intimacy, trust, and privilege. In one exchange, Staley mused, “That was fun. Say hi to Snow White,” to which Epstein replied, “What character would you like next?” Staley coyly responded, “Beauty and the Beast,” turning their relationship into a grotesque pantomime. More damningly, Staley described Epstein as “family” and spoke of a “profound” connection, while photos of young women were also swapped—all under the guise of everyday correspondence. Far from distancing himself, Staley sustained contact well past Epstein’s 2008 conviction, even joining him on his private island in 2009—behavior that defied any claim of a “purely professional” relationship.The fallout was swift—and deserved. The UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) concluded that Staley “recklessly misled” both Barclays and regulators by downplaying the closeness of his ties with Epstein. A £1.8 million fine (later reduced to £1.1 million) and a lifetime ban from senior financial roles followed. The Upper Tribunal upheld the sanctions, emphasizing that Staley knowingly took a calculated risk, hoping the truth would stay buried. But the emails, held up like digital incriminators, ensured his downfall. His denials, evasive demeanor in court, and attempt to frame the relationship as innocuous only magnified the breach of trust. In financial leadership, reputation is everything—and Staley burned his.to contact me:[email protected]:Epstein-Staley Emails Reveal Friendship Forged at JPMorgan (yahoo.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. Department of Justice previously sought court approval to unseal grand jury materials related to the federal investigations of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing that the extraordinary public interest in the case justified breaching the normally strict secrecy that surrounds grand jury proceedings. The request came amid mounting political pressure and widespread public distrust over how Epstein was handled by federal authorities, particularly given his 2008 plea deal and the perception that powerful figures had escaped scrutiny. The DOJ contended that limited disclosure of transcripts and exhibits could provide clarity about what evidence prosecutors had, which witnesses testified, and how charging decisions were made.The court ultimately granted partial access to certain materials while maintaining protections over sensitive information, including witness identities and ongoing investigative matters. The release did not amount to a wholesale unsealing of all grand jury records, but it marked a rare departure from the traditional wall of secrecy governing such proceedings. The move was framed as an effort to balance transparency with legal safeguards, though it also underscored how exceptional the Epstein-Maxwell cases had become — prompting federal prosecutors themselves to seek disclosure in a case involving high-profile defendants, intense public scrutiny, and lasting questions about accountability.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.