Jeffrey Epstein And His Direct Line To Leon Black

Alan Dershowitz filed a lawsuit against Netflix in 2021 over its docuseries Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, alleging defamation and breach of contract. He claimed the series unfairly presented Virginia Giuffre’s allegations against him without including exculpatory evidence he provided, and argued that producers had promised to air his side of the story but failed to do so. Netflix denied the allegations and filed a countersuit, insisting the program was accurate and that Dershowitz’s claims were meritless.Separately, Dershowitz became embroiled in a bitter legal fight with prominent attorney David Boies, who sued him for defamation after Dershowitz accused Boies of unethical conduct and pressuring Giuffre into making false statements. Dershowitz countered with his own claims that Boies had orchestrated a campaign to smear him. Both disputes—Dershowitz versus Netflix and Dershowitz versus Boies—ultimately ended in late 2022 when all parties agreed to dismiss their lawsuits with prejudice. Giuffre herself issued a statement acknowledging she may have misidentified Dershowitz, closing out the high-profile litigation.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

During the interview, Kim Iversen pressed Dershowitz about his associations with Jeffrey Epstein and asked probing questions that he appeared taken off-guard by. One key moment came when Iversen asked whether Epstein “killed himself,” to which Dershowitz responded that Epstein did not die entirely of his own doing—suggesting involvement of others, particularly guards. Dershowitz seemed visibly frustrated with the line of inquiry, complaining about what he felt was being “sandbagged”—i.e. caught unawares on shifting topics. When Iversen tried to connect the conversation back to Donald Trump and broader current events, Dershowitz challenged the framing, appearing to assert that certain issues were being conflated unfairly.Dershowitz ultimately ended the exchange by telling Iversen it would be “the last time” he appeared on her show, indicating that he felt the interview had crossed implicit boundaries. The interaction made headlines largely because of that tension, the unexpected speculation about Epstein’s death, and Dershowitz’s claim that questions about unrelated topics had been sprung without warning.Also...Alan Dershowitz has publicly said that Prince Andrew made “a terrible mistake” by settling the lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre in 2022 rather than taking the case to trial. Dershowitz believes Andrew could have won in court, arguing there were legal grounds to challenge jurisdiction, statute of limitations, and credibility of Giuffre’s claims. He suggests Andrew’s legal team—and possibly Queen Elizabeth II—pressured him into settling to avoid the embarrassment of a public deposition and the full airing of allegations.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

During the run up to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial there were more than a handful of bail attempts and each of them was less successful than the next. In this look back episode, we hear from Maxwell's lawyers, and they provide us with 8 reasons why she should be sprung. to contact me:[email protected]:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ghislaine-maxwells-lawyers-came-up-with-8-reasons-alleged-jeffrey-epstein-accomplice-should-get-bail/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leon Black, billionaire co-founder of Apollo Global Management, maintained a direct and lucrative financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein long after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. Records show Black paid Epstein roughly $158 million between 2012 and 2017 for what he characterized as tax, estate, and philanthropic advisory work. Despite Epstein’s notoriety, Black said he relied on top law firms and accounting advisors to vet Epstein’s services, insisting the payments were tied to legitimate advice.Beyond financial dealings, Black’s inclusion in Epstein’s 2003 “birthday book” underscored a social tie as well. He submitted a poem that alluded to Epstein’s reputation for financial wizardry, suggesting familiarity beyond just business. Congressional investigators and Senate leaders have since questioned whether the scale of the payments was commensurate with the services Epstein claimed to provide, calling for deeper IRS scrutiny into whether Epstein was effectively a shadow fixer for Black’s wealth.to  contact  me:[email protected]:https://www.crainsnewyork.com/finance/epstein-had-door-apollo-his-deep-ties-blackBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Edward Bramson, through his investment fund Sherborne Investors, became a prominent activist shareholder in Barclays starting in 2018, with a stated goal of pushing the bank to scale back its investment banking arm and refocus on more stable retail operations and shareholder returns. Over time, Bramson intensified his criticism of Jes Staley, Barclays’ CEO, especially after reports surfaced in 2020 that U.K. regulators (the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority) were investigating whether Staley had been sufficiently transparent about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Bramson argued that the board's unanimous recommendation to re-elect Staley was “extremely ill-advised,” saying Staley’s ties to Epstein had introduced reputational risk and that the board should reconsider whether he was “suitable” to lead Barclays.Despite Bramson’s campaign, his efforts were unsuccessful. Barclays’ strategy around its investment banking division showed better performance, especially during market volatility, which helped Staley defend his leadership. In 2021, Bramson sold his entire ~6% stake in Barclays, effectively ending the activist challenge. Staley remained CEO until regulators released findings from their probe into how he had characterized his Epstein ties, at which point he stepped down.to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.ft.com/content/febd924d-fccf-4525-bc6a-c65460d394c3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein cultivated a long relationship with Harvard University by donating nearly $9 million between 1998 and 2007, including $6.5 million to establish the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. Despite lacking the qualifications typical of the role, he was even made a visiting fellow in the psychology department in 2005. His gifts and connections bought him influence and proximity to prominent faculty, while also boosting Harvard’s fundraising ties to other wealthy donors he introduced.Even after his 2008 conviction, Epstein continued to access Harvard’s campus, particularly the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, where he visited dozens of times and had his own office space. Harvard later acknowledged that its oversight and policies were too weak to prevent his continued presence and influence. The university eventually stopped accepting his money but only after years of enjoying the benefits of his donations and connections.to contact me:[email protected]:Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bill Barr’s deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein’s death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr’s narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.Just as troubling was Barr’s evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump’s knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein’s death but couldn’t recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr’s testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.to contact me:[email protected]:Barr-Transcript.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Washington has long perfected the art of political theater, where outrage is loudly paraded before cameras only to evaporate when accountability is required. On the campaign trail, fiery speeches about corruption and justice come easy—rhetoric designed for applause, not action. Yet when those same figures sit under oath, the fire dies out, replaced by carefully hedged statements and dismissive legal jargon. It’s not about uncovering truth; it’s about protecting power.That’s the script Kash Patel followed to the letter. After crowing about Epstein’s crimes for political gain, he turned around and downplayed survivor testimony as “not credible” when speaking before the Senate. The hypocrisy couldn’t be clearer. What once served as an applause line became an inconvenient truth, quickly discarded in favor of denial. The mask slipped, the act collapsed, and what was revealed was not a defender of justice but yet another operator shielding the powerful under the guise of credibility.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing in September 2025, Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) moved to subpoena the CEOs of four major banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, and Deutsche Bank—for “suspicious activity reports” these banks allegedly filed related to Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. The motion claimed that roughly $1.5 billion in transactions tied to Epstein had been flagged as suspicious.However, in a narrow vote (20-19), Republicans on the committee led by Chairman Jim Jordan moved to table the motion—effectively killing it—so the subpoena did not proceed. Only Rep. Thomas Massie broke ranks with his party to support the subpoena. The blocking of the subpoena came amid broader efforts by Democrats to force more disclosure about Epstein’s financial transactions through banks, as well as the handling of Epstein files by law enforcement.to contact me:[email protected]:GOP shuts down House Democrats' move to subpoena Jeffrey Epstein banksBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Former Attorney General William Barr resurfaced in the Epstein debate this week, testifying before Congress that Jeffrey Epstein’s 2019 death was “undoubtedly suicide.” Barr acknowledged severe lapses in prison security, including broken cameras and inattentive guards, but maintained that these amounted to negligence, not conspiracy. His certainty, however, reignited public skepticism, as many critics argue the unanswered questions surrounding Epstein’s death make any definitive conclusion premature.Meanwhile, FBI Director Kash Patel faced heated questioning in a separate congressional hearing about the bureau’s handling of Epstein’s files. Patel insisted the FBI has complied with all legal obligations but admitted he had not personally reviewed the materials, a revelation that angered lawmakers and survivor advocates. Democrats accused him of stonewalling to shield powerful figures, while Republicans defended his position that releasing certain documents could compromise ongoing cases.Adding further intrigue, Patel confirmed the FBI is open to investigating whether a disputed 2003 signature in Epstein’s “birthday book” belongs to Donald Trump. Trump has denied its authenticity, calling it a forgery, but Democrats quickly demanded an independent forensic review. With Barr closing the door on further questions about Epstein’s death, Patel hedging on transparency, and the Trump signature stirring new controversy, the scandal remains unresolved—continuing to haunt America’s political, legal, and social institutions six years after Epstein’s death.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.