The Epstein Rewind: Ghislaine Maxwell And The Watch

Jeffrey Epstein moved amongst the halls of power with some of the most powerful people in the world. From top financiers to politicians to top officials in the intelligence community, Jeffrey Epstein considered them all friends and in this episode we take a look at his private calendar. One of the most interesting names on that calendar? William Burns. The man that Joe Biden chose to run the CIA.Let's dive in!(commercial at 9:11)to contact me:[email protected]:Epstein's Private Calendar Reveals Prominent Names, Including CIA Chief, Goldman's Top Lawyer (msn.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In todays episode we take a trip back to 2019 and an article that questions the narrative around Epstein's death. With hindsight as our guide and a couple of years in the books...we still are waiting on the official report. To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/26/barr-n26.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell has been moved to suicide watch ahead of her upcoming sentencing hearing on Tuesday. According to her lawyers, she was moved there without a psychological evaluation and because of this move and Ghislaine Maxwell not having 'adequate time to prepare' her team might ask the judge for an adjournment.(commercial at 7:45)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/25/us/ghislaine-maxwell-on-suicide-watch/index.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:[email protected]:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:[email protected]:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The growing outrage over the delayed release of the Epstein files has reached a boiling point, with critics accusing authorities of deliberately stalling transparency in one of the most high-profile sex trafficking cases in modern history. The public was promised the full unsealing of documents that would expose key associates, enablers, and potentially high-profile figures tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal enterprise, yet months have passed with no significant updates. Many see this as another example of a two-tiered justice system, where the wealthy and powerful are shielded from scrutiny while the public is left in the dark. The delay has only fueled suspicions that critical information is being withheld to protect influential individuals, further eroding trust in institutions tasked with upholding the law.ocial media platforms, independent journalists, and advocacy groups have amplified calls for accountability, demanding to know why the files remain sealed despite previous commitments to release them. Hashtags like #EpsteinFiles and #ReleaseTheList continue to trend, with mounting frustration directed at both the justice system and mainstream media for their perceived lack of urgency in pursuing the full truth. The secrecy surrounding these documents only deepens concerns that the legal system is working to bury damning evidence rather than expose those complicit in Epstein’s trafficking network. Without full disclosure, many fear justice will remain elusive, and the powerful figures linked to Epstein will continue to evade consequences.to contact me:[email protected]:GOPers press for release of JFK, Epstein files: Here’s why they’re not out yet | Fox NewsFor those of you who would like to support my work you can do so here:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support

In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense has filed a memorandum supporting a motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants executed at Combs' residences in Los Angeles and Miami. The defense contends that federal authorities included false statements and omitted critical exculpatory information in their affidavits to secure these warrants, particularly regarding the voluntary nature of an alleged victim's participation in events described by the prosecution. Additionally, the defense argues that the warrants were overly broad, leading to the seizure of extensive personal data and records beyond the scope of the investigation. In the alternative, the defense requests a Franks hearing to examine the veracity of the affidavits supporting the search warrants.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.160.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense has filed a memorandum supporting a motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants executed at Combs' residences in Los Angeles and Miami. The defense contends that federal authorities included false statements and omitted critical exculpatory information in their affidavits to secure these warrants, particularly regarding the voluntary nature of an alleged victim's participation in events described by the prosecution. Additionally, the defense argues that the warrants were overly broad, leading to the seizure of extensive personal data and records beyond the scope of the investigation. In the alternative, the defense requests a Franks hearing to examine the veracity of the affidavits supporting the search warrants.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.160.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense has filed a memorandum supporting a motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants executed at Combs' residences in Los Angeles and Miami. The defense contends that federal authorities included false statements and omitted critical exculpatory information in their affidavits to secure these warrants, particularly regarding the voluntary nature of an alleged victim's participation in events described by the prosecution. Additionally, the defense argues that the warrants were overly broad, leading to the seizure of extensive personal data and records beyond the scope of the investigation. In the alternative, the defense requests a Franks hearing to examine the veracity of the affidavits supporting the search warrants.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.160.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

For years, the legacy media played a pivotal role in shielding powerful individuals connected to Jeffrey Epstein, failing to report the full extent of his crimes and the influential network that enabled him. Major outlets initially treated the case as a lurid scandal rather than an expansive criminal conspiracy, downplaying the involvement of high-profile figures and failing to press for deeper investigations. ABC News famously buried an exposé by journalist Amy Robach in 2016, citing internal concerns over access to the British royal family, despite her claim that the report was fully substantiated. Similarly, other mainstream publications hesitated to investigate Epstein’s elite connections, opting instead for sanitized coverage that focused more on his wealth and mysterious persona than on the systematic abuse he facilitated. By failing to follow the money, the flight logs, and the deeply entrenched ties Epstein had with Wall Street titans, politicians, and global elites, the media effectively acted as a gatekeeper, limiting public scrutiny of his operations.Even after Epstein’s highly suspicious jailhouse death in 2019, much of the media remained complicit in protecting reputations rather than pursuing accountability. Coverage often steered attention away from the broader question of who participated in his crimes, treating the client list as speculative rather than investigative gold. The reluctance to aggressively report on the release of documents tied to Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial or to demand transparency in ongoing legal proceedings reflects this institutional failure. Instead of leading the charge, major networks and newspapers allowed independent journalists and alternative media to drive the real reporting, forcing their hand only when public outcry became too loud to ignore. The legacy media’s failure wasn’t just a lack of coverage—it was an intentional decision to protect the very structures that allowed Epstein’s operation to flourish for decades.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.