When “Not a Crime” Becomes the Defense: Todd Blanche on Partying With Jeffrey Epstein (2/4/26)

Todd Blanche said publicly that “it is not a crime to party with Jeffrey Epstein,” framing his remarks around a narrow legal distinction rather than a moral one. In interviews discussing the release of Epstein-related documents, Blanche argued that merely attending parties, socializing, or exchanging emails with Epstein does not automatically constitute criminal behavior under the law. His position was that inclusion in documents or social proximity alone is insufficient for prosecution unless there is concrete evidence of criminal conduct.However, Blanche’s comments were widely criticized for what they emphasized and what they omitted. While his statement is legally accurate in the strictest sense, critics argue it minimizes the significance of repeated social association with a known sexual predator and ignores the broader context in which Epstein’s social world operated. Blanche did acknowledge that individuals who actively participated in or facilitated crimes would be prosecutable if evidence supports it, but by focusing almost exclusively on legality, his remarks were seen as reinforcing a pattern of elite deflection—reducing meaningful associations to harmless social contact and sidestepping deeper questions of knowledge, complicity, and accountability.to contact me:[email protected]:Analysis: New files deepen a critical mystery about those who partied with Jeffrey Epstein | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Justice Department’s latest release of Epstein-related files has only reinforced suspicions that transparency is being managed, not delivered. While the DOJ claims it complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act by publishing more than three million pages, victims’ advocates and attorneys argue this disclosure is incomplete by design. The government previously acknowledged that roughly six million pages of material were potentially responsive, yet has offered no credible, document-by-document accounting for why nearly half never saw the light of day. Instead, the DOJ has leaned on vague explanations about “duplicates” and “non-responsive” material—language that critics say has long been used to quietly bury politically inconvenient or institutionally embarrassing records, particularly when powerful interests are implicated.What has angered advocates most is not just the volume gap, but the pattern: delayed deadlines, sweeping redactions, missing correspondence, and an apparent reluctance to expose how Epstein’s protection actually functioned inside federal systems. Survivors and their lawyers argue that the DOJ continues to frame secrecy as victim protection while simultaneously shielding officials, prosecutors, and well-connected associates who failed—repeatedly—to intervene. Lawmakers pushing for further disclosure have accused the department of treating transparency as a public-relations exercise rather than a legal and moral obligation. Taken together, the delays, omissions, and shifting explanations have fueled the perception that the DOJ is still policing the narrative of the Epstein scandal, not reckoning with its own role in enabling it.to contact me:[email protected]:New Epstein files fail to quell outrage as advocates claim documents are being withheld | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

I spent years digging into the Jeffrey Epstein situation when almost nobody wanted to touch it. During that time, speaking publicly about what was really happening came with actual consequences—jobs vanished, relationships fell apart, and people distanced themselves fast. I dealt with intimidation attempts, anonymous calls, and pressure meant to get me to stop. Instead of backing off, I drove to Zorro Ranch to make it clear that fear wasn’t going to dictate anything I did. I grew up around real danger, and those tactics didn’t land the way they expected. What mattered then, and still matters now, is staying focused on the truth and pushing for accountability when powerful people would prefer silence.The landscape now is filled with new voices talking like authorities, even though most weren’t around when this subject was treated like insanity instead of fact. Watching that happen is frustrating, not because of competition, but because accuracy gets lost when people chase attention instead of understanding the depth of what’s involved. My work isn’t about popularity or validation. It’s about consistency, honesty, and refusing to drop something just because it’s difficult or uncomfortable. I’m still here, still digging, and still committed, because the people who were harmed deserve more than another wave of performative outrage. The job isn’t done, and I’m not stepping back.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

President Donald Trump abruptly reversed his longstanding opposition to public disclosure of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s network, telling House Republicans to back a measure requiring the Department of Justice to release Epstein-related files. He previously labelled the disclosure effort a “hoax” and actively resisted it, but as bipartisan and intraparty pressure mounted—including from conservative lawmakers—the tide shifted and he pledged to sign the bill if passed.The legislation mandates the DOJ to publish all unclassified records tied to Epstein’s investigations within 30 days, with limited allowances for redactions only to protect victims or continuing probes; it explicitly bars withholding records on the basis of embarrassment or political sensitivity. The move comes amid growing scrutiny of Epstein’s ties to powerful figures and renewed demands for accountability, even as questions linger about Trump’s motivations for this pivot and whether it signals a genuine commitment to transparency or a tactical retreat under mounting pressure.to contact me:[email protected]:How Trump reversed course on the Epstein files as his administration faces lingering suspicion about their release | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In her deposition on March 15, 2010, Ross was questioned extensively about her relationship with Epstein and individuals in his orbit, including the role of recruiting young women for massages and possible sexual contact. She was asked whether she ever used the term “massage” as a euphemism, whether she personally arranged for young women (including minors) to meet Epstein, and whether she benefited financially or materially from such arrangements. Ross repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked substantive questions about her own conduct in connection with Epstein’s sexual-abuse network, declining to answer many questions about the details of her involvement.Ross was also asked about her knowledge of Epstein’s associates and activities, including whether she was aware of certain flights, properties, and contacts used by Epstein’s organization for transporting, lodging or grooming associates. The deposition records show that many of these questions were met with silence or non-responses, as Ross declined to answer on advice of counsel or invoked the Fifth. The lack of direct testimony from Ross thus left significant gaps in the civil case’s ability to pin down the full details of her role.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew’s decision to host a party for Ghislaine Maxwell at Sandringham—where sex drugs like poppers were reportedly found—reads less like royal history and more like a bad dark comedy. The idea of a Queen’s residence being turned into something resembling a low-rent Sopranos episode is almost surreal. The whole scene feels like parody: the Duke of York, standing beneath portraits of British monarchs, presiding over a soirée that sounds like Downton Abbey crashing headfirst into Trainspotting. It’s especially grotesque given Epstein’s reputation for avoiding drugs himself—he didn’t need them, he used them on others. The thought of those same tools of control and exploitation making their way into a royal estate is equal parts absurd and revolting.What makes it worse is the total lack of accountability. The Palace still tries to frame these scandals as “private matters,” as though international sex trafficking and narcotics at royal residences can be brushed under the Windsor rug. Every new revelation cements Andrew as a man incapable of understanding—or even pretending to care about—the damage he’s done to the Crown’s image. Once considered a symbol of British decorum, Sandringham now sits as a monument to how far the monarchy has fallen, its history tainted by the stench of scandal and the arrogance of a prince who believed himself untouchable. In the end, Prince Andrew didn’t just disgrace himself—he made royal scandal feel like a recurring sketch in a show that refuses to end.to contact me:source:Sex drugs 'found at party' disgraced Andrew hosted for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in Sandringham, new Royal book claims | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Federal regulators say the financial sector — particularly big banks — failed to act on obvious red flags in the case of Jeffrey Epstein’s financial network, and now they’re pointing fingers at each other. Agencies like the U.S. Treasury Department and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency assert that banks should have detected and reported Epstein’s suspicious transactions years ago and triggered law-enforcement action. Meanwhile, some banks claim they did file reports or raise internal alarms but regulators ignored or delayed follow-up investigations, essentially accusing federal agencies of failing to enforce or respond to the alerts.On the flip side, financial institutions argue they were operating under murky guidance and rely on regulators to interpret complex anti-money-laundering laws — now they say the feds didn’t act promptly or clearly once files were submitted. This blame-game has escalated as lawsuits proliferate: banks claim regulators pushed responsibility back onto them, while regulators argue that banks willfully overlooked their compliance duties and expect bail-outs or leniency rather than accountability. The result is a stalemate where neither side wants to claim full fault, and victims of Epstein’s crimes are still waiting for clarity and justice.to contact me:[email protected]:JPMorgan Flagged Epstein Suspicions in 2002, Years Earlier Than KnownBecome 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.

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.

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.