The Epstein Rewind: That Time Lesley Groff Complained She Was Being "Besmirched" By The Media

We go back to the vault for tonight's episode and take a look at who was visiting Epstein while he was incarcerated.The list includes Alan Dershowitz , Paul Prosperi, Sarah Kellen Vickers and Nadia Marcinkova. The last two visited him over 70 times combined.Paul Prosperi, a longtime friend of Bill Clinton's visited the convicted sex offender 20 times.The question is....why?(Commercial at 13:42)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/12/jeffrey-epstein-met-in-jail-with-alan-dershowitz-bill-clinton-pal.html

In this look back episode...Jeffrey Epstein had a couple of methods that helped keep those around him quiet and loyal. One of those methods were huge cash injections.In a report that came out in July it was revealed that Epstein had doled out 350k to two people who the authorities referred to as co-conspirators. These were one-time payments according to court records and the prosecution says they were hush payments.The real question however is WHO were the people on the other end of those cash transfers?(Commercial at 12:26)To contact me:[email protected]:https://nypost.com/2019/07/12/jeffrey-epstein-spent-350k-to-influence-potential-witnesses-feds/

In one of the more shocking twists as of late in this seemingly never-ending roller-coaster ride called the Epstein investigation, it was revealed today that two survivors of Epstein, Courtney Wild and Haley Robson are suing Julie K. Brown for defamation. Let's dive in and see what the Daily Beast has to say.(Commercial at 13:26)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.thedailybeast.com/miami-herald-journalist-julie-brown-sued-by-epstein-victims?ref=scroll

Lesley Groff is crying foul. In a new report we have learned that one of Epstein's key employees has filed a motion to get her name removed from a lawsuit brought by Jennifer Aroaz. Groffs legal team contends her work for Epstein was never anything more than professional and above board but the testimony of the survivors puts her directly in the middle of the Epstein criminal organization. To contact me:[email protected] Source:https://www.ncadvertiser.com/news/article/Assistant-to-Jeffrey-Epstein-says-she-was-falsely-15327361.php

Jeffrey Epstein’s operation bore all the hallmarks of a high-level honeypot scheme, suggesting far more than the lone actions of a wealthy manipulator. According to Agent X, a former intelligence operative, he suspects  that Epstein systematically lured influential figures—politicians, CEOs, even royalty—into compromising situations that were allegedly recorded and used for blackmail or leverage. The presence of underage girls on his properties magnified the severity of potential incriminations, giving Epstein a powerful hold over his high-profile guests. Moreover, the unusually lenient legal treatment he received—particularly a Florida plea deal granting him near-total immunity—raises strong suspicions of government or intelligence involvement, possibly in exchange for Epstein providing valuable information on bigger, more strategically significant targets.Agent X also underscored the possibility that Epstein may have been “flipped” as an FBI informant, feeding them tapes or intel about the elite figures he ensnared. This scenario would explain his near-magical ability to dodge serious consequences for so long, while potentially enabling federal agencies to gather extraordinary leverage over top-level individuals. If true, Epstein’s operation would not be a mere personal blackmail ring, but a sprawling intelligence asset cultivating a vast reservoir of Kompromat for hidden patrons. In this view, the case exemplifies how institutional corruption and clandestine arrangements can permit profound abuse under the guise of exclusive wealth, while showcasing why transparency and accountability remain vital to prevent further exploitation.to contact me:[email protected]

A honeypot scheme is an operation that uses seduction—frequently sexual but sometimes purely emotional or financial—to ensnare a chosen target. The orchestrators deliberately manufacture a situation in which the target feels safe or enticed enough to engage in compromising acts, typically in an environment rigged with hidden cameras or recording devices. These encounters can be brief, like a one-night “chance” liaison, or stretch on for weeks or months if the target requires more time to drop their guard. Once the incriminating footage or communication is captured, the controlling party can hold onto it, deploying it later as powerful blackmail material. While this tactic has historically been associated with spy agencies, its usage spans corporate espionage and personal vendettas as well.Kompromat—short for “compromising material”—expands the scope of such entrapment by encompassing a strategic hoarding of information that can be unleashed at a moment of maximum impact. It might involve evidence of sexual transgressions, financial crimes, or political wrongdoing—basically anything that could devastate a person’s reputation, career, or freedom if exposed. Crucially, Kompromat isn’t simply “pay me now or I’ll ruin you” blackmail. Often, it’s collected surreptitiously and kept hidden for future leverage, only revealed when it can achieve the greatest influence over a target’s choices. When combined, a honeypot scheme serves as the entry point for capturing that damning material, and Kompromat is the mechanism through which that material is quietly accumulated and subsequently wielded.In this episode,  we dive into the transcripts of a conversation with someone that we will call Agent X.   to contact me:[email protected]

The first phase of the long-awaited Jeffrey Epstein documents was released on February 27, 2025, by the U.S. Department of Justice, but instead of delivering long-promised transparency, the release was yet another exercise in obfuscation. The documents—comprised of heavily redacted flight logs, a sanitized address book, a so-called "masseuse list," and an evidence index—failed to provide any substantive new information. What was supposed to be an earth-shattering disclosure ended up being a repackaging of details already available to the public, with key names and connections concealed under thick black ink. Despite widespread calls for full transparency, this release did little more than reinforce the reality that Epstein’s network remains protected at the highest levels of power. Instead of revealing the high-profile clients who enabled or participated in Epstein’s operations, the public was given a diluted, controlled document dump that shields more than it exposes.Even more insulting was the inclusion of irrelevant celebrity names like Mick Jagger, Michael Jackson, Alec Baldwin, and Ethel Kennedy—people whose presence in Epstein’s orbit had already been reported, and in many cases, were likely nothing more than superficial connections. This cheap distraction serves only to bait the media into fixating on meaningless names while ignoring the real story: the continued cover-up of Epstein’s most powerful associates. The release was not a reckoning—it was a misdirection, a way to placate the public with scraps while the real architects of Epstein’s operation remain untouchable. Critics, including Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, have called this out as nothing more than a dog-and-pony show, a carefully curated selection of documents designed to make it seem like progress is being made while keeping the most damning truths buried. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s demands for more records are a step in the right direction, but if this first release is any indication, the real fight is still against the very system that continues to protect Epstein’s enablers from exposure.to contact me:[email protected]:AG Pam Bondi releases Jeffrey Epstein files in long-awaited document dump after warning the files were 'pretty sick' | Daily Mail Online

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.ecl

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.ecl

The U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) played a central role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein’s vast criminal enterprise, serving as both his primary base of operations and a jurisdiction that allowed his abuse to continue unchecked for decades. Epstein’s private island, Little Saint James, was the epicenter of his sex trafficking network, yet despite widespread knowledge of his illicit activities, local authorities turned a blind eye or, worse, actively facilitated his operations. The government granted Epstein extensive tax incentives and special treatment, allowing him to operate with impunity while funneling millions through shell companies registered in the territory. Even after his 2008 conviction in Florida, Epstein remained deeply entrenched in the USVI’s financial and political circles, securing sweetheart business deals and leveraging his wealth to maintain influence. The failure to regulate or investigate Epstein’s activities—despite glaring red flags—raises serious questions about corruption, complicity, and the true extent of the USVI’s role in protecting him.Recent legal battles have further exposed how deeply the USVI government was entangled with Epstein, with officials benefiting financially from his presence while ignoring repeated warnings about his trafficking network. The territory’s former first lady, Cecile de Jongh, was revealed to have worked directly for Epstein, helping him navigate regulatory loopholes and maintain access to power. Meanwhile, banks and financial institutions in the USVI facilitated the movement of Epstein’s funds, ensuring his trafficking operation remained well-funded and operational. Lawsuits against JPMorgan Chase have uncovered damning evidence suggesting that USVI officials were well aware of Epstein’s activities yet chose to look the other way, likely in exchange for financial incentives. The territory’s recent legal posturing against Epstein’s estate appears to be little more than an attempt to rewrite history, portraying themselves as victims rather than enablers. In reality, the USVI’s complicity in Epstein’s crimes is undeniable, raising broader concerns about the corruption and systemic failures that allowed one of the world’s most notorious predators to operate so freely.to contact me:[email protected]