Royal Degenerates: The Fallen Dukes Club Welcomes Prince Andrew (10/23/25)

One of the most confounding things about the Jeffrey Epstein case is the lack of transparency by the federal authorities. You would think that they would have a vested interest in ending all the conspiracy talk once and for all, but for some reason, they refuse to hand over information when it's asked for, even when it comes in the version of a FOIA request. On today's episode we take a further look at Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged relationship with the government.(commercial at 10:35)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailywire.com/news/fbi-hiding-potentially-explosive-records-on-jeffrey-epstein-internet-sleuth-claims-after-foia-denialBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn’t justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta’s insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he’d been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:[email protected]:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew’s downfall is one of the most humiliating collapses in modern royal history. Once celebrated as the Queen’s proud, battle-tested son, he’s now the monarchy’s biggest embarrassment—stripped of his titles, frozen out of public life, and quietly told to stop using “Duke of York” in any official capacity. His friendship with Jeffrey Epstein destroyed his reputation, and that infamous BBC interview finished the job. The “I don’t sweat” defense, the “Pizza Express in Woking” excuse, and the tone-deaf denial turned him into a global punchline. Now, even within his own family, he’s a ghost—technically still a prince, but one without purpose, honor, or credibility. The palace’s silence speaks louder than any statement: Andrew is done.Historically, plenty of dukes have fallen from grace—some lost their heads, some lost their thrones—but none have been publicly humiliated like Andrew. His disgrace didn’t come from war or treason but from arrogance and entitlement in the age of social media, where every lie is immortal and every excuse becomes a meme. The monarchy has erased him one step at a time, preserving the crown while letting him fade into oblivion. He’s not the Duke of York anymore—he’s the Duke of Nowhere, condemned to live out his days as a cautionary tale about power, privilege, and the price of believing you’re untouchable.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

New claims from royal biographer Andrew Lownie’s book Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York allege that Prince Andrew had a “network” of aides and friends who helped arrange young women for him. According to the book, the Duke of York frequently relied on palace staff and security officers to organize introductions, often specifying his “type” — reportedly favoring blondes and ballet dancers. Lownie claims Andrew would sometimes stay in hotels instead of royal residences while abroad to maintain privacy for these encounters. These allegations suggest a pattern of behavior that extended across his time as a trade envoy and well into his social life as a royal, long before his public fall from grace.The revelations have reignited outrage over Andrew’s long association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, raising new questions about how much palace officials knew and ignored. Though Buckingham Palace has refused to comment, the claims paint a picture of entitlement and impunity—one where royal privilege shielded deeply questionable conduct. Critics note the timing of the release comes as Andrew attempts to stage a quiet re-entry into public life, making the biography’s allegations a major setback.to contact me:[email protected]:Exclusive | Prince Andrew had network of staff, pals to 'arrange girls' for sex -- and he had a type: biographerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Journalist and political author Michael Wolff has filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court against Melania Trump, alleging that she threatened him with a $1 billion lawsuit over remarks he made about her alleged connections to Jeffrey Epstein. According to Wolff’s filing, Melania’s legal team sent him multiple warnings and demands for retractions after he suggested that she and Donald Trump once moved within Epstein’s social orbit. Wolff’s suit claims that the threats were intended to intimidate him and suppress reporting on the Epstein network, arguing that his comments were protected speech and not defamatory.The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that Wolff’s statements were lawful expressions of opinion and requests discovery that could compel both Melania and Donald Trump to testify under oath about their past ties to Epstein and his associates. In response, Melania’s representatives called Wolff’s comments “false, defamatory, and lewd,” saying the First Lady would continue to defend her reputation against “malicious fabrications.” The case marks another high-profile intersection between the Epstein scandal, media coverage, and the powerful figures caught in its gravitational pull.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s unpublished memoir The Billionaire’s Playboy Club recounts her recruitment into Jeffrey Epstein’s world as a 16-year-old working at Mar-a-Lago, where she says Ghislaine Maxwell lured her in with promises of opportunity and travel. The manuscript describes how she became trapped in Epstein’s orbit, allegedly forced into sexual encounters with powerful men, including Prince Andrew, and ferried across his properties in New York, Florida, and the Virgin Islands. Giuffre paints a detailed picture of coercion, psychological manipulation, and the disturbing normalization of exploitation within Epstein’s high-society circle.In this episode, we begin our journey through that memoir.   to contact me:[email protected]:Virgina Giuffre Billionaire's Playboy Club | DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sam McAlister — former BBC Newsnight producer and author of Scoops: Behind the Scenes of the BBC’s Most Shocking Interviews — has given extensive behind-the-scenes commentary on how the infamous interview with Prince Andrew, Duke of York came to be. She recounts how her original approach was for a routine charity-profile, but as the scandal involving Jeffrey Epstein intensified, she persuaded the palace to agree to a sit-down that would include “the news issues that were pertinent” — including Epstein. She says she was shocked at how open and responsive Andrew seemed during the negotiations, which gave her confidence the interview would proceed.McAlister also states that, in the direct lead-up to the interview’s broadcast, Andrew believed he had succeeded — he reportedly gave the BBC interviewing team a tour of Buckingham Palace, smiled and seemed upbeat, giving the impression he expected the exposure to vindicate him. She observes that his tone shifted dramatically as the fallout emerged, noting: “He was in fine spirits!” after filming, even as the answers rolled out in the final cut that would crash his reputation.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

After his disastrous BBC Newsnight interview aired on November 16, 2019, Prince Andrew initially tried to defend both his performance and his decision to do it. He reportedly believed the interview had gone “very well” and that it would clear the air about his association with Jeffrey Epstein. His public statement that followed expressed “sympathy for all those affected by Epstein’s behavior” but maintained his innocence, repeating that he had “no recollection” of ever meeting Virginia Roberts Giuffre. At the time, Andrew and his team framed the interview as a gesture of transparency—an attempt to reclaim his reputation by addressing the controversy head-on rather than hiding from it.That optimism, however, evaporated within hours. The public and media reaction was ferocious, describing his tone as arrogant, emotionless, and shockingly out of touch. Buckingham Palace was thrown into crisis mode as royal aides and senior family members reportedly reacted with disbelief. Within days, Andrew’s “initial response” to stand firm turned into a forced retreat—he announced he was stepping back from royal duties “for the foreseeable future.” His claim that he would cooperate with U.S. authorities also fell apart, with federal prosecutors later revealing that he had provided “zero cooperation.” The interview he once thought would vindicate him became the single most damaging moment of his life.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In 2024, Netflix announced Scoop, a dramatization of Prince Andrew’s disastrous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis, which infamously backfired and forced him to withdraw from royal duties. The film, directed by Philip Martin and based on BBC producer Sam McAlister’s memoir Scoops: Behind the Scenes of the BBC’s Most Shocking Interviews, explores how the interview was negotiated and produced behind the scenes. Gillian Anderson stars as Emily Maitlis, while Rufus Sewell portrays Prince Andrew. The movie aims to capture the tension, arrogance, and fallout surrounding the televised disaster that became a defining moment in the Epstein scandal’s royal chapter.Released globally on April 5, 2024, Scoop revisits the royal crisis in cinematic form—offering both dramatization and commentary on the media circus that followed Andrew’s disastrous attempt to clear his name. Critics have described it as a sharp, tightly paced political drama that exposes the hubris and disconnect inside the Palace during one of the monarchy’s most humiliating modern scandals. The film has reignited public discussion about Andrew’s ties to Epstein and the royal family’s response to his disgrace, ensuring the fallout of that single interview continues to haunt Buckingham Palace years later.Before his infamous BBC Newsnight interview in November 2019, Prince Andrew, Duke of York was explicitly warned by senior advisers that the session could irreparably damage both his personal reputation and the standing of the Royal Household. The warning emphasised that his links to Jeffrey Epstein—especially given the allegations of sexual misconduct and trafficking—or appearing indifferent to the experience of alleged victims, would likely trigger major public backlash and lead to institutional fallout.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Deutsche Bank requested that a U.S. federal court dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed by an accuser of Epstein, arguing that the bank neither participated in nor benefited from Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation and therefore is not legally responsible in the way the complaint alleges. The bank asserted that it merely provided “routine banking services” to Epstein from 2013 to 2018, and that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts under the federal anti-trafficking statute (Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act) or establish any direct duty by the bank to protect the victim.In addition, Deutsche Bank argued that the plaintiff’s claims under New York’s Adult Survivors Act (which temporarily allowed claims even after statute-of-limitations expiration) were legally deficient because the bank did not cause the abuse or engage in the trafficking itself. The bank contended that even acknowledging Epstein’s misconduct, the claims improperly targeted the “wrong party.” While the court later dismissed several of the claims brought against Deutsche Bank, it allowed several others to proceed, meaning the motion to dismiss was only partly successful.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.