Congress Is Set To Bring The Epstein Bill To A Vote Today (11/18/25)

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.

A growing movement is calling out the decades-long failure of institutions to deliver justice in the Jeffrey Epstein trafficking scandal, arguing that the system has consistently protected powerful individuals instead of victims. After years of obfuscation, sealed records, shifting narratives, and political deflection, frustration has reached a breaking point. What was once treated as fringe or conspiratorial has become an unavoidable national and international reckoning, with visible cracks forming in the wall of silence that shielded influential figures across politics, finance, royalty, intelligence, media, and elite social circles. The tone of certainty that once accompanied official dismissals has shifted to defensiveness and unease, as public pressure intensifies and demands for transparency grow more forceful.At the heart of the movement is a unified push to transcend political divisions and focus on a shared objective: full accountability for those involved in Epstein’s network and a complete, unredacted release of all related records. Advocates argue that this case is not partisan but moral, and that unity across ideological lines is the only force powerful enough to break through institutional resistance. The call is for the immediate publication of every flight log, email, deposition, and document connected to Epstein and his associates, with no redactions or procedural delays. Supporters maintain that anyone resisting transparency is signaling complicity, and insist that the era of silence, distraction, and protection of the powerful must end now, declaring that justice demands exposure rather than continued concealment.to contact  me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

For years, there have been predictions that the eventual release of the Epstein files will be nothing short of explosive—an earth-shaking moment that shatters the carefully crafted narratives protecting the powerful. The expectation is that once the full scope of Epstein’s network, communications, travel records, financial flows, and visitor logs are uncensored, the American public will see an unfiltered view of how deeply embedded Epstein was among global elites. People believe the documents could expose the complicity of politicians, billionaires, intelligence figures, media executives, royalty, and corporate titans who have been shielded by redactions, legal maneuvering, sealed settlements, and a bipartisan effort to control the narrative. Many predict it will rewrite modern political history and reveal a system of influence peddling and blackmail that operated in plain sight while the public was lied to.These predictions also suggest that the reaction will be existential—that when people finally see the unredacted truth, trust in institutions will collapse. The files are expected to demonstrate that authorities deliberately protected Epstein for decades, that intelligence agencies may have used him as leverage, and that the cover-ups were coordinated at the highest levels. Supporters of full transparency argue that the reason the files have been delayed, redacted, or buried behind claims of “ongoing investigations” is because the material is too damning, and too many influential figures have something to lose. The belief is that once the files are fully revealed, it will crack open a hidden architecture of power and exploitation that many Americans have suspected but never been allowed to see.to contact me:[email protected]:Exclusive | Rep. Ro Khanna pushing for release of full Epstein files predicts contents will 'shock the conscience of this country' | New York PostBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Congress is set to vote today, November 18, 2025, on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a bill that would compel the Department of Justice to release as much information as legally possible about its investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. The legislation comes after months of partisan infighting, petitions to bypass leadership, and public pressure from both parties. Initially opposed by President Donald Trump and House GOP leadership, the measure gained momentum when more than half of House members—including every Democrat and several Republicans—signed a discharge petition to force the vote. Trump reversed his stance over the weekend, now urging Republicans to support the release, a dramatic shift that has reshaped the political landscape surrounding the issueThe vote carries major implications for transparency, political accountability, and the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch. If passed, the bill would require the DOJ to disclose files that could shed light on Epstein’s network of political and financial connections, which have long fueled speculation across party lines. The debate has fractured the GOP, with figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene clashing publicly with Trump, while bipartisan sponsors such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) have pushed the measure forward. Beyond its immediate political drama, the vote represents a rare bipartisan effort to force disclosure in one of the most controversial criminal cases of recent decades, raising questions about how much the government has withheld and what revelations could follow.to contact me:[email protected]:House Republicans brace for Epstein files vote led by Trump foe Thomas Massie | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Larry Summers is a prominent American economist who has held significant roles, including U.S. Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, director of the National Economic Council under President Barack Obama, and President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. He is currently the Charles W. Eliot University Professor and President Emeritus at Harvard, where he continues to teach. Known for his influential, though often controversial, economic policy views, Summers has remained an active public voice until recently, serving on various boards including OpenAI, and as a paid columnist for Bloomberg NewsThe newest controversy stems from a trove of emails and text messages released by the U.S. House Oversight Committee, which revealed the depth of his continued communications with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein from 2017 until just one day before Epstein's July 2019 arrest. The messages show Summers confided in Epstein, seeking his advice on pursuing a romantic relationship with a woman he described as a "mentee" and sharing sexist remarks and jokes with Epstein, who described himself in one message as Summers' "wing man" in the pursuit. In response to the backlash, Summers stated he is "deeply ashamed" of his "misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein" and is "stepping back from public commitments". He has ended his fellowship at the Center for American Progress (CAP) and stepped down from the Yale Budget Lab advisory board but will continue his teaching duties at Harvard.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Scotland Yard has come under intense scrutiny for repeatedly opening and then quietly closing inquiries into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. When allegations involving Virginia Giuffre and potential UK-based trafficking surfaced years ago, the Metropolitan Police declined to pursue a full investigation, claiming it was outside their jurisdiction and not the “appropriate authority” to handle the matter. Even as mounting media coverage, survivor testimony, and public pressure demanded action, the force appeared determined to distance itself rather than confront the implications of a high-profile trafficking network operating on British soil. Critics argue that closing the case so quickly—despite the gravity and credibility of the accusations—looked less like a procedural decision and more like an intentional effort to avoid political and institutional fallout.Years later, when Scotland Yard announced it was reviewing new allegations against Maxwell related to grooming and trafficking in the UK, there was a brief sense of hope that justice might finally be taken seriously. But the review ultimately stalled without becoming a full investigation, igniting outrage from advocates who accused the force of protecting the powerful rather than defending victims. The pattern is unmistakable: initiate interest only under pressure, then retreat the moment attention shifts. To many, it feels like a choreographed performance meant to pacify public outrage rather than uncover the truth—a police institution more concerned with shielding reputations than exposing the depth of a criminal enterprise tied to elite circles.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

It strains credulity to believe that the world around Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell—filled with elite elites in finance, tech, entertainment, and fashion—was completely unaware of what was going on. For example, Ellen Pao, former Reddit CEO and one-time partner at venture firm Kleiner Perkins, publicly stated that Maxwell was invited to a Silicon Valley holiday party in 2011 despite existing reports that she was supplying underage girls for sex. Pao wrote that “we knew about her supplying underage girls for sex” and yet “that was fine with the ‘cool’ people who managed the tightly controlled guest list.” This confession suggests that circles of power didn’t just “miss” what was happening—they arguably chose to ignore it.Similarly, the modeling industry had whispered about the predatory nature of agents like Jean‑Luc Brunel long before the Epstein-Maxwell drama exploded. Brunel was a longtime model scout and agency boss who received millions from Epstein to expand his business, and his name repeatedly came up in allegations of sexual misconduct dating back decades. The fact that such warnings were circulating in fashion—well before the mainstream reckoning—raises the question: how could so many people connected to these men claim no knowledge, no signs, no suspicion? When one entire industry quietly signals something is rotten, it becomes much harder to swallow wholesale claims of unaware innocence.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Allegations have circulated that Jamie Dimon knew significantly more about Jeffrey Epstein than he publicly claimed. Dimon has repeatedly insisted that he never met Epstein, never spoke with him, and didn’t even recognize his name until after Epstein’s 2019 arrest. However, critics point to the fact that Epstein was a major JPMorgan client for roughly 15 years while Dimon was CEO, moving large sums of cash that triggered repeated internal compliance warnings. Senior bank executives reportedly viewed Epstein as an important figure worth cultivating, and Epstein was credited with bringing wealthy, high-value clients into the bank. This has led to widespread skepticism that Dimon—at the very top of the institution—could have known nothing about someone whose transactions drew scrutiny and who was deeply networked inside JPMorgan.Further questions were raised when former executives alleged that Epstein was discussed at senior levels and that Dimon was aware of the relationship years earlier than he acknowledged. Claims surfaced that Dimon was briefed about Epstein at least twice and that internal emails referenced directives encouraging top leadership to “get to know” Epstein for business reasons. Dimon has denied all such assertions, dismissing them as false and insisting he had no knowledge of Epstein’s activities or banking arrangements. Still, the timeline, the scale of Epstein’s financial footprint, and allegations from those once close to the situation have fueled suspicions that Dimon’s version of events is incomplete—and that the full truth about the extent of the bank’s relationship with Epstein remains obscured.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The fund was created in 2020 by Epstein’s estate after his death, as a voluntary, confidential alternative to litigation for survivors of sexual abuse by Epstein. It was administered independently by Jordana Feldman, and open to any individual alleging abuse by Epstein, regardless of statute-of-limitations or prior litigation. Claimants were asked to supply detailed descriptions of their abuse, undergo review, accept an offer, and sign a broad release that barred future lawsuits against the estate or many alleged enablers. By its conclusion in 2021, the program processed roughly 225 applications, deemed around 150 eligible, and distributed approximately $121 million to about 150 survivors.Critically, while the fund offered a quicker and less adversarial route, many survivors and advocates argue it was structured to limit exposure of Epstein’s estate and his enablers rather than fully liberate survivors. Accepting the fund’s offer meant waiving future claims against not only the estate but often other involved parties—potentially constraining further accountability. Moreover, subsequent reporting shows that even after the fund’s closure, significant assets claimed by the estate remain unallocated, raising the question of whether victims received a fair share of Epstein’s full fortune. With only about a quarter of the estate’s estimated value reportedly reaching survivors, the fund’s efficacy and fairness are under heavy scrutiny.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre alleges that Prince Andrew, Duke of York sexually abused her on three separate occasions after she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She claims the first encounter occurred in March 2001 when she was 17, at Maxwell’s London residence; she asserts that Maxwell told her she was “going to meet a handsome prince.” The second encounter is alleged to have been in New York, and the third on Epstein’s island, Little Saint James in the U.S. Virgin Islands, involving multiple under-aged girls. In her memoir and public statements she describes being forced into the situations, having little ability to refuse, and later being paid as part of the trafficking structure.In her book and interviews, Giuffre also details the streams of evidence and “guessing game” rounds that critics and defenders of Andrew engage in — including his repeated denials, his claim he could not sweat (used to contradict her nightclub memory), and arguments over whether a widely circulated photograph of him with Giuffre and Maxwell is genuine. She writes that Andrew correctly guessed her age when they first met (“My daughters are just a little younger than you”), and emphasizes how the photo’s timestamp (March 13 2001) aligns with the timeline she gives. Meanwhile, defenders of Andrew insist flaws in her account or “memory issues” but Giuffre states that the guessing about details of the case (where she was, what day it was, who else was present) is precisely what the networks of power rely on to muddy her truth and preserve his denials.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.