From Denial to Disclosure: How Howard Lutnick’s Epstein Claims Collapsed (2/24/26)

Newly released documents from the Epstein Files Transparency Act trove reveal that Jeffrey Epstein was the subject of a previously undisclosed U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigation, according to a heavily redacted 2015 memo included in the government’s files. The 69-page memorandum, marked “law enforcement sensitive,” shows Epstein was one of 15 people targeted in a probe focused on “suspicious money transfers” that federal agents believed were tied to illicit drug trafficking and prostitution activities in both the U.S. Virgin Islands and New York City, raising questions about whether Epstein’s criminal conduct may have extended beyond his well-known sex trafficking offenses. The document, drafted after the DEA requested information from a multi-agency Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, suggests a significant investigation that spanned five years from 2010 to 2015, although many details and the identities of other targets remain redacted.The existence of this DEA inquiry adds a new dimension to the public understanding of Epstein’s activities and how thoroughly federal authorities were examining various aspects of his operations. While the later, better-known 2019 prosecution focused on sex trafficking and did not publicly include drug trafficking charges, the DEA memo indicates that investigators had been pursuing a potentially broader case years earlier. The revelations have prompted renewed scrutiny from lawmakers and law enforcement observers about what the newly released records might yet reveal about Epstein’s financial networks and whether narcotics trafficking played any role in his criminal enterprise.to contact me:[email protected]:Newly unearthed DEA document from Epstein files raises question: Did Epstein facilitate drug trafficking? - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Despite repeatedly telling the public and lawmakers that he had cut ties with Epstein and had minimal contact with him, newly released documents from the Epstein files reveal a very different picture. Lutnick claimed in interviews that after a 2005 meeting with Epstein he found him “disgusting” and avoided further interaction, but evidence shows he actually continued engaging with Epstein for years afterward. Emails show Lutnick coordinated a lunch on Epstein’s private island in 2012 with his family, had drinks with him around 2011, and even invited Epstein to a 2015 fundraiser—activities that directly contradict his earlier statements that he had no relationship and spent “zero time” with Epstein. When pressed before Congress, Lutnick tried to minimize these contacts as limited and innocuous, but the contrast between his rhetoric and the documentary evidence has made his public statements look disingenuous at best and deceptive at worst.The repercussions have been significant: bipartisan calls for his resignation have emerged, and prominent lawmakers—including Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Thomas Massie—have said Lutnick misled the American people about his interactions with a convicted sex offender. His attempts to spin the timeline and severity of his relationship with Epstein have only intensified scrutiny, with critics saying a senior federal official should not have to be prodded by document leaks to correct basic factual errors in his public claims. Lutnick’s credibility and judgment have been sharply questioned, and his failure to be transparent about the extent of his ties with Epstein has become a major liability for both his personal reputation and the administration he serve.to contact me:[email protected]:New Details From Epstein Files Reveal Lutnick Had Years-Long Business Tie With Sex Offender – Mother JonesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In September 2025, Peter Mandelson — then the United Kingdom’s Ambassador to the United States — was dismissed (effectively recalled and fired) by Prime Minister Keir Starmer after revelations about his longstanding social relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein surfaced. Emails published earlier that year showed Mandelson had maintained contact with Epstein after Epstein’s 2008 conviction and had expressed supportive sentiments toward him, which diplomats said was far deeper than what had been known at the time of his appointment. Those communications raised questions about his judgment and suitability for the high-profile diplomatic post, prompting Starmer to remove him from the position immediately.In February 2026, the scandal escalated when authorities arrested Mandelson on 23 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office. This followed the release of internal documents and emails from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Epstein files suggesting he may have shared sensitive government information with Epstein during his time in government in 2009–10. As part of the fallout, Mandelson resigned from the House of Lords and the Labour Party, and British police executed search warrants at his residences as part of a criminal investigation. His arrest reflects widening legal and political consequences from the Epstein file revelations that have also embroiled other high-profile figures.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Recent disclosures from congressional investigations and documents tied to the Epstein estate have exposed a far deeper and more personal relationship between Kathryn Ruemmler and Jeffrey Epstein than previously acknowledged, raising serious questions about her judgment and fitness to serve as general counsel of Goldman Sachs. Emails and schedules show she met with Epstein dozens of times between 2014 and 2019 — long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor — and that their communication ranged from career advice and personal travel planning to repeated informal exchanges, which some insiders view as far beyond the scope of mere professional interaction. She was even named as a backup executor in an early version of Epstein’s will, a detail that triggered internal alarm at Goldman once it became public, and suggests a level of trust and intimacy that many observers find profoundly inappropriate given Epstein’s crimes. The revelations directly undermine her role on Goldman’s Reputational Risk Committee, where she helps decide which clients and relationships could endanger the firm’s ethical standing.Even after Goldman’s leadership publicly defended Ruemmler and denied any formal plans to replace her, the controversy has not dissipated; critics argue that the firm’s insistence on keeping her in a top legal and governance role reflects a troubling tolerance for ethical ambiguity when it benefits powerful insiders. Some executives reportedly view Ruemmler as a potential liability whose past associations were not fully disclosed or understood at the time of her hiring, and whose continued presence on ethics-related committees sends a poor message about the bank’s commitment to accountability and moral judgment. The fact that these revelations emerged only through released documents and not proactive disclosure further fuels skepticism about transparency at the highest levels of Goldman Sachs, intensifying scrutiny from investors, lawmakers, and corporate governance watchdogs.to contact me:[email protected]:New court doc asserts former Obama WH counsel advised Jeffrey Epstein during critical reputational and legal battles | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew’s downfall has accelerated sharply in the wake of fresh allegations tied to Jeffrey Epstein and the explosive release of Virginia Giuffre’s memoir, Nobody’s Girl. The book recounts new details about Andrew’s alleged sexual encounters with Giuffre while she was being trafficked as a minor by Epstein. These revelations reignited public outrage and renewed scrutiny over Andrew’s long-denied relationship with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Buckingham Palace has reportedly been forced into damage control, with King Charles III supporting Andrew’s decision to give up his “Duke of York” title and remaining royal honors. The palace has publicly stated that the new allegations must be fully investigated, signaling growing institutional distance from Andrew as pressure mounts for full transparency and accountability.Adding to his disgrace, newly surfaced claims allege that Andrew attempted to orchestrate an online smear campaign against Giuffre to salvage his reputation. According to The Guardian’s coverage of the memoir, the prince and his aides tried to hire internet trolls to harass Giuffre online and even sought access to her private information, including her Social Security number. Reports indicate that the Metropolitan Police have opened an inquiry into whether Andrew misused his royal security detail or other public resources during this smear campaign. Parliamentarians are also reportedly pushing to strip him of any remaining titles and privileges, as his reputation continues to collapse under the weight of new evidence and public disgust over his conduct.to contact me:[email protected]:Prince Andrew tried to hire 'internet trolls' to 'hassle' his sex accuser Virginia Giuffre, her posthumous memoir reveals | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell was placed in solitary confinement after giving a jailhouse interview without authorization while awaiting sentencing, according to reporting at the time. Federal prison officials said the interview violated Bureau of Prisons rules governing inmate communications with the media. As a result, Maxwell was moved to segregated housing, commonly referred to as solitary confinement, where inmates are typically isolated for most of the day and have limited contact with others. The disciplinary action followed her participation in the interview, which had been conducted by phone and later broadcast publicly.Her legal team criticized the decision, arguing that the punishment was excessive and punitive, particularly given the intense public scrutiny surrounding her case. They maintained that Maxwell had not posed a security threat and suggested that the move reflected the heightened sensitivity around her prosecution and conviction in connection with Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation. Prison authorities, however, defended the action as a routine enforcement of institutional rules, stating that all inmates are subject to the same restrictions regarding unauthorized media contact.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

While most federal inmates across the country were barred from in-person visits because of COVID restrictions, I learned that Ghislaine Maxwell was granted an exception inside the federal detention center in New York. Despite strict pandemic rules that kept families, attorneys, and even clergy away from prisoners, officials approved a personal visit for Maxwell, fueling accusations that she was receiving privileges unavailable to other inmates. Sources inside the facility described how the visit was conducted in a room separate from the general population and under unusual accommodation, reinforcing suspicions that she was being treated differently from everyone else inside the Metropolitan Detention Center.The decision outraged prisoners’ families and advocates who had been campaigning for months to restore basic visitation rights, only to watch Maxwell receive access that others were denied. As her legal team continued to claim harsh and unfair treatment, the revelation that she had been given a rare private visit painted a starkly different picture of her conditions and raised deeper questions about preferential handling, institutional favoritism, and the degree of influence that still surrounds her name. For many observing from the outside, it was another reminder that the rules appear to bend when the defendant is wealthy, connected, and notorious enough.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein was more than just the wealthy financier with a knack for elite connections—his ascent was shadowed by serious financial fraud. In the late 1980s, he was hired as a consultant at Towers Financial Corporation, a company run by his mentor Steven Hoffenberg. That firm turned out to be one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history, defrauding investors of over $450 million. Hoffenberg later claimed Epstein was “intimately involved,” even calling him the “architect” and “mastermind” behind complex schemes and manipulations, despite Epstein escaping legal charges. Those stolen funds allegedly served as seed capital for Epstein’s later financial ventures—his own hedge fund, foundations, and private empire. That’s not rumor—it’s his legacy in plain sight.What’s worse, Epstein’s role wasn’t ancillary. Court documents and Hoffenberg’s testimony paint Epstein as a central player who helped design and scale the scheme using his network. He may have walked free, but make no mistake: his wealth, influence, and the veneer of legitimacy he built were built on the bones of investor ruin. It wasn’t clean money; it was stolen. And those shadowy beginnings illuminate the true cost of his rise—not just in dollars lost, but in the destruction of trust, victims, and the systems he exploited so ruthlessly.to contact me:[email protected]:https://radaronline.com/p/jeffrey-epstein-ponzi-scheme-money-book-dead-man-tell-no-tales/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein cultivated a long relationship with Harvard University by donating nearly $9 million between 1998 and 2007, including $6.5 million to establish the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. Despite lacking the qualifications typical of the role, he was even made a visiting fellow in the psychology department in 2005. His gifts and connections bought him influence and proximity to prominent faculty, while also boosting Harvard’s fundraising ties to other wealthy donors he introduced.Even after his 2008 conviction, Epstein continued to access Harvard’s campus, particularly the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, where he visited dozens of times and had his own office space. Harvard later acknowledged that its oversight and policies were too weak to prevent his continued presence and influence. The university eventually stopped accepting his money but only after years of enjoying the benefits of his donations and connections.to contact me:[email protected]:Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Michael Thomas was a veteran correctional officer employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan — a federal detention facility — where Jeffrey Epstein was being held in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Thomas had been with the Bureau of Prisons since about 2007 and, on the night of Epstein’s death (August 9–10, 2019), was assigned to an overnight shift alongside another officer, Tova Noel, responsible for conducting required 30-minute inmate checks and institutional counts in the SHU. Because Epstein’s cellmate had been moved and not replaced, Epstein was alone in his cell, making regular monitoring all the more crucial under bureau policy.Thomas became a focal figure in the official investigations into Epstein’s death because surveillance footage and institutional records showed that neither he nor Noel conducted the required rounds or counts through the night before Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell early on August 10. Prosecutors subsequently charged both officers with conspiracy and falsifying records for signing count slips that falsely indicated they had completed rounds they had not performed. Thomas and Noel later entered deferred prosecution agreements in which they admitted falsifying records and avoided prison time, instead receiving supervisory release and community service. Investigators concluded that chronic staffing shortages and procedural failures at the jail contributed to the circumstances that allowed Epstein to remain unmonitored for hours before his death, which was officially ruled a suicide by hanging.to contact me:[email protected]:EFTA00113577.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.