Congress Puts Columbia University On Notice Over Their Epstein Ties (1/15/26)

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein’s defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta’s account, particularly regarding victims’ rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:[email protected]:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jamie Raskin sent a pointed letter to Columbia University demanding answers about the institution’s historical ties to Jeffrey Epstein and whether the university had fully disclosed the extent of his involvement, influence, and access. The letter pressed Columbia on how Epstein was able to associate himself with the university, cultivate relationships with faculty and administrators, and leverage the institution’s prestige long after serious allegations about his conduct were widely known. Raskin questioned whether Columbia conducted adequate due diligence, whether any donations or benefits were accepted directly or indirectly, and how Epstein’s presence may have been normalized or concealed within academic circles. The tone of the letter made clear that this was not a casual inquiry but an accountability demand, rooted in the concern that elite institutions repeatedly failed to erect meaningful barriers against Epstein despite ample warning signs.Raskin’s letter also framed Columbia as part of a broader pattern in which powerful institutions insulated themselves with silence, procedural ambiguity, and selective memory. He emphasized that universities are not passive victims of association, but active gatekeepers whose decisions can legitimize predators and marginalize survivors. By demanding records, explanations, and transparency, Raskin signaled that Epstein’s academic enablers should not be treated as incidental footnotes to his crimes. The letter underscored that reputational laundering through academia was a key component of Epstein’s power and protection, and that Columbia’s answers would speak volumes about whether elite institutions are willing to confront their own role in that system. It was a warning shot that the era of “we didn’t know” defenses is no longer acceptable.to contact  me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

During his interview with House Oversight Chair James Comer, Sean Hannity floated the bogus claim that Donald Trump was never on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane, presenting it as settled fact rather than a disputed assertion. Hannity didn’t hedge, qualify, or frame it as an open question. He stated it confidently, knowing full well that flight logs are incomplete, contested, and only part of a much larger evidentiary picture. The problem wasn’t just that the claim was misleading, it was that it functioned as narrative laundering in real time. Hannity used his platform to preemptively absolve Trump while discussing an investigation that is supposedly about transparency and accountability. By doing so, he turned what should have been a probing oversight conversation into a defensive media maneuver. It was less journalism than message control, dressed up as certainty.What made the moment especially telling was Comer’s silence. As the chair of an oversight committee tasked with following evidence wherever it leads, Comer had an obligation to correct the record or at least clarify the limits of what is known. He did neither. His failure to push back signaled political convenience over factual precision, reinforcing the perception that this investigation has guardrails depending on whose name comes up. Comer’s non-response allowed Hannity’s claim to harden into implied truth for the audience, despite the fact that flight logs are not exhaustive proof of absence and never have been. The silence spoke louder than a correction would have. In a scandal defined by selective scrutiny and protected figures, that moment exposed how quickly oversight can bend when media allies set the tone.to contact me:[email protected]:Fox’s Sean Hannity claims Trump never flew on Epstein plane despite numerous flight log entries | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Hillary Clinton drew sharp criticism after declining to comply with an Epstein-related congressional subpoena that sought testimony and records tied to the broader investigation into Epstein’s network and institutional failures. Rather than appearing or producing materials in the manner demanded, her response was routed through lawyers and procedural objections, effectively stonewalling lawmakers who were attempting to trace accountability beyond Epstein and Maxwell. The refusal fed the perception that powerful political figures operate under a different set of rules, especially when scrutiny turns uncomfortable. At a moment when survivors and the public were demanding transparency, Clinton’s posture reinforced the idea that influence can be used to slow-walk or blunt congressional oversight. The optics were unmistakable: a former Secretary of State choosing legal insulation over public accountability in a case defined by elite protection.Critics argued that Clinton’s noncompliance wasn’t a neutral legal maneuver but a strategic dodge that undermined the very transparency Congress was seeking. The Epstein scandal has long been marked by selective exposure, where lesser players are named while powerful figures remain unreachable behind counsel and procedure. By refusing to engage directly, Clinton added to that pattern, signaling that even a congressional subpoena can be treated as negotiable if you have enough clout. The decision also undercut claims that the political class takes institutional abuse seriously, especially when cooperation might clarify who knew what and when. In an investigation already plagued by delays and redactions, Clinton’s defiance hardened public skepticism that truth would ever outrun privilege. It wasn’t just a missed testimony; it was another reminder of how accountability stalls at the top.to contact me:[email protected]:Hillary Clinton expected to skip House Oversight deposition Wednesday, risking contempt | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegationsto contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

JP Morgan alleged in court filings that Jeffrey Epstein actively worked to influence and control politicians in the U.S. Virgin Islands in order to protect his interests and preserve the permissive environment that allowed him to operate with minimal scrutiny. According to the bank, Epstein cultivated close relationships with key USVI officials, donated money, provided favors, and positioned himself as an economic benefactor to gain leverage over regulatory and law enforcement decisions. JP Morgan argued that Epstein used this influence to shape policy outcomes, discourage investigations, and neutralize threats to his operations on Little St. James, effectively embedding himself into the political fabric of the territory. The bank framed Epstein not as a passive recipient of protection, but as an active operator who understood how to manipulate small, politically vulnerable jurisdictions.More controversially, JP Morgan asserted that Epstein’s conduct amounted to an effort to bend USVI politicians to his will, portraying him as someone who believed he could purchase insulation from consequences through access, money, and pressure. The bank claimed that this dynamic was well understood within Epstein’s circle and that USVI officials repeatedly failed to act despite mounting red flags, complaints, and allegations. While these claims were made in the context of JP Morgan’s defense strategy, they echoed long-standing criticisms that Epstein’s power was reinforced by a corrupting influence over local governance. The allegations sharpened the focus on the USVI not merely as a backdrop to Epstein’s crimes, but as a jurisdiction where political capture and regulatory failure allegedly allowed him to operate with near impunity for years.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Jed Rakoff was blunt in his assessment of Jes Staley’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, making clear that the evidence pointed to far more than casual or incidental contact. In rulings tied to litigation involving JPMorgan Chase, Rakoff noted that Staley’s ties to Epstein were “deep,” “longstanding,” and well beyond what the bank and Staley himself had attempted to portray publicly. Rakoff emphasized that Staley was not a peripheral acquaintance but someone who maintained a close personal and professional relationship with Epstein for years, even after Epstein’s 2008 non-prosecution agreement for sex crimes involving minors. According to Rakoff, the record showed repeated meetings, extensive correspondence, and a level of familiarity that undermined claims that Staley was unaware of Epstein’s conduct or risk profile.More significantly, Rakoff rejected efforts to downplay the implications of that relationship for institutional accountability. He made clear that Staley’s continued association with Epstein raised serious questions about judgment, oversight, and what senior executives at JPMorgan either knew or chose not to know. Rakoff’s comments cut through the sanitized narrative by underscoring that Epstein was widely known within elite circles as toxic long before his 2019 arrest, making ignorance an increasingly implausible defense. In doing so, Rakoff framed Staley not as a passive bystander but as a key figure whose relationship with Epstein carried real consequences for the bank, reinforcing the broader theme that Epstein’s power derived not just from money, but from willing, well-placed enablers who kept him embedded in the highest levels of finance.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of Doe 1 v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. (1:22-cv-10019), Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued an opinion and order on a motion to unseal judicial records filed by The New York Times. The motion sought to unseal certain exhibits that were submitted with summary judgment motions and class certification motions.Judge Rakoff's ruling granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the judge denied the motion to unseal the exhibits submitted with the summary judgment motions, but he granted the motion to unseal the exhibits submitted with the motion for class certification. However, this was conditioned on redactions to protect the anonymity of Jane Doe and other victims involved in the case. Judge Rakoff directed class counsel to submit proposed redactions for the court's review within two weeks of the order​.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.367.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.