Mega Edition: What Did Jamie Dimon Know About Jeffrey Epstein And When Did He Know It? (1/17/26)

In an interview for her podcast series Broken: Jeffrey Epstein, journalist Tara Palmeri recounts a conversation Brad Edwards—who represented several of Epstein’s victims—had with Igor Zinoviev, Epstein’s bodyguard of approximately five years. Edwards described how Zinoviev issued a chilling warning: “‘You don't know who you're messing with and you need to be really careful. You are on Jeffrey's radar… you don't want to be on Jeffrey's radar’,” to which Edwards asked, “Who am I messing with?” Zinoviev quietly responded with three letters: “C‑I‑A.”Digging deeper, Palmeri reports that, according to Edwards, Zinoviev said that in 2008—while Epstein was serving his work‑release sentence—he was sent to the CIA headquarters in Virginia. Allegedly, Epstein attended some kind of private class there as the only civilian, during which he was handed a book containing a handwritten note. Zinoviev said he was instructed not to read it, only to deliver it to Epstein behind bars. The nature of the message, and any follow‑up, remains unclear.to contact me:[email protected]:Epstein Was 'Protected' By CIA and Trump, Former Bodyguard ClaimsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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.

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.

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.

In her Washington Post op-ed, Sarah Ransome recounts how surviving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s trafficking operation did not end with their convictions but instead marked the beginning of another battle: being disbelieved, dismissed, and blamed because she was an adult when she was trafficked. Ransome explains that media coverage often centers on underage victims while overlooking the many women who, like her, were legally adults yet manipulated, coerced, and abused over prolonged periods. She describes the pervasive “gaslighting” she faced from society, friends, family, and authorities who questioned her credibility, branded her with derogatory labels, and minimized the horrors she endured simply because she was not a minor at the time. For years, this skepticism compounded her trauma, making recovery even more difficult and isolating her from support.Ransome also reflects on the catharsis of hearing Ghislaine Maxwell’s shackles at sentencing and finally reading her impact statement in court, which she views as a significant step toward reclaiming her voice and self-worth. She emphasizes that justice remains incomplete while powerful enablers and institutions that allowed Epstein and Maxwell to operate with impunity have not been fully held accountable. Ransome urges broader recognition of all survivors — regardless of age at the time of abuse — and calls for societal change in how adult trafficking victims are understood and supported.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has repeatedly denied any meaningful knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal behavior, portraying himself as distant from the relationship despite Epstein being a longtime, high-profile client of the bank. Dimon has claimed he was unaware of Epstein’s sex-trafficking activities and has suggested that responsibility lay with lower-level compliance staff rather than senior leadership. Critics argue this position strains credibility, given Epstein’s 2008 federal conviction, his well-known reputation in elite circles, and the sheer volume of internal red flags tied to his accounts. Under Dimon’s leadership, JPMorgan continued to bank Epstein for years after his conviction, processing transactions that later became central to allegations that the bank enabled or ignored obvious signs of trafficking and abuse.Dimon’s denials have come under sharper scrutiny as internal emails, testimony, and court filings have suggested that Epstein’s risk profile was widely known inside JPMorgan and that concerns reached far beyond rogue employees. Survivors and regulators argue that the bank’s leadership cannot plausibly claim ignorance while simultaneously benefiting from Epstein’s wealth, connections, and influence. Dimon’s insistence that he personally knew little or nothing about Epstein has been criticized as a calculated effort to firewall executive accountability, shifting blame downward while preserving the myth of corporate ignorance. To critics, his statements exemplify a broader pattern in which powerful institutions acknowledge “mistakes” in the abstract but resist admitting that profit and prestige outweighed moral and legal responsibility when it mattered most.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The lawsuit filed by Epstein’s survivors against the U.S. Virgin Islands accuses the territorial government of enabling, protecting, and materially benefiting from Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation for decades. The survivors allege that Epstein could not have operated his trafficking network on Little St. James and throughout the USVI without the knowing cooperation or willful blindness of government officials. According to the complaint, Epstein received extraordinary tax breaks, regulatory exemptions, and political access while simultaneously importing underage girls, operating private aircraft, and maintaining compounds that functioned as crime scenes. The lawsuit asserts that repeated warnings, tips, and red flags were ignored, and that the USVI failed to investigate, enforce laws, or intervene even as evidence of abuse mounted over years.The survivors further argue that the USVI’s conduct went beyond negligence and crossed into active facilitation. They claim Epstein’s businesses were used as a financial shield to launder money, avoid scrutiny, and legitimize his presence in the territory, while local officials allegedly enjoyed campaign donations, prestige, and economic benefits tied to Epstein’s investments. The lawsuit seeks accountability not just for Epstein’s crimes, but for the institutional failures that allowed them to continue unchecked, asserting that government complicity turned the USVI into a safe haven for exploitation. By naming the territory itself as a defendant, the survivors are attempting to force a reckoning with how power, money, and corruption combined to silence victims and protect a serial trafficker operating in plain sight.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The lawsuit filed by Epstein’s survivors against the U.S. Virgin Islands accuses the territorial government of enabling, protecting, and materially benefiting from Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation for decades. The survivors allege that Epstein could not have operated his trafficking network on Little St. James and throughout the USVI without the knowing cooperation or willful blindness of government officials. According to the complaint, Epstein received extraordinary tax breaks, regulatory exemptions, and political access while simultaneously importing underage girls, operating private aircraft, and maintaining compounds that functioned as crime scenes. The lawsuit asserts that repeated warnings, tips, and red flags were ignored, and that the USVI failed to investigate, enforce laws, or intervene even as evidence of abuse mounted over years.The survivors further argue that the USVI’s conduct went beyond negligence and crossed into active facilitation. They claim Epstein’s businesses were used as a financial shield to launder money, avoid scrutiny, and legitimize his presence in the territory, while local officials allegedly enjoyed campaign donations, prestige, and economic benefits tied to Epstein’s investments. The lawsuit seeks accountability not just for Epstein’s crimes, but for the institutional failures that allowed them to continue unchecked, asserting that government complicity turned the USVI into a safe haven for exploitation. By naming the territory itself as a defendant, the survivors are attempting to force a reckoning with how power, money, and corruption combined to silence victims and protect a serial trafficker operating in plain sight.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The lawsuit filed by Epstein’s survivors against the U.S. Virgin Islands accuses the territorial government of enabling, protecting, and materially benefiting from Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation for decades. The survivors allege that Epstein could not have operated his trafficking network on Little St. James and throughout the USVI without the knowing cooperation or willful blindness of government officials. According to the complaint, Epstein received extraordinary tax breaks, regulatory exemptions, and political access while simultaneously importing underage girls, operating private aircraft, and maintaining compounds that functioned as crime scenes. The lawsuit asserts that repeated warnings, tips, and red flags were ignored, and that the USVI failed to investigate, enforce laws, or intervene even as evidence of abuse mounted over years.The survivors further argue that the USVI’s conduct went beyond negligence and crossed into active facilitation. They claim Epstein’s businesses were used as a financial shield to launder money, avoid scrutiny, and legitimize his presence in the territory, while local officials allegedly enjoyed campaign donations, prestige, and economic benefits tied to Epstein’s investments. The lawsuit seeks accountability not just for Epstein’s crimes, but for the institutional failures that allowed them to continue unchecked, asserting that government complicity turned the USVI into a safe haven for exploitation. By naming the territory itself as a defendant, the survivors are attempting to force a reckoning with how power, money, and corruption combined to silence victims and protect a serial trafficker operating in plain sight.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Metropolitan Police (London) have opened an active investigation into allegations that Prince Andrew, Duke of York in 2011 asked one of his taxpayer-funded protection officers to dig up personal information on Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of sexual abuse when she was under 18. According to reports, the bodyguard was allegedly given Giuffre’s date of birth and U.S. Social Security number by the prince, with the aim of finding a criminal record or other damaging material. The police have stated they are “actively looking into” the claims, though so far it is not publicly confirmed whether the officer complied with the request.These revelations come amid wider turmoil for Prince Andrew and the monarchy: he has recently stepped back from some royal titles, including giving up the “Duke of York” style. The allegations raise serious questions about misuse of police resources and the role of protection officers in alleged smear campaigns. The family of Virginia Giuffre (who died by suicide earlier this year) and campaigners are calling for further action, including stripping the prince of his remaining titles, and for parliamentary scrutiny of how the settlement he made with Giuffre and his relationship with convicted sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein have been handled.to contact me:[email protected]:London police investigating report Prince Andrew asked officer to dig up "dirt" on Virginia Giuffre - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.