Loading summary

Transcript8 lines

[00:00]
SpinQuest Advertiser
Happy Birthday America. It's time to celebrate and play your favorite Las Vegas casino games by American owned spinquest.com what's better than fireworks and American Pie? Hitting a blackjack in the palm of your hand and you won't lose your fingers. Over a thousand games, including slots and live dealers and 30 coin packs are on sale for 10 spinquest.com buy American
[00:22]
SpinQuest Advertiser Disclaimer
players for American players, Spin Quest is a free to play social casino. Boyd where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. Foreign
[00:34]
Epstein Chronicles Host
what's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off with the letter that was sent by Ken Starr to Mark Phillip. Although these matters were within the scope of the CEO's review, rather than considering whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOs only determined that U.S. attorney Acosta would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution in the case. The abuse of discretion standard constitutes an extremely low bar of evaluation, and while it may be appropriate when the consideration of issues are exclusively factual in nature, this standard fails to address concerns particular to this situation, namely the novel application of federal statutes. The abuse of discretion standard in such pure legal matters of statutory application risk causing a lack of uniformity. The same federal statutes that would be stretched beyond their bounds in Miami have been limited to their heartland in each of the other federal districts. Also, because the case implicates broader issues of the administration of equal justice, federal prosecution in this matter risks the appearance of selectivity in its stretching of federal law to fit the facts. In fact, recent testimony of several alleged victims contradict claims prosecutors made during the negotiation of a deferred prosecution agreement. The consistent representations of key government witnesses, such as redacted, redacted, redacted, and redacted confirm the following critical points. First, there was no communication, telephonic or otherwise, that meets the requirements of section 2422B. For instance, Ms. Redacted confirmed that Mr. Epstein never emailed, text messaged, or used any facility of interstate commerce whatsoever before or after her one and only visit to his home. Redacted at 30. Second, the woman who testified admitted that they lied to Mr. Epstein about their age in order to gain admittance to his home. Indeed, the women who brought their underage friends to Mr. Epstein testified that they would counsel their friends to lie about their ages as well. Ms. Redacted stated the following I would tell my girlfriends, just like redacted, they were 18 or 19 or 20 and the girls that I didn't know, and I don't know if they were lying or not. I would say make sure that you tell them you're 18. Third, there was no routine or habit of improper communication expressing an intent to transform a massage into an illegal sex act. In fact, there was often no sexual activity at all during the massage. Ms. Redacted testified that sometimes Mr. Epstein just wanted his feet massaged. Sometimes he just wanted a back massage. Redacted also stated that Mr. Epstein never touched her physically and that all she did was massage his back, his chest and his thighs, and that was it. Finally, there was no force, coercion, fraud, violence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with these women. Ms. Redacted stated that Mr. Epstein never tried to force me to do anything. These accounts are far from the usual testimony in sex slavery and Internet stings and sex tourism cases previously brought. The women in actuality were not younger than 16, which is the age of consent in most of the 50 states, and the sex activity was irregular and in large part considered solo self pleasuring. The recent crop of civil suits brought against Mr. Epstein confirm that the plaintiffs did not discuss any sexually related activity with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's residence. This reinforces our contention that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a minor or any other individual occurred. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey Herman, the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the attorney for most of the civil complainants as described in detail below, was quoted in the Palm Beach Post as saying that it doesn't matter, that his clients lied about their ages and and told Mr. Epstein that they were 18 or 19. Not only is the federal prosecution in this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the deferred prosecution agreement are beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor's responsibility. The list of improprieties includes, but is not limited to, the following Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Epstein pay a minimum of of $150,000 per person to an unnamed list of women they referred to as minors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian at Lydium. Mr. Epstein's council later established that all but one of these individuals were actually adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to the women, the USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of any of the claims that these women might make. Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand that Mr. Epstein pay the fees of civil attorneys chosen by the prosecutors to represent these alleged victims should they choose to bring any civil litigation against them. They also proposed sending a notice to the alleged victims stating in an underlying sentence that they should choose their own attorney. Mr. Epstein would not be required to pay their fees. The prosecutors were further demanded that Mr. Epstein waive his right to challenge any of the allegations made by these victims. The Assistant U.S. attorney involved in this matter recommended for the civil attorney a highly lucrative position, an individual that we later discovered was closely and personally connected to the assistant U.S. attorney's own boyfriend. Federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they had identified and later rechecked and reidentified several alleged victims of federal crimes that qualified for payment under US Code 18, Section 2255, a civil remedy designed to provide financial benefits to victims. Only through state discovery provisions did we later learn that many of the women on the rechecked victim list could not possibly qualify under 2255. The reason is that they themselves testified that they did not suffer any type of harm whatsoever, a prerequisite for the civil recovery under 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did not now or in the past consider themselves to be victims. During the last few months, Mr. Herman, first assistant Sloman's former law partner, has filed several civil lawsuits again against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged victims. It's our understanding that each of Mr. Herman's clients are on the government's confidential list of victims of most of these lawsuits seek 50 million in money damages. Assistant U.S. attorney David Weinstein spoke about the case in great detail to Landon Thomas, a reporter with the New York Times, and revealed confidential information about the government's allegations against Mr. Epstein. The assistant U.S. attorney also revealed the substance of confidential plea negotiations. And just to interject, Landon Thomas is the reporter that was outed in the emails as being an Epstein confidant. So he was getting information from David Weinstein, who was a U.S. attorney and then funneling it to Jeffrey Epstein. But we're crazy. We're conspiracy theorists, right?
[07:49]
SpinQuest Advertiser
Hanging out at the pool is great. Relaxing and playing Vegas style games on my phone at the same time. Drink in one hand and a blackjack in the other. It's all at spinquest. Over a thousand games including your favorite slots and table games. Be cool with this summer special new players get $30 coin packs for at
[08:11]
SpinQuest Advertiser Disclaimer
spinquest.com SpinQuest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
[08:20]
Epstein Chronicles Host
When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about the media leaks. First Assistant Slowman responded by asserting that Mr. Thomas was given pursuant to his request non case specific information concerning specific federal statutes. Based on Mr. Thomas contemporaneous notes, that assertion appears to be false. For example, Mr. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed that Epstein had lured girls over the telephone and traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in underage sex. He recounted to Mr. Thomas the USAO's theory of prosecution against Mr. Epstein, replete with an analysis of the key statutes being considered. Furthermore, after Mr. Epstein's defense team complained about the leak to USAO, Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Thomas own description then admonished him for talking to the defense and getting him in trouble. Mr. Weinstein further told him not to believe the spin of Mr. Epstein's high priced attorneys. And then, according to Mr. Thomas, Mr. Weinstein forcefully reminded Mr. Thomas that all prior conversations were merely hypothetical. We are constrained to conclude that the actions of federal officials in this case so strike at the heart of one of the vitally important enduring values in this country, the honest enforcement of federal law, free of political consideration and free of the taint of personal financial motivations on the part of federal prosecutors that at a minimum, raise the appearance of serious impropriety. We were told by the U.S. attorney Acosta that as part of the review he requested, the Department had the authority and his consent to make any determination it deemed appropriate regarding this matter, including a decision to decline federal prosecution. Yet CEOs only conclusion based on its limited review of the investigation is that U.S. attorney Acosta would not abuse his discretion by proceeding against Mr. Epstein. Thus, the decision on whether the prosecution is fair and appropriate has been placed once again in U.S. attorney Acosta's hands. In light of the foregoing, we respectfully ask you that you review this matter and discontinue all federal involvement so that the State can appropriately bring this matter to closure. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these important issues. Such a meeting would provide the Department with an opportunity to review the paramount issues of federalism and the appearance of selectivity that are generated by the unprecedented attempts to broaden the ambitious of federal statutes to places that they have never been reached. We sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted Ken Starr and Joe Whitley. All right. And as you can see from this letter, they went way above Acosta's head. Like I've told you from the very beginning, this was not an Acosta decision. In fact, Acosta, if anything, wanted to proceed. He was undercut by his bosses at the doj. And if you needed proof of that, here it is. This was the opening salvo of the sweetheart deal being put into place, and you see how they just go over Acosta's head like I've been telling you for years. So the whole entire time that people wasted on Acosta, just more time for these people to get their narrative under control when the real people that were in charge of this were sitting in dc. And if you're looking for the real architect of the Jeffrey Epstein npa, look no further than Mark Philipp. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
[11:50]
SpinQuest Advertiser
Happy Birthday America. It's time to celebrate and play your favorite Las Vegas casino games by American owned spinquest.com what's better than fireworks and American Pie? Hitting a blackjack in the palm of your hand and you won't lose your fingers. Over a thousand games, including slots and live dealers and $30 coin packs are on sale for 10 spinquest.com buy American
[12:11]
SpinQuest Advertiser Disclaimer
players for American players, Spinquest is a free to play social casino. Boyd we're prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

Summary5 min read

The Epstein Chronicles

Episode: Mark Filip’s Role: The Missing Link in the Epstein Cover-Up (Part 2)

Host: Bobby Capucci
Date: August 4, 2026

Episode Overview

In this episode, Bobby Capucci continues to dissect the pivotal role played by Mark Filip in the Jeffrey Epstein plea deal. Picking up from Part 1, the host reads and analyzes a letter from Ken Starr to Mark Filip and exposes how control over the prosecution shifted from the local U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta to higher officials within the Department of Justice (DOJ). Capucci underscores that the “sweetheart deal” extended to Epstein was not just Acosta’s decision, but rooted in decisions and influences from DOJ leadership—naming Mark Filip as the “real architect” of the non-prosecution agreement (NPA).

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Ken Starr Letter to Mark Filip

[00:33–11:49]

Abuse of Discretion Standard:
Capucci reads and breaks down parts of Ken Starr’s letter to Mark Filip, where Starr critiques the DOJ’s use of an “abuse of discretion” standard in reviewing Epstein’s federal prosecution options. Starr argues that this is too low a bar and risks unequal application of justice, especially when it comes to complex statutory issues.

“The abuse of discretion standard constitutes an extremely low bar of evaluation... this standard fails to address concerns particular to this situation, namely the novel application of federal statutes.”
(Ken Starr, read at 00:33)
Alleged Victim Testimonies:
Starr claims that victims’ statements contradict prosecutors’ allegations, highlighting supposed lack of evidence for interstate enticement, misrepresentation of ages, and inconsistent victim status.
- Victims allegedly:
  - Lied about their ages to access Epstein’s home.
  - Were instructed by others to claim they were 18.
  - Did not experience force, coercion, or threats.
  - Often provided non-sexual massages.
- Assertion that most encounters did not align with “usual testimony in sex slavery and Internet stings.”
"Ms. [Redacted] stated that Mr. Epstein never tried to force me to do anything.”
(00:33)
Improprieties by Federal Prosecutors:
- Unprecedented demands for Epstein to pay victims (most of whom were not minors).
- Demand for Epstein to pay civil attorneys’ fees for claimants.
- Prosecutors’ lack of verification for the legitimacy of victims’ claims.
- Assistant U.S. Attorneys allegedly influenced lucrative appointments for associates.
“Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Epstein pay a minimum of $150,000 per person to an unnamed list of women they referred to as minors…”
(Ken Starr, read at 00:33)
Civil Suits and Prosecutorial Leaks:
Prosecutors revealed confidential information to journalists (notably to Landon Thomas of the New York Times, allegedly an Epstein confidant).

“Landon Thomas is the reporter that was outed in the emails as being an Epstein confidant. So he was getting information from David Weinstein, who was a U.S. attorney and then funneling it to Jeffrey Epstein.”
(Host commentary, 07:49)
Requests for DOJ Review:
Starr and Co-counsel Joe Whitley ask the DOJ to discontinue federal prosecution entirely and let the State resolve the matter, framing federal involvement as inappropriate and overreaching.

“In light of the foregoing, we respectfully ask... that you review this matter and discontinue all federal involvement so that the State can appropriately bring this matter to closure.”
(Ken Starr, read at 08:19)

2. Host Analysis: Who Really Engineered the Deal?

[10:58–11:49]

Acosta's Limited Role:
Capucci argues that Acosta was not ultimately in control. DOJ higher-ups—notably Mark Filip—shaped the process and outcome.

“As you can see from this letter, they went way above Acosta’s head. Like I’ve told you from the very beginning, this was not an Acosta decision. In fact, Acosta, if anything, wanted to proceed. He was undercut by his bosses at the DOJ.”
(Host, 10:58)
Narrative Manipulation:
Capucci highlights how public focus was steered toward Acosta, distracting from real decision-makers in Washington, D.C., and giving the “architects” time to control the narrative.

“So the whole entire time that people wasted on Acosta, just more time for these people to get their narrative under control when the real people that were in charge of this were sitting in DC.”
(Host, 11:23)
Mark Filip: The “Missing Link”: The host identifies Mark Filip as the orchestrator behind the scenes and key to understanding the cover-up.

“If you’re looking for the real architect of the Jeffrey Epstein NPA, look no further than Mark Filip.”
(Host, 11:36)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On shifting responsibility:

"Thus, the decision on whether the prosecution is fair and appropriate has been placed once again in U.S. attorney Acosta's hands. In light of the foregoing, we respectfully ask... that you review this matter and discontinue all federal involvement...”
(Ken Starr’s letter, read at 08:19)
On DOJ hierarchies and interference:

“They went way above Acosta’s head... this was not an Acosta decision. In fact, Acosta, if anything, wanted to proceed. He was undercut by his bosses at the DOJ."
(Host, 10:58)

Important Timestamps

00:33 – Host dives into Ken Starr’s letter and its claims about the investigation and alleged prosecutorial misconduct
07:49 – Discussion about journalist Landon Thomas, leaks to the media, and the DOJ’s connection to Epstein
08:19 – Starr’s request for DOJ to end federal involvement; host analysis of the implications
10:58 – Capucci’s core argument: the real decision-makers were in D.C., with Mark Filip central to the story

Conclusion

This episode exposes how the DOJ’s internal dynamics and pressure from high-profile attorneys like Ken Starr shaped the Epstein prosecution. Through lengthy recitation and breakdown of official correspondence, the host illustrates how responsibility shifted from local prosecutors to politically connected figures in Washington. Listeners are left with a clear directive: to understand the reality behind the “sweetheart deal,” focus on the overlooked roles of people like Mark Filip—not just the public face of Acosta.

For further reading, Capucci mentions that all documents referenced are available in the episode’s description.

Loading summary

Transcript8 lines

[00:00]
SpinQuest Advertiser
Happy Birthday America. It's time to celebrate and play your favorite Las Vegas casino games by American owned spinquest.com what's better than fireworks and American Pie? Hitting a blackjack in the palm of your hand and you won't lose your fingers. Over a thousand games, including slots and live dealers and 30 coin packs are on sale for 10 spinquest.com buy American
[00:22]
SpinQuest Advertiser Disclaimer
players for American players, Spin Quest is a free to play social casino. Boyd where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. Foreign
[00:34]
Epstein Chronicles Host
what's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off with the letter that was sent by Ken Starr to Mark Phillip. Although these matters were within the scope of the CEO's review, rather than considering whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOs only determined that U.S. attorney Acosta would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution in the case. The abuse of discretion standard constitutes an extremely low bar of evaluation, and while it may be appropriate when the consideration of issues are exclusively factual in nature, this standard fails to address concerns particular to this situation, namely the novel application of federal statutes. The abuse of discretion standard in such pure legal matters of statutory application risk causing a lack of uniformity. The same federal statutes that would be stretched beyond their bounds in Miami have been limited to their heartland in each of the other federal districts. Also, because the case implicates broader issues of the administration of equal justice, federal prosecution in this matter risks the appearance of selectivity in its stretching of federal law to fit the facts. In fact, recent testimony of several alleged victims contradict claims prosecutors made during the negotiation of a deferred prosecution agreement. The consistent representations of key government witnesses, such as redacted, redacted, redacted, and redacted confirm the following critical points. First, there was no communication, telephonic or otherwise, that meets the requirements of section 2422B. For instance, Ms. Redacted confirmed that Mr. Epstein never emailed, text messaged, or used any facility of interstate commerce whatsoever before or after her one and only visit to his home. Redacted at 30. Second, the woman who testified admitted that they lied to Mr. Epstein about their age in order to gain admittance to his home. Indeed, the women who brought their underage friends to Mr. Epstein testified that they would counsel their friends to lie about their ages as well. Ms. Redacted stated the following I would tell my girlfriends, just like redacted, they were 18 or 19 or 20 and the girls that I didn't know, and I don't know if they were lying or not. I would say make sure that you tell them you're 18. Third, there was no routine or habit of improper communication expressing an intent to transform a massage into an illegal sex act. In fact, there was often no sexual activity at all during the massage. Ms. Redacted testified that sometimes Mr. Epstein just wanted his feet massaged. Sometimes he just wanted a back massage. Redacted also stated that Mr. Epstein never touched her physically and that all she did was massage his back, his chest and his thighs, and that was it. Finally, there was no force, coercion, fraud, violence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with these women. Ms. Redacted stated that Mr. Epstein never tried to force me to do anything. These accounts are far from the usual testimony in sex slavery and Internet stings and sex tourism cases previously brought. The women in actuality were not younger than 16, which is the age of consent in most of the 50 states, and the sex activity was irregular and in large part considered solo self pleasuring. The recent crop of civil suits brought against Mr. Epstein confirm that the plaintiffs did not discuss any sexually related activity with anyone prior to arriving at Mr. Epstein's residence. This reinforces our contention that no telephonic or Internet persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a minor or any other individual occurred. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey Herman, the former law partner of one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and the attorney for most of the civil complainants as described in detail below, was quoted in the Palm Beach Post as saying that it doesn't matter, that his clients lied about their ages and and told Mr. Epstein that they were 18 or 19. Not only is the federal prosecution in this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the deferred prosecution agreement are beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor's responsibility. The list of improprieties includes, but is not limited to, the following Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Epstein pay a minimum of of $150,000 per person to an unnamed list of women they referred to as minors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian at Lydium. Mr. Epstein's council later established that all but one of these individuals were actually adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to the women, the USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of any of the claims that these women might make. Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand that Mr. Epstein pay the fees of civil attorneys chosen by the prosecutors to represent these alleged victims should they choose to bring any civil litigation against them. They also proposed sending a notice to the alleged victims stating in an underlying sentence that they should choose their own attorney. Mr. Epstein would not be required to pay their fees. The prosecutors were further demanded that Mr. Epstein waive his right to challenge any of the allegations made by these victims. The Assistant U.S. attorney involved in this matter recommended for the civil attorney a highly lucrative position, an individual that we later discovered was closely and personally connected to the assistant U.S. attorney's own boyfriend. Federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they had identified and later rechecked and reidentified several alleged victims of federal crimes that qualified for payment under US Code 18, Section 2255, a civil remedy designed to provide financial benefits to victims. Only through state discovery provisions did we later learn that many of the women on the rechecked victim list could not possibly qualify under 2255. The reason is that they themselves testified that they did not suffer any type of harm whatsoever, a prerequisite for the civil recovery under 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did not now or in the past consider themselves to be victims. During the last few months, Mr. Herman, first assistant Sloman's former law partner, has filed several civil lawsuits again against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged victims. It's our understanding that each of Mr. Herman's clients are on the government's confidential list of victims of most of these lawsuits seek 50 million in money damages. Assistant U.S. attorney David Weinstein spoke about the case in great detail to Landon Thomas, a reporter with the New York Times, and revealed confidential information about the government's allegations against Mr. Epstein. The assistant U.S. attorney also revealed the substance of confidential plea negotiations. And just to interject, Landon Thomas is the reporter that was outed in the emails as being an Epstein confidant. So he was getting information from David Weinstein, who was a U.S. attorney and then funneling it to Jeffrey Epstein. But we're crazy. We're conspiracy theorists, right?
[07:49]
SpinQuest Advertiser
Hanging out at the pool is great. Relaxing and playing Vegas style games on my phone at the same time. Drink in one hand and a blackjack in the other. It's all at spinquest. Over a thousand games including your favorite slots and table games. Be cool with this summer special new players get $30 coin packs for at
[08:11]
SpinQuest Advertiser Disclaimer
spinquest.com SpinQuest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
[08:20]
Epstein Chronicles Host
When counsel for Mr. Epstein complained about the media leaks. First Assistant Slowman responded by asserting that Mr. Thomas was given pursuant to his request non case specific information concerning specific federal statutes. Based on Mr. Thomas contemporaneous notes, that assertion appears to be false. For example, Mr. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed that Epstein had lured girls over the telephone and traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in underage sex. He recounted to Mr. Thomas the USAO's theory of prosecution against Mr. Epstein, replete with an analysis of the key statutes being considered. Furthermore, after Mr. Epstein's defense team complained about the leak to USAO, Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Thomas own description then admonished him for talking to the defense and getting him in trouble. Mr. Weinstein further told him not to believe the spin of Mr. Epstein's high priced attorneys. And then, according to Mr. Thomas, Mr. Weinstein forcefully reminded Mr. Thomas that all prior conversations were merely hypothetical. We are constrained to conclude that the actions of federal officials in this case so strike at the heart of one of the vitally important enduring values in this country, the honest enforcement of federal law, free of political consideration and free of the taint of personal financial motivations on the part of federal prosecutors that at a minimum, raise the appearance of serious impropriety. We were told by the U.S. attorney Acosta that as part of the review he requested, the Department had the authority and his consent to make any determination it deemed appropriate regarding this matter, including a decision to decline federal prosecution. Yet CEOs only conclusion based on its limited review of the investigation is that U.S. attorney Acosta would not abuse his discretion by proceeding against Mr. Epstein. Thus, the decision on whether the prosecution is fair and appropriate has been placed once again in U.S. attorney Acosta's hands. In light of the foregoing, we respectfully ask you that you review this matter and discontinue all federal involvement so that the State can appropriately bring this matter to closure. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these important issues. Such a meeting would provide the Department with an opportunity to review the paramount issues of federalism and the appearance of selectivity that are generated by the unprecedented attempts to broaden the ambitious of federal statutes to places that they have never been reached. We sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted Ken Starr and Joe Whitley. All right. And as you can see from this letter, they went way above Acosta's head. Like I've told you from the very beginning, this was not an Acosta decision. In fact, Acosta, if anything, wanted to proceed. He was undercut by his bosses at the doj. And if you needed proof of that, here it is. This was the opening salvo of the sweetheart deal being put into place, and you see how they just go over Acosta's head like I've been telling you for years. So the whole entire time that people wasted on Acosta, just more time for these people to get their narrative under control when the real people that were in charge of this were sitting in dc. And if you're looking for the real architect of the Jeffrey Epstein npa, look no further than Mark Philipp. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
[11:50]
SpinQuest Advertiser
Happy Birthday America. It's time to celebrate and play your favorite Las Vegas casino games by American owned spinquest.com what's better than fireworks and American Pie? Hitting a blackjack in the palm of your hand and you won't lose your fingers. Over a thousand games, including slots and live dealers and $30 coin packs are on sale for 10 spinquest.com buy American
[12:11]
SpinQuest Advertiser Disclaimer
players for American players, Spinquest is a free to play social casino. Boyd we're prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.