The Kirkland & Ellis response treats the May 19, 2008 letter from the Southern District of Florida’s First Assistant U.S. Attorney not as a good-faith summary, but as a document that actively distorts the historical record of the Epstein investigation. The firm argues that the letter is riddled with contradictions, misleading framing, and outright falsehoods that cannot be chalked up to sloppy drafting or innocent error. Rather than accurately recounting investigative decisions, the letter is portrayed as a post-hoc justification designed to sanitize prosecutorial conduct after the fact. Kirkland & Ellis makes clear that the document attempts to reshape reality—presenting disputed actions as settled facts and glossing over decisions that directly benefited Epstein.
Critically, the response emphasizes that the letter’s defects are not marginal or technical, but foundational, calling into question the integrity of the government’s entire narrative. By systematically comparing the letter’s assertions with what actually occurred, Kirkland & Ellis suggests that the misrepresentations were deliberate and strategic, intended to create a paper trail that could withstand scrutiny rather than reflect truth. The firm characterizes the letter as emblematic of how the Epstein case was managed from start to finish: facts were selectively presented, inconvenient details were omitted or reframed, and the official record was bent to support an outcome already decided. In this view, the May 19 letter is not merely inaccurate—it is itself evidence of how the Epstein investigation was manipulated and why accountability was avoided.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
EFTA00013801.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Critically, the response emphasizes that the letter’s defects are not marginal or technical, but foundational, calling into question the integrity of the government’s entire narrative. By systematically comparing the letter’s assertions with what actually occurred, Kirkland & Ellis suggests that the misrepresentations were deliberate and strategic, intended to create a paper trail that could withstand scrutiny rather than reflect truth. The firm characterizes the letter as emblematic of how the Epstein case was managed from start to finish: facts were selectively presented, inconvenient details were omitted or reframed, and the official record was bent to support an outcome already decided. In this view, the May 19 letter is not merely inaccurate—it is itself evidence of how the Epstein investigation was manipulated and why accountability was avoided.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
EFTA00013801.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to take a
look at a letter that was sent to the Florida
Assistant US Attorney by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team, and they're
basically bullying the Florida office because they won't play ball
with Epstein's attorneys and give Epstein what he wants. So
(00:23):
once again, it goes to show you that it wasn't
alex Acosta. Now, I know people want to keep blaming him,
and he did play his part. He didn't have the
courage to stand up to these people, But the truth is,
the real decision was made by DOJ Brass. So we're
going to continue to provide those receipts so that all
of you get a full hdview of how it all
(00:45):
went down. So let's dive in response letter to FAUSA
dated May nineteenth, two thousand and eight, and in May nineteenth,
two thousand and eight letter to Jay Lefkwitz SDFL First
Assistant US Attorney redacted, provided what purported to be a
summary of the events that have occurred during the investigation
(01:07):
of mister Epstein. Mister Adacted's letter is fraught with inconsistencies,
false and misleading characterizations, and outright falsehoods. The comparison below
between the false assertion in mister Redacted's letter and what
actually transpired is only the tip of the iceberg. We
respectfully submit that mister Redacted's letter alone demonstrates the degree
(01:29):
to which the record of facts have been distorted, and
these distortions have permeated this unprecedented investigation. Number one independent
and denovo review mister Adacted's letter, we obliged your request
for an independent de novo review of the investigation and
facilitated such a review at the highest levels of the
(01:51):
Department of Justice. The truth CEO's review concluded in May
of two thousand and eight, was neither independent nor denvo.
CEO's review was not independent. Redacted, who conducted the review
on behalf of CEO's, had already reviewed the prosecution memo
on this matter eight months earlier. During a meeting with
(02:11):
defense counsel at the US Attorney's Office in Miami in
September of two thousand and seven, he opined that he
believed the prosecution that he would try the case myself. Indeed,
mister adacted acknowledges that mister adacted had previously opined on
this matter, stating this particular attack on this statute US
(02:31):
Code eighteen, section twenty two forty two B had been
previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by CEOs prior
to the execution of the deferred prosecution agreement in September
of two thousand and seven. The statute mister adacted referred
to section twenty four to twenty two B lies at
the heart of the Epstein investigation. Thus, according to mister redacted,
(02:54):
mister adacted was tasked with reviewing his own prior decision
regarding a applying the key statute under which the SDFL
proposed prosecuting mister Epstein. The defense immediately raised concerns regarding
the non independence of the review when told that it
would be mister Redacted tasked with providing the review, but
(03:15):
was told that mister Redacted rendered his prior opinion he
was not really up to speed on the facts. CEO's
review was not the novo. By letter dated May fifteenth,
two thousand and eight, four days before mister Redacted's letter,
mister Adacted advised mister Lefkowitz that CEOs reviewed the matter
only for abuse of discretion. The question we sought to
(03:37):
answer was whether US Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion
if authorization or if authorized prosecution in the case ce
TAP thirty eight May fifteenth, two thousand and eight letter
from d redacted. Mister Acosta would not be abusing his
discretion if he decided to pursue such a course of action,
(03:58):
and page five, mister Acosta would not be abusing as
prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution of mister Epstein.
For the factual record of its abuse of discretion review,
CEOs relied on the very same prosecution memo that it
had already reviewed in rendering its prior opinion, stating, as
you know, our review of this case is limited, both
(04:21):
actually and legally. We have not looked at the entire
universe of facts in the case, nor did CEOs review
any facts related to the irregular provisions in the deferred
prosecution agreement or the numerous complaints of prosecutorial misconduct, both
of which are inextricably intertwined with impropriety of the investigation.
(04:43):
Two Notification of witnesses Mister Adacted's letter, Mister Addacted dismissed
the totality of the defense objections to the appropriate notification
the SDFL proposed to send to its witnesses, stating merely
that you objected to victims being notified of time and
place of Epstein's State Court sentencing hearing. The truth, The
(05:05):
defense engaged in days of negotiation and made fourteen separate
substantative objections to the unprecedented notification letter that mister Adacted
threatened to send to an undisclosed list of victims. The
eventual transmission of this highly misleading letter was only halted
by an appeal to AAG Fisher. Among those substantative objections,
(05:26):
which related to far more than the time and place
of the State sentencing hearing were sending, the letter would
contravene the government's commitment to take no position regarding potential
claims of government witnesses. So let me just stop right here.
And whoever this mister Fisher is, he should be on
the clock, why would he halt the appeal? This letter
(05:51):
cited to an inapplicable statute, the Justice for All Act
in two thousand and four as its justification for being sent.
A USA. Acosta later conceded that the citation to this
statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. The letter wrongly
advised all recipients that mister Epstein would be required to
(06:11):
register as a sexual predator for the remainder of his life.
The letter amounted to an invitation to civil litigation against
mister Epstein, advising recipients that they had the right to
seek civil damages from mister Epstein. In an underlined instruction,
stated that if they chose an attorney other than the
one chosen by the government, they would be required to
pay his fees, but if they chose the government's choice,
(06:34):
mister Epstein would be required to pay the fees. Three
mischaracterization of our arguments Mister adacted's letter. Mister Adapted's letter
misleadingly characterizes our substantative defense of the government's investigation as
the investigation merely produced evidence of relatively innocuous sexual conduct
(06:55):
with some miners who, unbeknownst mister Epstein, misrepresented their ages
the truth. We never made such a claim. To the contrary,
We argue that Swarren's statements we have taken of the
alleged victims demonstrate that law enforcement has presented versions of
their testimony that are necessarily sensationalized and fictionalized. We presented
(07:16):
evidence that mister Epstein routinely and daily received massages from adults.
Only a small percentage of the messuses turned out to
be miners. The majority of those miners interviewed by law
enforcement admitted to lying directly to Epstein about their ages,
not unbeknown to Epstein, and inventing further false details to
substantiate their lies. Indeed, the civil attorney for several of
(07:38):
these women admitted at his recent press conference that they
lied to mister Epstein about their ages. Numerous witnesses testify
that mister Epstein asked that all messuses be over the
age of eighteen. Further, the evidence is undisputed that mister
Epstein's assistant scheduled the massages, and mister Epstein did not
know which messuses his assistance had scheduled on aarticular day
(08:01):
until the massage took place. We admitted that there was
sexual conduct, and argued not that it was innocuous, as
mister redacted alleges, but that it was mostly mister Epstein's
own self pleasuring, which did not satisfy the requisite federal
element of criminal sexual conduct, which in turn defined by
state law. These are important distinctions and show that mister
(08:22):
Redacted has misrepresented the record about the most basic part
of our defense. Four. Redacted's demands an unrealistic deadline to
comply with an agreement he unilaterally modifies mister Adacted's letter.
Unless mister Epstein complies with all of the terms and
conditions of the deferred prosecution Agreement as modified by the
(08:45):
US Attorney December nineteenth, two thousand and seven letter to
miss Sanchez by close of business on Monday, June two
thousand and eight, the SDFL will elect to terminate the agreement.
The truth the deferred prosecution agreement was never mind by
the US Attorney Acosta December nineteenth, two thousand and seven letter. Oddly,
mister Acosta acknowledged this on page four of his May
(09:08):
nineteenth letter, where he writes that mister Acosta proposed this
modification and that mister Lefkowitz rejected these proposals. Thus, mister
Redacted is threatening to terminate the deferred prosecution agreement unless
mister Epstein complies with the unilateral modification that mister Redacted
concedes was never agreed to by defense counsel orchestrating the information,
(09:31):
plea and sentencing requirements of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement within
the extremely limited two week time frame imposed by mister
redacted June second, two thousand and eight deadline would have
been difficult enough. More importantly, as explained below, the SDFL
has refused to provide the defense with information it requires
to enable mister Epstein to comply with the additional plea
(09:53):
and sentencing requirements of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, let alone
by the June second deadline arbitrarily imposed by mister adacted.
The Deferred Prosecution Agreement requires mister Epstein to plead guilty
to and be sentenced for an additional offense which requires
that he register as a sex offender in different places.
(10:15):
In his May nineteenth, two thousand and eight letter, mister
adacted describe the additional charge to which mister Epstein required
to plead guilty under the Deferred Prosecution Agreement as procurement
of miners to engage in prostitution or solicitation of miners
to engage in prostitution. The former is an offense for
which mister Epstein would be required to register, but one
(10:37):
for which the state is no evidence to charge mister Epstein,
and the SDFL refuses or is unable to provide evidence
that it claims it has. The latter requires no registration,
but it is the offense which over and over again
Misredacted insisted upon including in the deferred prosecution agreement and
in one which the State believes is appropriate. The inconsistency
(11:01):
between the description of the offense required by the SDFL
and the elements of an offense that can be justified
on the facts of this case, and the sdfl's requirement
that the offense be a registrable one has created substantial confusion.
As a result of this confusion, in December of two
thousand and seven, both the defense and the State requested
(11:22):
that the SDFL provide the factual allegations to enable mister
Epstein and the State to create a truthful, factual recitation
of a registrable offense required by the deferred prosecution agreement,
but to date the SDFL has failed to do so.
Without any explanation, Mister adacted refuses to provide the requested
(11:44):
factual allegations, which the state cannot furnish, and now demands
a two week deadline to comply. Thus, mister adacted has
unreasonably imposed a deadline with which he himself has made
it impossible for mister Epstein to comply. Waiver of appeal
to assist in Attorney General Fisher. Mister Redacted's letter, the
(12:05):
SDFL provided you with thirty days to appeal the decision
to the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Alice Fisher,
and you chose to fore go on appeal to aag
Fisher the truth Mister Acosta told in August seventeenth deadline,
acknowledging that there were serious issues about the case that
needed to be discussed, and scheduled a meeting with the
(12:26):
defense four September seventh, two thousand and seven. At the
September seventh, two thousand and seven meeting with redacted in attendance,
the government dismissed the defense objections and said as September
twenty first, two thousand and seven, deadline to finalize a
non prosecution agreement or the defense would face and already
drafted fifty two page indictment purportedly identifying forty miners with
(12:50):
a guideline range of one hundred and eighty eight months
facing misredacted threatened draconian indictment without the claimed offer of
the right to raise objection in an appeal to aag fisher,
the defense chose to negotiate an agreement to defer prosecution
to the state, an agreement without precedent and fraud, with
(13:10):
substantial practical and legal hurdles to its implementation. All Right,
we're going to wrap up right here, folks, and in
the next episode, we're going to finish this bad boy off.
All of the information that goes with this episode can
be found in the description box.
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to take a
look at a letter that was sent to the Florida
Assistant US Attorney by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team, and they're
basically bullying the Florida office because they won't play ball
with Epstein's attorneys and give Epstein what he wants. So
(00:23):
once again, it goes to show you that it wasn't
alex Acosta. Now, I know people want to keep blaming him,
and he did play his part. He didn't have the
courage to stand up to these people, But the truth is,
the real decision was made by DOJ Brass. So we're
going to continue to provide those receipts so that all
of you get a full hdview of how it all
(00:45):
went down. So let's dive in response letter to FAUSA
dated May nineteenth, two thousand and eight, and in May nineteenth,
two thousand and eight letter to Jay Lefkwitz SDFL First
Assistant US Attorney redacted, provided what purported to be a
summary of the events that have occurred during the investigation
(01:07):
of mister Epstein. Mister Adacted's letter is fraught with inconsistencies,
false and misleading characterizations, and outright falsehoods. The comparison below
between the false assertion in mister Redacted's letter and what
actually transpired is only the tip of the iceberg. We
respectfully submit that mister Redacted's letter alone demonstrates the degree
(01:29):
to which the record of facts have been distorted, and
these distortions have permeated this unprecedented investigation. Number one independent
and denovo review mister Adacted's letter, we obliged your request
for an independent de novo review of the investigation and
facilitated such a review at the highest levels of the
(01:51):
Department of Justice. The truth CEO's review concluded in May
of two thousand and eight, was neither independent nor denvo.
CEO's review was not independent. Redacted, who conducted the review
on behalf of CEO's, had already reviewed the prosecution memo
on this matter eight months earlier. During a meeting with
(02:11):
defense counsel at the US Attorney's Office in Miami in
September of two thousand and seven, he opined that he
believed the prosecution that he would try the case myself. Indeed,
mister adacted acknowledges that mister adacted had previously opined on
this matter, stating this particular attack on this statute US
(02:31):
Code eighteen, section twenty two forty two B had been
previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by CEOs prior
to the execution of the deferred prosecution agreement in September
of two thousand and seven. The statute mister adacted referred
to section twenty four to twenty two B lies at
the heart of the Epstein investigation. Thus, according to mister redacted,
(02:54):
mister adacted was tasked with reviewing his own prior decision
regarding a applying the key statute under which the SDFL
proposed prosecuting mister Epstein. The defense immediately raised concerns regarding
the non independence of the review when told that it
would be mister Redacted tasked with providing the review, but
(03:15):
was told that mister Redacted rendered his prior opinion he
was not really up to speed on the facts. CEO's
review was not the novo. By letter dated May fifteenth,
two thousand and eight, four days before mister Redacted's letter,
mister Adacted advised mister Lefkowitz that CEOs reviewed the matter
only for abuse of discretion. The question we sought to
(03:37):
answer was whether US Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion
if authorization or if authorized prosecution in the case ce
TAP thirty eight May fifteenth, two thousand and eight letter
from d redacted. Mister Acosta would not be abusing his
discretion if he decided to pursue such a course of action,
(03:58):
and page five, mister Acosta would not be abusing as
prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution of mister Epstein.
For the factual record of its abuse of discretion review,
CEOs relied on the very same prosecution memo that it
had already reviewed in rendering its prior opinion, stating, as
you know, our review of this case is limited, both
(04:21):
actually and legally. We have not looked at the entire
universe of facts in the case, nor did CEOs review
any facts related to the irregular provisions in the deferred
prosecution agreement or the numerous complaints of prosecutorial misconduct, both
of which are inextricably intertwined with impropriety of the investigation.
(04:43):
Two Notification of witnesses Mister Adacted's letter, Mister Addacted dismissed
the totality of the defense objections to the appropriate notification
the SDFL proposed to send to its witnesses, stating merely
that you objected to victims being notified of time and
place of Epstein's State Court sentencing hearing. The truth, The
(05:05):
defense engaged in days of negotiation and made fourteen separate
substantative objections to the unprecedented notification letter that mister Adacted
threatened to send to an undisclosed list of victims. The
eventual transmission of this highly misleading letter was only halted
by an appeal to AAG Fisher. Among those substantative objections,
(05:26):
which related to far more than the time and place
of the State sentencing hearing were sending, the letter would
contravene the government's commitment to take no position regarding potential
claims of government witnesses. So let me just stop right here.
And whoever this mister Fisher is, he should be on
the clock, why would he halt the appeal? This letter
(05:51):
cited to an inapplicable statute, the Justice for All Act
in two thousand and four as its justification for being sent.
A USA. Acosta later conceded that the citation to this
statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. The letter wrongly
advised all recipients that mister Epstein would be required to
(06:11):
register as a sexual predator for the remainder of his life.
The letter amounted to an invitation to civil litigation against
mister Epstein, advising recipients that they had the right to
seek civil damages from mister Epstein. In an underlined instruction,
stated that if they chose an attorney other than the
one chosen by the government, they would be required to
pay his fees, but if they chose the government's choice,
(06:34):
mister Epstein would be required to pay the fees. Three
mischaracterization of our arguments Mister adacted's letter. Mister Adapted's letter
misleadingly characterizes our substantative defense of the government's investigation as
the investigation merely produced evidence of relatively innocuous sexual conduct
(06:55):
with some miners who, unbeknownst mister Epstein, misrepresented their ages
the truth. We never made such a claim. To the contrary,
We argue that Swarren's statements we have taken of the
alleged victims demonstrate that law enforcement has presented versions of
their testimony that are necessarily sensationalized and fictionalized. We presented
(07:16):
evidence that mister Epstein routinely and daily received massages from adults.
Only a small percentage of the messuses turned out to
be miners. The majority of those miners interviewed by law
enforcement admitted to lying directly to Epstein about their ages,
not unbeknown to Epstein, and inventing further false details to
substantiate their lies. Indeed, the civil attorney for several of
(07:38):
these women admitted at his recent press conference that they
lied to mister Epstein about their ages. Numerous witnesses testify
that mister Epstein asked that all messuses be over the
age of eighteen. Further, the evidence is undisputed that mister
Epstein's assistant scheduled the massages, and mister Epstein did not
know which messuses his assistance had scheduled on aarticular day
(08:01):
until the massage took place. We admitted that there was
sexual conduct, and argued not that it was innocuous, as
mister redacted alleges, but that it was mostly mister Epstein's
own self pleasuring, which did not satisfy the requisite federal
element of criminal sexual conduct, which in turn defined by
state law. These are important distinctions and show that mister
(08:22):
Redacted has misrepresented the record about the most basic part
of our defense. Four. Redacted's demands an unrealistic deadline to
comply with an agreement he unilaterally modifies mister Adacted's letter.
Unless mister Epstein complies with all of the terms and
conditions of the deferred prosecution Agreement as modified by the
(08:45):
US Attorney December nineteenth, two thousand and seven letter to
miss Sanchez by close of business on Monday, June two
thousand and eight, the SDFL will elect to terminate the agreement.
The truth the deferred prosecution agreement was never mind by
the US Attorney Acosta December nineteenth, two thousand and seven letter. Oddly,
mister Acosta acknowledged this on page four of his May
(09:08):
nineteenth letter, where he writes that mister Acosta proposed this
modification and that mister Lefkowitz rejected these proposals. Thus, mister
Redacted is threatening to terminate the deferred prosecution agreement unless
mister Epstein complies with the unilateral modification that mister Redacted
concedes was never agreed to by defense counsel orchestrating the information,
(09:31):
plea and sentencing requirements of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement within
the extremely limited two week time frame imposed by mister
redacted June second, two thousand and eight deadline would have
been difficult enough. More importantly, as explained below, the SDFL
has refused to provide the defense with information it requires
to enable mister Epstein to comply with the additional plea
(09:53):
and sentencing requirements of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, let alone
by the June second deadline arbitrarily imposed by mister adacted.
The Deferred Prosecution Agreement requires mister Epstein to plead guilty
to and be sentenced for an additional offense which requires
that he register as a sex offender in different places.
(10:15):
In his May nineteenth, two thousand and eight letter, mister
adacted describe the additional charge to which mister Epstein required
to plead guilty under the Deferred Prosecution Agreement as procurement
of miners to engage in prostitution or solicitation of miners
to engage in prostitution. The former is an offense for
which mister Epstein would be required to register, but one
(10:37):
for which the state is no evidence to charge mister Epstein,
and the SDFL refuses or is unable to provide evidence
that it claims it has. The latter requires no registration,
but it is the offense which over and over again
Misredacted insisted upon including in the deferred prosecution agreement and
in one which the State believes is appropriate. The inconsistency
(11:01):
between the description of the offense required by the SDFL
and the elements of an offense that can be justified
on the facts of this case, and the sdfl's requirement
that the offense be a registrable one has created substantial confusion.
As a result of this confusion, in December of two
thousand and seven, both the defense and the State requested
(11:22):
that the SDFL provide the factual allegations to enable mister
Epstein and the State to create a truthful, factual recitation
of a registrable offense required by the deferred prosecution agreement,
but to date the SDFL has failed to do so.
Without any explanation, Mister adacted refuses to provide the requested
(11:44):
factual allegations, which the state cannot furnish, and now demands
a two week deadline to comply. Thus, mister adacted has
unreasonably imposed a deadline with which he himself has made
it impossible for mister Epstein to comply. Waiver of appeal
to assist in Attorney General Fisher. Mister Redacted's letter, the
(12:05):
SDFL provided you with thirty days to appeal the decision
to the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Alice Fisher,
and you chose to fore go on appeal to aag
Fisher the truth Mister Acosta told in August seventeenth deadline,
acknowledging that there were serious issues about the case that
needed to be discussed, and scheduled a meeting with the
(12:26):
defense four September seventh, two thousand and seven. At the
September seventh, two thousand and seven meeting with redacted in attendance,
the government dismissed the defense objections and said as September
twenty first, two thousand and seven, deadline to finalize a
non prosecution agreement or the defense would face and already
drafted fifty two page indictment purportedly identifying forty miners with
(12:50):
a guideline range of one hundred and eighty eight months
facing misredacted threatened draconian indictment without the claimed offer of
the right to raise objection in an appeal to aag fisher,
the defense chose to negotiate an agreement to defer prosecution
to the state, an agreement without precedent and fraud, with
(13:10):
substantial practical and legal hurdles to its implementation. All Right,
we're going to wrap up right here, folks, and in
the next episode, we're going to finish this bad boy off.
All of the information that goes with this episode can
be found in the description box.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.