The Full Evidence Epstein was a Spy w/ Saagar Enjeti

YERRR – the guys sat down with Saagar Enjeti to break down the madness behind Jeffrey Epstein and the web of power protecting him. From the leaked files to Ghislaine’s role, Saagar lays out how the story goes way deeper than the headlines. He digs into the media silence, the political connections, and why nobody at the top ever seems to pay. All that and more on this week’s episode of FLAGRANT. INDULGE. 00:00 History of Jeffrey Epstein 16:48 The Maxwells + Asset for Foreign Agency? 44:42 First Epstein expose 54:24 2005 Conviction + Return to Israel 1:04:54 The Non-Prosecution Agreement + Kept Secret 1:16:13 Likely Epstein = intelligence + Protecting Sources & Methods 1:27:52 We need Church Committee like exposure 1:31:02 Blackmail 1:34:58 Israel's possible involvement + Bill Gates 1:53:21 Deutsche Bank cover-up + All facts presented 1:59:37 Shutting this down + Holding leaders accountable 2:08:06 Trump not delivering + Imbalance with Israel 2:17:59 Define this as American interests 2:20:02 Antisemitism Industrial Complex + "Grifting" 2:25:50 Talk to everybody + Don't trust, critique 2:30:05 What's Trump's strategy with Epstein? 2:35:42 Trump's Presidency so far = Chaos 2:42:49 Where does Republican party go now? 2:46:28 What has propelled Mamdani? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:01Speaker 00

  Say hello to smooth, sugar-like sweetness with Truvia Alulose Plus Stevia Sweetener and Monk Fruit Sweetener. This blend delivers balanced sweetness that minimizes aftertaste with zero calories per serving. Designed to fit everyday moments, Truvia Alulose Blend measures cup for cup like sugar, making it effortless to swap into beverages, baking, and even savory dishes. Find Truvia Alulose Plus Stevia Sweetener and Monk Fruit Sweetener online and nationwide at Kroger, Target, and your favorite local grocery retailer.

• 0:29Speaker 01

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the House Majority PAC dot com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 0:59Speaker 02

  Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. The message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com/switch.

• 1:21Speaker 03

  Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full-price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com.

• 1:29Speaker 04

  What's up, everybody? Welcome to Flagrant. You know, there was a vote by the House Committee to see if we could get the whole Epstein file released. And, uh, shockingly, some of these politicians, I believe, how many of them? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven of them said that it's probably not a good idea that we release the full, detailed Epstein file. And, um, you know, what we could do is just decide to move on to something else. I'm sure there'll be other news stories. Or maybe we could bring somebody who has become quite the expert at the Epstein story. Phenomenal podcast. Our good, good friends, Saagar and Jenny, everybody. Yeah, I saw your episode with Tucker. It was absolutely amazing.

• 2:13Speaker 04

  And, uh, like, I didn't realize how detailed and in-depth your knowledge is. Thanks, brother. He's got a kid now. So we gotta know. Yeah. That's true. And I have a baby girl. Yeah. I didn't do the research, but I asked you a lot of questions.

• 2:28Speaker 05

  That's what all good men do. Yeah. You can outsource your energy.

• 2:30Speaker 04

  So maybe it's a good idea that we just kind of like start with the case for Epstein being intelligence because what I've seen quite recently is a lot of people kind of wiping the record and acting like this is pure conspiracy, that he did have any ties or connections. And I think there's a lot of like, we have a lot of tidbits of information that we've all kind of collected and there's this collective conscious that he absolutely is. So like, what is the argument for it? Maybe give us some backstory. I know you put together something amazing, so just break it down. Who is this Epstein character that we all think we know so well?

• 3:02Speaker 05

  I'll start off from the top. I totally understand people who are saying it's a conspiracy theory and in large part, I think it's because it's been wildly overstated by some people, which is natural in the open environment, right? They're like, he's obviously Mossad, he's obviously CIA, this is part of a blackmail ring. And in my opinion, the American people actually have it right, they just don't have the language, the facts, and they need to pull it together. And I want them to have the information that they have to be able to make that case, especially whenever we have the Israeli prime, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett just yesterday, who said unequivocally, Epstein did not work for Mossad. Now remember, you know, there are key terms here that matter. Work is not the same as asset, or worked with, or worked with at some time. And this is the master game that these people play, the non-denial denial.

• 3:46Speaker 05

  It's one of the most classic things in the history of Washington. So let's start at the very, very, very beginning. And I've put together some stuff, that's why I have my laptop here with me. So the first time that we can see any link between Jeffrey Epstein and somebody who would become eventually very important to a story in the intelligence world is in 1974. So 1974, right here in New York City where we are today, Jeffrey Epstein, despite having no college degree and being a dropout from New York University, is hired by Donald Barr. Now, why does that last name sound familiar? Donald Barr is the father of William Barr, who was the US Attorney General under Donald Trump in 2019, who actually presides over the investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein suicide, I'll just call it a death here for now. So Donald Barr in 1974 hires Jeffrey Epstein at the Dalton School.

• 4:31Speaker 04

  Does Donald Barr have intelligence connections?

• 4:34Speaker 05

  Yes, he certainly does, as would be a surprise. To all of you, as to all of the storied families of the people who are connected to the most elite private schools here in New York City. So here we have a New York Times report from 2019. Jeffrey Epstein taught at Dalton. His behavior was noticed. And what they talk about specifically is that Epstein, even here in his early twenties, is already exhibiting the pedophile behavior that it becomes known for. He starts harassing a lot of young girls and in the span of just one year, finds himself basically under investigation and departs under weird circumstances after teaching math here at the Dalton School. So the question is, why did Donald Barr hire Jeffrey Epstein, a person at the Dalton School, to teach math despite having no credentials, no college degree?

• 5:16Speaker 05

  I mean, you can't even get a job at a public school without a college degree and a teacher's certification.

• 5:21Speaker 04

  Let me ask you this question.

• 5:22Speaker 05

  And this is the first time we see.

• 5:22Speaker 04

  Okay, so let me ask this question. And I think it's important to just give pushback so we kind of understand. I don't even want to call it pushback. You know, my dad had a college degree. He walks in and he asks if he can be a work in the news station.

• 5:35Speaker 05

  Sure.

• 5:35Speaker 04

  And so this is back on like the seventh, and he's able to get a job working in a news station. Eventually it was on air. So there was a different time. Could teachers just teach at an elite private school?

• 5:44Speaker 05

  No, they could not. See, that's the thing. So no, they could not. Not common. The Donald Barr, by the way, actually departed the school at the very same time as Jeffrey Epstein. The cope from Donald Barr and others, the explanation is that he very often had an unconventional hiring strategy. But, you know, people who attended Dalton and others basically said it was a very weird hire at the time, and nobody still to this day really has an explanation for why. That's the very first known link. And it's weird. Okay, let's just be honest. It's weird. So from 1974, 1975, we have the departure. So somewhere around 1976, Jeffrey Epstein meets a guy named Ace Greenberg. Ace Greenberg of Bear Stearns. And of course, you guys know, for the younger audience out there, Bear Stearns is one of the most storied investment banks in Wall Street history,

• 6:26Speaker 05

  went down in 2008. So Ace Greenberg, whose child goes to Bear Stearns, meets Jeffrey Epstein. Ostensibly, it's some sort of like parent event. So here we have Jeffrey Epstein's deep ties to top Wall Street. So it talks here about Greenberg.

• 6:38Speaker 04

  Just so I can understand.

• 6:39Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 6:40Speaker 04

  Jeffrey Epstein was teaching.

• 6:42Speaker 05

  At Dalton.

• 6:43Speaker 04

  Ace Greenberg's kid at Dalton.

• 6:44Speaker 05

  Correct.

• 6:45Speaker 04

  Builds a relationship with this Ace Greenberg guy, who is one of the, what, the heads of the bank?

• 6:49Speaker 05

  Yes, he's the head of the bank, one of the most powerful man on all of Wall Street in the 1970s and 1980s.

• 6:54Speaker 04

  Got it.

• 6:54Speaker 05

  So Jeff, so Ace Greenberg hires Jeffrey Epstein initially on the options desk. What ends up happening is Epstein's actually not very good at that. So they're like, what's this guy any good at? So they transfer him to basically the high net worth money management desk. And effectively, for the next five years, Jeffrey Epstein learns the art and really the art of money laundering. He manages high net worth individuals' money. What he does with that money is he specializes in offshore accounting. And then specifically, what he does is he gets deep in with all of these shadowy figures who are experts in the Cayman Islands and moving money offshores. Now, this is the first known time that he begins to develop the portfolio that will make him very useful for intelligence agencies in the future.

• 7:37Speaker 04

  Now, sorry, real quick.

• 7:38Speaker 05

  Go ahead.

• 7:38Speaker 04

  Are they moving money offshores to avoid taxes?

• 7:40Speaker 05

  Initially, it's to avoid taxes. Now, but what we eventually learn is from the formation of something called IAG. So after five years at Bear Stearns, Jeffrey Epstein is fired for a regulatory D violation. Basically, he broke internal banking rules and insider trading. So there's two things that we learn here. Number one, he's involved in sketchy behavior from the very beginning. Two, he's not prosecuted. He's basically fired, let go, and everybody keeps it hush, hush. I'll come back to that in the future because he develops a strategy there called playing the box. Playing the box is a strategy he admitted to, where he said, you can break the law and you can always get away with it because people will be too embarrassed to be able to call you out for it, which will enable you to continue your money laundering.

• 8:22Speaker 04

  Won't they be embarrassed?

• 8:23Speaker 05

  Because Bear Stearns would be embarrassed by the fact that they have somebody who's managing so much money inside of their bank.

• 8:28Speaker 04

  Was he internally caught?

• 8:29Speaker 05

  He was internally caught. And that's why he was.

• 8:31Speaker 04

  So SEC doesn't find out, the Bear Stearns finds out?

• 8:34Speaker 05

  Bear Stearns compliance, and they're like, look, we need to make this go away. We just, we don't want to deal with this anymore. He just needs to go. So from that point forward, 1981, Epstein forms a company called IAG, the Intercontinental Assets Group. I'm going to read directly here from the description. He is a, quote, "high level." Bounty hunter who helps clients recover assets. This is the first entree into what will eventually sprawl as a global intelligence network. Because a high level bounty hunter who helps you recover money is not involved in quote legitimate business. What does that mean recover money? Yeah, exactly. So it's in many cases, he eventually gets involved with people who are running Ponzi schemes and basically keeping and hiding money offshore. He sells himself and it's very unclear because none of the records of this have ever really been released.

• 9:18Speaker 05

  But the description of high level bounty hunter indicates to us that his specialization in offshore banking is one that becomes very important to intelligence networks. So this is where people might ask like, hey, why do we even care about this? Why would an intelligence network even want offshore banking? And the reason why is in the 1980s, there were all of these very sketchy arms deals that were happening. Here we have in the United States, the Iran contra affair. This is the Cold War and everybody actually has a very distorted attitude as to how the CIA front companies work. Nobody at the CIA has a bank at JP Morgan Chase that says CIA that goes and buys a front company building. Did you guys, oh, perfect example. Do you ever remember when you watch Argo? Do you guys watch the movie?

• 10:00Speaker 05

  So remember how Ben Affleck's character flies to Hollywood and gets a front man to open a company? And the money is laundered through the front man? That man would be known as a CIA asset because he's able to open that front company. So that's why it's very important to the CIA. They'll work for the CIA. Of course. They have their own job. Exactly. They have their own money. In many cases, they put up their own money. Exactly. But eventually get reimbursed somewhere in shady offshore banking thing on the backend. So these are vital parts of any intelligence network, Israeli, US, Saudi, everybody. This is something everybody does. Then it wouldn't work as espionage. Exactly. Because Iran would be like, why is the CIA trying to hide it?

• 10:34Speaker 06

  And then you get Iran contra blown up.

• 10:35Speaker 05

  That's exactly.

• 10:36Speaker 07

  Being a CIA asset isn't necessarily in and of itself bad.

• 10:39Speaker 05

  No.

• 10:40Speaker 07

  It's a necessary.

• 10:41Speaker 05

  It's just the way that you do business. There's no value judgment here. So the point is, is that at this time, this is when he begins to develop a relationship in somewhere around between the 1976 and 1981 with a man named Douglas Lees. Now, Lees is a very important character. Douglas Lees was a UK national. He's a verified in. UK government documents as having been involved in multiple arms deals and is thought to have been at least somewhat of a CIA MI6, some sort of intelligence asset. Douglas Leese is an expert again in offshore banking and international money laundering. At the age of 20, I think it's 28, and somebody can check my work on this, is that at the age of 28, Douglas Leese brings a young Jeffrey Epstein on a private plane to the Pentagon

• 11:24Speaker 05

  for purposes that we still do not know. This is long before Epstein is a billionaire. This is when he's involved specifically in offshore banking. Leese is basically the conduit through which he is then introduced to all of these very important people. Yes, Adnan Khashoggi, who is a very important person in this story, Steven Hoffenberg, who is basically the source of a lot of this information. Keep in mind, Steven Hoffenberg, and he went on the record to Vicky Ward, who's the journalist who did the original expose on Epstein in 2002. He was convicted of one of the largest Ponzi schemes in US history. What ended up happening is he was trying to con Epstein, but Epstein actually conned him out of $100 million. But he, Steven Hoffenberg, basically showed the relationship between Douglas

• 12:07Speaker 05

  Leese and Epstein, which Epstein got very testy about whenever he was asked, basically pretended, "I hardly know the guy." Leese is the person who introduces Epstein to Hoffenberg, to Robert Maxwell, and to this Adnan Khashoggi. Now, the reason why all three of those names matter is that Hoffenberg shows the conduit of the way that Epstein was already working with illegal enterprises and offshore banking. The way that he alleges Epstein stole his money was specifically through one of these offshore transactions. The other two names I- So a guy was running a Ponzi scheme- And then he conned him- Got caught- Yeah. And then wrote a hater article about it. And actually Epstein, actually Epstein cooperated with US authorities against Hoffenberg and basically got him locked up in prison. Oh wow. This was only acknowledged years and years later. I mean, he was a master,

• 12:51Speaker 05

  he was a master networker. We have to give it to him. But again, here's another link between the community, intel, you know, the US government, Jeffrey Epstein, here's a link to offshore banking, and then specifically Adnan Khashoggi and Robert Maxwell. So who are these two individuals? Here he has Adnan Khashoggi. Adnan Khashoggi is the uncle of Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist. Who was butchered in the Turkish Embassy. But for our purposes, what can we look at here? Saudi arms merchant, world-class playboy dies. This is from his obituary in the Washington Post. So why do we care about Adnan Khashoggi and his association with Epstein? And these are verified ties between the two. Adnan Khashoggi is somebody who worked on all kinds of sketchy arms deals throughout his life. These people are very useful to the Saudi Kingdom, to the Israelis, because they are cutouts.

• 13:36Speaker 05

  They're not officially part of the royal family. Their money is used to finance various arms deals. He has a verified connection to Mossad and to funneling arms between Israel and Iran in the past. All of this is out in the public record. It's effectively been acknowledged, and I don't even think it's really disputable.

• 13:52Speaker 04

  I know that you've spoken about this already, but I just want to make this, yeah, I want to make this incredibly clear, right? Where it's like governments and countries cannot be actively involved in these Cold War tactics. So they need to find these proxies to do it.

• 14:06Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 14:07Speaker 04

  And those proxies might not necessarily be bad. Matter of fact, they offer incredible utility. So like a Khashoggi, for example, for Saudi Arabia, might be one of the most important figures.

• 14:19Speaker 05

  Absolutely.

• 14:19Speaker 04

  Executing the plans of Saudi Arabia without getting the people in charge of Saudi Arabia dirty. And at this point in time, it's looking like, as we go through the story, Epstein might be an asset to the United States of America. Or maybe when we get into Maxwell, or at least it doesn't look like there's anything incriminating on him so far.

• 14:37Speaker 05

  No, no, well, I mean, to be fair, his pedophilia and his proclivities were kind of secondary to his money. Now, the reason why I think he eventually gets away with the stuff that he does in the future is because of all the work he did in the 1980s and the 1990s for these various governments.

• 14:51Speaker 04

  I don't want to connect this to like a movie, but there's this movie, Art of War, that Nicolas Cage is in.

• 14:58Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 14:58Speaker 04

  And there's this.

• 14:58Speaker 05

  I love that movie.

• 14:59Speaker 04

  It's a great movie. And it's based on, I think, like a relatively.

• 15:02Speaker 05

  And it's based on, I think that guy we just released, Victor Bout or something like that.

• 15:06Speaker 04

  Yeah, Art of War, I think it's good. We got a six woman. For the Lord of War, yeah.

• 15:11Speaker 05

  Right.

• 15:11Speaker 04

  And so, so basically, he goes, um, there's this moment where he's arrested and this like guy from the FBI has been holding him down. And eventually goes, hey, listen, somebody's gonna come in that door and let you know that it's time for me to go. And he's like, I don't know what you're talking about, blah, blah, blah. And to me, that's kind of what it's feeling like so far, where there could be these connections. It's, and we might get it misconstrued where it's like, the government is involved in this like illicit child fucking blackmail scheme, when in reality, the government's looking to be like, no, actually, we're just running guns.

• 15:42Speaker 05

  Yeah, we're running guns.

• 15:43Speaker 04

  Dirty money and.

• 15:44Speaker 05

  We're funneling stuff between Israel and Iran. This is why, you know, the Saudi government can't facilitate an Israel-Iran arms deal, right? These are all allegedly mortal enemies. But Khashoggi, oh, he can do it. He can finance that deal. And we can make him whole on the back end. Now, similarly, yeah, go ahead.

• 15:58Speaker 04

  And last thing I would say is I was talking in front of my, I think that, I think Morgan Stanley or JP Morgan banked him. I forget which one. Was it JP Morgan?

• 16:04Speaker 05

  At that time.

• 16:05Speaker 04

  Oh, no, this is later on.

• 16:06Speaker 05

  Well, Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan both banked Jeffrey Epstein.

• 16:09Speaker 04

  And like in front of my, I was working over there. And he basically, I was asking about it. He was like, he's like, yeah, like, he just operated with dirty money. And I think that's why, you know, the government had an eyeball on him, because it was advantageous for them to know who's sending him $30 million from El Salvador. He was the banker. And a lot of these banks will just take dirty money.

• 16:28Speaker 05

  Of course they will.

• 16:29Speaker 04

  If you're getting tens of millions of dollars from a third world country, please believe. It's not because there's some slushies on the street. You know, like, there's some fucked up shit going on. So I'm just trying to position at this point right now, the government might think that they have an asset working in their best interest.

• 16:42Speaker 05

  No, that's, at this point, this is a rational case for them. This, we're not yet involved with eventually becomes the pedophilia ring.

• 16:48Speaker 07

  Also, guys, tour dates. I'm gonna be in Kansas City, August 1st and 2nd, August 8th and 9th. I'm gonna be in Toledo, Ohio at the Funny Bone, August 22nd and 23rd. It's a lot of fucking Ohio, huh? Liberty Township, September, uh, September 11th through 13th. Let's hope it don't bomb in those shows. Dania Beach, Florida. Bunch of other dates. All my references at alkerson.com.

• 17:12Speaker 06

  What's up, guys? Mark Gagnon here. I got some tour dates for you. If you want to skip forward, dude, I'm not gonna stop you. You know what I mean? I completely understand. It happens.

• 17:19Speaker 07

  All right, suck his dick, guys, guys. Suck his dick.

• 17:24Speaker 06

  That's not bad, honestly. It's not bad. That's not bad.

• 17:27Speaker 07

  Suck his dick, guys, guys.

• 17:28Speaker 06

  I bet it. Actually, it is bad. Don't do it, okay? Because this Saturday, New York City on July 19th, I'm gonna be doing Alex's show at the Hard Rock. Come on out. It's gonna be.

• 17:36Speaker 07

  Absolutely. Suck his dick, guys. Come on.

• 17:39Speaker 06

  And then I'm gonna be in Stanford, Connecticut, Hoboken, New Jersey, Levittown, New York, Chandler, Arizona, San Diego, Burlington. I'm also going to Canada, Toronto, Montreal, a bunch of other days. Detroit is in there and we're adding some.

• 17:50Speaker 05

  Bunch of dates you can suck his dick, guys.

• 17:51Speaker 06

  Into the new year. I'll see you guys at the show. God bless you all and peace be with you.

• 17:57Mark Gagnon?

  And like Mark said, this Saturday, July 19th, New York City, Times Square.

• 18:03Speaker 05

  Suck his dick.

• 18:05Mark Gagnon?

  At Hard Rock Casino, uh, Times Square, we have a happy hour, we have comedy, we have an after-party after. Come have a good time. Wait. Cancel comedy, ex on Instagram, link in bio.

• 18:18Speaker 05

  Let's move now to Robert Maxwell. Now, Robert "Whack" Maxwell is probably one of the most central, important figures in this story. Robert Maxwell is the father of Ghislaine Maxwell. And Robert Maxwell is basically an intelligence operative from day one. So, Robert Maxwell is a very interesting early life story. He's a Czechoslovakian Orthodox Jew. He flees the Nazis, finds a way to escape from mainland Europe, fighting with the resistance to the UK, fights the Nazis in World War II. He gets the second highest medal from the British government during World War II for his exemplary service and he becomes a British national, changes his name multiple times. What eventually happens, though, is that Robert Maxwell begins to roll up the tabloid news empire. He's a Rupert Murdoch of his time

• 19:00Speaker 05

  by rolling up tabloid news in the UK and effectively becoming like a sovereign wealth fund in and of itself with his billions. Maxwell is a very committed Zionist and somebody who was very important to the state of Israel. He's been openly acknowledged at this point as a Mossad asset. I have his code name here. Um, let me find it. It was known as Mega, quote, "The bountiful source." This is from a former Mossad operative.

• 19:22Speaker 04

  Have you seen the Tetris movie?

• 19:24Speaker 05

  No, I actually didn't see it.

• 19:25Speaker 04

  Yeah, okay. He's, he's a character in the Tetris.

• 19:27Speaker 05

  Oh, okay.

• 19:29Speaker 04

  Like, he's personified as himself as part of the story, which is one of the assets that they owned, I guess, might have been the.

• 19:34Speaker 05

  Maxwell is, again, just like Khashoggi, he's financing international arms deals, he's very important to Mossad, he's very important to MI6, he's very important to the US intelligence community. But the thing that really... puts him apart is that Maxwell is a committed Zionist and he works specifically on behalf of the state of Israel to advance his interests. And the most extreme example of that, can we put that Wired one up there? It talks about the Inslah octopus. This is a very important article from the 1990s and it describes basically a piece of software that Robert Maxwell was integral in both financing and selling to the Department of Justice. And it was Israeli spyware that was

• 20:15Speaker 05

  that was installed on vast numbers of US government computers that was used specifically to spy on the United States by Mossad and the US and the Israeli intelligence community. What year is this? This was in the early 90s. This is whenever it was exposed. But in the 1980s, this is something that Maxwell was directly involved with. Has there been punitive measures taken for this act? Actually, I'm not actually sure about this. I mean, as usual, whenever it comes to Israeli operations on US soil, we're all like, hey, you should cut it out. And then we don't really do anything about it. Jonathan Pollard is a very good example of this guy.

• 20:46Speaker 06

  There's a doc on Netflix about this, the octopus murders. And this guy Danny Castellano that basically tried to expose this.

• 20:53Speaker 05

  Oh, that's right. I forgot. I never watched it, but I know where it exists.

• 20:55Speaker 06

  It's fantastic. And then he gets murdered in his attempt to try to expose the Inslah's software.

• 21:01Speaker 05

  All right. So there we go. That's Robert Maxwell. He's involved in things like this. But I could actually go on forever. Would you say the Pollard? Jonathan Pollard, you know who that is? No. Jonathan Pollard is one of the greatest spies in US history. He was a NSA employee in the 1980s. He was spying on behalf of the state of Israel, selling them secrets. Yeah, there's a picture of him right there. You spoke about this on Tucker? Yeah, I did. So he served 30 years in a US prison. While he was here, he became a cause celebre in Israel, saying that he was unjustly persecuted, even though he was a United States citizen, selling secrets to Israel. Bibi Netanyahu visited him. I think he sold the secrets to Russia, not Israel, right? No, no, no. Israel sold the secrets to Russia. He sold the secrets to Israel. Oh. No, no, no. He sold the secrets to Israel. Let's be clear. Wow, okay.

• 21:43Speaker 05

  Israel sold them to the Soviet Union. Jonathan Pollard was actually granted Israeli citizenship, I think in absentia. Bibi Netanyahu visited him in prison here in the United States of America, basically saying, we're always going to stand with you. The moment his federal probation is up after he's released from prison. After his sentence, he moved to Israel and he's never coming back. So that's a perfect example here of you have a United States citizen spying on behalf of the Israeli government, open court, it's all admitted out in the open. The Israeli government says, hey, we're friends, like just forgive, you know, forgive him. He was just a Jewish patriot doing what he wanted for his country, even though he was not an Israeli citizen there at the time, granted him citizenship and openly campaigned for all of our presidents of the United States, Bill Clinton onward to pardon Jonathan Pollard. And they came pretty damn close, let me be clear.

• 22:28Speaker 05

  So that's another example of how we really treat Israeli espionage very differently than all other espionage on the United States. If you guys remember in the Ted Cruz interview where Tucker was like, you know, it doesn't concern you that Mossad is spying on America? He's like, well, all countries do it, all friendly countries spy on each other. There's, there's an exception that we seem to make here for this country. Have we been caught spying on Israel? Uh, you know, we, I don't know if we've ever been caught in a high profile operation. I mean, I'm sure, sure that we do. And in fact, we probably should considering, you know, what's going on. Actually, you know what? We definitely have been because I remember there's been documents, leaks from the Israeli cabinet meetings. I, you remember the Signal Gate, the Signal leaks? I published some of those documents and in one of those was actually minutes from the cabinet meeting from Bibi. So yes, we are spying on Israelis as well.

• 23:12Speaker 05

  To be fair, we're spying on everybody.

• 23:14Speaker 04

  So it's like if we're doing it, like, all right.

• 23:16Speaker 05

  Although the Israelis did get kind of upset about that. So, you know, it's a little ironic because they got upset whenever we're doing it, but you know, not in terms of.

• 23:22Speaker 04

  I saw Dershowitz saying that, like, yeah, we do that or they do that. Like he was trying to make it seem like since everybody does it, it's okay.

• 23:29Speaker 05

  Yeah, but it's not okay. Actually, we should all punish, you know, if we could.

• 23:32Speaker 04

  It's not okay when we do it. It's not okay when you guys do it. We're supposed to be honest.

• 23:35Speaker 05

  That's right. Okay. We should do it. Yeah. Let's continue.

• 23:40Speaker 04

  Get away with it.

• 23:41Speaker 05

  Robert Maxwell. All right. Robert Maxwell, the father of Ghislaine Maxwell. So this is how Jeffrey Epstein meets Ghislaine Maxwell, his eventual co-conspirator in the child trafficking network. And Robert Maxwell, of course, has a very shady death. Nobody is still really sure how he died. He allegedly either jumped or fell off of his yacht, which of course happens to everybody. I mean, it's somewhat believable, but I, I mean, it's just one of those things where, you know, he is killed in various, or he dies in very suspicious circumstances. He has all kinds of luminaries at his funerals and whatever he knew, you know, kind of goes to the grave with him. So after that, in this period, we have 1988. This is probably one of the most important years in the history of Jeffrey Epstein.

• 24:21Speaker 04

  Before we move away from Maxwell, can I just tell you a fun little tidbit?

• 24:24Speaker 05

  Of course.

• 24:25Speaker 04

  I want to get this right, and I have to check spelling and everything on this, but I wish I okay, ready. Right now, I think they're the one of the issues with releasing the Epstein files is because if you release a report that implicates people without them being investigated, that's a concern. And I think in Britain, there's called the FCA. That's their version of the SEC.

• 24:46Speaker 05

  Okay.

• 24:46Speaker 04

  Or something like that. So basically, they have a process that you give that person that is named a chance to respond or submit evidence before the report is released so that they can address concerns which might end up altering the report conclusions about that person. That process is called Maxwellization. And it's named after Robert Maxwell.

• 25:09Speaker 05

  That's amazing, because it fits with his character and the way that he operated.

• 25:13Speaker 06

  It's a media magnet.

• 25:15Speaker 05

  And look, actually, let's take a second. Why do these tabloids matter? If everybody remembers the whole David Pecker scandal here in America with with with Donald Trump, it's that they basically who they're like private intelligence services. They cover up all of these stories. They often buy people's silence through non-disclosure agreements, and then they use that as pedigree with the richest people in the world. Like, hey, Donald, we held this story on Karen McDougal, who accused you. So we, you know, we expect something a little bit in return.

• 25:42Speaker 04

  If you own five different tabloids, you can print the same story that's allegedly on all of them. Then the other newspaper articles and TV shows, they start picking it up. So before an algorithm, you have to create the trend.

• 25:52Speaker 05

  You're literally describing the New York Post to Fox News pipeline, right?

• 25:55Speaker 04

  I mean, what are you talking about? This is crazy, making allegations like that.

• 26:00Speaker 05

  That is, I mean, they're owned by Rupert Murdoch. It's out in the open. Many people who work there will tell you that's literally how it works. It doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out. But let's turn return to the money. So 1988, very important year in the in the life of Jeffrey Epstein. He leaves or basically reforms IAG. At this point, it's been seven years. He's very important to many of the world's most influential arms dealers and other people. Almost certainly, at this point, is embroiled in some of these deals. This point is a very sketchy point, because now he creates the J Epstein Company. The J Epstein Company, self-described accepts only clients with $1 billion. This is a year where there are only 140 billionaires in all of his existence in 1988.

• 26:44Speaker 05

  There's not very many people who are billionaires. And to have 1 billion in cash, liquid, to be able to invest is effectively unheard of. So who are the people that this is ostensibly for? He pitched specifically as, quote, "an economic advisor to the super rich." No other services have ever been advertised, and this is the source eventually of all of his wealth. And so it's somewhere around this time in the 1980s, and the J. Epstein Company, that he signs a client named Leslie Wexner. Wexner, one of the most important figures again in this story, really the source of much of his money and his power to the way that it eventually becomes. Leslie Wexner is one of the richest men in America, one of the richest men in Ohio. Leslie Wexner is a committed Zionist, donated and worked with the Israeli government, and

• 27:29Speaker 05

  we'll talk about that in a little bit. But Leslie Wexner, eventually, in this time period, effectively signs over his entire portfolio and eventually leads to power of attorney being signed over to Jeffrey Epstein. You guys had a great exchange where you were like, "Hey, we have a decade of friendship here, and I would not sign power of attorney over to any of you." There's only one person I'm signing power of attorney to, my wife. There's nobody else who's ever gonna get it. We're supposed to do that? Yeah. If we wanted to. That's the only person who conceivably is ever gonna get that. What about business managers? Do they have power of attorney? No, or they have a limited power of attorney. And that's very different than his entire control of his estate. So somewhere in this time, in the 88 to 91 period, in just three years, he is able to

• 28:12Speaker 05

  convince this man, Leslie Wexner, multi-billionaire, the founder of Victoria's Secret, to basically sign over all of his power of attorney and control of his assets. Even more importantly, over the next five years, he effectively begins transferring many assets from the Wexner fortune to his own personal portfolio. Multiple properties in the state of Ohio, which are actually referenced in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial for the sex trafficking purposes, those are Wexner properties. And then the infamous, massive townhouse in Manhattan, at that time the largest private residence. You know, they- Basically valued at some 70 million dollars. I mean, again, who, who in this world is transferring 70 million dollar townhouse, largest private residence at the time, the city of New York, over to this man?

• 28:56Speaker 04

  So let's make a steel man.

• 28:57Speaker 05

  For what purpose?

• 28:57Speaker 04

  Is, is there a purpose? For example, is he trying to avoid taxes?

• 29:01Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 29:01Speaker 04

  Is there like, what, give me the argument outside of corruption.

• 29:05Speaker 05

  Sure. Leslie Wexner has talked to his people and he's talked to people about this. And his explanation is that Epstein was a money wizard, that he simply had ideas.

• 29:15Speaker 04

  Is that what we call him?

• 29:19Speaker 05

  They said he's a wizard with money. He's the smartest man with money I've ever seen. The steel man case for how this has nothing to do with blackmail is exactly what you just said. And this is eventually what's hinted at by the richest and most powerful people in the world is, guys, we were doing money laundering. It wasn't about blackmail or any of this other stuff. It was a way for us to launder our money internationally. I'll come back to it, but that's basically the excuse that Leon Black gave. Leon Black is genuinely one of the richest men in New York. He has nine billion dollar net worth. Founder of the Apollo Group, one of the largest private equity firms in the world. From 1997 onward, he has a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein to the point where he puts him on the board of the Black Family Foundation. And it eventually comes out between 2012, 2017, he transferred 170 million dollars to Jeffrey Epstein

• 30:03Speaker 05

  and to Epstein-related accounts.

• 30:05Speaker 04

  Now, his argument.

• 30:06Speaker 05

  Tax advice.

• 30:07Speaker 04

  Now, his argument is that over that five-year period, he gave him 170 million dollars and saved to the tune of 1 billion.

• 30:14Speaker 05

  That's what he claims.

• 30:15Speaker 04

  What he claims.

• 30:16Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 30:16Speaker 04

  Now, if that is the case, all of us would hire Epstein.

• 30:20Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 30:20Speaker 04

  Immediately.

• 30:21Speaker 05

  Right, that's right. But there's no way to do that legitimately. And also, if you look at all of the paper trail for this, Epstein was not a licensed financial advisor. He was not a licensed tax advice person. He was not somebody who was ever well-known in the hedge fund industry. I mean, this is the question about why are these super rich people transferring all of this money to this individual? I'm willing to believe money laundering, but with the Wexner case, I just simply can't get there. Vicky Ward and James Stewart, biographers and others who have looked into the story, they really believe that blackmail is somehow at the center of the story of Wexner.

• 30:53Speaker 04

  I think that.

• 30:53Speaker 05

  This is purely speculation. On my behalf.

• 30:55Speaker 04

  I think that makes a lot of sense, especially, you know, for economically ignorant folks like myself, which are like, I'm not giving a fucking townhouse to anybody for any purpose.

• 31:06Speaker 05

  Exactly.

• 31:07Speaker 04

  But there are these certain situations where people set up these trusts, they set up these LLCs, they set up these escorts so they can put certain, to avoid taxes, they create these loopholes. So there is a version where he had found a way to do this. I don't understand why passing it directly to Epstein avoids taxes because Epstein would then have to pay those taxes.

• 31:29Speaker 05

  Exactly right.

• 31:29Speaker 04

  So these are like, why not put it into a joint trust that Epstein has access to? Why is it specifically passed to Epstein unless?

• 31:38Speaker 05

  For his personal use.

• 31:39Speaker 04

  Yeah, for his personal use.

• 31:40Speaker 05

  Unless he needed it under his name to validate him to do certain things. Which is what eventually we began to see with the story. And also, look, let's be honest here about Wexner. Wexner is the founder of Victoria's Secret. Like, would it be crazy to say that the founder of Victoria's Secret is kind of perverted? And Leslie Wexner's been photographed with all these young women.

• 32:01Speaker 04

  Making laundry for teenagers.

• 32:02Speaker 05

  It's like, literally, yeah, making laundry for teenagers. Yeah, I'm shocked to be told that this person is involved with some weird stuff. Again, look, because he's still alive and he would sue me, that is purely speculation on my part, based upon publicly available information, and I'm not claiming anything otherwise. But the point is.

• 32:19Speaker 04

  They have to go find barely legal secret models around the world.

• 32:21Speaker 05

  I mean, that's their business model, to be clear. So let's just say that.

• 32:24Speaker 04

  When do you turn 18 so I could put you on this runway with wings?

• 32:27Speaker 05

  This happens, right? So that's the person and the individual who's at the nexus of a lot of this stuff. Now, let's say then, what we move from there, because that Wexner transfer sets Epstein as the king of New York, as the king of New York society.

• 32:41Speaker 04

  Can I ask one more question before? Are there any people in finance that look at that transfer and they go, wow, this was a smart financial decision for Wexner?

• 32:50Speaker 05

  I have not yet found a single person.

• 32:52Speaker 04

  Got it.

• 32:53Speaker 05

  In fact, every rich person who I have ever talked with about the Epstein thing has told me I have no idea what the fuck was going on.

• 32:59Speaker 04

  And has anybody explained, Wexner or his people explained why it was advantageous to him to transfer?

• 33:04Speaker 05

  No, he just said it was a. terrible mistake and that he trusted Epstein entirely with his money. He literally called his relationship and the transfer, quote, a terrible mistake. That's the only public apology that he's ever given on the case. Webster's never gone into it. By the way, he's still alive and he should answer questions.

• 33:16Speaker 04

  It is interesting that we haven't seen him in an interview like we've seen.

• 33:19Speaker 05

  Oh, he shut himself down.

• 33:20Speaker 04

  But we've seen Prince Andrew in an interview.

• 33:23Speaker 05

  That's right.

• 33:23Speaker 04

  Like, yeah, he's maybe the only person that we haven't heard speak publicly about this.

• 33:28Speaker 05

  A little bit, but you know. But it's been years. I think in 2020 is when he gave his apology, but same with Leon Black, by the way, who resigned from his public company and has basically disappeared from New York society. Jess Staley, the former CEO of Barclays, Epstein's private banker, I'll return to him in a little bit with the Israel connection because he's a very important part of that story. But he's also resigned and now, you know, he has no, he's not CEO of a publicly traded company. Doesn't he testify? Doesn't he give any interviews? He's filthy rich and you know how these people operate. You can hire bodyguards and live behind a wall for the rest of your life. So that's basically where we are.

• 34:01Speaker 04

  With Maxwell senior and when Epstein and meet, did they do any business together that we know of?

• 34:06Speaker 05

  So this is the problem. We don't have the full records and this is part of the why the release of the files is very important. And I will also return where I think defining the files as a list is very important because that's not how it works. People seem to have it in their head that there's a ledger, that there's a black book that's like paid or have kitty tape supports Israel now. It's not how this works, guys. Like as a journalist, like what we're doing here is we're compiling information. We're looking at public stuff that cannot be explained otherwise. We're steel manning the case. We're reaching out to Leslie Webster for comment. The IRS today, as you guys all know, has all of our information. All of the butterfly trust accounts connected to Jeffrey Epstein.

• 34:45Speaker 04

  What's a butterfly trust?

• 34:46Speaker 05

  That was an Epstein linked account, which the New York financial services. By the way, you guys should take this up. Here in the state of New York, they have all access to Epstein's financial records, 2013 onwards, because they fined Deutsche Bank for their business with Epstein for violating the bank rules and for violating New York state regulations. New York state has the books for his entire financial life, 2013 onwards.

• 35:08Speaker 04

  Morgan pay out an insane settlement?

• 35:11Speaker 05

  JP and Deutsche, well, Deutsche Bank paid like $75 million to the Epstein. Specifically for facilitating a lot of this trafficking. But my point is, is that I want those documents. I want the butterfly trust accounts. Leon Black, the way that he even paid Epstein, and this was only available by subpoena power that we know of, was through some private jet holding company. I mean, this stuff is all masked in a way that their names were never supposed to be on top of any of it. The only way we can get it is from release and from subpoena from the United States government. Part of why the Trump administration's decision is so very disappointing.

• 35:42Speaker 04

  And so I know I keep cutting right. I just want to make sure that I understand this. Like, it seems so brazenly foolish for these people to even be tangentially connected to Epstein.

• 35:53Speaker 05

  Well, not before this time.

• 35:55Speaker 04

  I don't want to be giving him an out, but I want to be really understanding the situation. If you are operating with somebody who uses nefarious techniques to hide money, which I do not put past any wealthy person.

• 36:09Speaker 05

  No.

• 36:09Speaker 04

  Anybody who's got tens of millions of dollars, I promise you, they are doing some shady shit to hide that money, to move that money. Like, I know a guy who would fly to the fucking Bahamas with tens of thousands of dollars strapped to his body. It sounds like out of a movie. He would do it regularly. Why are you snitching on me like that?

• 36:27Speaker 05

  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 36:30Speaker 04

  You guys all know him. I just want to. So there was a regular thing to just avoid taxation, setting up accounts back in, I think this is probably like the 80s. This is not as. So doing these things to avoid taxes is quite common amongst the people who makes tens, hundreds of millions of dollars.

• 36:48Speaker 04

  But doing it so directly with Epstein is what I find peculiar. And there's a part of me that goes, if they're doing it directly with him, do they not feel concern about his

• 37:00Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 37:00Speaker 04

  relationships and intentions? Is there some sort of trust there? Because, like you said earlier, the CIA knows they're on some fuck shit. So they're like, we got to make sure that we're not associated with this. Why would you not?

• 37:12Speaker 05

  Well, that's a great question, especially.

• 37:14Speaker 04

  No, I don't. If he's been operating for a decade now and he hasn't been caught, hasn't gotten any trouble, it's like, oh, this guy's good.

• 37:22Speaker 05

  That's, that's the defense I would make is that in pre, pre 2005, before the investigation.

• 37:28Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 37:28Speaker 05

  It's actually somewhat, somewhat understandable for somebody who is not in Palm Beach or New York society. I would say more in the 1980s. From about 95 onward, it's an open secret Jeffrey Epstein likes kids. Jeffrey Epstein likes some.

• 37:42Speaker 04

  When does he first get caught?

• 37:43Speaker 05

  So 2005, that's the very first investigation into Epstein, the actual law enforcement investigation.

• 37:48Speaker 04

  So we could make the argument that before that.

• 37:50Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 37:51Speaker 04

  It's greed.

• 37:52Speaker 05

  Well, yeah, again, though, because all of these people live, this is the, as you're saying, the super rich is the smallest world in, is the smallest group in the world. They may live all over the world, but they're actually all in the same place, basically all at the same time.

• 38:04Speaker 04

  Yeah, they're doing all the jets at our events.

• 38:06Speaker 05

  They're always in London, they're always, you know, Tahoe, whatever, like Palm Beach. This is why they all know each other. So to a certain extent, I actually can't really forgive it because it's such an open secret in the 1990s that Jeffrey Epstein likes little kids, basically, and is trafficking young women. Well, before the 90s, yeah, I guess we could give them somewhat of a pass, but it starts to become out in the open.

• 38:27Speaker 04

  I'm not trying to give a pass. What I'm trying to do is like not be guilty of, of internet trends.

• 38:33Speaker 05

  Yeah, sure.

• 38:33Speaker 04

  Which is like applying something we learn about and is confirmed in 2005 and 2008 with a conviction to everyone prior to that. I think after 2005 and definitely after 2008, like you're aware that you're dealing with a convicted pedophile.

• 38:46Speaker 05

  So you're a registered sex offender.

• 38:48Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 38:48Speaker 05

  Yeah, like registered sex offender.

• 38:50Speaker 04

  There's no excuse. But before that, I do think that there are these people that just want money and they'll do anything for money and they are already operating in pseudo illegal behaviors and activities. And there's this incredible desire and thirst for power. So they might be willing to rub shoulders with these nefarious characters.

• 39:07Speaker 07

  Before 2005, there's some level of plausible deniability.

• 39:10Speaker 05

  There is some, yeah.

• 39:11Speaker 04

  Even if they do know, they're like, eh, he's not.

• 39:14Speaker 07

  And if he's like, I could save you a billion dollars, you might be tempted to take that plausible deniability.

• 39:19Speaker 05

  See, this is the thing, you're taking it literally and I'm still not quite sure that I'm there yet. I'm not quite sure he actually was doing anything of the tax advice sort. I still don't know. Yeah, I still am like not clear on what he was actually doing.

• 39:30Speaker 04

  I don't think anybody's clear.

• 39:31Speaker 05

  Nobody's done that's part of the problem.

• 39:32Speaker 04

  Which is what's so, but I want to make sure that when we're pinning people to certain things. Like if you're staying in his penthouse after he's a registered sex offender.

• 39:39Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 39:39Speaker 04

  You're pinned like there's there's.

• 39:41Speaker 05

  Like the prime minister of Israel?

• 39:42Speaker 04

  Exactly.

• 39:42Speaker 05

  Sorry?

• 39:43Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 39:43Speaker 05

  Multiple times.

• 39:44Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 39:44Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 39:44Speaker 04

  Like Bill Gates.

• 39:45Speaker 05

  Yeah, like Bill Gates.

• 39:46Speaker 04

  Didn't he have an office in Harvard?

• 39:47Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 39:48Speaker 04

  Was that after?

• 39:48Speaker 05

  Well, I'm not sure about that. I'd have to go back and double check.

• 39:51Speaker 04

  But again, those things like let's pin it right there. There's no question. You have.

• 39:54Speaker 05

  George Stephanopoulos who had dinner in his house?

• 39:56Speaker 04

  Hanging out like like.

• 39:57Speaker 05

  Hand you some Google?

• 39:58Speaker 04

  Exactly.

• 39:59Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 39:59Speaker 04

  And you should because he's journalist.

• 40:01Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 40:02Speaker 04

  Yeah. So, so, okay, so there are these, I get it, I get it. I just want to make sure that we're compartmentalizing a little bit. Not to say that they don't know that they're engaging in illegal activity. They just maybe aren't going, I'm with a kid fucker who's using this as potential blackmail or as an intelligence asset.

• 40:18Speaker 05

  Very true. And that's important. So let's get into actually sex trafficking and actually that whole ring.

• 40:22Speaker 04

  Don't let me speed you up.

• 40:23Speaker 05

  No, you're fine.

• 40:23Speaker 04

  You're on your.

• 40:24Speaker 05

  So 1991 to 2005, I call this the Epstein heyday. So this is, I've gained control of the Wexner empire. I've transferred these assets and these properties into my name. Ghislaine is here and now it's on. So if you look from that, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial describes many of these Ohio properties being used specifically for sex trafficking purposes. Right? So these are just in late 1994, late 1995. Basically moved from that point forward, the Palm Beach, Virgin Islands, you know, connection begins to materialize. We have the house in Palm Beach. We have the compound in the US Virgin Islands, the Lolita Express. That's the Epstein island. Uh, we have a Virgin Island, uh, island that's acquired under the Epstein basically estate. Then we have the Lolita Express that's purchased, the private jet.

• 41:09Speaker 05

  So all the pieces that are now famous, these all come into play between 91 and 2005. This was the heyday of the Epstein empire.

• 41:16Speaker 04

  Is this where you see the images of him and Trump hanging out?

• 41:19Speaker 05

  Exactly. 2002, that's when we have the first image. Although, you know, I have it in my notes, uh, for the Trump Epstein relationship. Let me go ahead and find that.

• 41:28Speaker 04

  Don't let me speed you up.

• 41:29Speaker 05

  No, no, it's fine.

• 41:30Speaker 04

  You stay on this.

• 41:30Speaker 05

  So, so 2002, Trump. Says, I've known Jeff for 15 years. So basically putting a relationship back to the 1980s. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It's even said he likes beautiful women as much as I do. Many of them are on the younger side, no doubt about it. Jeffrey enjoys his social life. So that's Donald Trump in 2002. Just again, to show everybody here what we're dealing with. Damn, Donny. Open secret. Alright, so yeah. He likes him on the younger side. He said it. And if you want, there's video. If you want to go ahead and play it. I have the YouTube link from NBC News of them hanging out. Let me find, yeah. Footage from 1992, actually. Can you go ahead and click that one? It's a YouTube link. It's from a NBC News package in 2002. It's some B-roll that actually shows them hanging out. So here we go.

• 42:15Speaker 05

  This is the, this is the famous, you know, they're all hanging out together. And by the way, there are, I haven't showed this yet, but there are photos of Trump and Robert Maxwell hanging out together as well in the past. So he certainly knew a lot of these individuals because he'm dancing, they're at a party. Apparently in the mid 2000s, there was a party that was thrown involving Victoria's Secret models that was put on by Epstein and another associate of Donald Trump. Where they all hung out. So just putting that out there. Who the other guy? Yeah, I actually don't know. I love his tie. It's very 1990s. So anyway, look, footage, it all exists and I'm sparing nobody here. I want to be real. To your earlier point, the super, the super rich, the super elite is kind of a small circle, not kind of incredibly small circle. They all know each other, all business together, hanging out. You're gonna hear some whispers about one of your friends.

• 42:59Speaker 05

  It's not even a whisper. He said it out loud on the record. Oh, yeah. Trump said it after the show. 2002, very important year in the Epstein story. 2002 is when journalist Vicky Ward, she works here in New York City, Vanity Fair magazine. This is the Vanity Fair article. This is the very first premier magazine to say, who is this guy? Graydon Carter, the legendary Conde Nast editor, king of New York society. It basically works with Vicky and says, hey, let's go write about this Epstein figure. Vicky eventually uncovers evidence of the young women trafficking, of the intelligence community ties and all of this in 2002. How does she uncover this? Because she goes, she does a great job. She goes and interviews these people. That guy Stephen Hoffenberg, who's in prison.

• 43:42Speaker 05

  Interviewed him in prison and she didn't print his quotes until 20 years later because it was shut down by Graydon Carter. Now, Joey, can you please put up the story from New York Magazine?

• 43:52Speaker 04

  Tell us why Graydon Carter would be able to. I understand the name Conde Nast, but maybe explain to you.

• 43:56Speaker 05

  Yeah, yeah. So what I'm having here in front of me is a very crazy story is that according to Carter, somebody put a bullet outside of his, I think it was either outside of his house or wherever he was, and a dead cat to intimidate him while he is investigating the Epstein story. And so it eventually comes out.

• 44:13Speaker 04

  What is Conde Nast?

• 44:14Speaker 05

  Conde Nast, I mean, they own Vogue. They employ, you know, if you have anyone who's ever seen The Devil Wears Prada, like that's based on Vogue magazine and Anna Wintour. That's part of the Conde Nast empire.

• 44:23Speaker 04

  The Conde Nast empire. Imagine with Rupert Murdoch with news stations. This is with magazines.

• 44:28Speaker 05

  Dude, it's so hard because our, the audience here is going to be young. So they don't even remember the Vanity Fair heyday. Like this was a big fucking deal.

• 44:35Speaker 04

  Before blogs, before like your favorite Instagram page, there were magazines.

• 44:40Speaker 05

  This was the beating heart of American culture. Vanity Fair magazine, The New Yorker, Vogue magazine.

• 44:46Speaker 04

  Newspapers were information and magazines were more like op ed, right?

• 44:49Speaker 05

  Yeah, magazines were not just op ed. They, they were actually the places where this type of journalism, I mean, there's stories at Conde Nast about guys were getting paid half a million dollars a year. They would write three stories a year, but they would spend six months like Vicki Ward.

• 45:00Speaker 04

  Because it was really investigative journalism.

• 45:02Speaker 07

  It would change the face of the country.

• 45:04Speaker 05

  Some of my favorite journalists, there's a guy named Dexter Filkins at the New York, he spent like six months. One of my favorite war reporters, he'll, they'll go out and report for six, seven months. Conspiracy theories about it now. Like a 10,000 word article.

• 45:15Speaker 07

  Theoretically Watergate, whatever the conspiracy, take conspiracy theories aside, that's journalists breaking a story that caused your president to resign, changed the trajectory of the entire world.

• 45:25Speaker 04

  And now when it happens and you see like a 20 page article in The New Yorker or something like that, you're like, who the fuck reads this? And nobody really reads it, but at the time.

• 45:32Speaker 05

  Oh, it was everything.

• 45:33Speaker 04

  And that's why like our parents, and I think that we're probably a little bit even too young us. Maybe you just because you're involved in journalism so much.

• 45:40Speaker 05

  I have read about it, so I can contextualize it, but I never experienced it.

• 45:44Speaker 04

  But this was the heyday of like information and it created habitual reading, right? Like just my parents had a subscription to New York Magazine and New Yorker and like. Every single, when is it coming? It's weekly? Yeah.

• 45:54Speaker 05

  It used to be, I don't know anymore.

• 45:55Speaker 04

  But it's like, so they're reading it every single, and the pieces that are in there, the assumption was that these were like real investigative journalism pieces and they're uncovering truths that take months and months to put together. So they really gained like the support and trust, at least of maybe like, I don't want to say, like more like coastal elites.

• 46:16Speaker 05

  It's what you just described, the global elite. The global elite is very small. It's like maybe 10,000 people who run the entire world. Like, and actually that might even be a little bit generous and they're all subscribing to vote. I mean, look, Anna Wintour is still an icon amongst the super rich. So like, obviously it really matters. So Epstein basically uses the threat of legal action to shut down any mention of his intelligence ties, which he's confronted with directly, any mention of the sex trafficking and the pedophilia accusations. And all of it is dropped from the Vanity Fair article that culminates in the 2002 story, who is Jeffrey Epstein, the mysterious man of New York? But it basically, it insinuates things about being with women and he knows everybody. He's friends with Harvey Weinstein. He's friends with

• 46:58Speaker 05

  all of, you know, New York society. Everybody seems to know him. You have the quotes by Donald Trump and others. And so what we see there is O2 is a very important year because it shows his power, his power to shut down Graydon fucking Carter, his power to bring the Conde Nast empire to bear and say, no, no, no, no, no, you're not reporting any of this. The power of using Harvey Weinstein and others to basically call all the journalists and other people around him and say, I'm going to sue the shit out of you if you report even one word of this.

• 47:25Speaker 04

  Now, it's important to note that like shutting down stories is quite common. If you have a PR agency or something like that.

• 47:32Speaker 05

  Well, especially at that time, when access really mattered.

• 47:34Speaker 04

  I wouldn't even say now, like you have a PR agency or something's about to release on TMZ and you know, somebody over there at TMZ, you're like, yo, can you just not put out this story?

• 47:42Speaker 05

  If you hold this, I'll give you an exclusive on this in the future.

• 47:44Speaker 04

  But there's a, there's a quid pro quo, which is like, if you don't release this, I'll give you the first dibs on this story coming out with this album release. So that is, it is quite common practice, but to shut down a story that's making an allegation or multiple allegations this big, you need to have some serious weight and some serious. Quid pro quo. I think it's gotta be more than just lawsuit because these people, I mean, they're they're lured up to the gills. Like if you run.

• 48:10Speaker 05

  That's what I was trying to say. To understand how extraordinary this is, this is Tunde fucking mass.

• 48:15Speaker 04

  This is a massive.

• 48:17Speaker 05

  Dude, even me and you or and others, when people are like, I'm gonna sue you. I'm like, yeah, good fucking luck. I'm like, all right, I've got insurance. I'm like, and I know how the First Amendment works and New York Times versus Sullivan. I'll be like, I'm gonna eat your fucking legal fees for lunch and I'll see you in court. All right. Because of the legal standard, if you are a public figure, like Epstein was basically at that time, the possibly, you know, the bar for defamation and libel is so incredibly high. I actually really support that. I mean, it's one of my key differences with Trump is I think it's a good thing because it allows for. Well, not just that, we can fucking go for it.

• 48:46Speaker 07

  Well, I want to be famous and I'm insecure, so let's not.

• 48:49Speaker 05

  Yeah, yeah.

• 48:57Speaker 06

  And then why does he agree to this article? Is it just hubris?

• 49:00Speaker 05

  Oh, Epstein? No, he didn't agree to it. Vicky Ward was assigned. Epstein did not want this to happen.

• 49:06Speaker 06

  Oh, really?

• 49:06Speaker 05

  He never wanted this to come out.

• 49:08Speaker 04

  The article to make it less accusatory.

• 49:11Speaker 05

  You can actually go and read it today.

• 49:13Speaker 07

  I don't think we're understanding how crazy this is to intimidate and grade and Carter, basically, to take out a lot of the salacious things.

• 49:19Speaker 05

  To take out the intelligence.

• 49:20Speaker 07

  With a fucking bullet and a dead cat. We've seen The Godfather. It's the same thing.

• 49:25Speaker 04

  Literally mob.

• 49:26Speaker 07

  Instead of a horse's head, it's a dead cat.

• 49:28Speaker 04

  And there's no way to prove that he was the one that did it, but having those.

• 49:31Speaker 05

  He's not, look, Graydon certainly believed it and Graydon works and has dinner with the most powerful people in all of New York.

• 49:37Speaker 04

  Has he spoken about this?

• 49:37Speaker 05

  He has certainly not. He has not actually answered a whole lot of questions about this. So that's an important thing.

• 49:41Speaker 06

  But does he get comment to Vicky Ward here?

• 49:43Speaker 05

  Huh? Oh, you know, Epstein goes on the record in some places, but we don't learn the full extent of all of their exchange until 2021, after he's dead, when she begins to reveal a lot of the stuff that she was actually had on the record in this story. So this is the very first known time of a major expose, which would have really hurt Jeffrey Epstein if it had come out, that he's able to shut down. Eventually in the future, we see the same tactics with Good Morning America and with the Prince Andrew story, if you'll recall. Of that famous video, the leaked video from CBS or ABC News where she's like, I had this story. I had everything and the palace shut it down and Epstein and all of them basically came together and we wanted, didn't want to lose our coverage of the royal wedding. And so we didn't publish any of this. And she's like, I had the story from day one.

• 50:28Speaker 04

  We didn't want to lose our coverage of the royal wedding.

• 50:30Speaker 05

  Exactly.

• 50:31Speaker 04

  So we shut this down.

• 50:32Speaker 05

  The Prince Andrew story.

• 50:33Speaker 04

  We would have access to the royal wedding.

• 50:35Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 50:35Speaker 04

  So, so again, that's the quid pro quo. It's like, if you want to work with us, if you want access to this, this story that you know is going to probably sell way more ads than your Prince Andrew story.

• 50:46Speaker 05

  Wedding is fucking huge. You remember that?

• 50:47Speaker 04

  So they're.

• 50:48Speaker 05

  Women in America got up at like 5 a.m. to watch it.

• 50:50Speaker 04

  Yeah, which is so.

• 50:51Speaker 05

  Which is wild. Yeah. Sorry.

• 50:52Speaker 04

  But Alex, go, go, go. It's good to ask questions about this. I think, I think we feel guilty asking because it looks like we're trying to create it out. I'm not trying to create it out.

• 51:00Speaker 05

  No, no, no.

• 51:01Speaker 04

  I'm trying to understand the totality of this and like where they would be coming from if they were going to defend it. So ask your question.

• 51:07Mark Gagnon?

  You said that's 2002.

• 51:08Speaker 05

  That story came out in 02. But then actually it was published in March 03, but it was reported throughout 2000.

• 51:13Mark Gagnon?

  But then she doesn't release the other part of the story until 20 years later.

• 51:17Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 51:17Mark Gagnon?

  Like that means you knew he was fucking kids.

• 51:21Speaker 05

  Well.

• 51:21Mark Gagnon?

  And you sat on it.

• 51:22Speaker 05

  Well, she didn't have evidence, man. We're journalists. We can't say these things. No, no, no, no. See, this is very important. I can't just come out. Yeah. I can't just come out and say these things without evidence. You need to, and look, that's, I talked about that.

• 51:33Speaker 04

  We've done it to Mark many times.

• 51:36Speaker 05

  But I talked about the barrier, you know, the defamation stuff. Like you need to have some, you need to have some stuff on the record and she did not have enough that they felt comfortable going forward with something like that.

• 51:45Mark Gagnon?

  I thought they felt comfortable. They, I thought they just took it out because of the intimidation.

• 51:48Speaker 05

  They're claiming that it didn't meet the evidentiary standard. Vicky Ward says otherwise. Like, look, I could see the case either way, but the point is, is that what's come out afterwards is that Graydon Carter was terrified. And so it's not really about the story. It's that he was afraid to be able to publish it. So that is the context of his social power.

• 52:04Speaker 04

  Afraid from, for.

• 52:05Speaker 05

  He seemed to be a parent. He was afraid for his life.

• 52:07Speaker 04

  But okay, because these are different things. Afraid for your life is different than afraid for the success of your, what would you call that? Like a.

• 52:15Speaker 05

  His magazine.

• 52:16Speaker 04

  His magazine.

• 52:17Speaker 05

  Yeah, his social cachet. His cachet. Yeah.

• 52:19Speaker 04

  Because if you lose access, you essentially have. Have no cachet.

• 52:23Speaker 05

  Right.

• 52:23Speaker 04

  And which is ironically what Epstein is concerned about. If Epstein becomes persona non grata because of this piece, he no longer can do the thing that he does, which is connect and liaison with

• 52:34Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 52:34Speaker 04

  super wealthy and influential people.

• 52:36Speaker 05

  There you go.

• 52:37Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 52:37Speaker 05

  All right. So that gets us to oh five. So ninety one to oh five is the heyday. Two thousand and five is the first time that we really know about of a prolonged investigation into Epstein and eventually culminates in the sweetheart deal of two thousand and eight. So in two thousand and five, a fourteen year old girl who was lured by Epstein, Maxwell Associates and all these people. Her father complains to the Palm Beach Police Department about being sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. This leads to an undercover investigation by Palm Beach P D, where they launched this investigation where they're able to connect multiple underage girls who are being lured by Epstein and Maxwell and other associates to the compound in the well oiled system. There's documentary on Netflix.

• 53:20Speaker 05

  This is the part they actually did quite well of just showing the way that that all worked. Search warrant finds hidden cameras, sex toys, basically proof of underage communications with Epstein. They have him nailed dead to rights, probably twenty years or whatever, under state law. However, Epstein hires all of these extremely filthy rich lawyers who are able to go to the Palm Beach Police Department. They claimed that they were poking holes in their case. Palm Beach P D basically throws up their hands and they're like, look, I can't handle this shit. They're like, this is a level of, you know, this is a machine I'm going up against that I don't know how to combat this machine. They're only, they only have a bulletproof charge on him of solicitation of prostitution. But they go to the feds. Now, the feds, of course, have the vast resources of the federal government, the Department of Justice.

• 54:04Speaker 05

  The person who's in charge at that time is a guy named Alex Acosta. Alex Acosta, the U S Attorney for the Southern Florida. Now, U S Attorney for Florida, this comes under his purview. This investigation is launched under him using F B I resources. They are able to develop a large case against Jeffrey Epstein. The operation is called Operation Leap Year that is launched by them. Leap Year uncovers evidence that Epstein has an interstate sex trafficking operation involving girls as young as thirteen. Years old. Geez. Now, this is a very important point. We have a secret federal indictment that was issued against Jeffrey Epstein, where they lay out all of this evidence for a sweeping indictment, which would have put him behind bars probably for, I mean, for probably for the rest of his life.

• 54:47Speaker 05

  This is where the, everything starts to happen. This is where the sweetheart deal comes into play. And it's at this point, after this secret federal indictment, that they come to the Epstein team and they're like, this is what we have on you. Let's begin a negotiation because they're looking for a plea deal ultimately. Why are they looking for a plea? Well, I think it's part of, I think it's kind of customary where you bring, you know, when the feds investigate you, they have to send you a target letter. They're like, hey, you're under federal investigation. You need to hire counsel, you know, just so we can get this whole ball rolling. I mean, something like 95% of people charged by the federal system plead guilty. So it's quite common. Most people don't go to trial. The feds don't want you to go to trial. If they do, they're going to smack your, you know, they'll hit you with charge after charge. You're going to spend the rest of your life in prison. The vast, vast majority of people in federal prison. And that's why they have the 95% conviction rate. That's why they have their conviction rate.

• 55:32Speaker 05

  Exactly. So that's how they get to it, you know? And there's a variety of systemic issues. So it was all generally par for the course up until this point. That's when Epstein hires Alan Dershowitz. That's when he hires all of these Bush-connected officials. Why is Dershowitz-Bush connected? Well, no, no, not Dershowitz. There are other lawyers on the team who are connected to George W. Bush, or the administration, to Republican politics in general, because George W. Bush is the president at this time. And it's at this time that you have the sweetheart non-prosecution agreement that is agreed upon by Alex Acosta and the Epstein legal defense team. Now, at this time too, this is a very important point. Joey, can you please put up my tweet?

• 56:12Speaker 05

  Epstein flees to Israel while he negotiates his deal with Acosta. So if you go to the first slide there, please. Yes, this is from a Vicky Ward story. Talk that Epstein had moved himself and his assets to Israel had reached the ears of such luminaries as Harvey Weinstein, Jeff Buke, Alex Gibney, Taylor Hackford, Dustin Hoffman, Alec Baldwin, and filmmaker Michael Mailer. Has anyone told Vicky Ward? I heard someone say, ah, fame. Ever since I wrote this article about Epstein in the March 2003. I've had dubious honor of being considered the New York expert on the case. Well, I've never been one to leave a riddle unsolved, so I called Epstein's office to ask. Around lunchtime, he phoned me laughing, assuming he'd been in Israel, but assuring me he'd been in Israel,

• 56:56Speaker 05

  but was now back in New York. And he says, would you want to live in Israel? As he denigrates that. So he goes to Israel while this sweetheart deal is being negotiated. This is very important, okay? Again, very important, is that he was safe in Israel for reasons that remain unknown to us to this day. And you generally can't leave the country if you're under investigation. Actually, yeah, Joey, can you go to the next slide there? So when he returns, when he goes, returns to America, as you can see right there, April 2008, Epstein returns from Israel before pleading guilty. Some question why he was allowed to even keep his passport while his team is undergoing negotiation with the federal government.

• 57:32Speaker 04

  Can you explain how normal that is?

• 57:35Speaker 05

  That is not normal. So that is extremely not normal.

• 57:37Mark Gagnon?

  If you have money like that, you're a flight risk.

• 57:39Speaker 05

  Yeah, exactly.

• 57:40Speaker 04

  So while you're being federally investigated, they will take your passport because you're a flight risk. It's very similar to what happened, I think, at least in the beginning of the Diddy trial. Remember, there was, there was the words like, Diddy was gonna flee. And I think that they told him that he had to stay in America, right?

• 57:53Speaker 05

  So I don't have the, so to be clear, I don't think it's wild investigation. There are other, I'm not a lawyer, but the way I'd read about it is it was very uncommon at that time, especially after he agreed to plead guilty, because remember, he pleased, he agrees to plead guilty under a non-prosecution agreement in September 2007. This is April 2008. During this period, he is in Israel, where he's effectively, he's going to plead guilty. 2007 or 2008? So 2007 to 2008 is while he is in his, is in Israel. Again, basically, the theory was, the open talk in New York society that Vicky Ward heard is that Epstein had moved himself and all his assets to Israel. This is apparently, by the way, a common thing, relatively common for pedophiles who are Jewish in the United States, who actually have fled to Israel to escape prosecution. Really?

• 58:36Speaker 05

  Yeah. Actually, Joey, can you go down the Glenn Greenwald? That is a bad look for Israel, dude. How Jewish American pedophiles hide from justice in Israel.

• 58:45Speaker 04

  Why do they accept?

• 58:46Speaker 05

  Well, Israel has the right to return for every Jew in the world. It's called Aliyah.

• 58:50Speaker 07

  So they're taking advantage of like a...

• 58:52Speaker 05

  Yeah, some of them are taking advantage and basically being able to go to Israel. It's complicated as well in terms of extradition agreements, etc. But Glenn Greenwald flagged that piece to me, how Jewish-American pedophiles hide from justice.

• 59:02Speaker 07

  But sorry, just to try to understand this, is that something that the United States just allows for anybody?

• 59:07Speaker 05

  Again, I actually don't know. I only learned of it yesterday. I didn't realize that it wasn't just Epstein, that it's just like a common enough phenomenon that people have written a story about it before. I need to go look into it. In general, I would hope personally that we use our influence with all allies or any extradition agreement, that anybody charged with a crime like this against children be immediately extradited to the United States of America.

• 59:30Speaker 07

  Because I mean, my friends that are in trouble with Indian government over the joke, they took their passports.

• 59:35Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 59:36Speaker 07

  They just got them back. But like, I don't even know if one of them got them back. You're under arrest for freedom of speech potentially. We're going to trial. You have my passport. This guy is on trial for pedophilia.

• 59:46Speaker 05

  Not on trial. He's in...

• 59:47Speaker 07

  He's been under designation, I apologize.

• 59:49Speaker 05

  Investigation and eventually non-prosecution agreement, which is different because he admits pleading.

• 59:53Speaker 04

  So he hasn't been charged yet?

• 59:54Speaker 05

  Well, he had not been charged yet. He enters the non-prosecution agreement in September 2007.

• 59:59Speaker 04

  While he's here or while he's away?

• 1:00:00Speaker 05

  While he's in Israel.

• 1:00:01Speaker 04

  So while he's in Israel, he enters.

• 1:00:02Speaker 05

  His legal team enters on his behalf.

• 1:00:05Speaker 04

  He had already left. What I'm trying to understand, did he do anything illegal by leaving?

• 1:00:10Speaker 05

  No, I don't think so.

• 1:00:11Speaker 07

  Or anything that's not normal.

• 1:00:13Speaker 05

  It's more about the question of why do you feel so safe in Israel? You know, and it's like, why, you know, why are you going over there with all your assets? Did you get some promises there from the government?

• 1:00:20Speaker 07

  But you're normally allowed to leave the country.

• 1:00:21Speaker 05

  Intelligence connections. Again, if you look at that Palm Beach story, that scroll up, Joey, and again, put that screenshot about returns from Israel to the next one. It was noted at the time, this is a report from the Palm Beach, Palm Beach local news, that it was uncommon and that there were questions at the time why he was allowed to keep his passport.

• 1:00:42Speaker 04

  Obviously, it looks incredibly fucked up.

• 1:00:45Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 1:00:46Speaker 04

  But I am trying to steel man in terms of, let's say that there was somebody that had dual citizenship to Britain. They're being investigated for something. Could they go... Stay in Britain.

• 1:00:55Speaker 05

  Yeah, they can't.

• 1:00:56Speaker 04

  So that would be, that would be okay and maybe not common, but it would be legal.

• 1:01:00Speaker 05

  Although you just made an important point there is that we have never yet been acknowledged that Epstein ever was an Israeli citizen. So we have no idea whether.

• 1:01:07Speaker 04

  Is he at that time?

• 1:01:08Speaker 05

  Uh, we have no idea. To this day, we don't know. We do know that he was found with false passports that were inside of his house in New York City. So it's possible that he even.

• 1:01:15Speaker 04

  What do you mean?

• 1:01:16Speaker 05

  Yes, yeah. Can you Google it, please, Joy? Epstein, Epstein passports that were found at his New York City residence. This is an openly acknowledged fact, and I'll come back to this as part of the intelligence case. Who the fuck has false passports? It's not exactly an easy thing for multiple passports and travels to Africa and to the Middle East, and they were found in his residence in his New York City. Guys, did Jason Bourne a kid fucker?

• 1:01:38Mark Gagnon?

  Yeah, I never understood false passports because everything's connected to the internet.

• 1:01:43Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's right. Right. Which means that there's no really such thing as a false passport. And there's a passport that's issued to you under false pretenses by foreign governments. So let's just, uh. Or by your own government. Or possibly by your own government.

• 1:01:52Speaker 04

  Like, I, wow.

• 1:01:53Speaker 05

  Yeah. In the age of, in the age of the barcode, there's no false passport. Okay? All right. Wow. When's the last time I flew into America? You know how much biometric data and all that stuff is there? This is not happening. But like CIA can issue passports. CIA can issue a passport under that that will clear State Department. I mean, look, even if you.

• 1:02:09Speaker 04

  Which would confirm the connections to intelligence. So, look, yeah, go, go, go.

• 1:02:12Speaker 05

  No, I was just saying, when you land in any country in the world, even the jankiest country in the world at this point, everybody's swiping the passport. Yeah. It's all there.

• 1:02:18Speaker 04

  So then the question would be, or the logical thinking would be, goes to Israel, and while this deal is being negotiated, if the deal is not advantageous to him.

• 1:02:29Speaker 05

  I'm staying in Israel.

• 1:02:29Speaker 04

  Then he's staying.

• 1:02:30Speaker 05

  Staying in Israel.

• 1:02:31Speaker 04

  Now, is there, is that, does he have enough leverage where staying in Israel is actually a threat to the US intelligence apparatus?

• 1:02:40Speaker 05

  This is unfortunately, we still don't know, because this is all part of the unreleased, perhaps Epstein files, and I would be happy to be wrong.

• 1:02:48Speaker 04

  So in one circumstance, it could be as simple as, I'm not living in America as a pedophile. I'd rather just live over here.

• 1:02:52Speaker 05

  I'd rather live in Israel.

• 1:02:53Speaker 04

  I'm gonna stay, and there is no intelligence involved. There is another version where it's like, hey, I'm gonna go over here. Do you want me to tell all these guys everything I know? Because I could easily just tell them everything I know, and they'll accept that information.

• 1:03:04Speaker 05

  Let's actually really sit on this because this is what leads to the sketchy non prosecution agreement. So September 2007, Alex Acasa offers Epstein non prosecution agreement despite massive evidence of a sex trafficking ring that crosses state lines, a textbook definition of a federal case. He pleads only to the solicitation of prostitution involving a minor and he must register as a sex offender. The conditions of his non prosecution agreement basically say he must spend 18 months in the Palm Beach County Jail. He has weekend release. He's allowed 12 hours a day, six days a week to basically do whatever he wants. There is some evidence that he actually continued some of his trafficking while he was actually

• 1:03:48Speaker 05

  locked up in prison. He had a black car that would pick him up for 12 hours a day. It's the greatest deal in the entire world and all he has to do is serve 18 months under these sweetheart conditions and what he is able to do is that he is only asked to register as a sex offender. He does not spend decades in federal prison.

• 1:04:05Speaker 07

  So he gets to leave 12 hours a day?

• 1:04:06Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 1:04:07Speaker 07

  That's a job.

• 1:04:07Speaker 05

  Wait, four, six days a week. Yeah, it's called work release. They actually call it work release. That was the conditions. Now, here's another very important thing about this plea deal. Under this non prosecution agreement, the federal government grants immunity for all crimes that were under investigation of that indictment to Jeffrey Epstein and to all unindicted co-conspirators, including Ghislaine Maxwell. So this non prosecution agreement grants sweeping immunity of all crimes that were named in the secret indictment, both for Ghislaine Maxwell and for Jeffrey Epstein.

• 1:04:41Speaker 04

  Pause right here. So in other words, he gets this slap on her wrists compared to what they're investigating him for.

• 1:04:48Speaker 05

  That's right.

• 1:04:48Speaker 04

  And he gets to wipe the slate clean for all the way worse shit.

• 1:04:53Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 1:04:53Speaker 04

  Now, he gets immunity. That's different than wiping the slate clean. Does he then acknowledge all the things that happened through his immunity?

• 1:05:00Speaker 05

  I don't believe so. I think it was just that these were the crimes that you were being investigated for and we're going to basically agree that we'll never prosecute you for them in exchange for us.

• 1:05:09Speaker 06

  It's a limited hangout.

• 1:05:10Speaker 05

  Yeah, it's like, exactly.

• 1:05:10Speaker 04

  What is that called?

• 1:05:11Speaker 06

  Limited hangout.

• 1:05:12Speaker 04

  What does that mean?

• 1:05:13Speaker 06

  Basically, it's like the... Publishing of some of the bad things you did in order to hide all of the bad things.

• 1:05:18Speaker 04

  So everything before 2008, he gets off with 18 months.

• 1:05:24Speaker 05

  Well, everything in the secret indictment that was against.

• 1:05:26Speaker 04

  Yes, exactly.

• 1:05:26Speaker 05

  So that they were able to prove, which by the way, still exists and has never been released to this day.

• 1:05:30Speaker 04

  So there is a virgin, virgin, a lot of them. There is a version where we could, is there any version where we could learn about what was in that indictment?

• 1:05:39Speaker 05

  Yeah, they could release it if they wanted to. And these are part of the promises that have been made by the Trump administration.

• 1:05:44Speaker 04

  Yes, well, actually, no. So hold on a second. This is part of the reason. Can you put that back up because this is important?

• 1:05:48Speaker 07

  And immediately different than getting your records erased.

• 1:05:53Speaker 05

  The reason why we ever learn anything about this is because of the victims and the courageous victims who, according to the law on the books at the time, is that the victims themselves had a right, a federal right, to be informed of this non-prosecution agreement. This non-prosecution agreement was kept secret from the Epstein victims at the time, which violates federal law. And these people fight for justice and it's in 2018 that a court rules that the Epstein non-prosecution agreement violates the federal rights of the Epstein victims. It's under that ground that the non-prosecution agreement is overturned

• 1:06:34Speaker 05

  and it is under then that the Southern District of New York is able to arrest Jeffrey Epstein on new charges. So this civil right, this lawsuit is, yeah, the Crime Victims Rights Act, that's exactly what it is. It's a complaint they were not informed, the government's deal, and were very unhappy about it because they trusted the feds to basically work, basically to give them justice on their behalf. And they ruled, the district court ruled, that it violated their rights under the Crime Victim Rights Act and overturned the non-prosecution agreement, which opens the door to his rearrest in 2019.

• 1:07:04Speaker 04

  Okay, so hold on right here. Because? It overturns that convict, I don't want to say conviction, but overturns the non-prosecution agreement and the immunity. We should now legally have access to the indictment and investigation.

• 1:07:20Speaker 05

  We don't legally have access to it.

• 1:07:22Speaker 04

  Why is that? Why is there legal? Why can you overturn something, but he still gets immunity through it?

• 1:07:27Speaker 05

  Well, he didn't have immunity. They indicted him on new charges, but there's still an open question as to whether all the new charges in the 2019 indictment against Epstein include the secret indictment and many of the charges that were made against him.

• 1:07:38Speaker 04

  Bare minimum, there would be nothing that would go against our system of justice that would simply expose all the charges and investigation in that initial crime or those initial crimes, right? Because it was overthrown?

• 1:07:55Speaker 05

  Well, it's complicated. So I do know that the grand jury docs were actually released from 2006. I have this in front of me because I don't have all of the details exactly on here, but it's not the full, like, actual investigation.

• 1:08:06Speaker 04

  I guess what I'm trying to get at is, is this doesn't necessarily prove a blackmail ring, which seems, the narrative is incredibly popular online and something that we've obviously talked about. But it would at least acknowledge the accusations and the extent of the crimes that he was accused of. Which we haven't really gotten to at all. We've heard about them, but that information is not, and I think what would be very interesting about that is that if we have access to that information, yes, it might not incriminate the co-conspirators. No, actually, it would incriminate those co-conspirators now, but that would be okay because those people were being investigated and was going to go to trial anyway.

• 1:08:51Speaker 04

  We don't fall into that same maximalization act or whatever I was talking about before.

• 1:08:55Speaker 05

  Yes, that's right.

• 1:08:56Speaker 04

  Right? This idea that like, oh, you were around Epstein, so we don't want your name to be mentioned because your image could be tarnished when you weren't actually accused of anything. No, no, this is, they were accusing you of it and they were ready to go to trial.

• 1:09:07Speaker 05

  That's right. They were willing to go.

• 1:09:09Speaker 04

  Release that, bare minimum, bare minimum, we should have all that.

• 1:09:11Speaker 05

  They've released some of that. They've released the grand jury documents, but exactly. So this gets to the whole point and then even. Then whether we can really trust whether all those grand jury documents which are only released about a year or so ago. And by the way, I'm not a lawyer, so if I misspeak on any of this stuff, like, please forgive me. I'm actually just trying to compile like all the evidence. What we do know, at least according to the Justice Department, is that this was a deal that should never have happened. But that doesn't happen until 2020, after Epstein kills himself. After the Office of Professional Responsibility officially says Alex Acosta showed poor judgment whenever he entered this investigation. But that's the whole ballgame here, is why we did not, why we let him off on a sweetheart deal. Go ahead.

• 1:09:53Mark Gagnon?

  Was Ghislaine the only co-conspirator that got immunity?

• 1:09:57Speaker 05

  I think she wasn't named in it. It was like to any co-conspirator. It was, she wasn't specifically named, but it did cover her. Because she was one of the people who would have been named.

• 1:10:05Speaker 07

  I guess it covered all co-conspirators.

• 1:10:05Speaker 05

  But I think Alex is asking who else was covered. You'd have to, I'd have to revisit that exact case, but I know there were like assistants and other people who were involved. That's the thing, like. I mean, look, this doesn't just, it's like, remember Harvey Weinstein, he had all of his assistants.

• 1:10:16Speaker 07

  Them as a brother.

• 1:10:17Speaker 05

  And it was, yeah, it was like, wow, on a second hand. It's like, there's a lot of people that need to know about this to make this all happen.

• 1:10:23Speaker 07

  So here's a weird question, kind of. Why would that judge in 2018 suddenly kind of buck everything else that's happened and say, no, these victims have a right to justice?

• 1:10:32Speaker 05

  Because it's a clear cut case. They were, it's literally the law that they had to be informed of the, of the non-prosecution agreement.

• 1:10:39Speaker 07

  Very ignorant question. Why did it take 10 years where other judges?

• 1:10:42Speaker 05

  The legal system is very slow. That's just basically what it is. Also, a lot of them were felt in silence. A lot of them didn't even know about it. They learned about it later. And after they learned about it, they thought that this had all been a lot more penal, he'd been penalized more after they learned, again, that documentary on Netflix, that actually goes into all of these specifics. But I'm more focused on the intelligence question. That's like the case I want to really stick with. Because that's the whole ballgame is here, is why did Acosta let him off? And before you get to that, Mark, what were you saying?

• 1:11:10Speaker 06

  Do you know if the statute of limitations applies for these kinds of things if someone's sort of like?

• 1:11:17Mark Gagnon?

  Collaboration with a crime is

• 1:11:19Speaker 05

  Yeah, well, we'd have to go. We'd have to do the math. But if you think about the statute of limitations, Ghislaine goes on trial for crimes in the 1990s. So presumably, you know, all of her convictions, if it's in what, 2021, I think she was convicted, then let's go back some 20 years. So there must be the statute of limitations. There is for everything, I think, but murder. But it presumably does go back, like decades enough that she was able to be prosecuted.

• 1:11:41Mark Gagnon?

  So then the other co-conspirators.

• 1:11:42Speaker 05

  The other co-conspirators could also be prosecuted.

• 1:11:44Speaker 04

  Wouldn't it wipe away the statute of limitations if there was proven that there were, the case wasn't handled according to the legalities of our justice situation?

• 1:11:55Speaker 05

  I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.

• 1:11:56Speaker 04

  You get what I'm saying? It's like, let's say like they

• 1:11:58Speaker 05

  You would think so, but I could also see some bullshit way where they're like, no, it's the government's fault for entering into a bad thing. So you can't prosecute it. But

• 1:12:05Speaker 04

  Well, they didn't enter into a bad thing. They didn't tell the, what are the, what are the people? They didn't tell the victims of the agreement. So I would imagine you, it's like a mistrial, you're allowed to do it again. I don't think that the statute of limitations would wipe that away.

• 1:12:18Mark Gagnon?

  I think the victims will just have right to see that agreement. I don't think it would undo the agreement.

• 1:12:24Speaker 05

  Yeah, they, yeah, exactly. The thing is, is that they were all, they didn't have to do anything, except to tell them, hey, guys, this is what we did.

• 1:12:34Speaker 04

  And the reason they didn't do it.

• 1:12:34Speaker 05

  And they just didn't do it. Because it was a sweetheart deal.

• 1:12:37Speaker 04

  It was a sweetheart deal.

• 1:12:37Speaker 05

  And they didn't want to reveal why he's able to get away with this. But this is kind of what brings me

• 1:12:42Speaker 04

  Miles has one question.

• 1:12:43Speaker 09

  Oh, go ahead, Mark. Really, really quick. The Freedom of Information Act, would this apply at any point? Is there like a time in which this will have to release?

• 1:12:52Speaker 05

  That's a FOIA. It's a big FOIA question. So FOIA, I mean, it can take forever in the Department of Justice, and there are various like classification rules. This leads, remember, there was redactions in the Epstein files. And even then, it has to go through review of the FOIA officer. This is not really something that we'll ever find out via FOIA. That's almost impossible.

• 1:13:10Speaker 09

  Got it. And then secondly, when people talk about the word, or like, say Epstein files, are they generally referring to this secret indictment? Is that the bulk of it? Or are there so many other pieces?

• 1:13:20Speaker 05

  I'm trying to find the secret indictment details here. Just, yeah, so the sealed federal indictment prepared by the Southern District of New York that led to his eventual 2019 arrest. This was under seal in later June. So this basically goes back to the indictment that was previous prior to the non prosecution agreement. That's what I'm talking about. That is not what the Epstein supposed files are. Okay. And this is the other problem. Nobody really knows what the Epstein files are. And there's been this bastardization, again, of this idea of the black book and the so called client list. I'm telling you, it doesn't work like that. Like, there are names in books. Some of the names in the Epstein black book actually turned out he never met them.

• 1:14:01Speaker 05

  Right? So Epstein files to me is financial records, is the entire Co-conspirators. The co-conspirators, the original investigation documents, the FBI 302s and the, you know, the What's the operation? That's what we're gonna learn about. That's what we all want to know.

• 1:14:17Mark Gagnon?

  But then they take a bunch of tapes and DVDs.

• 1:14:19Speaker 05

  And the tapes that were allegedly lost about the cash and the artwork and all the flight logs, which are still not, you know, entirely released, very been released in dips, drips and dabs. Yeah, I hate when they do that. So let's focus here on the non prosecution agreement and why this did not happen and the case for why it is very, in my opinion, likely he was an intelligence asset. So in 2019, Joe, if you could please put this up from the Daily Beast, Vicky Ward, remember, this is Vicky Ward. This is the person who reports from Vanity Fair, 2002, probably the foremost authority on Epstein. She reports that Alex Acosta, while he was being screened by the Trump transition team in 2017, when he was asked, why did you back off the Epstein case? She says here, he was told, she

• 1:15:04Speaker 05

  was told, he belonged to intelligence and to let it go. Now, this, I want to be clear, it's not been confirmed 100% that he said this. This is reporting from Vicky Ward about the Trump transition team. Now, though, if you can go to the next link that I sent, in 2019, when Alex Acosta holds a press conference about this entire issue, and he is asked specifically about intelligence ties of Jeffrey Epstein and whether he would confirm this, he says, quote, "I would hesitate to that reporting as fact," but he would not deny it. Later on, he is asked on the record here by the Office of Professional Responsibility, whether he had any information that Epstein was an intelligence asset.

• 1:15:46Speaker 05

  He says, "Absolutely not. I did not have information." And he's informed that he is allowed to speak about this in a classified setting if he would like to, but he denies that he had information. But it's important to actually release the exact transcript as to what and how he was asked. Because you remember when I said earlier, when Naftali Bennett said he never worked for Mossad? That's very different than worked with Mossad. That's very different than was aware of, had contact with, right? You see what I'm saying? There are multiple non-denial- People can be very specific with their wording to evade the truth. Correct, as any lawyer and any former US attorney would know when he's under question.

• 1:16:28Speaker 05

  But nonetheless, Alex Acosta had an opportunity to address this and issued a non-denial denial in his public press conference in 2019. Last time I was here, I told you guys, my great regret is I sat next to him on a plane and I didn't ask him about it. Because it was a midnight flight from Miami and nobody was talking, and I'm just staring at this dude being like, "Bro, I gotta-" "I gotta ask." You know? He probably thought I was such a freak. He's like, "Who is this guy?" Yeah, it was like, anyway, so Alex, if you're listening, I would still love to talk to you about it. But he's never, he has never- Confirmed or denied. He's never confirmed, he's never denied it. He basically lives, I mean, look, he lives a private life in Miami. He can come out at any time. He did kind of deny in his final- Well, he said here, and didn't really deny it.

• 1:17:13Speaker 05

  This is why he wants the exact transcript. This is why the exact transcript matters, because he said, here, let's open it up very specifically- Is that transcript available? No, it's not available. And actually, that's one of the Epstein files that people would like released. So Acosta told OPR he did not have any information about cooperating in federal investigation or relating to media reports that Epstein had, quote, "been an intelligence asset." OPR says it did not find any reference to his purported cooperation or even a suggestion. At the, in the footnote, they says, "When OPR asked Acosta about his apparent equivocation in a 2019 press conference and answering the media question about Epstein's-" being an intelligence asset, he said, quote, "The answer is no." So that's what he told them, okay? Let's be clear about what he said, at least in one on the record setting, because there

• 1:17:56Speaker 05

  are various different reporting on this. I am personally inclined to take the totality of evidence of everything I talked about, about his connections with Hoffenberg, with Adnan Khashoggi, with Douglas Leese, to show all of his connections that we're about to get into with Israel and say, "I think there's a pretty good case to be made." And let's also get now to why the intelligence community would ever want to cover this stuff up. All right? Why? So can we go to the next link, please? This is from BuzzFeed News, 2021, a great reporter, Jason Leopold, he's like the FOIA king. And what he reported in 2021 is "Secret CIA files say that staffers committed in sex crimes involving children.

• 1:18:39Speaker 05

  Declassified CIA Inspector General report shows a pattern of abuse and repeated decisions by the federal prosecutors not to hold agency personnel accountable." Now, why? And by the way, some of these agents abuse children as young as two and six, which are named here in the documents. Oh, my fucking goodness. And so, why would the feds not want to prosecute known pedophiles, people who are actually abusing children, not just child pornography? Why? They were concerned, if they prosecuted them in open court, that sources and methods would be revealed. Methods. So in sources and methods. So in 10 different known times here, from the CIA Inspector General, they decided not to prosecute known pedophiles specifically to make sure that they could protect intelligence

• 1:19:22Speaker 05

  at the expense of justice and bringing people and putting these people in jail. So that shows you that there is a track record here from the United States government, from the CIA Inspector General report, in which even in a much lower level scenario, that they don't want this information to come to light. Not because they necessarily care about the justice, they care, at the end of the day, about sources and methods and about, at all costs, they want to keep all of these people out of open court, because those people might start talking a whole lot of shit while they're on the transcript, on the record, and they might say, "Hey, you put me in federal prison? I'm going to tell the whole world what I know." And in exchange, they're let off with probably the worst crime that you can commit, you know, literally, in my opinion, like the worst possible crime that you can commit. We're talking about the sexual abuse

• 1:20:05Speaker 05

  here of children as young as two and as six. Second one, and this shows you actually a more systematic one. Shout out to my friend Daryl Cooper, who flagged this case to me in his podcast. I highly recommend it, the Martyr Made Podcast on Epstein files. So this is something he brought to my attention by his podcast, is that all throughout the 1970s and 1980s, there was this place called the Concorde Children's Home in Northern Ireland, where it was basically a hub and an orphanage for orphaned boys who were being systematically abused by intelligence assets known to MI6 and MI5 because and it was basically covered up and ignored because

• 1:20:46Speaker 05

  they were key conduits in helping MI5 manage the Northern Irish problem during the troubles. This is but a clear cut example of basically how it works.

• 1:20:57Speaker 04

  Everybody understands MI5, MI6 is a British intelligence.

• 1:21:01Speaker 05

  British intelligence.

• 1:21:02Speaker 04

  And then the troubles is a time in which there was Irish resistance.

• 1:21:06Speaker 05

  Irish resistance against the UK and Northern Ireland. And it's complicated. I'm not a full expert.

• 1:21:11Speaker 04

  The argument is in order to manage that resistance, they had these intelligence assets.

• 1:21:15Speaker 05

  Who were sexually abusing children. They knew they were sexually abusing children.

• 1:21:19Speaker 04

  And they let it happen.

• 1:21:19Speaker 05

  And they let it happen.

• 1:21:20Speaker 04

  It was advantageous to have.

• 1:21:21Speaker 05

  Because it was advantageous to continue that intelligence. What I'm just showing you though, is that this has all happened in the past.

• 1:21:26Speaker 04

  But just so we can clarify, it doesn't mean MI5 and MI6 are orchestrating the molestation of these children. It means that they're looking the other way, which is equally heinous.

• 1:21:35Speaker 05

  It's honestly worse than I think. Yeah, I actually think it's worse. Okay.

• 1:21:39Speaker 04

  Fair enough. Because it is advantageous for what the, you know, current administration or what the country wanted at the time. And so you were using this as evidence that intelligence communities have done this in the past.

• 1:21:53Speaker 05

  Have done this in the past. These are verified incidents. They show us this has happened.

• 1:21:57Speaker 04

  And real quick, it would lend itself to this idea that intelligence communities were aware of what Epstein was doing and was able to look the other way because there was access to certain information.

• 1:22:08Speaker 05

  And money.

• 1:22:09Speaker 04

  And money that they wanted. So. It would thwart this idea that the government is actively using Epstein as a worker, if you will, to run a blackmail ring, but it would confirm this idea that they were aware of this pedophile sex trafficking ring happening and they allowed it to happen so as long as that they could use him, continue to use him as an asset.

• 1:22:32Speaker 05

  That's exactly right.

• 1:22:32Speaker 04

  Which I think is an important slice because I think the internet has taken Epstein and turned him into the Mossad CIA government blackmail ring that they use to incriminate the elites, which at this point in time, we don't know if there's any evidence of that, but it seemed like there's overwhelming evidence to his access to these elites and his utility to intelligence services.

• 1:22:54Speaker 05

  Correct, that's exactly right.

• 1:22:55Speaker 06

  And I wonder if it's advantageous for intelligence to have an asset or someone like this that has such a malignant proclivity.

• 1:23:03Speaker 05

  Correct, you're exactly, see, this is very important.

• 1:23:05Speaker 04

  Can you go on, can you continue on this?

• 1:23:07Speaker 06

  It's like if basically you have someone that's able to have access to all this information and money, but also is a known pedophile, he's much easier to control and coerce.

• 1:23:15Speaker 04

  So it's like in the hood, if you got a crackhead or a heroin addict that you need him to do some fuck shit, but they always gotta come back to you because they're addicted to the thing you got.

• 1:23:22Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean, the FBI looks the other way for, on criminals. Actually, Joey, can you Google this? It's like confidential informants commit crimes, FBI. There was a report recently, it came out a couple of years ago, that named like the number of crimes that the FBI allowed its confidential informants to commit while it was working with them.

• 1:23:41Speaker 04

  This is Whitey Bulger.

• 1:23:41Speaker 05

  Yeah, but it's, it's not Whitey, it's like, it's way bigger than that.

• 1:23:46Speaker 04

  Whitey would be like the biggest version.

• 1:23:47Speaker 05

  Yeah, the perfect example of that.

• 1:23:48Speaker 04

  So the notorious Boston gangster, who was always an FBI informant, but they allowed him to continue to run shit in Boston.

• 1:23:54Speaker 05

  I mean, it's thousands of crimes. It's shocking.

• 1:23:57Speaker 06

  Or CIA prof and dictator and they can do whatever they want to their people.

• 1:24:00Speaker 05

  They can do whatever you want, as long as you keep certain things.

• 1:24:02Speaker 04

  Oh, you can kill tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people as long as it's your loyal ass.

• 1:24:06Speaker 05

  You can say like, I would Google something like confidential informants commit crimes, like FBI admits, something like that, maybe we can find that. I'm just citing it off the top of my head.

• 1:24:16Speaker 04

  Sorry, in the meantime, but do we have-

• 1:24:17Speaker 05

  Since I've looked at it. Go ahead.

• 1:24:18Speaker 07

  Do we have any idea what he's providing that is worth the kids?

• 1:24:22Speaker 05

  There it is. Yeah, there we go. FBI allowed informants to commit 5,000 crimes or something like it's like maybe 5,000 or 50,000. I can't read the headline. Exactly. Again, I'm trying to cite, I'm trying to show everybody that this is, this is business as usual for the, for the federal government.

• 1:24:37Speaker 04

  And just to clarify, not all these crimes are kid fucking. Some of these crimes are drug running. Some of these crimes are drugs. Exactly. There are illegal activities that the FBI is aware of and they allow these people to operate in these spaces. They know that they're operating these spaces and being watched just as long as that information trickles back. For example, if you're a gun runner in America, you want to send some guns to some third world country, the FBI or the CIA is going to be aware of that. They can tap you for that information and they might actually want those guns to get over there. And they might need somebody like you were describing before to ensure that those guns actually get there for their nefarious purposes. But again, I just want to parcel this. It's not like the only crimes being committed or having sex with children. It is quite common that you are using these nefarious characters to carry out the, the horrible crimes that you cannot be associated.

• 1:25:21Speaker 05

  This is just, yeah, all we're pointing out, it's business as usual. It's just extended to the furthest possible one.

• 1:25:27Speaker 04

  Yeah, this is, that is a great, I'm struggling.

• 1:25:30Speaker 05

  Yeah. And we all struggle with that because we're good people, right?

• 1:25:34Speaker 04

  But when you're surrounded with such madness.

• 1:25:36Speaker 05

  Look, it's all, how do, how do you commit major crimes, right? It's all a buildup. Like, nobody just starts out immediately like going for a billion dollar Ponzi scheme. I mean, one of my favorite books is the history of the Madoff scheme. It starts small, man. It starts with one, it's one doctored paper. And then it leads to this and then it's one lie, it's one quarter, it's just one. That's all. And then you take another, and the next thing you know, you're running a 56 billion dollar Ponzi scheme. Okay. It takes 50 years to get there, but it doesn't happen all overnight. It happens in a permission structure in an environment of crime.

• 1:26:07Speaker 04

  The permission structure is huge.

• 1:26:08Speaker 07

  Yeah. This might be the most obvious answer in the world, or there is no answer and that's obvious. What intelligence is he providing? Do we have any idea?

• 1:26:17Speaker 05

  I don't know.

• 1:26:17Speaker 07

  That it's like, oh, this is potentially a pedophilia ring involving the most powerful people in the world. And instead of having any kind of justice, this information is with it.

• 1:26:26Speaker 05

  So let's speculate at this because this is pure speculation. We have no idea and this is part of what it would be great to get from files or investigation or a church committee. You know, the church committee actually would be the only answer here. We need a congressional committee.

• 1:26:38Speaker 07

  Church would know about pedophilia.

• 1:26:39Speaker 05

  Do you know what the church committee is? No, it's in the 19th century. It was Senator Frank Church, who was American hero.

• 1:26:44Speaker 07

  No church can help itself, dude.

• 1:26:48Speaker 05

  Senator Frank Church in the 1970s exposed COINTELPRO, all of the out of control operations by the FBI and the CIA, and he brought the intelligence community to bear post Watergate, and basically, America didn't trust them anymore. Senator Church basically seized on this, he exposed a lot of the issues with the Black Panthers, with COINTELPRO, with the prosecution.

• 1:27:12Speaker 04

  Can you explain COINTELPRO to anybody who's watching right now?

• 1:27:14Speaker 05

  COINTELPRO was, what was it, CIA, is that mind control? What am I thinking of?

• 1:27:18Speaker 04

  No, COINTELPRO is basically Agent Provocateur.

• 1:27:21Speaker 05

  I'm getting them all mixed up.

• 1:27:22Speaker 04

  Agent Provocateurs, you put the FBI agents in a peaceful protest, ratchet up.

• 1:27:26Speaker 05

  So there's that, and then what was the mind control?

• 1:27:28Speaker 04

  MKUltra.

• 1:27:29Speaker 05

  MKUltra, that's MK, he exposed all this, right? So that's why, what I'm saying is, we need something like that to happen with this.

• 1:27:35Speaker 04

  The idea of the, the intelligence community could be effectively using illegal measures to incriminate people that are not doing actual. Or acting against their own citizens.

• 1:27:44Speaker 05

  Or acting against their own citizens in violation of the law.

• 1:27:47Mark Gagnon?

  But to answer your question, like, he was an arms dealer, money launderer, that's a lot of information.

• 1:27:51Speaker 05

  By the way, I'm speculating, that's not confirmed. What I'm trying to say is, there is a lot of evidence that points in that direction. I can't get further without the documents, without verification.

• 1:28:00Mark Gagnon?

  He was just asking like, what information could he have given?

• 1:28:02Speaker 05

  Knew a lot of arms dealers, knew a lot of people who were doing, so, you know, look, we can only speculate as to what is exactly happening.

• 1:28:07Speaker 04

  Bare minimum, what we can confirm is that he was involved, obviously outside the child tax area, that he was doing illegal money laundering.

• 1:28:17Speaker 05

  He appears, in my opinion, to have been doing that.

• 1:28:20Speaker 04

  Well, didn't he get caught at Bear Stearns? Maybe not money laundering, but insider trading.

• 1:28:23Speaker 05

  Yeah, he was doing something that violated compliance rules in the 1980s.

• 1:28:26Speaker 04

  Doing illegal stuff for the transfer of money, probably tax evasion, which is quite common when you're dealing with this type of money, but still willing to go to illegal measures to, you know, prop up the wealth of the world's elites.

• 1:28:38Mark Gagnon?

  Opens up his own firm and only accepts billionaire.

• 1:28:41Speaker 05

  Billionaire, right. So again, like, what are we doing?

• 1:28:43Mark Gagnon?

  That's what I'm gonna do, I'm gonna open up a podcast studio.

• 1:28:45Speaker 05

  Only billionaires. Well, actually, today, it would be the equivalent of saying, only 20 billion, right? There's not that many people who are worth more than 20 billion.

• 1:28:53Speaker 04

  And what if there was one guy that was managing the money of all the richest people in the world? It would be advantageous for the intelligence communities of any country to have access to that guy.

• 1:29:01Speaker 05

  Yeah, you would actually be quite foolish if you didn't.

• 1:29:03Speaker 04

  If you didn't, you have to have something.

• 1:29:04Speaker 05

  Right, exactly. So this is where, again, like, we can only speculate. What did they get out of this? In my opinion, in the 1980s, he was obviously financing arms deals. There's just like, clear-cut case for me, that's the most useful, black money is the most useful thing in the world to a US intelligence, or Mossad intelligence, Saudi intelligence, any of these other people. Then it gets to the question of the whole blackmail thing. And, uh, look, I think there is at least some evidence here in the case of Wexner and others, that it appears to look like blackmail was used by Epstein for his personal financial gain. And then we combine the two, to where we have hidden cameras that we know about in the Virgin Islands, that we know about in the New York residence, that we know about in Palm Beach. Many of this footage and other things never has been released. We know about the DVDs and other things.

• 1:29:47Speaker 04

  On the cameras, I think it's important to note that it's not simply security cameras. I have cameras in all my homes.

• 1:29:53Speaker 05

  As you should.

• 1:29:54Speaker 04

  Exactly. Like, they were wired for audio as well.

• 1:29:58Speaker 05

  That's right.

• 1:29:58Speaker 04

  And they were in the bathrooms.

• 1:29:59Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 1:30:00Speaker 04

  I don't have, yes.

• 1:30:01Speaker 06

  But I actually think that's another interesting point, because that doesn't necessarily mean it's only sexual blackmail.

• 1:30:07Speaker 04

  Oh, I, I would imagine it's the, it's more not that. Come over to my house for a meeting. Yeah, let's just talk about some stuff. Let's talk. You go to the bathroom and you're like, "This fucking weirdo, I gotta get the hell out of here, he's a piece of shit, blah blah blah." And now you got that locked, and then the FBI gets access to that information.

• 1:30:20Speaker 06

  Which I think is an important delineation, that you might have some head of state, and let's say they're in the Epstein files as, "Oh, there is audiovisual blackmail of Bill Clinton or Ehud Barak." It might not necessarily be sexual.

• 1:30:31Speaker 05

  Yeah, you're exactly right.

• 1:30:32Speaker 04

  I guess, Steve.

• 1:30:33Speaker 05

  Let's get to Aide Barak. This is important, because now I want to start making the Israel case specifically. So we already talked about how earlier Epstein...

• 1:30:43Speaker 05

  Hold on. I am, I, look, I want to present this factually. I don't need people coming with the antisemitism accusations. Let's live only in the world of fact.

• 1:30:52Speaker 04

  Do people make those accusations anymore?

• 1:30:53Speaker 05

  Yeah, oh, absolutely.

• 1:30:54Speaker 04

  Wait, that happens?

• 1:30:54Speaker 05

  Uh, today, right now. This entire thing is going to be branded antisemitic. Well, listen, I don't care anymore, but, uh, even though they are going to say that no matter what, we should not be irresponsible, and let's live in the world of fact. So, uh, go ahead, Joey. So down to the thing that I had. That says Epstein and Ayud Barak. So, okay, let's go ahead and put this up here. Here are the lists that I compiled just yesterday of every Israeli prime minister who we know, who is linked to Jeffrey Epstein. Number one is Shimon Perez. Shimon Perez was the prime minister of Israel in the 1980s. He, according to Ayud Barak himself in the open record, introduced Ayud Barak to Jeffrey Epstein. So that's the first prime minister of Israel that we know is linked to Jeffrey Epstein. Number two is Ayud Olmair, who was named as an Epstein associate by the

• 1:31:38Speaker 05

  US Virgin Islands in their lawsuit against JP Morgan and Chase. I will be honest, Ayud Olmair, we don't, we have the least amount of information. We only know he was named by the US Virgin Islands as an Epstein associate. Number three, Ayud Barak, as I list there. Connections too vast to paraphrase. All right. And so let's spend some time now on Ayud Barak. Let me return to Netanyahu in a bit. In my document, you can scroll to the Epstein and Ayud Barak section. Ayud Barak stayed for multiple times at Jeffrey Epstein's house. This is confirmed. He flew dozens of times on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet. But he has nowhere else to stay in New York City. Yeah, right. He's a former prime minister of Israel. Where could he stay? Actually, Joey, can you pull up the photo of Ayud Barak? Ayud Barak Epstein Mansion.

• 1:32:26Speaker 05

  This is the biggest private residence. You're gonna go say it's the Four Seasons? I want you guys to see the photo. There's a photo of Ayud Barak walking into the Epstein Mansion with his face covered with a scarf up to his nose. And this is pre-COVID times. He says it was cold. It was cold. Yeah, there it is. Look at that. Look at that. That's him walking into Jeffrey Epstein's house. That's insane. People don't walk around like that. They don't walk around like that. Sorry. Yeah, and this is post 2008. So again, we're talking about post conviction. Yeah, post conviction. He's a registered sex offender, still staying at his house. He's staying at his house. Okay. All right. Also, 2015, I have a documented link here. He might just be cheap and not want to spend. Epstein-funded Ayud Barak. Oh, no, you don't know the Jews of real estate in New York City.

• 1:33:10Speaker 05

  All right, let me continue. Epstein-funded Ayud Barak's defense intelligence startup to the tune of millions of dollars. So that... My opinion is one of the real smoking guns because what did I talk about earlier with Jeffrey? Uh, with a Robert Maxwell was the funding of software used by the Israeli government to do what? To spy on the United States. Yeah, now this, this software would be used to spy everywhere, I imagine. Right. Yeah, of course, like Pegasus, right? Right. All of these other things are right. So it's not just the United States, but it's everybody. All right. But here in this case, Epstein entered partnership worth millions with Ayud Barak in 2015. Post conviction, registered sex offender. Okay, let's continue. Barack is who the former, not only prime minister, the former head of military intelligence inside of Israel.

• 1:33:54Speaker 05

  Let's continue beyond that. And let's say, ask about Ayud Barak and what else he did. I have this in the Wexner section. If you want, it is, let me find it here. I may not have actually put a citation. You can Google it if you would like. Epstein, who was also named by Leslie Wexner as a trustee of the Wexner Foundation, paid Ayud Barak $2.3 million to complete two consulting reports, one of which he never finished. Okay? $2.3 million paid by the Wexner Foundation to Ayud Barak, the former prime minister of Israel, for one of which he never finished. Okay? I'm just saying, good, good work if you can get it.

• 1:34:36Speaker 05

  Yeah, 2.3 million, everybody out there, everybody struggling with their bills and your mortgage. This is insane. All right. This is insane. For purposes of what? We don't know. Now let's return to the Wexner Foundation. Why would he be paying him? Yeah, exactly. What's going on? No, I guess I'm saying like, why is that advantageous? Like if? Cause it's like a jobs program for all of these former Israeli officials. And it's basically a network where, and this is actually fits where I was about to continue. The Wexner Foundation funds a fellowship right now at Harvard University, which by the way, of course, also had connections with Jeffrey Epstein. And what did we see is that the Wexner Foundation has for decades now sponsored programs where Israeli officials, including military officials and civil government officials, come to the United States to quote, "learn leadership."

• 1:35:20Speaker 05

  And it's known as one of the largest networks of like highly influential Israeli government officials who come to the United States and basically link up with one another as a very, very powerful nexus. So the Wexner Foundation is involved.

• 1:35:34Speaker 04

  And why is that incriminating that they come here and learn leadership?

• 1:35:36Speaker 05

  Well, it's not incriminating. I'm just saying that the Wexner, this is American. He's a billionaire. He's funding AIPAC and all of these various Zionist causes. He's also paying weirdly 2.3 million dollars to a former Israeli prime minister. This is a foundation which Epstein has a lot of control over. By the way, just to be fair to them, they have claimed that Epstein had no influence over that decision. Okay, I mean, he was, you know, basically running it and he had power of attorney by Leslie Wexner. But, you know, to be fair to the Wexner Foundation, I mean, I just think it's crazy. This is insane to pay 2.3 million dollars to A. Barack.

• 1:36:08Speaker 04

  So what, so take me down that line of thinking. If you pay him that money, what does that mean?

• 1:36:12Speaker 05

  Yeah, for what? It's like to what, to what end? I don't know.

• 1:36:16Speaker 04

  Give me a legend, give me hypothetical.

• 1:36:17Speaker 05

  My hypothetical is that, you know, is that these are basically ways to create slush funds that perhaps he was using and others to fund other intelligence operations. This returns me to the black money point is that you need legitimate ways to wash money.

• 1:36:35Speaker 04

  Okay, so then he's giving the money to him and then he's doing, you know, nefarious activities with it.

• 1:36:40Speaker 05

  I don't know what he's doing.

• 1:36:41Speaker 04

  Is there a way of looking at it where you go Jeffrey Epstein is working for US intelligence? And in a way, this is how they're bribing Israeli intelligence to be loyal to US intelligence.

• 1:36:53Speaker 05

  And this is why I will never sit here and say he was solely a Mossad agent or Mossad asset, solely a US asset. I think he was a high, he was a hired gun. He would work for anybody.

• 1:37:02Speaker 04

  For anybody.

• 1:37:02Speaker 05

  He would, that's, and everybody would want to work with this person.

• 1:37:05Speaker 04

  Because he has access to all the rich and famous people.

• 1:37:08Speaker 05

  To the world's rich and the famous. He can tell you the secrets. I mean, this is the gold standard of an intelligence asset in the United States of America, the capital of the global empire, right? New York City, the capital of global finance. People, even, even private business people would want to be friends with Epstein because like, hey, what's going on with that deal? Are they going to, you know, do a leveraged buyout with this person? And Epstein would be like, eh, maybe I can find out for you, right? And, you know, calls up this person. So there are a lot of reasons to want to have access to all of this, much of which is very beneficial.

• 1:37:37Speaker 04

  Access to, why would he want access to Epstein?

• 1:37:40Speaker 05

  Well, that's, that is one of those things where I actually think the relationship was the other way because it's, it might be just a pre quote, quid pro quo situation. Like you're Ayud Barak, the former prime minister of Israel, and Jeffrey Epstein is a guy who made his money somehow, and you need millions of dollars from him, not a legitimate, you know, venture capital firm. I think that the reason that they want sketchy money is because it was probably, in my opinion, some sort of intelligence front. And that this is exactly, he's fulfilling his purpose. The financier uses the money, the dirty money, or the, you know, untraceable money to fund future spyware, intelligence companies. This gets to the front company discourse. It also shows us that he was involved in this in 2015. It wasn't that long ago, okay? It was only 10 years ago, that he was still doing this.

• 1:38:24Speaker 05

  So it shows that even post conviction, he's continuing the behavior which is very suspicious, in my opinion. So that's, that's, that's where we are with Ayud Barak. Now let's return to Netanyahu, because this is a fun story, actually. So Netanyahu, in 2011, I have that screenshot in my tweet, if you want to go ahead and put that up there. Netanyahu met with the JP Morgan exec I mentioned earlier, Jess Staley, all right? So Jess Staley, in 2011, emails Epstein, and he said, I gotta find the exact text. I don't have it here in the document, but I tweeted it a couple of days ago. Let me just go ahead and find it. Because the wording of it is genuinely remarkable,

• 1:39:07Speaker 05

  where he sends him an email, and he said something like, against all odds. Yeah, here we go. In 2011, JP Morgan executive forwarded, emailed Epstein, against all odds, we have been granted a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Epstein replies, surprise, surprise. The US Virgin Islands notes that he was a key conduit in brokering meetings like this. And so here's from the US Virgin Islands lawsuit, where they note some of the world's dignitaries, Prince Andrew, Ayud Barak, Netanyahu, David Gergen. My point is around this, is this JP Morgan CEO is able, you know, from the email discourse, he's

• 1:39:47Speaker 05

  Like against all odds, we were granted a meeting with Netanyahu and Epstein replies, surprise, surprise.

• 1:39:54Speaker 04

  Why can't JP Morgan get a meeting with Netanyahu?

• 1:39:55Speaker 05

  Exactly. And first of all, it's super weird. You know, why, why wouldn't you be able to get a meeting with Netanyahu?

• 1:39:59Speaker 04

  JP Morgan, one of the biggest in the world.

• 1:40:01Speaker 05

  Why would you forward that to Epstein? And Epstein's like, yeah, you're, you know, you're welcome for hooking it up. I think it's weird. Now, none of these point perhaps to like, direct employee relationship and points to a vast

• 1:40:15Speaker 04

  Network, connectivity.

• 1:40:16Speaker 05

  And network, which was useful, perhaps at times with the US and Israeli intelligence.

• 1:40:22Speaker 04

  But this looks like Epstein has influence over Israel, not the other way around.

• 1:40:28Speaker 05

  Well, it could be.

• 1:40:28Speaker 04

  It looks like the US is.

• 1:40:29Speaker 05

  But it could be bi-directional.

• 1:40:30Speaker 04

  Right, of course, of course. I'm just saying in this certain circumstance, it's like, hey, we need to meet with this guy. We can't happen. And he's like, ah, I'll tell him what to do.

• 1:40:35Speaker 05

  Well, yeah, but it's not really influence. It's more acting as an agent for major financial institutions to hook them up with the Israeli government. Now, look, I mean, Netanyahu, by the way, has never answered any questions about this. Ayud Barak has, you know.

• 1:40:48Speaker 04

  You're saying in his Nelk Boys interview, he didn't talk about this?

• 1:40:51Speaker 05

  Is that out yet? By the way, do we know?

• 1:40:53Speaker 04

  No.

• 1:40:53Speaker 05

  What's up with Steinie and them? I don't understand. Like, bro, I said this, I was like, you have a newsy interview. You gotta release that shit. You can't just hold a prime minister interview for a week. It's fucking crazy.

• 1:41:04Speaker 04

  I'm sure they asked a hard-hitting question.

• 1:41:05Speaker 05

  Your Nelk thing is still one of my favorite things on Earth. That's legendary.

• 1:41:09Speaker 04

  Hey, Bimi, how long can a keg stand? How many Happy Dads you think you can drink in 30 seconds?

• 1:41:13Speaker 05

  He's literally, I forget the one who was annoying with you, who's literally like be on his phone while B B is talking or some shit.

• 1:41:19Speaker 07

  Well, the thing about Israel-Palestine, what kind of watch is that?

• 1:41:27Speaker 04

  No. What a joke.

• 1:41:30Speaker 05

  Wait, so, okay, to play devil's advocate for some of these people who would be on Epstein's list, and you brought this up earlier, but like theoretically, you got, if I'm a Bill Gates and this guy has access to all of these people and I'm concerned with wealth.

• 1:41:44Speaker 07

  I guess he's already been convicted of the pedophilia, so even associated with him is crazy. But theoretically, it's like, well, he can connect me with that billionaire and that billionaire.

• 1:41:51Speaker 05

  Well, that's what happened in Bill Gates's case. So Bill Gates, if you guys remember, well, it's complicated. There's a lot of reporting about it, but allegedly, you know, he would use Epstein for marriage advice and things like that.

• 1:42:03Speaker 04

  She's too old!

• 1:42:04Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's what happened. You know, I mean, actually, this is important on the Bill Gates story. Melinda Gates divorced him over the Epstein thing. And-

• 1:42:12Speaker 04

  It's bad!

• 1:42:13Speaker 05

  That's what she says. Okay, well, that's the timing. That's what she says.

• 1:42:16Speaker 04

  No, no, no, I would say that too.

• 1:42:17Speaker 05

  But guys, let's stick with that, because here's the thing. It had to be bad, because Bill Gates was an obvious philanderer for over 20 years, for their entire marriage. So what was worse than that, to get you to divorce him? There had to be something. I think there was something sketchy that she found out. Like, look, maybe she was just appalled by all the reporting, but she knew. Look, everybody at Microsoft knew that Bill Gates was having affairs. This is already documented. It's out there, like, in terms of his conduct with women over the last 20 years. So it can't have been as bad as, oh, he was just-

• 1:42:50Speaker 07

  There's an income level where it's like, come on.

• 1:42:53Speaker 05

  They're multi-billionaires, you know what I mean?

• 1:42:54Speaker 07

  Come on.

• 1:42:55Speaker 05

  They probably are not even in the same country, right? They're like, they're both like vast estates that can just move around on private jets. So, again-

• 1:43:03Speaker 04

  Oh, my God. I did not like that, yeah, this is Melinda Gates. I did not like that they had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein. No, I made that clear to him. He was abhorrent. He was evil personified. My heart breaks for these women. Yeah, I guess you gotta say that.

• 1:43:14Speaker 05

  Yeah, but it's one of those things where there might be something else going on.

• 1:43:18Speaker 04

  Feel that way.

• 1:43:20Speaker 07

  Do we know the first time, what's the gap between the divorce and the first time this guy meets Epstein? Because I think there's like 12 years where Melinda could have left.

• 1:43:28Speaker 04

  Yeah, do you not like that it got out?

• 1:43:29Speaker 05

  Well, that's part of it.

• 1:43:31Speaker 04

  So if you don't like that it got out- Maybe she didn't know.

• 1:43:33Speaker 05

  I do not know.

• 1:43:34Speaker 04

  Maybe she didn't know.

• 1:43:35Speaker 05

  I don't know. She could have left earlier if she was so bothered by it. Right, but I think what Alex is saying, maybe she didn't know. Yeah, no, I think she didn't know. Because all of the stuff is about his kid, but and I think actually she may know even more than we all do about what was going on in some of those rooms. Wait, why? Well, maybe it's like she asked him to come clean and he came clean, or maybe there's some stuff in court documents and lawsuits and others. But I've been alleged against him that again, could have been cash and killed. Like that will tell everything. Uh, it was like billions. Uh, if, I mean, we can look at it. I mean, it's gonna be billions. Yeah, it's gonna be billions no matter what. So it's, uh, what was it? Forty billion, something like that? Maybe fifty, um, and control the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They agree to continue those two things together. So there's something going on. That's all I'm saying. All right.

• 1:44:17Speaker 05

  All right. 12.5 billion grant for her fight on proper work. Um. Can you hit show more? Maybe I'm thinking. Mally Mel. Oh, they had no proof. They had no prenup. So she got to give it no matter what? Right, yeah. She was gonna get it no matter what. So let's be honest. Yeah, okay. Right. So anyway, my, my thing is like, why now? I just think, again, she knew about his cheating. Like, it had to be worse than that. I, I don't really know what it was. Or just public. Or, or public, it's possible. But Bill Gates met with Epstein because he was trying to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Bill Gates wanted the Nobel Peace Prize for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Epstein's like, oh, I can make that happen. And why? Like, that's, that's the question. It's like, why even after being a registered sex offender? Like, Andrew, you and I are in a weird position. That's why Trump was cool with him. He just wanted the peace prize.

• 1:45:01Speaker 05

  I'm sure all of us as public people, we get invited to dinners like all the time, right? And I very, very rarely go because it's like annoying. Yeah. But I, I used to go, but like, what I always do is just a cursory Google search, right? And if somebody invited me to dinner, you know, and was a registered sex offender, which one of the very first things is gonna pop up. Yeah. I'm not going. But George Stephanopoulos went. Bill Gates went. Uh, Reid Hoffman. One thing they went. Peters, I don't know. Yeah, how many times? I apparently hang out with my real friends. Right, exactly. It's like, what is going on here? You know, you, and not only you guys are doing dinners or whatever, you're all like wiring money to each other. The Bill and Melinda Gate, or like the Nobel Peace Prize, and there's all kinds of people we don't even know about because there has not been yet a release of the files. But isn't it?

• 1:45:45Mark Gagnon?

  Like the rich people stuff that you were saying before. It's like, ah, well, he's going over there. I guess it's cool if we all go.

• 1:45:52Speaker 05

  Yeah, but yeah, but still, doesn't the sex offender thing register at any point? Like, at what point?

• 1:45:58Speaker 07

  Yeah, once they're convicted.

• 1:45:59Speaker 05

  Point does it register to be like, oh, we're not doing this?

• 1:46:02Speaker 07

  I can understand not going.

• 1:46:03Speaker 06

  To be honest with you, I probably wouldn't Google, but come on, dude.

• 1:46:06Speaker 07

  Somebody's convicted, fuck that.

• 1:46:09Mark Gagnon?

  No, no, no.

• 1:46:09Speaker 05

  Fuck insane.

• 1:46:10Speaker 04

  Your staff is gonna Google.

• 1:46:12Speaker 05

  Yeah, right. Exactly.

• 1:46:13Speaker 04

  Like, all these meetings are going through your staff.

• 1:46:15Speaker 06

  And I'm not worried. I'm not worth enough to have a staff. If I was, they would, yeah, hey, Google anybody else.

• 1:46:19Speaker 05

  Assistants, you're not getting in the fucking door.

• 1:46:21Speaker 04

  Think about how many people were terrified of just coming on the podcast.

• 1:46:24Speaker 05

  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 1:46:26Speaker 04

  I'm almost terrified to come on a podcast, right? You have some of the most powerful people in the world that are going to meet up with a convicted pedophile.

• 1:46:32Speaker 05

  Right.

• 1:46:33Speaker 04

  Yeah, you know what's going on.

• 1:46:34Speaker 05

  Yeah, you know.

• 1:46:35Mark Gagnon?

  But you said in the 90s, it was already common knowledge that he likes them young. So it's like, they knew that back then.

• 1:46:40Speaker 05

  There's a big difference between a registered sex offender.

• 1:46:42Speaker 07

  Yeah, there's a PR issue.

• 1:46:43Speaker 05

  Deniability before that.

• 1:46:44Speaker 06

  But they all, they all rationalize it. I'm sure their staff says, yeah, look, he was given such a light sentence because it was kind of bullshit.

• 1:46:50Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's true.

• 1:46:51Speaker 06

  The charges were trumped up.

• 1:46:52Speaker 04

  You didn't know that the girl was underage.

• 1:46:53Speaker 06

  And so the whole thing was overblown and you're about to get $2 billion in a peace prize at your foundation.

• 1:46:58Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 1:46:58Speaker 06

  And then you go, all right, for $2 billion, I can have a closed door meeting with the guy.

• 1:47:03Speaker 05

  This is the weirdest thing. It's the reputation laundering. Like, again, we're talking about Bill Gates. We're talking about MIT. We're talking about the Ivy League universities. We're talking about some of the world's most professional and smartest scientists who are going over to his house for dinner, who are, you know, accepting grants for his work at the MIT lab, who, all of this is post conviction. Guys, you don't just give money to MIT. They're, have enough money. They don't just take it from anyone. They do extensive background research.

• 1:47:28Speaker 04

  They do extensive background research.

• 1:47:30Speaker 05

  To make sure that you can put your name on something and they know what's happening.

• 1:47:33Speaker 04

  I have a frie- I have a friend of mine who has a, a real estate fund or whatever, and he got invested from these institutional places like MIT and that. And the amount of background research.

• 1:47:42Speaker 05

  Must be insane. Yeah, it's insane.

• 1:47:44Speaker 04

  And it, he, he often like criticizes some like the developers who just like they raise money in the community. And he's like, yeah, that's bullshit. Because if you lose their money, it's no big deal. There's nobody to answer to. When you get money from an institution like the UC.

• 1:47:55Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 1:47:56Speaker 04

  Like you see a

• 1:47:57Speaker 05

  Pension fund or whatever.

• 1:47:58Speaker 04

  Pension fund, exactly. Like, the amount of due diligence, the SEC is on your phone, like

• 1:48:02Speaker 05

  It should be.

• 1:48:02Speaker 04

  You are getting looked at constantly.

• 1:48:05Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 1:48:05Speaker 04

  So it's not like that's not going to come up. It does come up and they look the other way.

• 1:48:09Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 1:48:09Speaker 04

  Which is peculiar.

• 1:48:10Speaker 05

  It's weird, okay? Uh, last thing, uh, I actually didn't put this in my notes and this really, I just, my goal here is to just emphasize all the connections and what could possibly still yet to be released. So please Google the New York Financial Services Report on Epstein, which regards Deutsche Bank. Now, this report, I read it in 2020, is one of the craziest things I've ever read because it is a description of financial behavior at this bank that any normal individual would never get away with. Not only looking the other way, holding high-level meetings, being like, guys, we're not in compliance right now. They're like, this is violating banking rules. He is taking out mil- like, millions of dollars in cash, $9,900 at a time.

• 1:48:53Speaker 05

  They're not reporting it to the feds, which you're supposed to. He's wiring money to Eastern European women and obvious, like, sex trafficking wing, post-conviction. Which, by the way, post-conviction, they weren't even really gonna, supposed to be doing business with them for the reputation of the bank. But they cite in the Deutsche Bank settlement and with the New York Financial Services, internal emails where they're like, hey, he's really good for business because he connects us with a whole lot of people. These are out in the open, right? And like, inside, you literally watch as lower-level compliance people who don't know what's up, flag to their bosses, and they're like, guys, wha- what are we doing here? Like, this is violating bank rules. And they're like, hey, shh, like, stop, right? I mean, I'm talking all the way up to the highest level of the bank, where internal conversations are had in multiple times.

• 1:49:38Speaker 05

  This rep violates multiple bank policies. It violates the law, in this case, New York state law, about the way that you're supposed to conduct yourself as a financial institution, looking the other ways. All these insane wire transfers for millions and millions of dollars. So to me, that's like my final thing here. These are the files I want. I want the actual banking records. I want the LLC formation documents.

• 1:50:02Speaker 04

  Files of money.

• 1:50:02Speaker 05

  I want the trust, yeah, from the wire, my favorite quote, you know, from Lester Freeman, if you start to follow the money, you don't know where the fuck it's gonna take you. And that's really what the whole story is about, you know? And yes, I understand the salacious details, and I spent a lot of time hunting here, you know, the pedophilia investigation and all of that, but it's secondary to the level of influence that he had. And to the extent that it mattered, it mattered because he was so important in some respect that everyone was either able to look the other way, or enable it, or empower it, and to make it happen in such a systematic way that involves all the world's most powerful elite. So, that's my final thing, is release the Epstein files that actually matter and show us who he was.

• 1:50:45Speaker 05

  It's not just about intelligence, it's about the financial network. And the reason I think that it's being covered up here is because it does implicate everybody. I think it implicates multiple governments, specifically the Israeli government. I think it also implicates the United States government. I think it's very uncomfortable for the world's richest and most powerful elite. It shows, and you know, the Bush administration, it shows the Trump administration, it shows the Biden administration, you're sat on some of these. You know, some of the most powerful and influential people in the whole world. It's not necessary that they're on tape, but perhaps they're financially entangled. Perhaps the tapes were used, you know, at a time. And that's, I think, the most disappointing thing about this. So my goal here was to give people the language they can use, as to why, it validates your feelings, as to why something is being covered up.

• 1:51:28Speaker 05

  And there's a reason they don't talk about this, they call you a conspiracy theorist. These are all facts, everything that I've laid out.

• 1:51:33Speaker 07

  Can I say one thing? That was awesome.

• 1:51:39Speaker 05

  I don't know what the non-sexual version of being turned on is, but that was awesome.

• 1:51:43Speaker 07

  Thank you, thank you.

• 1:51:44Speaker 04

  Yeah, that's interesting. It's almost like the blackmail ring, the sexual blackmail ring for the global elites is the conspiracy, simply following the money outside of the child sex trafficking.

• 1:52:00Speaker 04

  Might be what incriminates the most people.

• 1:52:02Speaker 05

  Oh, he absolutely will. Yes.

• 1:52:04Speaker 04

  It's almost like it benefits them for there to be focus on the child sex ring. Because they might not be tied to it.

• 1:52:12Speaker 05

  Or to talk, or to talk in stupid terms of like client list and it's like, guys.

• 1:52:16Speaker 04

  They're on the island, they're on the island fucking the girls. It's like, as long as the focus is on that, it will almost be a letdown to find out, oh, actually, they didn't have sex with any girls, but he was giving the, he brought 2.3 million dollars, whatever. And then the people go, ah, it's only 2.3 million dollars. What's the big deal? We thought they were having sex. It's actually like to their benefit for the public to believe this blackmail, the sexual blackmail ring and then be quote unquote, like let down by, we, we should hope that there are less people having sex with children, by the way. We all want that to not happen, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to shine light on what's going on over here and understanding his influence and why he was able to operate with impunity, despite being a registered sex offender. That's the thing that seems so peculiar and lends itself to conspiracy.

• 1:53:01Speaker 04

  Why was he able to behave in this manner? Why was he able to, why were the higher ups of this bank able to thwart their responsibility to the SEC, to their investors?

• 1:53:10Speaker 05

  In two weeks, if I withdraw $9,900 in two weeks, the federal government's knocking on my door. Like they, JP Morgan is going to flag my account.

• 1:53:18Speaker 04

  I thought it has to be over 10 grand for them to do it.

• 1:53:20Speaker 05

  But if you, it's 9,900, they have a mandatory reporting, but if they have, they have things in the bank to make sure that you're not, if it looks suspicious to do 9,900, two weeks and they're like, all right, he's trying to violate, uh, trying to make sure that he doesn't come under reporting, we're going to the feds. We're notifying the IRS. The IRS, by the way, again, has all of this documentation.

• 1:53:39Speaker 07

  The bank's not so stupid to be like, oh, it wasn't 10,000, 9,900.

• 1:53:42Speaker 05

  They're not dumb. Right. Exactly. They have software. They're really Palantir. That's what they use Palantir for. To automatically flag all of these suspicious, suspicious activities. My point is only that all of this exists and you as Americans, you guys need the language to be able to know what to ask for. I was telling Mark earlier, one of the reasons why it took so long to get COINTELPRO and MKUltra is that it took people breaking into a warehouse to learn about the. Specific code words so that they could then FOIA and ask to investigate.

• 1:54:13Speaker 04

  Oh, wow.

• 1:54:14Speaker 05

  Without without knowing what to ask for.

• 1:54:16Speaker 04

  You don't know.

• 1:54:16Speaker 05

  You don't know what to ask for. It's an unknown unknown in the words of Donald Rumsfeld. Like, it's one of those things where you can't even begin to go down the rabbit hole if you don't even know where to start.

• 1:54:27Speaker 04

  This is interesting.

• 1:54:28Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 1:54:28Speaker 04

  Mm hmm.

• 1:54:28Speaker 05

  And this is why, and by the way, again, there are very, very powerful people right now today who are trying to make sure you don't look at this. Uh, you have the prime minister of Israel, former prime minister of Israel, Neftali Bennett. He never worked for Mossad. There's an entire influencer set right now. Mark Levin, now it includes the president of the United States, all of these like kind of Zionist influencers who are calling you an anti semi because they say that there's no evidence. And they define the terms to be like, he worked for Mossad. I'm not saying that he directly was an employee for Mossad. He was run from the very beginning. I'm saying he has shows all of the hallmarks, to use an infamous phrase, of being some sort of an asset, working with these various intelligence agencies.

• 1:55:09Speaker 05

  And I think that that stuff is so dirty that they just don't want to get into it. And this is where Trump, I mean, we have to be honest. We have to call it out.

• 1:55:18Speaker 04

  Bro.

• 1:55:19Speaker 05

  You ran on this. I have the evidence here that we can go through of like what they said in 2023.

• 1:55:23Speaker 04

  It's so interesting.

• 1:55:24Mark Gagnon?

  Plus the seven congressmen that voted against Ro Khanna's amendment.

• 1:55:28Speaker 04

  I know.

• 1:55:28Speaker 05

  Like, that's. It's crazy.

• 1:55:30Speaker 04

  All right, guys, this day of breaks.

• 1:55:31Speaker 05

  Back to the show.

• 1:55:32Speaker 04

  But we were in this like, uh, this very interesting like media spin in the last few days where, you know, I was doing what I thought we were supposed to do, which is like, hold our elected officials accountable for the promises that they say they will make. I didn't realize that now I know better.

• 1:55:46Speaker 05

  Right.

• 1:55:46Speaker 04

  You're not, you're just supposed to let them do whatever the fuck they want, despite them promising.

• 1:55:50Speaker 05

  As long as you're consistent.

• 1:55:51Speaker 04

  Yeah, you just have to be consistent.

• 1:55:52Speaker 05

  That's right.

• 1:55:52Speaker 04

  But, uh, but, but yeah, like to that, to that note, like I've thought about this a lot. I actually think that like when the person you voted for is in power, that's when you have to be the loudest.

• 1:56:03Speaker 05

  You're exactly right. Thank you for saying that.

• 1:56:05Speaker 04

  Because that's the only opportunity for you to get the things that they promised enacted.

• 1:56:10Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 1:56:10Speaker 04

  When someone that you did not vote for is in power, there's nothing you can do because they're not going to do the things you asked for anyway. So you should be stomping the. You should be clamoring and when they're not doing the things you should be going hey this is not what I voted for this is the thing you want this is the thing these are against everything that you said not everything

• 1:56:28Speaker 05

  Otherwise you're in a cult you're in a cult because everybody's like trust the plan no I actually don't trust the plan like during

• 1:56:34Speaker 04

  I hate that 40 chess shit I hate to trust the process how about I trust what the fuck you said you were gonna do and how about you do it

• 1:56:40Speaker 05

  Thank you I mean again and this is important everybody is always like oh there's a split in the MAGA base I actually think MAGA by and large will always kind of support Trump but that I'm gonna define the terms narrowly and this is kind of where we're all speaking to

• 1:56:53Speaker 04

  Yeah

• 1:56:53Speaker 05

  The people we're speaking to are not like MAGA maybe some of them a lot of them are disaffected they're men they're people who are tangentially interested in politics and the reason why the Epstein story was important to them is it confirmed basically the way that they thought about the international elite and they saw Trump and Cash Patel and Dan Bongino as those who would work to like usurp that power

• 1:57:17Speaker 04

  Conduit to justice

• 1:57:18Speaker 05

  Exactly and for them to watch that betrayal now that's happening is one that only confirms the way that the system basically works and it causes very uncomfortable questions here

• 1:57:30Speaker 04

  I was saying this I was saying this yesterday but it's like if I wanted to vote for for somebody that was gonna keep the Epstein files under wraps that was gonna extend the foreign roads and there was wars and was gonna increase the budget I would have voted for Kamala

• 1:57:42Speaker 05

  Yeah that's right and I and by the way by the way probably would have done it more competently I'll say it I'll just say it

• 1:57:49Speaker 04

  Way more it would have been very easy

• 1:57:53Speaker 05

  Then we wouldn't have had to live through this last six months of like whatever bullshit is happening in the current day I mean yeah look I mean literally today there is Joey you wanna go and pull this up you can go on my Twitter feed Donald Trump is sending $10 billion of new offensive weapons to Ukraine not only that by the way it's actually came out from the Financial Times that he reportedly told Zelensky the Ukrainians leaked this part of the phone call I who knows if they're telling the truth but the Trump administration has not denied it is Donald Trump asked Zelensky if Ukraine could hit Moscow and actually asked them hey Zelensky Vladimir he said do you have what you need to be able to hit Moscow to hit St. Petersburg. These are the World War III fears that I. You guys know, the last time I hear we were spending an hour on Ukraine.

• 1:58:37Speaker 05

  So you can disagree with me if you'd like. He said he wasn't gonna do that.

• 1:58:40Speaker 04

  So here's the thing, and this is where I have like a little bit. I give him a little bit of wiggle room and maybe it was just hubris. I think Trump actually thought that he was gonna walk in. I think Trump actually thought that the only reason there are wars is because of lobbyists. And lobbyists in government basically going, hey, we need to sell more military weapons. So let's have some wars around. So he's like, once I get in, I'll just call it Vlad and I'll be like, yo Vlad.

• 1:59:02Speaker 05

  He was already president once, man.

• 1:59:03Speaker 04

  He knows, so he knows the game. Okay, fair enough. And that's, and that's very fair. And then that, then that could be my naivete and I'll be held accountable for that. Right. And I'm, I guess I'm like hoping best case scenario. Cause at the end of the day, I don't care what fucking side you're on. You don't want to see hundreds of thousands of people get murdered.

• 1:59:17Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's right.

• 1:59:17Speaker 04

  You do for profit.

• 1:59:18Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 1:59:19Speaker 04

  You do not want to see hundreds of thousands of people get murdered for profit. So you can say, I told you so. You can do all these other shit, but at the end of the day, you just have to ask yourself, do you want to see hundreds of thousands of human beings get killed for profit?

• 1:59:29Speaker 05

  And millions, actually now.

• 1:59:30Speaker 04

  Millions, okay, millions. I personally don't.

• 1:59:33Speaker 05

  Yeah, I don't.

• 1:59:33Speaker 04

  I personally don't. So what I'm gonna do is if there's somebody that says, I aim to stop the foreign wars. And there's another person that says, well, we gotta do what's right to keep on fighting. All I hear is less people dead, more people dead. If you can sleep at night voting for the person that says more people dead over the person that says less people dead, that's fine. I can't.

• 1:59:53Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 1:59:53Speaker 04

  That's not for me.

• 1:59:54Speaker 05

  Me, same.

• 1:59:55Speaker 04

  That's not for me. I see what the fuck Gaza looks like and I'm like, I want that to stop.

• 1:59:58Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 1:59:58Speaker 04

  I see what the fuck is happening in Ukraine and Russia and I want that to stop. So I don't feel that, oh, you regret whatever. I don't regret a fucking second for voting for the guy who said that less people are gonna die.

• 2:00:07Speaker 07

  Also, all the things about he lied, he's a liar. I don't know, man. He promised he would overturn Roe v. Wade the first time and.

• 2:00:15Speaker 07

  So I don't, I thought he could get shit done.

• 2:00:19Speaker 06

  The January 6 protesters, he's like, I'll pardon all them and he did.

• 2:00:22Speaker 07

  Yeah, he did, yeah.

• 2:00:23Speaker 05

  It's just important also to say, what promises are being kept? What are not? All right, so immigration, I actually say he's kept a lot of his promises.

• 2:00:30Speaker 04

  Unfortunately.

• 2:00:31Speaker 05

  But we'll, we'll argue about this later, whenever we record from my show. But my point around here is let's look specifically. Epstein. The Epstein memo is released when? The day before Benjamin Netanyahu visits the United States of America for the third time in six months. July 4th weekend. President of the United States. We have Benjamin Netanyahu, who by Trump's own account, attacked Iran by the US green light, where US diplomacy was used as a ruse in order for the Israelis to conduct a military operation. We have United States military assets that were used to bomb Iran, which is, I mean, gotta be one of the, like, again, like you said, you had a presidential campaign where, yes, Trump would always say, "We cannot let Iran have a nuclear bomb."

• 2:01:15Speaker 05

  And I know this, and maybe I was too close to it, I knew many of the people involved, like, in the actual decision-making, and I know that they have ridiculed people who have, quote, "wanted to bomb Iran" for years. So then to watch that all just flip around, and now President Trump is the greatest dealmaker and strength artist of all time, when you would have ridiculed this level of logic long before, and we have all of this reporting that, "Ah, actually..." A lot of mental gymnastics. It's like, actually, the nuclear program really wasn't destroyed, and the reason that you could look at that is that the Israelis are leaking it, right? You know? Joe, if you want to pull that up, Israel intelligence says Iran nuclear facility not destroyed. This is from the New York Times a couple of days ago. Oh, my God. And so, look, like... So now there's a reason to continue. Now, we gotta continue, right?

• 2:02:00Speaker 05

  And it's like, "Oh, but I was told that the 12-day war was the only time it was ever gonna happen." Well, you guys, do you guys want to do some history? All right, so in 1981, Israel took out the Iraqi nuclear reactor. They bombed it, and they said, "We have solved the Iraqi nuclear program question for all time." What did we end up invading Iraq for? WMDs. For WMDs, right? And what actually happened as a result of that is that the nuclear program was driven underground, and Saddam actually was more convinced than ever that he needed to acquire nuclear weapons, to the point where he almost tried to create an image where he was having nukes, which caused the United States to invade him in 2003. In 2007, Israel did what? It struck the Syrian reactor and the nuclear program, and the decision point beyond that

• 2:02:45Speaker 05

  was, "Listen, it's just about the nukes, it's not about regime change." Does anyone want to tell me? What happened to the Syrian regime? It was replaced by whom? Al Qaeda. On behalf of whom? Israel, alright? Israel literally supported this Syrian jihadist government. And ironically, today, they're actually bombing them. Because now the Al Qaeda government is acting like Al Qaeda. And persecuting religious Druze minorities in the country. And by the way, their justification, the Israelis for bombing them, is that Syria has moved across the new border that Israel has declared for itself by seizing parts of Syria. Now, we are supporting Ukraine for what? Because Russia invaded them?

• 2:03:26Speaker 05

  What is a seizure of territory as a result of a regime change operation in Syria? What is, is that a violation of norms?

• 2:03:33Speaker 04

  Rules for me and not for me.

• 2:03:35Speaker 05

  Of the rules-based international order and the way that a civilized nation would conduct itself? A Western nation?

• 2:03:41Speaker 04

  I think the, I think the concern here is, is really like, if you are an autonomous nation, you gotta handle your candles. So if you want to do all this stuff in the Middle East.

• 2:03:49Speaker 05

  Be my guest.

• 2:03:50Speaker 04

  That's on you.

• 2:03:50Speaker 05

  Yeah, but you bear the consequences.

• 2:03:52Speaker 04

  And exactly.

• 2:03:53Speaker 05

  And you pay for it.

• 2:03:54Speaker 04

  It seems like we bear the consequences. And I think that's where the, I think that's like an important fracture here. If Israel's like, alright, we're gonna go about it alone and this is what we think is the best for our safety. And it's like, okay, well, you go do that. The problem is every time they're about to go about it alone, they say we'll go about it alone. I think we get a phone call a few hours later and it seems like we go back it up. And you can really do whatever you want in the world with impunity if America has your back no matter what. And I think that's the kind of imbalance of power right there. And it definitely feels like there's an imbalance in terms of the relationship, in terms of what we're offering each other. And now we're in a circumstance where like, the war, you know, against Hamas has gone two years. And you look at them and Americans are starting to go like, what, it's really kind of destroyed. I feel like you did it.

• 2:04:36Speaker 05

  Not kind of, like, it's destroyed.

• 2:04:38Speaker 04

  Yeah, it's destroyed. And then there's all these people that, I think Americans are starting to be like, okay, so we're paying for this? I can't buy an apartment, I can't buy a house, I got $300,000 worth of school loans, but we're still selling billions of dollars over here. And you can't begrudge Americans for starting to feel like there's an imbalance in this relationship.

• 2:04:55Speaker 05

  Not even begrudge. I mean, I mean, honestly, America, like, it's been this way for years.

• 2:04:59Speaker 04

  But I think the important thing to understand is like it's not saying that an independent country can't go do what it needs for its salvation.

• 2:05:07Speaker 05

  Right.

• 2:05:07Speaker 04

  You just have to bear the consequences for those actions. And I think Americans are starting to feel like we bear the consequences, at least financially right now.

• 2:05:15Speaker 05

  You're absolutely right.

• 2:05:15Speaker 04

  And if we end up in some sort of ground invasion in Iran, we will bear the consequences.

• 2:05:20Speaker 05

  There's no question. What a nation of, uh, what, I forget the population of Israel.

• 2:05:23Speaker 04

  Nine million or something like that.

• 2:05:24Speaker 05

  They're gonna be able to invade a country of ninety million? By the way, yes, I do know the population of Iran.

• 2:05:31Speaker 04

  We all know because of Tucker.

• 2:05:32Speaker 05

  Thank you, Dr. Carlson. Uh, but you know, look, let's really dwell on this. Like, yes, the, what's happening in Gaza is being funded by the United States of America. And, you know, there's a large constituency here in America that says that's necessary for Israel to take out terrorism, whatever the hell that means. Uh, apparently requires killing at the minimum of like seventeen thousand children. I personally don't think civilized Western nations conduct themselves in that manner. I, and everyone's like, well, what would you do? I was like, um, America has the, uh, template, guys. Look, I will not defend the US invasion of Iraq. Do you know how many thousands of American service members died and were wounded in missions to protect Iraqi civilians?

• 2:06:09Speaker 04

  Ground.

• 2:06:10Speaker 05

  That was on the ground.

• 2:06:11Speaker 04

  Boots on the ground.

• 2:06:12Speaker 05

  Boots on the ground where the American service members are maimed and were blown up to protect Iraqi civilians from an intra-civil war.

• 2:06:20Speaker 04

  This is a really...

• 2:06:21Speaker 05

  That is how you conduct a counterterrorism operation.

• 2:06:24Speaker 04

  I think the point that you're making is really important.

• 2:06:26Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 2:06:27Speaker 04

  Right? Is that in, in an effort, I imagine, to save Israeli lives, which I do empathize with because I want to save American lives.

• 2:06:33Speaker 05

  That's right.

• 2:06:34Speaker 04

  What they're doing is conducting war that would save the most Israeli lives, but unfortunately kills the most Palestinian lives.

• 2:06:40Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's right.

• 2:06:41Speaker 04

  And what you're innocent Palestinian life. And then what you're making the argument is in Iraq, instead of us doing that, which we could have absolutely just flattened the entire country.

• 2:06:49Speaker 05

  We had the greatest bomb, you know, we, who do you think sells all these bombs to Israel? Where's it coming from?

• 2:06:53Speaker 04

  But we made a decision to do that boots on the ground, which cost American lives, which was deeply regrettable. I don't want a single American life.

• 2:06:59Speaker 05

  Me either.

• 2:07:00Speaker 04

  But, but I think that is where we can put ourselves in a position of criticism for the way the war is being waged because we have been in that circumstance.

• 2:07:08Speaker 05

  Twice.

• 2:07:09Speaker 07

  It's a really good argument.

• 2:07:11Mark Gagnon?

  That is what war is. You have to sacrifice.

• 2:07:14Speaker 05

  Well, okay, no, no, no. There's two types of war. So this is the thing. They said it's to get rid of Hamas. And in that way, we have not a war with the Palestinian people. We are at war with Hamas. So how would you conduct that war? That we have an entire debt 20 years of experience, the United States military, where what we do is we want to separate the terrorists from the civilian population. So we make sure that the civilians are protected. Soldiers are put in harms way in order to separate those two and to be able to kill them. It requires a shitload of city combat. It's brutal. It's very difficult. It's bloody. Ask the Navy SEALs, ask the Marines, all the people who had to participate. But it was semi-successful, at least in 2009, in the surge. It reduced the amount of civilian casualties as a result of the Iraqi civil war. But the other way to fight is when you're at war with the population

• 2:07:58Speaker 05

  and you want complete and total destruction.

• 2:08:00Speaker 07

  Yeah.

• 2:08:01Speaker 05

  That's when you fight like the United States on Japan in 1945.

• 2:08:05Speaker 07

  And I agree with what you're saying.

• 2:08:06Speaker 05

  And what's more analogous to what we're happening? So we can look at the intention. No, no, all I'm saying is, Akash, it's the intention and the words matter. And the intention is obvious that they are actually at war with the population themselves, right?

• 2:08:19Speaker 07

  Not just Hamas, the terrorist group.

• 2:08:20Speaker 05

  Not just Hamas, the terrorist group.

• 2:08:21Speaker 07

  Which is very interesting.

• 2:08:22Speaker 05

  And I think that's a very important point for people to digest, is to look at the conduct.

• 2:08:26Speaker 07

  That's the piece that I agree with you that Americans feel like we're bearing the brunt and all that. But also, when we invade, we are usually told, or when we aid a country in war, we are always told we are on the moral high ground.

• 2:08:38Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's right.

• 2:08:39Speaker 07

  With Ukraine, Russia is invading Ukraine, this country that cannot defend itself. That's why we have to send aid.

• 2:08:44Speaker 05

  Tiny little Ukraine.

• 2:08:45Speaker 07

  Now we're looking and we're seeing who we're supporting.

• 2:08:47Speaker 05

  Right.

• 2:08:48Speaker 07

  And we don't have a moral high ground. They don't have a moral high ground. And yet we keep supporting them. So I agree with you that we feel like, why are we bearing the brunt of this and we don't have jobs? But also morally, we don't even have a high ground. So why are we supporting and we bear the brunt?

• 2:09:01Mark Gagnon?

  I wouldn't say Hamas has a high ground either.

• 2:09:03Speaker 07

  No, no, no. The way Israel is, the way Israel is flattening Gaza, we don't have a moral high ground with the way they are doing it. If there were boots on the ground and they're losing civilians, okay, maybe. And Hamas is doing X, Y, Z.

• 2:09:14Speaker 05

  This is why, as America, I actually think we should not talk about moral high ground. I know that every time, like, let's look at the history of US moral interventions. Serbia, disaster.

• 2:09:26Mark Gagnon?

  Oh, my God.

• 2:09:27Speaker 05

  Kosovo, disaster. 2003.

• 2:09:30Speaker 05

  Goes without saying.

• 2:09:31Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 2:09:31Speaker 05

  Uh, I mean, I can go on forever, like Libya, Afghanistan.

• 2:09:34Speaker 07

  I don't think we do it with the moral high ground. I think the perception we are sold.

• 2:09:38Speaker 05

  Yeah, I agree with you.

• 2:09:38Speaker 07

  Is moral high ground, and now we're just seeing.

• 2:09:40Speaker 04

  Talking about the story.

• 2:09:41Speaker 05

  Yeah. Well, I actually, that's why when I argue with liberals, I always tell them, I go, look, guys, I don't think you're doing anybody any good here. Using words like genocide or any, it's not because I don't disagree with you per se. It's just that when you couch, for example, when, and I talked about this last time.

• 2:09:55Speaker 04

  The debate becomes about the definition.

• 2:09:57Speaker 05

  Humanitarianism and genocide. And it's like, no, we're not talking about that. We're talking about America's national interest.

• 2:10:03Speaker 04

  Yeah, we were talking.

• 2:10:03Speaker 05

  Is this good for us or not?

• 2:10:04Speaker 04

  Mark and I were talking about that where it's just like, now there's this debate on whether or not it's genocide.

• 2:10:08Speaker 05

  Right.

• 2:10:09Speaker 04

  Whatever right below genocide is, is really bad too.

• 2:10:12Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's right.

• 2:10:13Speaker 04

  And mass murder. And Mark is like, it's like someone says like, I'm not a pedophile, I just like 16 year olds.

• 2:10:18Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's right. Isn't there a term for that? It's like a gileu file.

• 2:10:21Speaker 04

  Yeah, it's called pedophile.

• 2:10:24Speaker 04

  There's one term, it's just pedophile.

• 2:10:26Speaker 05

  Yeah, exactly. But my point beyond that is like, look, let's define things in terms of America's national interests. What good are we getting from this? We're bombing Iran, we had a terror, do you guys remember the terror alerts in the mid 2000s?

• 2:10:37Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 2:10:37Speaker 05

  Do you guys remember that?

• 2:10:38Speaker 04

  Yeah, orange today.

• 2:10:39Speaker 05

  Whenever the Iran thing happened, they literally sent out a terror alert across the whole country. And they warned Americans living abroad to expect retaliatory attacks. That's America, our country, we are being felt, the pain here, right?

• 2:10:52Speaker 04

  But you're just a Qatari asset.

• 2:10:53Speaker 05

  Yeah, of course, yeah, yeah. But you know what's funny? The Qatari government hates me because I lived in Qatar. I went to high school there and I hated it so much that I've talked for years about the mistreatment of the Indian slave laborers.

• 2:11:05Speaker 04

  Disclosure, I've invested, disclosure.

• 2:11:06Speaker 05

  Okay, yeah. No, but I, I just say it like because it's, you know, it's, it's about being foreign, some form of foreign asset or whatever. Why can't we all just be people talking in our own national interests? And I think the reason that they throw out anti Semite and race, whatever, on all of this is specifically to shut down this conversation. And the best thing that's ever happened is that we're all here and we can just talk honestly.

• 2:11:29Speaker 04

  It's really unfortunate because I think that it, it's almost like a permission slip for anti-Semitism in a way.

• 2:11:35Speaker 05

  Oh, you're exactly, it's increased real anti-Semitism.

• 2:11:38Speaker 04

  Yeah, but it's not even whether it's increased or not. There like are a lot of real antisemites out there.

• 2:11:42Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's true.

• 2:11:42Speaker 04

  And then when you throw the term around when you're criticizing a sovereign nation, it gets lumped in with the people who actually do hate people because of their religion and ethnicity.

• 2:11:50Speaker 05

  Right.

• 2:11:51Speaker 04

  And that's the problem I have. Like, I always say this other times, like, everybody thinks I'm Jewish, so I get all the antisemitism. It exists. Like, you guys might not hear it. I get it. I see it. So it's like, you can't just throw that term around so flippantly because then nobody will take it to the boy who cried wolf. Nobody will take it seriously when it actually does happen. And it does happen. And it is a real fucking problem. And I'm very concerned about like Jews in America who are dealing with it. And they're concerned. So it's, we gotta be very specific. Like, the green-black guy's throwing it around. He's calling the Pod Save America guys antisemites.

• 2:12:20Speaker 05

  Exactly. Right. It's crazy, guys.

• 2:12:22Speaker 06

  I think they also dismissed Elon's salute as well. I think the ADL was like, no, it was a misunderstanding.

• 2:12:26Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's right. They actually did. The ADL, which, you know, look, I mean, we could argue about that all day long, but the ADL is basically an arm for Israel. And this gets to the problem that I have with this whole antisemitism industrial complex, is they've conflated criticism of this foreign government with genuine antisemitism, which is the worst thing that you could possibly do for antisemitism itself, because the term loses all meaning. And look at, look, Zorron, if we want to talk, I mean, you know, they blasted this guy, antisemite. We're in the most Jewish city, what, in the world, except for Tel Aviv? Right. And he just won the Democratic primary and actually a lot of Jewish votes. That should tell you something, guys. That should show that these attacks don't work. But the thing is, unfortunately, in Washington, they still work. It's the worst

• 2:13:11Speaker 05

  possible thing that you could be called. Because of the way, look, it's ideology and it's money, and they're mutually reinforcing. So for example, I, and I talked about this on Tucker, you were talking, you were talking to me about it. I don't get invited to all the things I used to get invited to. And that sounds really silly, but that's the currency of the town. It's fine. I just don't care. I get to come here, right? They're always asking me to connect with you. They're like, hey, man, I think Congressman so-and-so should go on Andrew Shaw. I'm like, I guarantee you, he doesn't give a fuck.

• 2:13:38Speaker 05

  So I'm not giving you his phone number. But that's my point, though, right? It's like, there's a nice trade off for me, and I've chosen this. But my point is, with them, the currency of the town is one that is entirely funded by AIPAC or pro Zionist interests. And the thing is, the way it's so nefarious is it bleeds into everything. It's in people who are working at like, the tax foundation to lobby for low taxes are being funded by people who are also very pro-Israel. So if employees there were to like, let's say, make an Instagram post about Palestine, even though it has nothing to do with taxes, they would still be fired. They would be drummed out of the organization.

• 2:14:18Speaker 05

  And, and guys, like, these people don't make a ton of money, like the lower level, the up and comers. Like, when I was in my early twenties, we made, actually made zero money.

• 2:14:27Speaker 04

  So it's not worth the risk for them?

• 2:14:28Speaker 05

  Of cour-, I mean, listen, you gotta eat. You want to advance, you want to be connected, to get a fellowship, to do whatever. You have to fall in line, even if you don't even work on Israel or Palestine, even if it's just a tangential thing, and you're like, eh, it's kind of fucked up.

• 2:14:43Speaker 04

  This is what happened in, this is what happened in Hollywood, not specifically with Israel-Palestine. I actually don't think at all with that. I think more with identity politics.

• 2:14:51Speaker 05

  Oh, absolutely.

• 2:14:51Speaker 04

  And I think that people are just really scared that if they had a serious opinion about anything, that they would be like-

• 2:14:56Speaker 05

  You're done.

• 2:14:57Speaker 04

  -thrown out, they'd be, you know, and, um, I, and I think now that's, we're moving away from that.

• 2:15:03Speaker 05

  Well, I think that's why what you do is so courageous, man. I'm like, somebody who's got to actually, like, intertwined with, like, the, I mean, you can say it better than me, but everything I've read, like, the studio system has got to be one of the biggest bottlenecks of pop culture in the world. Like, it's literally run by-

• 2:15:17Speaker 04

  You just gotta not care.

• 2:15:18Speaker 05

  -a couple of agencies, and like-

• 2:15:20Speaker 04

  You know what, this is-

• 2:15:21Speaker 05

  -and these, like, movie distributors, and you're fucked if they post them on-

• 2:15:24Mark Gagnon?

  They still think he's Jewish, he's good.

• 2:15:27Speaker 04

  But this is why, like, it's, it's always, like, annoying when, like, people will say, like, "Oh, you're just doing this thing for Trump or Griffin." It's like, grifting, it's like, you don't realize-

• 2:15:35Speaker 05

  Yeah, the real grift is the other way, yeah.

• 2:15:37Speaker 04

  Yeah. I'm in entertainment. I'm not in politics. I'm not in a media company, I'm in entertainment. So like, the idea of even having Trump on the pod, and obviously, we asked to have- Kamala and everybody else and none of them came, but like that costs us.

• 2:15:51Speaker 05

  Oh, yeah.

• 2:15:51Speaker 04

  There's not a financial.

• 2:15:52Speaker 05

  Doing a hostage video for Kamala, that's you're a grifter.

• 2:15:55Speaker 04

  That's grifting. 1,000%.

• 2:15:58Speaker 05

  I get it. I know.

• 2:15:59Speaker 04

  Doing those things for Kamala, you would absolutely, and I think that people don't realize that because I think they assume, you know, it's, you know, politics better than anybody is good versus evil. So as long as you're on the side of good, they don't see it as grift.

• 2:16:10Speaker 05

  Oh, yeah.

• 2:16:10Speaker 04

  Right? So that there, there's all these people that are grifting off Trump, absolutely happens. And then there's people grifting against Trump. The never Trump thing is a grift as well.

• 2:16:19Speaker 05

  The Lincoln, look it up. Also look up the pedophilia stuff with the Lincoln Project. I'm just throwing that out there. People want to look into that.

• 2:16:25Speaker 04

  But now I want to look into it. But I guess what I'm saying is like, the idea that like, in order to, in order to grift, you have to be like financially satisfied, I imagine by that thing. And in the entertainment industry, the industry that we exist in, you're putting yourself in harm's way.

• 2:16:43Speaker 05

  Dude, of course.

• 2:16:44Speaker 04

  It's, it's, so I don't even, like, for example, like, just, I mean, I had flat out the Netflix people saying, who fucking knows? But like, you know, I'm up for consideration or whatever for an Emmy for life. And I just had people tell me straight up, they're like, listen, dude, like, you had Trump on the pod, like, there's no way that they're not going to give you, and it's, it is the best hour comedy that was put out. It should win. It just is. You know what I mean? Like, no disrespect to anybody who's there, but it's not as good.

• 2:17:07Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 2:17:07Speaker 04

  Right? And it's, but the, so, and, and if you want to judge it by any metric, you want to judge it by views, it has more views. If you want to judge it by like impact, you want to judge it by kind of, in my personal opinion, obviously, but like, that's the cost of it. So I think that's the frustrating thing I would imagine for all of us when we're like, no, no, we're actually curious about talking to these people and having these conversations. And we understand the cost of doing it and we're willing to take on that cost. There is no risk when you're the anti-Trump grift. And you just do all these things, you virtue signal, you say, I told you so to us for criticizing Trump. It's like, if you actually cared.

• 2:17:41Speaker 05

  Right.

• 2:17:41Speaker 04

  You'd be worried about the midterms and worried about the elections and you would see people that were disillusioned by Trump not living up to his promises. If you actually cared and you'd be like, hey, here's an opportunity to bring people into a coalition and in a democracy, gain more votes and potentially win.

• 2:17:54Speaker 05

  Yeah, but you're presuming that they care about those things. That's my point.

• 2:17:57Speaker 04

  They don't care. They want clicks and views.

• 2:18:00Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 2:18:00Speaker 04

  They're the exact thing that they're accusing us, but they are so caught up in their own hubris that they don't realize it. And you sit back here and you relax and I watch it and I kind of just laugh at it.

• 2:18:09Speaker 05

  I'm.

• 2:18:09Speaker 04

  But people take it serious. They look at these people and they, I think it just makes them feel good in the moment.

• 2:18:15Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 2:18:15Speaker 04

  And they can't disassociate that to like what might be better for the country.

• 2:18:18Speaker 05

  Yeah, absolutely. And look, I mean, something I've always appreciated over this pod is like, we just talk, right? And we can talk to anybody. And I've known you long enough to know when you were a Bernie guy, right? And I always tell.

• 2:18:27Speaker 04

  Still a Bernie guy.

• 2:18:28Speaker 05

  Yeah, I know that. And that's why people were so shocked to see you come around. And I was like, guys, you just don't know Andrew, right? But it's one of those things where because I've been able to get to know all of you and, you know, the whole comedy scene or whatever, when people ask about podcast bros and MAGA, I actually think it's, you're very representative of the audience in your turn against people who it seems were like fighting for the system and to the extent that there was an appeal of Trump. And that's why it explains for somebody who could vote for Trump and also be like, yeah, Mom Donnie seems America first to me. And it's because the horseshoe.

• 2:18:59Speaker 04

  I said New York first.

• 2:19:00Speaker 05

  I'm sorry, New York first. But, okay, but the point is.

• 2:19:02Speaker 04

  Flated in news.

• 2:19:02Speaker 05

  Fine. But then the horseshoe there is about talking about the country or the city that we're living in as opposed to these more establishment interests that you were elected to fight against in the, in Trump's case. But that's the appeal. And I, somebody was like, oh, you speak to MAGA, right? And I was like, no, I, I actually don't. I was like, to the extent I have any authority, it's with 18 to 35 year olds who are interested in politics, the vast majority of whom are pretty bipartisan, a lot voted for Trump. Yeah, but like those people are actually very independent. They do go along with trends and other things. And they, most important thing is they both think for themselves.

• 2:19:43Speaker 04

  Yeah, they're not in a cult.

• 2:19:44Speaker 05

  And they are not in a cult. Exactly.

• 2:19:46Speaker 04

  Everybody's kept, not everybody. There's a, there are very loud people that are captured by the cults.

• 2:19:49Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 2:19:50Speaker 04

  And the cults are rewarded online with the algorithms.

• 2:19:52Speaker 05

  Yes, of course.

• 2:19:53Speaker 04

  There's the views and there's the clicks and there's the pats on the back and there's the yes queens in the comments. But in reality, it's not representative of actual people. So when the actual people see people having common sense conversations, which I hope that we have on this podcast, you know, we, I mean, today, right now, we had the Pod Save guys on the pod.

• 2:20:11Speaker 05

  Nice.

• 2:20:11Speaker 04

  Do you know what I mean?

• 2:20:12Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 2:20:12Speaker 04

  And like, what's so interesting is like. Their criticism was the exact same thing that I was saying. They immediately were like, this reaction that I told you so is like typical fucking liberal.

• 2:20:22Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 2:20:23Speaker 04

  Uh dumb shit where it's just like, we have an opportunity to use this frustration to win, but these people don't care about winning.

• 2:20:30Speaker 05

  Right.

• 2:20:30Speaker 04

  So they're acknowledging the grift as well. And these are the most liberal guys you can imagine.

• 2:20:34Speaker 05

  Well, you know why that they say that? Because they actually won an election. They know how to win a fucking election. Barack Obama, like Barack Obama, I mean, do you guys remember the state of Ohio? He won that state. He won Indiana. That's insane.

• 2:20:46Speaker 06

  And MAGA does so well, bringing people in. Like you've seen people go to the protests, like where they pretend to fake protest on the other side. So like liberals will go to the MAGA side and then all the MAGA people are like, yeah, come over.

• 2:20:56Speaker 05

  Yeah, they're like, hey, come on in, right? But my point actually is the way that that was sold, but now that people like you are beginning to speak out, people like me and others. Oh, it's like you are fake or you know, you're not trusting the plan enough. And it's like, I would argue that the least patriotic thing you could do is actually trust the government. I would actually argue also in the case of when you support a political movement, is that the least impactful thing you could do is trust the plan. And because the people who don't trust the plan, they get shit done. You think Israel trusted the plan?

• 2:21:26Speaker 04

  Nope.

• 2:21:26Speaker 05

  When we were trying to do diplomacy, they were like, no, we're fucking bombing Iran, okay? And you're coming in with us. Yeah, exactly. They always win.

• 2:21:33Speaker 04

  And that's the thing, and I promise you, I don't promise you, but I would imagine in the next week or two, we will get some disclosure about the Epstein files that we were not gonna get.

• 2:21:43Speaker 05

  Right.

• 2:21:43Speaker 04

  And the reason we got that is because there are people speaking out. There's a reason why the White House responded to us.

• 2:21:50Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's right.

• 2:21:51Speaker 04

  The people are speaking out, it's not just us, but it's a lot of people speaking out about our frustrations. And whether you like this or not, the White House, the current administration is very transactional. If they feel that people are becoming disillusioned, they acknowledge it immediately. So if you do not voice these things, you do not get what the fuck you want. It's, it's, it's like. And what do you actually, at the end of the day, what do you want? Do you want to feel good in the moment? Do you want to get your little clicks and views? Make your little face to camera videos? Or do you want to actually have some form of justice for a thousand girls that were victimized?

• 2:22:20Speaker 05

  According to the government, according to our US Attorney General.

• 2:22:23Speaker 04

  A thousand that were victimized. What do you actually want? Because I'm glad you feel good with your path on the back. To me, it'd be pretty good to know if a thousand girls gets a little bit of justice. That would make me feel pretty good.

• 2:22:33Speaker 05

  Yeah, it should.

• 2:22:33Speaker 06

  So before we leave, can I ask, what is Trump's game with the Epstein files? Why would he, while he's president, get, you know, Epstein is arrested, killed, dies? And then runs on releasing the files, does the fake sort of kangaroo release? And then now says that he was not working with any other conspirators?

• 2:22:54Speaker 05

  There's only two possible theories, which I was not that open to this one, which was that Trump is implicated in until the more recent statements. Why are my boys and gals like paying attention to all this? You guys all need to move on? Or on camera where he's like, are you really still asking about Jeffrey Epstein? By the way, the day after he put out that Truth Social, he was tweeting about revoking Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship.

• 2:23:17Speaker 04

  That's funny.

• 2:23:18Speaker 05

  I mean, it's funny, but he's like, you guys are focused on Epstein? When there's all this other stuff happening? It's like, bro, you're literally tweeting about Rosie O'Donnell's getting denaturalized as a citizen. But that's one theory is that, look, I mean, I read you guys the quote.

• 2:23:32Speaker 04

  He said something where he goes.

• 2:23:32Speaker 05

  He likes them young. He said that in 2002. He said it, so maybe he knew something.

• 2:23:38Mark Gagnon?

  We're six months in.

• 2:23:40Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 2:23:40Mark Gagnon?

  How do you feel? What's the job that Trump is doing?

• 2:23:43Speaker 05

  Oh, no, I'm sorry. I need to give the second. That was the first theory, which I did not give credence to.

• 2:23:48Mark Gagnon?

  Yeah.

• 2:23:49Speaker 05

  Also, Tucker made a good point. He's like, wouldn't have the Biden administration released it? I was like, well, I thought that they would have, but listen, what if they wanted to prick Bill Clinton? Or, you know, all this other stuff.

• 2:23:57Speaker 04

  You can't release one?

• 2:23:58Speaker 05

  Right, and you have to release all.

• 2:23:59Speaker 04

  Because what would the Biden administration do? They'd release one person, Trump, and then nobody else.

• 2:24:04Speaker 05

  That wouldn't make a lot of sense.

• 2:24:05Speaker 04

  And then we'd be like, okay.

• 2:24:06Mark Gagnon?

  According to Trump, they created the files.

• 2:24:08Speaker 05

  Right, right. Obama created the files. Okay.

• 2:24:11Mark Gagnon?

  And Hillary made the files about Clinton.

• 2:24:13Speaker 05

  The second is that it would be devastating to our relationship with Israel or... Or it was at a request of Israel, or it'd be devastating to our relationship if the CIA is that to be exposed. I mean, for example, everybody knows the CIA killed Kennedy. Why has the CIA fought the release of these documents for 60 years? They did, we just, we're just, that is. Oh, sorry. Okay.

• 2:24:36Speaker 05

  Okay, okay. Again, let me be more precise in my language. I think that they were aware of and participated, at least in some form, in the plot that killed Kennedy. I'll put it more responsible. Not the killed, at the very least, involved in the plot, and of course, in the cover-up. That's like, actually not a question. So why did they do that? Because they knew that it would break the American public's irrevocable trust in the way that they conduct business. And that's why they fought for years to make sure that it didn't happen, or that to release the documents. I think it's the same here in this case. It's like, look, what we have is so bad to, you know, to the CIA, to the FBI, to Mossad, to Saudi, to all these governments, and to the Israeli prime ministers and others, that it would just be so revelatory of the way that we conduct business.

• 2:25:18Speaker 05

  It would be, make it impossible for us to continue business as usual. And sir, business as usual is so important that we just have to release all of this stuff. And that's how the pressure comes down on Cash Patel, on Dan Bongino, on the Attorney General. And yeah, I mean, it leads to them saying, Cash literally said in 2023, "The Epstein files are under the direct control of the FBI director." He became the FBI director, and now he's like, "It was all a conspiracy theory." He literally said that. The conspiracy theories were never true. The conspiracy theories you invented, man. So you were either lying then, or you're lying now. Bongino, I mean, I have, I have the clips that people can play if they want to. All this stuff, we can never let up on this story. We can never let go.

• 2:25:58Speaker 05

  Attorney General Pam Bondi, from the White House lawn, which means, used to mean something, "I have the client list on my desk. There are thousands of victims. There are all the files. We're ready to release them." And then, you know, Akash, I think you said this, you were like, "Either it was all a lie, or you exploited the [bleep] of thousands of children to get elected." That's pretty fucked up. So there's no good answer here. Personally, I lean to the latter. I think it's an intelligence thing. And perhaps it has a crossover with, with Trump himself. I did not believe until very recently.

• 2:26:29Speaker 04

  When you say intelligence thing and this seems more realistic to me, not that the intelligence has devised this blackmail scheme.

• 2:26:35Speaker 05

  Yeah, exactly. As I laid out for the multiple hours.

• 2:26:38Speaker 04

  But he was potentially an asset to multiple intelligence agencies. And they looked the other way at his sexual deviant behavior.

• 2:26:47Speaker 05

  And then started to cover it up with the non prosecution agreement.

• 2:26:52Speaker 04

  Exactly.

• 2:26:52Speaker 05

  And that's, that's the complicity. That's the smoking gun.

• 2:26:55Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 2:26:55Speaker 05

  And that's why it still remains. I mean, look, even the Justice Department admitted that was a bad deal. We never should have done it.

• 2:27:02Speaker 04

  Right.

• 2:27:02Speaker 05

  And you know what the irony is? It's the Justice Department themselves, Main Justice, the Washington DC, they're the ones who told Acosta to do the non prosecution agreement. But then they turn around and they blame Acosta. And so like,

• 2:27:14Speaker 04

  You need a patsy, man.

• 2:27:15Speaker 05

  It come, yeah, that's, I almost feel bad for the guy, you know, in a way, because he probably, it looks like he was just doing what he was told.

• 2:27:21Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 2:27:21Speaker 05

  And he probably wanted to continue the investigation. I mean, I don't know. I mean, he still signed it. Yeah, I agree. He was complicit and he lived with it. And he got rewarded for it. He was the Labor Secretary.

• 2:27:29Speaker 04

  For like a day?

• 2:27:30Speaker 05

  No, for a while, 2017 to 2019.

• 2:27:32Speaker 04

  Oh.

• 2:27:32Speaker 05

  He reigned for over two years.

• 2:27:33Speaker 04

  And then they got him out of it.

• 2:27:34Speaker 05

  Well, yeah. And then he was the patsy. They were like, hey, you gotta go.

• 2:27:37Speaker 04

  Somebody gotta go down.

• 2:27:37Speaker 05

  Somebody's gotta go down for this. And he resigned. I think he's, you know, very rich and probably works in finance or whatever now. But my point is just that it go, like, it goes up high. And unfortunately, like, we don't even really know how high. And what's left to be released is still just an immense amount of documentation, which, no, we don't have a right to have it, like a theoretical right, but we almost have like a, like a promise here from the campaign, from the president, that they would release everything. They would declassify everything. And they have immediately turned their back on that.

• 2:28:10Mark Gagnon?

  I gotta use the bathroom.

• 2:28:11Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 2:28:11Mark Gagnon?

  We're six months in. Give me your grade on Trump. The good, the bad. What's his rapport card grade?

• 2:28:18Speaker 05

  Well, uh, you know, I'm actually not important in this. Just like, let's look at the issues, like for things that I think he was elected on. I think he was elected on two issues, three primarily. Number one is the economy, because inflation was high. Inflation report came out today. It's actually increased 2.7% since June. A lot of that is, in my opinion, because of the incompetent way that they've rolled. out the tariffs. It actually makes me really upset. I'm really pro tariff, the idea of tariff, strategic tariffs. I think the way that this has been done has been frankly disaster. The only reason that it didn't crash the economy is because he rolled them all back and said, we're going to do a 90 day pause or whatever, but creating chaos in people's lives and fucking with people's businesses is terrible. Mark and I are new parents. Do you remember the, you know, the stroller problem about how over 90% of strollers and car seats come from China?

• 2:29:02Speaker 05

  Well, you know, the up a baby stroller that like everyone in New York has, that went up by hundreds of dollars as a result of the tariffs. Sorry, I think that's wrong. I think the car seats have become more expensive. It's like you were elected to make life better for people. That's a pretty material way, actually, that Trump directly impacted me and all other new parents here in the United States. So that's where something I think creating that chaos economically has been a problem. On the bill, it's the bill philosophically to me, I just think really comes away from a lot of the Trump promise. And I think, I think I heard you talking about the bill. I mean, let's just look at the math, right? Like they are like, oh, well, we're going to cut spending. And it's like, well, okay, but you increase the defense budget by

• 2:29:43Speaker 05

  $150 billion, right? By the way, Doge never looked at the DOD. What happened there? You know, like, whoa, where, where are you Doge? Why did we fire like somebody in the National Weather Service and not someone in the Pentagon who can't pass an audit for five years in a row? And so, you know, these are, this is talk and it was cheap, in my opinion, like they increased the defense budget and instead, you know, they put work requirements in Medicaid and in food stamps. I'm not necessarily against work requirements per se, but really what bothered me was the way they were increasing the dollar shift to the states. This is really wonky. I apologize to everyone, but the end result is that more people could probably lose healthcare and or food stamps. Again, we can have a conversation about welfare and food stamps and all of that,

• 2:30:25Speaker 05

  but it was the priority of increasing the defense budget, of extending the tax cuts, which are pretty overwhelmingly good for the top 1%.

• 2:30:32Speaker 07

  Help people overseas, it seems, it's expensive.

• 2:30:34Speaker 05

  Exactly. So helping people overseas and you've got people who are at least precarious, you know, in terms of that. So I think that the bill was a big miss, in my opinion.

• 2:30:41Speaker 07

  On the simple promise of make America great again, it seems life for most Americans is not as

• 2:30:46Speaker 05

  I think that the fundamental Still remain the same and that's the problem is I don't see a concrete way to fix that so yesterday a report came out from the National Association of Realtors that the average first time home buyer in the United States is now 38 years old. He used to be 27 and look Trump can't just wave a magic wand and fix that to the extent that he can do anything it's to fire the Fed chair and I guess you know let's give him credit he's trying to do that but my point is just that the GOP as a whole and that bill did not seem laser focused you know on those problems so I would say I don't think it's gone very well then you know on immigration I mean look it's controversial I wait for Andrew I would say of all the things that he quote promised to do that's

• 2:31:28Speaker 05

  the one where he really has you know I think he's delivered the problem in my opinion is like the way the administration decides to conduct itself is kind of like an Iraq like shock and awe approach where you come in with these big operations now I will explain the logic the logic is because there's 30 million people here probably who are illegal deporting them all even with billions of dollars is like probably impossible so you want to stage these like large scale things to get people to self deport and then about a million people or so according to the administration has left we don't have a way of checking those numbers which is why it's kind of difficult but I would put it all together and I would say that the story to me is just chaos it's like one that flips

• 2:32:11Speaker 05

  back and forth we have Doge which is in power Elon's the co-president then he leaves right and now he's you know talking about Epstein files and the America party and then we bomb Iran very shortly afterwards we said we weren't going to do that and then we had the tariff brouhaha like in between it doesn't feel as if there's like a steady hand on the wheel chaotically I mean and I would apply that to immigration as well the biggest criticism Americans have right now about the immigration policy is not even necessarily deportation it's the chaotic way that they feel it's being handled and if you think about it it makes a lot of sense like why were people so mad at Biden over the border because of the chaos at the border and let's give Trump credit he did fix that there's zero illegal

• 2:32:53Speaker 05

  crossings fine but the point is now they look at the raids themselves and the way they're conducted and kind of um Like blown up by the White House as chaotic, right? And I think that when you put that together with the way that the tariff policy, the immigration policy, and even the war policy, I mean, we were negotiating with Iran and then we weren't negotiating with Iran. We berated Zelensky in the Oval Office and told him he didn't have the cards. And we're giving him more weapons. It doesn't make any fucking sense. And then the Epstein thing is, well, you run on it. You say you have it. Now you say you don't have it. It screams like chaos and kind of incompetence. And I can see why a lot of people are moving against it. So that's like my wholesome. What grade would you give him? That sounds all bad. But me personally, yeah, I mean, I would go issue by issue.

• 2:33:36Speaker 05

  So like on foreign policy, I genuinely, I would give an F just in terms of Ukraine and Israel. On immigration, considering what he ran on, I would probably give him like a B plus just because on the merits, I think he actually is doing almost every single thing that he said he would do. If anything, I would say my criticism, I mean, I should be open about it. I'm very pro mass deportation, but my criticism of it is that it seems like in many cases, they went more for the show as opposed to like the policy. And I think that's the problem. So that's like my personal criticism. And also, the reason I will not give it an A is because a huge portion of the immigration machine was used to go after these like pro Palestine students for speaking out against Israel. I'm like, yo, fuck that.

• 2:34:19Speaker 05

  Sorry. Okay, that's like a total, not only a free speech concern. It's like, why are you using the resources of my government to deport critics of another country? What? People who are here illegally? That this is the least of our problems, all right? But let's put that, you know, to the side. So on the economy, yeah, I mean, look, this isn't me speaking. Like people know I'm like, I'm pretty out of step with like the trickle down GOP. But like, I don't know. I think the big beautiful bill was a disaster. Like only, not only in terms of its unpopularity, but it didn't, you know, invest in all the things. It didn't invest in making America better, like as a country. There's no massive expansion of manufacturing tax credits. There's no like ability to compete and deal with China. It was really just kind of like a personal tax extension for the rich,

• 2:35:04Speaker 05

  more corporate tax extension for business as usual. That just, I think business as usual is what he was elected to like go against. So for me. It's like a C. So here's. So you can average all that together. I don't know what that is. Here's my question. F, A, plus, C. Yeah, so.

• 2:35:17Speaker 07

  Where does the conservative party go from here? We, we ask, and to, after the election, where does a liberal, where does the Democratic Party go? The conservative party, what are y'all gonna do now?

• 2:35:25Speaker 05

  Well, what do you mean conservative party?

• 2:35:26Speaker 07

  Like the Republican Party, the conservative, the Republican.

• 2:35:29Speaker 05

  Well, those are two very different things.

• 2:35:30Speaker 07

  Sorry, the Republican Party, where do they go from here?

• 2:35:31Speaker 05

  What's the difference? Uh, conservative is an ideology, Republican is a party. So conservative, uh, so to be conservative is, uh, it's, that's a big, yeah. I thought. That's more of a meta commerce. Is MAGA conservative? No, in many cases, MAGA is not conservative, actually. Most MAGA voters are on, are on Medicaid and they don't want it to be cut. So they don't care about entitlement spending. That's a non-conservative position, right? But it's conservative to cut government spending. So those are kind of a direct, uh, tension. You know, we could, I could talk forever about this. It's, it's a very intra-Washington kind of conversation, like what it means to be conservative and kind of what it means to be a Republican. And Trump, in my opinion, the reason why he was able to succeed is because he wasn't conservative. And he even said that.

• 2:36:12Speaker 05

  He said, "I'm not a conservative," whenever he was running in the 2016 primary. He is, originally at least to me, was more what I would call a rightist, like more somebody like the European right, a culture warrior who kind of accepts the legitimacy of the social welfare state and has more populist policies. But that's not conservative, right? That's, it's very, very different. I know this is semantics, but like. No, this is good. It's important to like analyze, like what we mean. So what happens to, I think what you're trying to say is the Republican Party. Yeah, the Republican Party, I mean, look, they still have a lot of choices. You got three and a half more years to go. Like, that's a long ass time. Like, who know, all of this could be ancient news. I don't think so. I think in general, if you look at the history of presidencies, you're basically baked by a hundred days.

• 2:36:56Speaker 05

  They wasted their whole hundred days on Doge, in my opinion, which was a disaster, uh, at this point, I think we could fairly say. And then they did the tax cut or the tax bill, which exploded the deficit, increased defense spending by 150 billion. Yeah, the next hundred days wasn't much better. You know, then they did Israel, the Iran thing, now they're doing Ukraine. Who knows what's gonna happen with that? I skipped over the tariffs, which I talked earlier, which were bad for the public and have not been handled. Competently really at all. So for them, I mean, their problem is, is that they're in a cult of personality. Like they're locked into Trump himself as an action. And the biggest problem for them is when John McCain lost, he was like, okay, it's your, you guys do what you want. When Bush left, he was like, I'm out.

• 2:37:40Speaker 05

  Right? They, they fuck off. And with Trump, like, do you guys ever see him not trying to guide the Republican Party? He would never allow a post mortem. When Romney lost, right? The entire Republican Party had to have a conversation. Who are we? What do we stand for? And the conclusion was not that bullshit, not Romney, right? That's not going to stand in with the Trump Party, right? So I think that, you know, they have a lot of issues, like structurally for where they want to go. In my opinion, they won the popular vote for the first time in 2004, since 2004. For a Republican, they flipped all kinds of crazy states because of the economy and really because of immigration.

• 2:38:19Speaker 05

  And if they don't find a way to flip their numbers on both of those, and especially if the American way of life does not get materially better at a structural level, I think they're going to lose. And I think they deserve to lose if that's what happens. If that, if that age for a first time home buyer goes from 38 from today to like 42, and if home prices continue to go up and the supply continues to go down, if we don't, if we see wages stagnant, if we don't see like real material changes to the way people live, I just think, yeah, I think that the Republicans will lose. And we always live in a change election.

• 2:38:51Speaker 04

  Um, I, I don't want to divert from this too much. I know that we probably got to wrap up soon because we got to do something for you. So just real quick, obviously, you know, we're in New York City right now, greatest city in the world. And there's an interesting mayor election coming up. What are your thoughts on the cultural circumstances that have happened that have propelled Mom Donnie to superstardom and a primary victory?

• 2:39:15Speaker 05

  Mom Donnie is a, is a, is, there's this phrase from back in the day, and it's a vindicating phrase to me. It was all politics is local. That was what they used to say back in the day. In 2010, that actually flipped because there were all of these Democrats who lived in Republican And they just got blown out, even though they lived there for 20 years because they're like, he support Obama. And Republicans were like, oh, I can't deal with that. You know, he supports Obama. Mondani was a return, right? Because what his opponents did is they made their entire campaign against him about Israel. And he's like, no, guys, I'm talking about New York City. I'm talking about the halal carts. I'm talking about rent is too damn high.

• 2:39:56Speaker 05

  And what I really love about that is it subverts all of this like national political rhetoric, DEI style language. And it brings us back to, what are you gonna do about New York, dude? Which is what people need when they're suffering. What people need, exactly. And that this city, you know, people have made a lot about like, oh, Mondani won the rich people making a hundred grand. I'm like, bro, New York, a hundred grand? You're like a rent poor.

• 2:40:23Speaker 05

  You're like, you're poor as shit, actually.

• 2:40:28Speaker 07

  Legitimately eligible for the housing law.

• 2:40:29Speaker 05

  No, like, like, guys making 50K in Iowa are way richer than you. Who are making a hundred, like, post-tax, post-state, local, federal. 100K in New York? Like, I'm like, you're not. Yeah, it's like, bro, you got multiple roommates, okay? You're like, living in a three bed if you're like 25 and, I don't know, the East Alphabet City or something like that. So let's recalibrate for New York expectations.

• 2:40:52Speaker 05

  My favorite videos that he would do is like the halal cart video. You know, hey, guys, like, halal's too expensive. Let's make it eight bucks again. I loved whenever he walked across Manhattan. And the thing is, what he was able to do, he'd be like, no, you're obsessed about Israel. You guys are the, I'm, I'm not spending all my time talking about this. I would stay here in New York and hear all my policies to trying to change that. And if you've lived under Bloomberg, I mean, my criticism of this city is that they unfortunately kind of turned it into a playground of the rich. As opposed to a place that people lived, you know, when the stuff I would read about the 1980s in New York, I'm not saying it didn't exist. It's always been a playground for the rich. It definitely has, but it has become the capital of the global financial elite for a certain, you know, I mean, when I walk around here. Yeah, but I mean, I don't know. I mean,

• 2:41:36Speaker 05

  when you walked around in the eighties, do you barely even hear English in the streets here in the summer, right? Half these people, they're from fucking Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Germany, like all over the world.

• 2:41:45Speaker 04

  Like, I don't know about that.

• 2:41:46Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 2:41:47Speaker 04

  I think you're describing London.

• 2:41:49Speaker 05

  Well, there's that too.

• 2:41:51Speaker 04

  But, but in terms of, I think that the difference now is that like, everybody always came here for opportunity, right?

• 2:41:56Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's right.

• 2:41:57Speaker 04

  It didn't matter. If you're an immigrant, you came here for opportunity. If you're from America and you moved here from like Wisconsin or Maine, you came here from opportunity. You're thinking of working a big fund. You're thinking of being a graphic designer. You think could be a fashion designer, something. It's always opportunity. And I think that what's happening now is that kids or Gen Z feels like the only way to make it now is through TikTok.

• 2:42:16Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 2:42:17Speaker 04

  And I don't begrudge them because when we were coming up, at least in entertainment, there was like Comedy Central, MTV. There are these things that you could get on that made it feel accessible. And even if it wasn't accessible for you, there was this idea that like, next year, they're going to do an audition and maybe I'll get that. Right? This idea of like getting on SNL, all these different things were possible. And one of the nice things about the, you know, decentralization of entertainment and making it go on the internet is that it gave freedom for people like us who wanted to go after it and make it ourselves. The problem is not everybody wants to go after it and make it themselves. They want institutions and structures that are established that they can hope to get accepted by and put on. And now that those have fallen apart, and that's just entertainment.

• 2:43:01Speaker 04

  Now I think people are like, so I just gotta go viral on TikTok? And it's just like, I love that because I love the idea of like, I'm in control of my destiny. Not everybody loves that. And I think even the illusion of opportunity is better than luck.

• 2:43:13Speaker 05

  Yeah, definitely.

• 2:43:14Speaker 04

  And I think they're seeing that in not just entertainment, but you're probably seeing that in other spheres as well. And to go back to what you're saying about like, you make a hundred thousand dollars a year, but you have $300,000 worth of debt.

• 2:43:25Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 2:43:26Speaker 04

  I think that's why the rent freeze is so enticing to people. Because if you're spending $1,700 a month, let's say on your student loans, and that's just the interest. You're not even chipping away at them. That's your savings. So if you, again, take your rent from $5,000 a month and you take it down to 3,300, now you have your savings again. And I think in a way, the program is kind of like punishing landlords for universities charging exorbitant prices.

• 2:43:57Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's right.

• 2:43:58Speaker 04

  So you're just passing the buck to someone else. And it's like landlord is a bad person, of course, because they own this property and there are shitty landlords. I get it. But like, I think the core of the issue is the fact that these kids are saddled with this debt, with these degrees that offered them nothing in a city like New York, and they're paralyzed with this fear that there is no opportunity for mobility.

• 2:44:14Speaker 05

  That's very well said. And what you're getting to, and we'll wrap here, is like a structural issue, which is that America and our generation, I'm younger millennial, like, I'm 33, and when I was coming up, it was you go to college and you will be rewarded. And now I'm actually at the age where I get to look back at who made it and who didn't. And I'm telling you guys, my friends with the most debt, they didn't make it.

• 2:44:37Speaker 04

  It's fucked, dude.

• 2:44:39Speaker 05

  It's fucked up. And that, you watch the choices that people have to make. Ah, we're gonna delay having a kid. That breaks my heart, man. We're gonna have to move wherever, even though we want to live here, we have to go move somewhere else because we can't afford it, even though this is the best place to make money, right? This is the best place for my career. We, I can't have it all. I have to make serious choices.

• 2:45:01Speaker 04

  You can't take the risk necessary for success. It's almost impossible to become successful without taking on immense risk.

• 2:45:08Speaker 05

  Quite literally. When I started my business, I had $50,000 in credit card debt. I would have been fucked if breaking points didn't work. But, you know, I mean, I was like, you know, I'm young. I called you before. I was like, I was like, I think, I think it'll work. You know, I was like, I think so. And, but, you know, we would have been actually hosed.

• 2:45:26Speaker 04

  But imagine somebody with $300,000 in debt.

• 2:45:27Speaker 05

  They're not doing that. Yeah, exactly.

• 2:45:29Speaker 04

  They have a job that actually pays for things. And they go, I can't risk leaving this.

• 2:45:32Speaker 05

  Or wife and kids.

• 2:45:34Speaker 04

  I mean, wife and kids is like, I think that's such a...

• 2:45:36Speaker 05

  Like, stratospheric in terms of...

• 2:45:38Speaker 04

  Dream for people.

• 2:45:39Speaker 05

  Exactly.

• 2:45:41Speaker 04

  Yeah, I think that that like contributes to the support from Ondani and specifically the demographic that seems to be really excited about what he's gonna bring. And but to me, there's a little bit of this passing the buck. It's like, OK, we have this thing we can't move, which are these loans. So we gotta move it to another area to free up some economic mobility for these people. And I get and if you're one of those people that's out with that debt, like, you don't give a fuck who got to pay for it. Like, as long as it's not you. So I get that. They're offering a solution that maybe in the long term will hurt people. And I want to talk to him about it because I want to see like how we grapple with that.

• 2:46:15Speaker 05

  Yeah, he's got to come on the show.

• 2:46:16Speaker 04

  No, I've been talking. No, I've been talking to him. So it looks like that's gonna happen. So because I genuinely want to ask earnestly, like, what are the downstream effects of some of these policies? How does that work? But there is no question that they are enticing. And it's not to the poor. People think that, oh, the poor love the socialist. No, no, no, no. It's the middle class that are entitled in their brains to a better life that they're not having that this is so enticing. They're like, wait, why am I same economic bracket as my parents? I was supposed to be richer than them.

• 2:46:48Speaker 05

  Lower than.

• 2:46:48Speaker 04

  Or lower. Yeah.

• 2:46:50Speaker 06

  Yeah, there is no middle class.

• 2:46:51Speaker 05

  In my opinion, you're materially much poorer than your parents. You're way materially poorer than your parents. And that's fucked up. I think that's wrong. And that's a systemic problem that gets to the like very structure of our economy. I mean, one of the most important facts in the world from my friend Joe Weisenthal is that is Shanghai Stock Exchange has barely grown since 2009, but everyone in China, you are way more materially rich since 2009. In America, the number has to go up. Capital must return and specifically at eight to 9%. Our whole retirement's banked on that. Our whole economy is banked on that. And it doesn't matter if the shit that we own is nicer or not, it must return. It must have dividends. It must have payoff. And in Shanghai and in Beijing and all of that, they're like, oh, we don't give a fuck

• 2:47:36Speaker 05

  about that. They're like, are we getting drone deliveries? Are our houses nicer? Are our electric cars the best vehicles in the world, hands down? I'm telling you, if their ban was lifted, I would buy them tomorrow. There is no, there is no competition. Would throw the Tesla, I'm getting in the Yangwang, like it's done.

• 2:47:54Speaker 06

  Yeah.

• 2:47:54Speaker 05

  BYD, let me in, Huawei, any of these other people. They have the best cars in the world. It's genuinely not a question. Not best electric, best cars in the world are in Shanghai, Beijing. Like the Chinese peasant or, you know, is materially much better off than the United States than it was. Then compared to 2009, than the average American from 2009 to 2025. So let's all spend some time asking why. And a lot of it is debt leveraged projects, education being sold, badly structured debt. Uh, I mean, the way that people are even, how do you get rich in America today? For most people, it's like, or even really filthy rich. It's to work in hedge funds and in finance and microtransactions for stuff that does not make this country better off.

• 2:48:38Speaker 05

  If you, you know how you get rich in China? The government goes, you're allowed to get rich. You can do it by building the best electric cars in the world. Oh, the hedge fund shit, you're gone. You're going to, you're going to the Gulag. Actually, we don't do that here, right? And that, I'm not advocating for that system, but in comparison to ours, it does work. And that's a deep question that we all have to ask.

• 2:48:56Speaker 06

  It's a structural, structural problem.

• 2:48:58Speaker 05

  Who is better off today? I believe that the Chinese are better off as a result of their way of life, which is really fucked up. Because I think we have a much better, we had, we had a path. We didn't always used to be like this and we could go in another direction.

• 2:49:10Speaker 06

  Thanks Reagan.

• 2:49:11Speaker 05

  There you go. It's not just Reagan. They're all, they're all complicit now at this point.

• 2:49:16Speaker 04

  Sagar, thank you so much, bro. We love you, appreciate you. Make sure you check out Sagar on Breaking Points.

• 2:49:22Speaker 00

  Say hello to smooth, sugar-like sweetness with Truvia Alulose Plus Stevia Sweetener and Monk Fruit Sweetener. This blend delivers balanced sweetness that minimizes aftertaste with zero calories per serving. Designed to fit everyday moments, Truvia Alulose Blend measures cup for cup like sugar, making it effortless to swap into beverages, baking, and even savory dishes. Find Truvia Alulose Plus Stevia Sweetener and Monk Fruit Sweetener online and nationwide at Kroger, Target, and your favorite local grocery retailer.

• 2:49:52Speaker 01

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, theHouseMajorityPact.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 2:50:21Speaker 02

  Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same premium wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do at mintmobile.com/switch.

• 2:50:40Speaker 03

  Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full-price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com.