7/16/25: Trump Says Bad People Care About Epstein, Alex Jones Meltdown, 3% Satisfied With Epstein Handling

Krystal and Emily discuss Trump says only bad people care about Epstein, Alex Jones begs Trump on Epstein files, poll shows 3% satisfied with Epstein handling.

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com

Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of this show.

Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.

Speaker 3 (00:33):
Welcome to Breaking Points, Crystal, thanks so much for jumping
in for Ryan this morning.

Speaker 4 (00:38):
He is in Dublin, my pleasure. Where else would he be.

Speaker 2 (00:42):
Yeah, he's doing some interesting things there too. I don't
know if we can reveal yet, but there will be
more news on that later.

Speaker 4 (00:47):
Yes, absolutely so.

Speaker 3 (00:49):
We have a show that is I regret to inform
everyone front loaded with more Epstein news because the Trump
administration continues to flail and MAGA continue used to be
divided over the Epstein question. So we have more comments
from the President to get to more comments from members
of Congress, including the Speaker of the House, to get

(01:09):
to and people sort of on the outside Magas supporters
on the outside who are having a tough time with
this one. And Crystal new inflation numbers were out yesterday,
some debate over whether they were good or bad for
the administration politically, and whether they were good or bad
for the American people substantively. That we will get to
the most oppressing article that I have read in quite

(01:30):
a while, Crystal, on why first time home ownership in
the US is at a record low. We're going to
break down some of that, along with about a viral
clip from Tucker Carlson that sort of spoke to exactly
this from the Turning Point USA summit. And of course,
the Pentagon is now in business with Grock did you.

Speaker 2 (01:50):
Yeah, that's what you expected, Mecca Mecha Hitler has taken
the Pentagon. That's what's happening here apparently, But actually.

Speaker 4 (01:57):
This is a real story.

Speaker 3 (01:58):
The Pentagon has signed a contract with Xai to use
grac for government. So we have all of the details
on that story, and we are very excited. We've been
trying for days to get in the Superman block. You
can see that on the bottom of your screen. Because
Producer Griffin and Crystal have just so very many thoughts.

Speaker 4 (02:18):
Ben Shapiro's thoughts too.

Speaker 2 (02:19):
I was going to say, as says Ben Shapiro, his
are a little different than ours, but we'll get into
all of that. Yeah, well, you know, when I see
when I get to see a movie in the theaters,
it's a very rare and exciting thing for me, so
I have to talk about it, and especially when it's
a movie that's, as Hassan Piker put it, two Hours
of f Israel. It's basically that we're going to try
to keep it spoiler free, but there's actually a lot
of very interesting political dynamics going on the movie that

(02:42):
are worth digging into. So Gryffin will join us for that.
So that should be fun.

Speaker 3 (02:46):
And we do always think of Producer Griffin as like
the Ben Shapiro of our operation, so it makes sense
that we'll have him.

Speaker 2 (02:53):
The parallels are striking on every level.

Speaker 4 (02:55):
Yeah, it's incredibly similar. People are around.

Speaker 3 (02:58):
So as a reminder, Breakingpoints dot Com for premium subscription.
If you can't subscribe, no problem, just subscribe to the
subscribe on the channel here like the videos, we appreciate
it so much. And let's start with the president himself
weighing in more on the case of Jeffrey Epstein. Donald
Trump kept getting questions, of course because there's so much

(03:20):
confusion radiating forth from his administration, partially why these questions
are totally fair and will not go away for the
Trump administration.

Speaker 4 (03:29):
So let's roll a one. This is Trump asking answering
some questions.

Speaker 5 (03:33):
Just yesterday, She's given us just a very quick briefing,
and in terms of the credibility of the different things
that they've seen, and I would say that, you know,
these files were made up by Komi, they were made
up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden.
It from you know, and we went through years of
that with the Russia, Russia, Russia hopes, with all of

(03:57):
the different things that we had to go through. We've
gone through years of it. But she's handled it very well,
and it's going to be up to her. Whatever she
thinks is credible, she should release you. I don't understand
it why they would be so interested.

Speaker 6 (04:10):
He's dead for a long time. He was never a
big factor in terms of life. I don't understand what
the interest or what the fascination is.

Speaker 4 (04:20):
I really don't.

Speaker 6 (04:22):
And the credible information has been given. Don't forget. We
went through years of the Muller witch.

Speaker 5 (04:27):
Hunt and all of.

Speaker 6 (04:28):
The different things, the Steal dossier, which was all fake,
All that information was fake. But I don't understand why
the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody.
It's pretty boring stuff. It's sorted, but it's boring, and
I don't understand why it keeps going. I think, well, really,
only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep

(04:51):
something like that going. But credible information, let them give it.
Anything that's credible, I would say, let them have it.

Speaker 4 (05:01):
All right. So I'm actually going to respond to that.

Speaker 3 (05:05):
Clip with a reaction from Ann Coulter, who said, ex ante,
I say Trump did not rape underage girls, but when
he slings bullshit like this, you have to wonder, and
quotes Trump saying Epstein files were written by Obama Cricket,
Hillary Comy Brennan, the losers and criminals of the Biden administration.
Culter then responds, everything we know about Epstein's teen sex
ring comes from the Palm Beach police and the girls themselves.

(05:27):
DEM's ferociously protected Epstein, a major DEM donor.

Speaker 4 (05:31):
But Crystal, that is true.

Speaker 3 (05:33):
Everything we know about Epstein, for the most part, is
coming from the Palm Beach, the local Palm Beach police, and.

Speaker 4 (05:39):
The girls themselves.

Speaker 3 (05:41):
We have gotten trickles of information that are frustratingly limited
actually from the federal government. So it's a I also
saw I don't know if you saw this as well,
Megan Kelly reporting that she's been told by several people
whether or not it's true, Several people have said that
the files on Epstein were left in such a way
that pointed right at Donald Trump, which could mean a

(06:02):
lot of things. It could mean funny business going on.
It can mean that there's there there when it comes
to Donald Trump. But I think that's where this has
just opened up an entirely new chapter in Trump's response
to the the Epstein chaos of Pam Bondi's DOJ which
is now saying that this is part of actually a
different kind of deep state plot to frame Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (06:27):
Yeah, I mean, there's so much to say about those
two clubs who just played of Trump. First of all,
no one is buying the Obama wrote the Epstein files
line is just utterly preposterous. Number Two, Now he's calling
his own supporters bad people for caring about an elite
sex crimes ring against young girls with potential intel tie in,

(06:51):
and you know, implicating any number potentially of powerful figures
say is that that is boring and can't understand why
that is interesting to anyone. Number Three, the optics there
of that second clip where you know, he's saying, Oh,
it's boring and you're a bad person if you still
care about this. You got Howard Lutnick standing there, who
Lo and Behold actually purchased one of Jeffrey Epstein's properties

(07:12):
in Manhattan, was his longtime neighbor, So you know, just
optically not the best there. He's sort of like chuckling
along with what Trump has to say there, and it
really is so perplexing and hard to explain outside of
I mean, Okham's razor is that he's reacting in this frenetic,
insane and incredibly if he just wants us to go away,

(07:33):
he's doing the polar opposite of making this away go
away because he's worried about what information might come out
like that is the very obvious conclusion the number of
people soccer included, by the way, who have said, you know,
I didn't really think there was there there in terms
of Trump until I saw the way he reacted to this,
and now it's like, I don't know. And then you
start to go back and think about all of the
connections and the videos and the flight logs and the

(07:55):
you know, there was actually civil suit that named him.
Now that went away. Maybe it's because there was nothing
there and so that just, you know, sort of disappeared.
But you got Epstein saying that they were besties for
a decade. You got Trump on the record in an
infamous quote saying, hey, we were good friends for fifteen years.
And hey, he likes him young. He loves beautiful women,
maybe as much as me I do, and many of
them are on the younger side. So it's not at

(08:18):
all preposterous to say, what the hell is going on here?
And as we discussed yesterday, you know, to be perfectly
blunt about this, yes, the American people have a direct
interest in knowing whether Massad has hedo blackmail material on
the President of the United States. So I don't think
this is going away. The other thing I've been thinking
about is you know, Trump likes these sort of like

(08:40):
humiliation rituals for his for the people in his circle,
to sort of force them into situations that are like embarrassing,
go against things that they previously said. So a couple
of examples, you had RFK Junior eating the McDonald's on
the plane, right, you had JD Vance being forced to
stand behind him as he announces the ron strike, obviously

(09:01):
something that Jade Vance was supposedly going to be against,
and there are many other examples of that. This almost
feels like a humiliation ritual for his supporters, you know,
like how far can I go in like directly attacking
you and gaslighting you that this isn't something that I
ran on and that my vice president wasn't out there

(09:21):
campaigning on to get elected. It almost feels like that.
It feels like a test of the base of like
how far can I go? Can I really shoot someone
on Fifth Avenue and you idiots are still going to
stick with me? That's kind of the vibe that I
get from all of this. It's actually quite twisted.

Speaker 4 (09:38):
That's a really yeah.

Speaker 3 (09:39):
I think that's a really interesting take because there's something
I mean, also, Trump Pambondi have known each other. That
Trump and Pambondi have known each other for a really
long time. So I wonder also if I mean, obviously
his original plan was to put Matt Gates in that role.
I don't think any of us are buying the like
four D Chess intentional nomination of Matt Gates have Pam

(10:01):
Bondi come.

Speaker 4 (10:02):
Into that role.

Speaker 3 (10:03):
But I think he also just seems to trust that
she's protecting, like because the way she's doubled and tripled down,
it's it is kind of humiliating, of course for someone
who came in and was promising all of this transparency,
but it is it's also her demonstrating loyalty over and
over again and being forced to demonstrate that loyalty and
more sort of increasingly vociferous terms.

Speaker 2 (10:27):
Well in Bongino and Cash too. I mean, the reports
are Bongino is back in the office and whatever mental
health day he took has restored him to full Trump
syco fancy. And you know, these are two guys who
made a living off of delving into, you know, some
of the theories around Epstein, and so for them as well,

(10:48):
like if they'll do this, they will they will do anything.

Speaker 3 (10:51):
So let's move on to this vote. In Congress. Yesterday,
there was a vote in committee. People may have heard about.
This was Rules Committee a day before, and we had
Rocanna on obviously to talk about. He tried to get
in a quick vote, procedural vote basically to include this
It would have forced disclosure on Epstein files within thirty
days and demanded that they start preserving all files related

(11:16):
to Epstein. That failed in committee. Then Democrats tried to
force vote on a rule that would have opened debate
on another Epstein, very similar Epstein piece of legislation.

Speaker 4 (11:27):
So we can go ahead and take a look at
this next video.

Speaker 7 (11:30):
On this vote, the ASER two eleven, the NASER two ten.

Speaker 4 (11:33):
The previous question is ordered. The question is on adoption
of the resolution. Those in favor say.

Speaker 7 (11:39):
I, those opposed say no, and the opinion the chair
of the Eyes have it.

Speaker 3 (11:45):
So I have to say I actually talked to Stuby
right after that happened, and some other members of Congress,
and also Marjorie Taylor Green, Anapauline Aluna, some of these
super Maga people who've been all over the Epstein case.
Marchor Tayler Green certainly and they said they're more than
happy basically to keep voting on this. Like Thomas Massey
has a bill, we'll see where that goes. Mike Johnson yesterday,

(12:07):
we have more from him too, So I don't think
I necessarily they had this like whole crypto package that
they're it's all very disgusting, the Crypto Week.

Speaker 4 (12:15):
Have you seen any of their like Crypto Week stuff.

Speaker 2 (12:17):
It's like, yeah, I hate it. It's terrible, and We'retually
it's actually doing a little bit less well in the House.
Apparently I haven't followed it super closely, but some of
the terrible crypto legislation failed to meet some like keycedural
hurdle yesterday, so that's good. And Democrats have been more united,
not uniformly, I think like Richie Torres and so Josh

(12:37):
Gottheiber and some like the worst Democrats out there are
in favor of it. But there's been less Democratic support
in the House than there wasn't the Senate, so that's
at least somewhat encouraging. But listen, on this thing. You
had a party line unanimous vote where Republicans were against
even opening debate on the release of the Epstein files.
So you know, I'm sure they're going to spin and
they have their excuses of, oh, this didn't make sense

(13:00):
to do with cryptoweek or blah blah blah. But at
the end of the day, y'all voted against even debating
whether the Epstein file should be released after running around
for years, you know, posturing like you want a transparency
and you cared about this. So I think it's very
hard to see it any other way.

Speaker 3 (13:15):
Happy crypto weeks all who celebrate, I have to get
that out here.

Speaker 4 (13:18):
Well, so let's tak.

Speaker 2 (13:19):
Fre your attention to this matter.

Speaker 3 (13:21):
Yeah, let's get into Mike Johnson actually, because this was
I think this is significant. We'll see, but some Republicans
are calling for Gillian Maxwell to testify.

Speaker 4 (13:32):
Mike Johnson himself.

Speaker 3 (13:33):
Obviously will have some control over whether or not bill
like Congressman Conna's is passed or Congressman Thomas Massy's is passed.

Speaker 4 (13:42):
He'll have them.

Speaker 2 (13:42):
I think they're working to gather on it, aren't they.
I think it's a Massy Conna effort at this point.

Speaker 3 (13:47):
Perfect you love to hear it, And that's the type
of thing that Mike Johnson will have control over getting
to the actual voting process onto the floor of the House,
and so he was talking to Benny Johnson yesterday also
Tim Burchett, let's go ahead and roll a four.

Speaker 8 (14:05):
I'm for transparency. We're intellectually consistent in this. We look.
Reagan used to tell us we should trust the American people.
I believe in that principle. I know President Trump does
as well.

Speaker 2 (14:13):
And I trust him.

Speaker 8 (14:14):
I mean, he put together a team of his choosing
and they're doing a great job. It's a very delicate subject,
but we should we should put everything out there and
let the people decide it. I mean, the White House
and the White House team are privy to facts that
I don't know. I mean, this isn't my lane. I
haven't been involved in that, uh, but but I agree
with the sentiment that we need to we need to
put it out there. And you know, Pam BONDI I

(14:36):
don't know when she originally made the statement. I think
she was talking about documents, as I understood that they
were on her desk. I don't know that she was
specific about a list or whatever. But she needs to
come forward and explain that to everybody. I like Pam,
I mean, I think she's done a good job. We
need the DJ focusing on the major priorities. So let's
get this thing resolved so that they can deal with
violent crime and public safety and election integrity and going

(14:59):
after ActBlue and things that the President is most concerned
about as we are. So I'm anxious to get this
behind them.

Speaker 9 (15:05):
I'm not an attorney. I just find them guilty and
hang them publicly. I mean I'm not that's not over
the top either. I'm ready. I'm over it. I'm big
on clarity and transparency, and you know, that's good reason
people don't trust government in either party.

Speaker 4 (15:23):
Crystal, that was a good one. Just hang them, somebody said.

Speaker 2 (15:25):
Yeah, and then you know, shortly after thereafter votes against
even debating the release of the files. I mean, that's
it's hard to take them seriously in their language here
when the voting record at this point says something very different.

Speaker 4 (15:40):
They can put up. I mean, that's it.

Speaker 3 (15:42):
Like they if they want to dispel people's deep skepticism,
they can move to start tackling some of these bills
and to start pressuring transparency.

Speaker 4 (15:52):
Mike Johnson said in.

Speaker 3 (15:54):
A statement towards the end of the day, all House
Republicans are for truth and transparency, and we know President
Trump can be trusted to make the right decisions, to
stand for justice and to protect the innocent. Now, Crystal,
what's interesting about that? A couple of things. First of all,
the next sentence is literally, I'm thankful for President Trump
getting involved tonight to ensure that we can pass the
Genius Act tomorrow and agreeing again to help us advance

(16:16):
additional crypto legislation in the coming days.

Speaker 4 (16:19):
Much more to come exclamation point.

Speaker 3 (16:22):
So pivoting, I mean, I thought pivoting to crypto was
a ridiculous, look, of course, I mean, I think that
just comes across as ridiculous to a lot of people.

Speaker 4 (16:29):
But also this.

Speaker 3 (16:32):
Them saying we're punting to trusting Donald Trump. It's something
that we've covered over the last couple of days, and
it is not going to be enough for their critics
in any way whatsoever to just say we don't have
to do anything in Congress because Republicans in Congress trust
Donald Trump. That's if that's right, that's the party line

(16:54):
that they're landing on.

Speaker 4 (16:55):
That's going to be a tough one.

Speaker 2 (16:57):
Yeah, I know, that seems like where they are is
they'll say on one side of their mouth, I believe
in transparency, and on the other side, they'll say, but
I trust Trump, and Trump is obviously against transparency at
this point in time, but increasingly I just trust Trump
is where they are landing, and certainly where they we
know from reporting, the White House is telling people that's

(17:18):
where you need to be. Stop undercutting Pam Bondy, stop
criticizing Dan and Cash, stop with your even talking about this.
If you're still talking about this, you are a bad person,
and you're giving cover to Obama and Crooked Hillary and
Jim Comey somehow, who allegedly now wrote the Epstein files,
like it's just preposterous. So I think that is where

(17:40):
congressional Republicans are hoping. They're hoping this all just sort
of goes away and dies down. And now on the
other side, you've got a partisan motivation from Democrats, who,
I think it's fair to today showed very little at
the congressional level. I think I think this has not
been a left right issue at the level of the
American people. It has become a right wing coded issue

(18:02):
because it was sort of like lumped in with the
QAnon bucket, even though that is you know, wildly unfair.
But there was mass public interest across the board, regardless
of political ideology, as one would expect with you know,
such a horrific and potentially consequential situation. But it's certainly
fair to say Democrats and conversations showed too much interest
when it was Biden the White House. But now they

(18:23):
have they smell blood in the water and they have
a partisan interest in doing everything they can to keep
this thing going. And so Rocanna, you know, was first
out of the gates with that amendment that got voted
down nearly a party line vote. There was actually one
Republican who crossed over I forgetting his name, who crossed
over and voted alongside with Rowe. Otherwise it was a

(18:44):
party line vote, and you know, we talked to him, anster.
He said, no, we're not letting this go. I'm not
letting this go. He's working with Thomas Massey to move forward.
Massi's already on the ounce, and so he's already in
yolow mode, you know, having millions dropped on him in
a primary challenge whatever. So I don't expect there to
be a let up for a while, especially since Trump

(19:07):
keeps like strisand affecting himself to death on this one.
Every time he makes some new preposterous comment. You know,
it gives everyone an excuse to continue talking about it,
and as they should, because as I said, like, it
can be easy to dismiss this as oh he will,
he's dad, why do you even care, blah blah blah,
But it has potential current consequences for our foreign policy,

(19:29):
not to mention having a system of justice that is
not two tier where elites can just get away with
the most horrific crimes imaginable and have it swept under
the rug.

Speaker 4 (19:36):
Yeah, that's what I said.

Speaker 3 (19:37):
I mean, I think it's because first of all, current
for current potential foreign policy implications of this. Secondly, you
have this is completely like royaling the administration, So there's
questions about what's happening behind closed doors, whether the Attorney
general is long for this administration, all of those things

(19:58):
completely important sas and the story matters to people as
a sort of proxy question of trust that a lot
of people this was one of the issues that brought
them along to place their trust in Donald Trump. It's
not everyone and it wasn't anyone's top priority for the
most part, but it was one of those things that
said you're an insider versus an outsider. And now Democrats

(20:21):
have all kinds of political incentives to start pursuing a
question that they will be rewarded by voters with trust
if they do a good job holding the Trump administration's
feet to the fire. I actually want to roll a
seven crystal because I mentioned it. It goes along with
Mike Johnson. When Benny Johnson asked House Speaker Mike Johnson

(20:44):
whether or not Gilane Maxwell should testify, he basically said
everything people heard.

Speaker 4 (20:49):
He said, everything should be out there. I'm all for transparancy.

Speaker 3 (20:50):
Attorney General Pam Bondi should come forward and explain herselfs
explain herself and tell us what happened. Mike Lee also
talked to Bennie Johnson yesterday and said Gleaine Maxwell should testify.

Speaker 2 (21:02):
It.

Speaker 4 (21:02):
Let's role a seven. You've been favored of Julayne Maxwell testifying.

Speaker 10 (21:05):
Absolutely absolutely posted on this and if if she were
to testify, I think she could answer a lot of
questions that could help put all of this in perspective. Yeah,
I know a lot of these players, some of them
are disagreeing with each other, Dan Bongio and I have
been really good friends for the last fourteen years, and

(21:25):
good friends with Cash Mattel and also with Pam Bondi.
I like all of them. I think there is a
way to draw a straight line between all of them
in a way that will satisfy the publics both curiosity
and legitimate demand to know what happened.

Speaker 3 (21:40):
Okay, So Republicans control the House and the Senate and
of course the Presidency as well, so ball is in
their court. It's in the court of Republican leadership to
make some of this happen.

Speaker 2 (21:51):
Yeah, and there's some interesting things going on with Gallaine
Maxwell right at this point, because she had an appeal
all the way up to the Supreme Court that had
gotten sort of pushed off till now where the government
had to respond to how they were handling this appeal.
And basically, I mean, it's like, like, this woman is

(22:12):
a horrifying sex criminal and implicated in every way in
this web of you know, like a pyramid scheme of
pedophilia and molestation. She should justifiably to spend the rest
of her life in prison. But what she's saying is, hey,
you guys, the government made this sweetheart deal with Jeffrey
Epstein down in Florida under Alex Acosta, who of course

(22:36):
ends up being Trump's labor secretary. Part of that deal
was that all of the co conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein
are off the hook forever. And I was one of
those co conspirators. So how can you really prosecute me?
How can you throw me in prison when you guys
agreed to this deal that said anyone who was affiliated
with that Stein and implicated in these crimes was off

(22:58):
the hook. So that's the appeal that she's making the
Supreme courtive. We got an interesting statement from her family
that we can put up on the screen here. They say,
our sister Glaine did not receive a fair trial. Her
legal team continues to fight her case in the courts
and will file its reply in short order the government's
opposition in the US Supreme Court if necessary. In due course,
they'll also file a writ of habeas corpus in the U.

(23:20):
S District Court SDN. Why This allows her to challenge
her imprisonment on the basis of new evidence, such as
government misconduct that would have likely changed the trial's outcome.
Following the government's response, David Oscar Marcus, Council of Record
for our sister and her petition of the US Supreme Court,
had this comment quote, I'd be surprised if President Trump
knew his lawyers were asked in the Supreme Court to

(23:40):
let the government break a deal. And this is in
reference to that sweetheart deal that alex acostamide. He's the
ultimate deal maker, and I'm sure he'd agree that when
the US gives its word, it should keep it. With
all the talk about who's being prosecuted and who isn't,
it's especially unfair that Gleainne Maxwell remains in prison based
on a prompt the US government made and broke. These

(24:02):
are sentiments, the family says, with which we profoundly concur
so a sort of direct appeal there to Trump himself, who,
of course, we played you know, some of the footage
from yesterday. Whenever he's gotten asked about Glaide Maxwell and
what he wants to happen for her trial, for her
being in prison, he always says, well, I wish her well.
And we also have you know reporting that allegedly he

(24:24):
was considering a pardon for her because he was concerned
about what potential information she may have.

Speaker 3 (24:30):
Yeah, this is a really interesting development because if she
can successfully make this case and people have questions I
think rightfully about the way her trial was conducted, not
because it was too harsh on Gallaide Maxwell and too
focused on locking her up, but rather than the other directions.
So either way, if she's able to get this taken seriously,

(24:53):
that this opens up a lot. And it actually comports
with the story in The Daily Mail that we covered
earlier this week Crystal about how Glaine Maxwell is telegraphing
through an anonymous source to the Daily Mail that she
would be willing to talk. Again, you have to take
it with a giant grain of salt, but it seems
more and more like this is actually plausible that we

(25:15):
would start to hear directly from her.

Speaker 4 (25:18):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (25:18):
Well, I mean, if she does have some damaging information
about the president, it's an intelligent chess move because if
she's she's obviously looking to posture to try to get
that pardon from Trump. And so this is sort of
the threat of hey, I could I could testify to
Congress and you know, right now, sure Republicans have control

(25:39):
of the House in the Senate, but very very I
would say, likely after the midterms, Democrats are going to
at least have control of the House. So you know,
that opens up a whole other world of possibilities. And
so I think there's some you know, some some tactical
chess playing going on here from the Glaine Maxwell side.
And the last thing I'll say about this, this is

(26:00):
just underscores how absolutely absurdly, outrageously disgusting that sweetheart deal
was that it would even be theoretically possible that this
woman could get off the hook because of this deal
that was made. And just so people recall, I mean,
Epstein got a slap on the wrist, you know it
was the charges were pretty minor charges. He served a

(26:21):
sentence out being able to leave on quote unquote work
release for twelve hours a day where he was able
to go and do whatever he wanted. I think he
served about thirteen months on that cushy work release situation
where his cell door was open, he had a TV,
he could come and go, and then after thirteen months
he just was out. I mean, he reporting suggests that

(26:44):
even though he was supposed to be just in his
house like under you know, home confinement, he was traveling
the world and right back to doing everything that he
wanted to do. And when the law enforcement like maybe
that I'm not sure if it was the FBI. I
don't want to implicate the wrong law enforcement agency here,
but when they were told, Hey, this guy is leaving,
he's not staying on home confinement, they were like, Ah,

(27:05):
he's a celebrity. What can we do, He's a celebrity,
what can we do?

Speaker 3 (27:08):
Many such cases, indeed, many such cases sadly, So let's
take a look at a nine.

Speaker 4 (27:15):
This is Scott Jennings. Crystal.

Speaker 3 (27:18):
We were talking about how some people who are sort
of in situations where, yeah, I feel like you can
tell people who just don't care about Epstein, like they
think it's a weird conspiracy theory and it's not something
that's on the radar that they've spent a great deal
of time take thinking about, and now they're forced to
kind of talk about it a lot over the course
of the last week.

Speaker 4 (27:38):
On TV or radio or wherever.

Speaker 3 (27:40):
And I think maybe you could put Scott Jennings in
that category. And here's where Scott Jennings and other Republicans
are landing.

Speaker 4 (27:47):
This is a nine.

Speaker 11 (27:48):
I think it as an article of faith for many
years that what was that, you know, that the idea
that there's information that we're not seeing as the general public,
and people said that brought into it. And so Donald
Trump wins the election. He appoints Pam Bondi, he appoints
Dan Bungino, he points Cash Ptel. These are all people
that this same audience has, you know, confidence in, We

(28:09):
trust their judgment, and I think it's just hard sometimes
to believe something for a long time and then be told,
you know what, what we believed is not the case.
There are certainly people that have legitimate questions about what happened.
I mean, I've heard now two lawyers, both your guest
tonight and Arthur Idolla, who I was on with Friday night,
both raised questions about whether they believe he even committed suicide.
So you can see they're actually, you know, in the

(28:32):
no people who are still raising legitimate questions about this case.
So you can see why the general public would also
have those questions. At the same time, you know, if
you vote for Donald Trump and you have trust in
his judgment and the people he's appointed, at some point
you have to trust their judgment. I mean, you put
them in charge of this, and I think what Doug
said is important to know the Biden people had this stuff,
if there was something incriminating about trumpet would have come out.

(28:53):
And also, now the Trump people have this stuff, and
there's something incriminating about you know, Bill Gates or Bill Clinton,
it would certainly have come out. And so I guess
it's some juncture. If you trust the people that you
voted for, you trust the people that you voted for.

Speaker 3 (29:05):
Just quickly on that point, Crystal, I've heard it a
couple of times that if the Biden administration had something
on Donald Trump, don't you think it would have come out.
That's a line actually that a lot of Republicans have
used in recent days, and I think you can logically
it's like, okay, and maybe there's something to that, but
then it's like, actually there. I mean, these political elite

(29:26):
circles are fairly small, and it's possible that whatever implicated
Donald Trump would also implicate Democratic donors, would also implicate
power brokers who are in dem circle, as Donald Trump
himself was in like dem powerbroker circles in the eighties
and nineties, Like he was somebody who was giving money
to Democrats. So it's actually there's I see why they're

(29:49):
rolling with that line. But if there's a bunch of
information in the files that are devastating for the Clintons
at the same time that they're devastating to Donald Trump potentially,
that to me actually doesn't make a lot of sense.

Speaker 2 (30:04):
Well, not to mention if it is in fact a
Masad blackmail ring operation, yeah then yeah, Joe Biden is
not going to be part of exposing that, right because
he's died in the woul Zionist So I think there are.

Speaker 3 (30:16):
Even if and this is the point that even if
it is what they always thought, they hadn't the steels
us yea, even if it's like Trump doing something disgusting
and whatever, they're still we've talked about this. They're still
being asked to say, if you're you know, Biden, and
you are an establishment Democrat and you are thinking you
protect Macad and protect the state of Israel, or you

(30:39):
expose Donald Trump doing something sexually horrifying, they're going to
choose in one direction over the other, even though that
seems insane given all of the different political maneuvers they took.
It's just a question of like their personal cost benefit analysis,
and I actually feel like we know where they come
down on that when we're talking talking about like potential

(31:01):
nuclear war, world affairs, and foreign policy.

Speaker 2 (31:04):
Joe Biden was willing to lose his reelection in order
to continue backing Israel's genocide. There's apparently nothing that he's
not willing to do for that country. And so I
don't think it's hard to you know, I don't think
it's hard to imagine that if that, in fact is
the truth of what's going on here, that yeah, he
would not be the one to expose that. And it's

(31:25):
also worth remembering too, I mean, Joe Biden was in
Washington for a long ass time before he was president
in the United States, including in the capacity or in
the capacity as Vice president of the United States. So
I don't it's very plausible that he, you know, has
known the truth of what is going on there for
a long time and also wouldn't want it exposed. That

(31:45):
you know, nobody has ever like he didn't show up
in the flight logs or anything. But perhaps he's implicated
in terms of knowing for a while that this was
the truth of what was going on. Now this is
all you know? Now I'm really getting out there in
terms of speculation land. But I'm just trying to make
the point that it's not hard to imagine a set
of circumstances in which Joe Biden is also not interested
in exposing the truth of what's going on here, and

(32:08):
where he would himself take on some political damage for
doing so, or at the very least undercut his favorite
national ally.

Speaker 3 (32:20):
Joe Rogan reacted to this fiasco from the Trump administration
in recent days where there's just been a seesaw ping
pong back and forth. What is actually going on? What
they said was going on? And let's take a look
at how Rogan reacted to the chaos in recent days.

Speaker 4 (32:39):
We can roll this a ten.

Speaker 7 (32:41):
They've got videotape and all of a sudden, they don't
you know, you have the director of the FBI on
this show saying there's no ta if there was nothing
you're looking for is on those tapes?

Speaker 12 (32:51):
Like what?

Speaker 7 (32:51):
Why did they say there was thousands of hours of
tapes of people doing horrible shit? Why did they say that?

Speaker 6 (32:57):
Right?

Speaker 7 (32:58):
Didn't Pam BONDI say.

Speaker 2 (32:59):
That what you're talking about? Epstein?

Speaker 4 (33:01):
Ord?

Speaker 7 (33:01):
Yeah, Epstein, Yeah, she said it.

Speaker 4 (33:03):
Literally.

Speaker 11 (33:03):
I think a week before, you had the FBI director
sitting here taught telling you there was nothing right.

Speaker 7 (33:07):
She said something about that there was like thousands of
hours of tapes of people doing horrible crime.

Speaker 2 (33:12):
There is, And didn't the FBI dude say that there
was nothing?

Speaker 7 (33:16):
Cash betells that there's nothing you looking for? Oh okay, okay,
I mean, what am I gonna do? I'm gonna push back. No,
of course, obviously he's saying what he has to say.
Mystery surrounds the Jeffrey Epstein files after Bondi claims tens
of thousands of videos tens of thousands, Jesus Christ, I'll
tell you what.

Speaker 13 (33:36):
Chill.

Speaker 7 (33:37):
Oh my god, was reviewing tens of thousands of videos
the wealthy financial financier with children or child porn. The
comment meant made the reporters of the White House days
after a similar remark to a stranger with a hidden
camera raised the stakes for President Donald Trump's administration to
prove it has in its possession previously unseen compelling documents

(33:58):
or just bar and everybody forgets just bombing ran, Yeah,
everybody forgets about it.

Speaker 4 (34:03):
Krystal, what do you make of that?

Speaker 2 (34:05):
Well, that last piece, I'm fearful he may be correct
about because you know, I think it's entirely possible that
Trump does do something wild, like potentially Bombaran or something
equivalent in order to get people to change focus, because
that is his that is his approach. But yeah, I
mean someone like Rogan, I think the the bro podcasters,

(34:26):
they are not going to be on board for this
level of gaslighting on something that they also, you know,
we're focused on for a long time. Now does that
make a full turn on Trump? We know that Joe
just had dinner with Trump and express some concerns about
the direction with regard to the immigration policy, concerns that
were apparently immediately ignored. But you know, I think people

(34:47):
who are die hard maga Republicans are likely ultimately gonna
buy the like, we just got to trust Trump because
he's Trump and that's who we voted for and this
is our guy. But I think people who are more
in the sort of like independent and they voted for
Trump for the first time or you know whatever, or
less like die hard maga cultist, I think this really

(35:11):
does speak to this administration is not going the way
I thought. This man is not the man I hoped
he would be. This cuts so hard against his I'm
the outsider posture, which, of course, you know, I've always
thought his positioning himself as an outsider was sort of preposterous.
But that is the way that he positioned himself, and
that is the way that he was able to gain

(35:33):
so much traction. And this, for anyone who has their
eyes open, just utterly destroys that positioning. We played with
sagera on Monday. I don't know if you saw this
guy at the TPUSA conference who was talking to Steve
Bannon and he was like, Trump is the deep state.
Now he is the deep state? And Bannon was like what.
But there are going to be some number of people

(35:54):
who just feel completely jaded, And I think it probably
gets channeled into a significant amount of nihilism if there
isn't an eating political project that people really can believe in.

Speaker 4 (36:04):
You know, I have a couple of thoughts on that one.

Speaker 3 (36:06):
Is there are I mean, yes, like some hardcore MAGA people.
We played the Scott Jennings clip earlier. I wouldn't consider
him hardcore magacas. It comes from McConnell world.

Speaker 2 (36:15):
Yeah, it's a Mitch McConnell guy. He's but he's just
gonna do what he needs to do.

Speaker 3 (36:18):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, like Norman Republicans who embrace Maga now
either just like we're moving on, it's trusted. It's about
trusting Trump, like a Mike Johnson's, Scott Jennings, those types
of guys moving in that direction. On the other hand,
I don't think we should discount that some of these podcasters.
I'm not talking about Rogan. We have a canvas Owen's

(36:40):
clip that we're about to play. But I think some
of these podcasters have put significant personal like the personal
reputational stakes on the line for years about Epstein. They
know there's hours of them talking about on the Internet,
and even just like from a cynical, calculated perspective, they

(37:01):
are like aware that they have to keep on the
same consistent point about Jeffrey Epstein. Otherwise they I mean,
it's just it's too glaring of it's too glaring of
a contrast.

Speaker 4 (37:16):
So I think there is something to be said for that.
I think even like Benny.

Speaker 3 (37:22):
Benny is an example who has been on the Epstein
case like a dog with a bone for years, and
let's just say, from a cynical perspective, Benny was like
this is bad for the Trump administration. I really love
Donald Trump. I've always trusted Donald Trump. Now there are
like weeks, months, years of tapes of him talking about

(37:45):
how serious the Epstein case was in very specific terms,
about why Democrats and why the FBI, why the Feds
don't want more information to come out. So it just
also is like, I just don't think people on the
outside should underestimate how powerful that is because it has
been such a fixture of the podcast world.

Speaker 4 (38:08):
And that's also why in substance it.

Speaker 3 (38:11):
Matters to people, because it has been seen rightfully as
the ultimate proxy issue of the insider versus outsider dynamic
and NBC News talk to a girl at the Turning
Point summit who said it exactly like that, basically put
it exactly in those terms, just saying I thought he
was the outsider.

Speaker 4 (38:30):
Now it looks like he's protecting the insiders.

Speaker 3 (38:32):
Trump pitched himself as this outsider who was the most
compelling outsider because he was also kind of an insider
who knew where the bodies were buried and would know,
you know, where to look, and would be able to
direct people to say, transparency here, transparency there, and again,
you know, you and I can debate whether or not

(38:52):
that was ever plausible or legitimate. But people who work
in jobs that don't involve doing what we do and
like obsessing over the stuff because they have normal, wonderful lives,
are like, Okay, this.

Speaker 4 (39:06):
Guy is right.

Speaker 3 (39:08):
He tells me that I shouldn't trust any of these
other people, and that's correct. He is correctly saying you
can't trust the Clintons, you can't trust the Bidens, you
can't trust the Bushes. And because he earned people's trust
by saying correctly that they couldn't trust those people, some
people just by default put their trust in Donald Trump.

(39:28):
And this is something that actually undermines that very pitch
from him about why you should trust him and not them.

Speaker 2 (39:37):
Well, and that's why I call it as another sort
of humiliation ritual. It really is another test how far
will you go? Do you have any principles? Do you
have any consistency? You know, you've got hours of tape
out there of you saying this is a big deal
and this is the cover up, and we have to
get to the truth of what's going on, and there's
you know, this is an elites sex crimes ring where

(39:58):
powerful people have been and you know, skating by and
we need accountability and we need justice. Can I get
you two over the course of a week, just turn
on a dime and repudiate all that and say I
trust Trump. The other thing it makes me think of
Emily and I wonder if you see any parallels here
as well, is go way back to grab or by
the pussy, where Republicans at that time had been posturing

(40:22):
for years, really going back to the Clinton impeachment of
like morals and character in a presidential candidate matters. You know,
we are the ethical party of family values, and you've
got Mike Pence on the ticket, who is like the
emblem of that sort of you know, evangelical Christian coalition

(40:46):
and the you know, importance of family values. And they
go to all these family values conferences every year and
it's like, all right, here's your guy, what are you
gonna do? And there was turmoil, you know, I mean,
this is at a time when it looked like Trump
was going to get wallopped by Hillary Clinton. That's what
the poll suggested, was that he was going to go
down in flames. And so that was you know, okay, well,

(41:09):
are you going to push aside, you're decades long supposed
commitment to like morals and ethics, specifically around family values
in a presidential candidate. Are you going to suck it
up and get on board and say this is a
locker room talk and there's nothing to see here and
we know ultimately where they all fell. Now, here's one

(41:30):
thing I will say to your point about what is
a little different. Now. First of all, the media landscape
is completely transformed from that moment. It is not the
same media landscape whatsoever. Second of all, Trump may be
a lame duck. We don't know, but I think many
people probably assume that he only has a few more
years in the presidency and then there's going to be
some post Trump Republican party. I personally think that's actually

(41:52):
foolish to think that that's the case, but I'm sure
many people think that that's the case. Number Three, you
have now a lane sort of like the you know,
the Jimmy Dore lane on the left of like I'm
just going to be critical of everyone all the time
and fu like sort of like a nihilistic lane that
has opened up on the right as well. And Fwent
has is a perfect example of that. And I think

(42:13):
Candice is flirting with that lane as well. And so
in terms of just sort of where can I go
and get an audience, they have demonstrated Fwent has in
particular is demonstrated, and I think Tucker also is starting
to demonstrate that as well, although I question his actual
independence from Trump and will put that aside for the moment.
Fet Do says demonstrate like, oh, you can have an audience,

(42:35):
you can make money, and you can be you know,
influential and have clout without always towing the line. And
so that opens up a new like sort of business
possibility for the podcast, the right wing podcast or world
that didn't necessarily exist before, where it really was just
sort of like you have to support whatever Trump does
and that's your best way to make money, have power,

(42:57):
have influence, have clout, et cetera. So those things do
create some different dynamics than we saw back in twenty sixteen.
But that is what it reminds me of, is that
you know, grabber by the Pussy moment where Republicans were
forced to completely do a one to eighty on their
you know, vociferously held purported longtime values.

Speaker 3 (43:19):
What's interesting about that too is it, I think goes
a long way towards explaining Trump, who's a very media
savvy man, landing on this new line of defense, which
is the files were cooked up by the Biden administration,
by Komy, by the deep state, essentially because the effort
there is to muddy the waters. A lot of these

(43:40):
podcast world people are very sympathetic to Trump in that
sort of quest to take down people, or let's just say,
in his war against like this so called deep state.
And some of this is for legitimate reasons. There was
a lot of funny business going on, and we've covered
a lot of it here, so they're already kind of

(44:02):
primed to see that as true, to believe that is
true because of the last decade. And that means if
Donald Trump is sort of he thinks he can plant
that seed money the waters and say, hey, maybe actually
this is all coming from the deep state. It's something
that Alex Jones was talking about a little bit last week,

(44:23):
saying that he saw, and we're gonna get to Alex
Jones in just a moment, he saw a possibility and
evidence of the situation where Trump was in control of
the Epstein dirt and using that to control the deep state.
He was sort of reversed blackmailing the deep state with

(44:43):
his Epstein information.

Speaker 2 (44:44):
And classic eight.

Speaker 4 (44:49):
Let's actually get to a twelve here.

Speaker 3 (44:51):
This is more reaction from Alex Jones, who has really
been going through it in the last week.

Speaker 12 (44:58):
I'm getting really concerned and here at this point because
the flip flopping and the one eightying and then going
back and going back is just the biggest train wrack
I've ever seen. And it's not in character for you
to be acting like this. So we want your agenda succeed.
I've done deep research every soody involved with Epstein in
criminal activity, So why are you acting like this. You've
made a deal with the establishment to leave you alone?

(45:20):
Have they rolled over US intelligence we know is involved
besides CIA and I six We already know that. But
instead you just continue to say nothing to see here
and move along though, go ahead and release information, but
there's no information, release contradition or contradiction, flip flopping and
a flip flopping one eight one eighties on one eighties. Jesus,
I'm on a roller coaster here. And then oh, it's

(45:42):
only fake news is concerned? Oh, like MGG and duck
or Carlson and myself and Joe Rogan and the American people.
This is something that finally got our attention. People finally
woke up to this. PEO will finally understand, you know,
a winno in the deep state with all this, and
so you signing on to this and flip flopping. Is
this self harming? I mean, please, President Trump stop, if

(46:05):
you want it to go away, just be quiet. It's suck.
There's a gun to his head saying you better come
out and say no, this exists or we'll release it.
It's bad. It's getting works by the minute. And I
support you, but we built the movement you wrote in on.
You're not the move but you just surfed in on it.
And I'm telling you, man, the Democrats we know are
pure well, my god, they promote pedophilia and everything openly.

(46:28):
So why the hell are you acting like this? Please
stop now.

Speaker 3 (46:32):
So Crystal, let's go ahead and roll candas owns as well,
and then break down what we're seeing for both of them.

Speaker 14 (46:38):
This is a eleven nothing to see here. Jeffrey Epstein.
You see, we're not saying that you're guilty, but you
are right now guilty of gaslighting the public. We're not
saying that you are in the files, and again, I
would like to trust I certainly don't believe that, but
it is very clear that you are not calling the
shots on the Jeffrey Epstein tobackle, and you're essentially being
used to try to contry control the public reaction to

(47:02):
those files not being released. What is happening now is
it seems like you think your base is stupid.

Speaker 4 (47:08):
That's how I feel.

Speaker 14 (47:09):
I feel like Trump thinks his base is stupid. Or again,
because I don't think he's pressing send on these messages,
the people around him certainly think that Trump is stupid
and that shouldn't survive. Surprise you, given the fact that
all of these people were never Trump, and they think,
as they thought that Trump was too stupid to be president,
that his base is too stupid to see through the

(47:30):
lies that they are telling right now.

Speaker 4 (47:33):
And so what are they gonna do?

Speaker 14 (47:34):
What is the last thing they're gonna do now with
the Epstein stuff while we're still reacting to it. Oh, operation,
just give them more war? Yeah, war as a distraction.
Never mind, we can't talk about Epstein because guys, guess,
while look at this headline Trump announces an aggressive or
Trump is too announced an aggressive Ukraine weapons plan. Yeah,
he already indicated that in that same press conference that
there's just gonna be more weapons sent to Ukraine. They're

(47:57):
gonna attack Rush. Now we're just gonna have to have
a world war and another reset. I guess do you
guys just stop talking about Jeffrey Epstein.

Speaker 4 (48:06):
And I am telling.

Speaker 14 (48:06):
You that I will be the very last person that
will stop talking about Jeffrey Epstein when it comes to children.
I'm telling you, guys, the left and the right, we
have definitely got to come together on this and not
let it go.

Speaker 3 (48:18):
So there you go, the very last person will stop
talking about Jeffrey Epstein, one of Donald Trump's s Dodger supporters.

Speaker 2 (48:26):
Yeah, And it's interesting she and Rogan Book come to
the same like, Oh, I guess they're just gonna, you know,
start another war or escalate some of the wards we're
already involved with to distract from this. And it's a
clever point that Candace makes there to say, there are
like that's already happening. And we covered, of course, the
Ukraine escalation yesterday and Trump's clansorship these long range weapons

(48:48):
and the fact that apparently he asked Lensky and it
was leaked to askes Lensky like, hey, can you hit Moscow?
Can you hate hit Saint Petersburg? So I think that's
a that's a savvy point that Candace is ultimately making there.
I can't help but notice so Emily, she's still like
he's being controlled, Like it's never him who's the actor,
it's who's controlling you. And same thing with Alex Jones,

(49:09):
Like Alex seems genuinely tortured. You know, we played that
video where he was crying and he said he was
gonna puke, Like I believe him. I believe that he
probably vomited and is like genuinely tortured over what the
fuck here? Because he is the conspira. He is the
og conspiracy guy, right, And so for Trump to completely
flip on Epstein and say you are a bad person

(49:30):
if you still are talking about this, and to put
out there this most outlandish explanation that it was Obama
who wrote the Epstein files, which just doesn't even make
any sense. Alex is trying to reckon with this in
some way that doesn't lead to the conclusion, Oh Trump
is implicated in these files. He always says the same

(49:52):
thing of like I did deep research, and I know
there's nothing there in terms of you and kids. But
you know, if it was any Democrat, actually, if it
was anyone other than Trump, even another Republican, he would
come to the obvious conclusion, you're trying to cover something up.
That must look really bad for you. Because and that's
why he's so tortured and wrapping himself around this thing,

(50:14):
because how you look at the fact pattern and not
come to the conclusion as a culture was hinting at like, oh,
maybe there is some there there, because otherwise, why are
you behaving in this completely preposterous way? And Nowlex Jones
is begging him not even to This is also interesting
to me. He's not even begging him at this point
release the files. He's just begging him to stop stop

(50:35):
talking about it, stop doing what you're doing, Like just
please stop, which is kind of wild. You would think that,
you know, he would be calling for the release of
the files, but you know, just please stop talking about this.
You're just drawing more attention to You're just making things worse, Like,
just stop everything that you're doing right now. And so
it's it's pretty wild to it's pretty wild to behold.
But there's no doubt if it was certainly any Democrat,

(50:59):
he and you know, the whole cast of characters would
immediately go, oh, they're guilty. That's why they're behaving this way.
That is the most logical explanation.

Speaker 4 (51:08):
I mean, people are getting closer.

Speaker 3 (51:10):
People that side of it are getting closer and closer
to thinking that. And your point about Sager saying, you know,
I never thought there was any there there with Trump
and Epstein. I still think it's probably likely that Trump
is covering up for someone close to him rather than
him himself. But the more that he talks this is
what Alex Jones is getting at, the more absurd and

(51:31):
desperate he looks, and that is suspicious.

Speaker 4 (51:36):
Of course, it's suspicial.

Speaker 3 (51:37):
I mean everything around Trump and Epstein is already suspicious enough.
But yeah, I mean, it's just it's gonna get the
Donald Trump that they're painting a portrait of, whether it's
Alex Jones or Candice Owens or Joe Rogan.

Speaker 4 (51:52):
Actually, it is so.

Speaker 3 (51:55):
Incredibly dark, this idea that you would have a president
who says he's going to drain the swamp and purge corruption,
who is hiding covering up for political elites in the
case of a sex predator in order to protect himself.

(52:17):
And then you're deflecting by sending more weapons into a
conflict that he also said he would get elected to end.

Speaker 4 (52:26):
I mean, that is what they are.

Speaker 3 (52:28):
The portrait that they're painting for their listeners is an
incredibly dark and powerful Wan.

Speaker 4 (52:34):
Crystal.

Speaker 3 (52:35):
That's probably a good note on which to transition to
the politics of all of this. We have numbers, So
let's put a five on the screen. This is new
polling data. Should the government release all documents related to
the Epstein case.

Speaker 4 (52:48):
This is from you gov. Yes.

Speaker 3 (52:50):
Seventy nine percent, No, five percent.

Speaker 4 (52:54):
It's not even close.

Speaker 2 (52:56):
Those seventy nine percent all bad people, emily bad people.
The only noble ones are the five percent to say no,
and most of them are apparently like in Congress, Republican
members of Congress.

Speaker 3 (53:08):
Yeah, and here's Harry Enton going through some pulling numbers
on CNN A six.

Speaker 13 (53:15):
Take a look here Epstein case. Amount of info release
the winner here, fifty percent dissatisfied doesn't matter, twenty nine
percent not hurd enough, seventeen second but look at the
bottom of your screen. The percentage that are satisfied is
just three percent. That's one, that's two, That is just
three percent. I feel like the count on Sesame Street.
Just three percent of Americans are satisfied so far with

(53:37):
the amount of information release. The clear winner in this
particular case is fifty percent. Half of the public is dissatisfied,
at least so far. You see this, fifty percent dissatisfied.
And let's break it down by party, Okay, Epstein case
amount of info release.

Speaker 4 (53:53):
Look at this.

Speaker 13 (53:53):
You get forty three percent of lean GOP. That's Republicans
and independents who lean towards the Republican Party who are dissatisfied.
Look this, just four percent satisfied. My goodness, gracious, when
you only a four percent that is with Donald Trump
on a particular issue, that is ridiculously low. I've never
seen anything quite like it. How about lean Democrat sixty
percent dissatisfied. Compare that to three percent who are satisfied

(54:17):
again four percent, three percent Republican Democrat. You rarely ever
see this type of agreement whites with a college degree,
whites without a college degree. But in this particular case,
we see agreement. What are we talking about this Epstein
case amount of info release dissatisfied. Fifty five percent of
white college graduates and fifty three of white non college
graduates Donald Trump's historic base, yet the majority are dissatisfied.

Speaker 2 (54:39):
Look at Donald Trump uniting the country, healing the grand
education divide. Look at that, Emily.

Speaker 4 (54:47):
One of the numbers of it.

Speaker 3 (54:48):
Enton didn't mention specifically, but was on the screen you
could see.

Speaker 4 (54:51):
Was most interesting to me.

Speaker 3 (54:53):
Twenty nine percent of people saying that it doesn't matter.

Speaker 4 (54:56):
Right.

Speaker 3 (54:57):
So if that number were higher than Trump would be
able to get away with this right like Trump could.
There are all kinds of things that don't matter to voters.
They might disagree with the president on, but it doesn't
really matter. You know, we're not talking right now about
Donald Trump's position on abortion at all. It's not like
the high priority for many voters at this given moment.

Speaker 4 (55:17):
Or let's say Donald Trump disagrees on like the Jones Act.

Speaker 3 (55:21):
You can show all of these scary poll numbers about
how voters are in total disagreement with Donald Trump on
the Jones Act.

Speaker 4 (55:27):
Nobody cares about the Jones Act.

Speaker 2 (55:29):
So when you aukus, are you an August voter.

Speaker 3 (55:32):
Yes, yes, you know, Siier probably cares a lot about
the Jones Act. But twenty nine percent of people saying
doesn't matter. Wow, Like that's that number is is a
bit low for the comfort of the Republican Party.

Speaker 2 (55:46):
I'm actually curious for some more polling about how closely
people have been and are following the Epstein case, because
in some ways it does feel like kind of an
Internet phenomenon, and certain it has been podcasters who have
most focused on it and delved into it and explored
the various avenues you know, mainstream media. Basically, once he

(56:09):
was dead, just sort of dropped it like a hot
potato and there wasn't a lot of additional reporting, et cetera.
Some may say that was the point in any case,
It has been largely a sort of podcast phenomenon, but
because it touches on some of these core themes of
just like do you trust this guy? You know, did
he Is he a con man? Which of course I
think he is. I've always thought that he was, but

(56:31):
you know, he presented himself as a soundsider. Is he
really that? Or was this all just you know, a
giant con of the American people? And most directly of
his own supporters. So because and also look, it's you know,
it's sort in tawdry, and those things also grab people's attention.
So I have a feeling that there is a lot

(56:54):
of significant, normy public interest in this, and I but
I you know, I don't have a strong feeling about
i'mus to see more numbers as to just how closely
people are following this, just what they make of it,
just how important they think it is, and we'll see
over time how it impacts his approval rating. You know,
Like I said before, I don't think that this causes

(57:14):
MAGA to the mega base, right, I think they'll still
be there. I think, you know, Dinash Desuza and others
who have this like, oh, but let's focus on the
great work he's doing, like you know, imprisoning people in
Alligator Alcatraz or whatever. I think that will probably be
successful with most of his base, because it's certainly not

(57:36):
the first time he's been caught any blatant hypocrisy. It's
not even the first time, like this month, that he's
been caught in a blatant hypocrisy. But for independence, you know,
I think he'll probably start rapidly receding towards his floor,
like the type of numbers that we saw, you know,
after January sixth, for example. I don't know it will
get quite that low, but I think we'll start heading

(57:58):
more in that direction. I know that I saw already
pull numbers of his approval ratings declining significantly on this
because it just does really cut against the identity that
he's tried to forge for himself in politics.

Speaker 3 (58:09):
Yeah, there's one final thought I have. Some smart analysts
of the Biden presidency were looking at his favorability in
his numbers, and after the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, which by
the way, in principle most Americans agreed with getting out
of Afghanistan, Biden's poll numbers never really recovered from that moment.
That's sort of like when things in terms of the

(58:31):
politics started to go downhill for Joe Biden. And you
could potentially make the case that this is possibly a
parallel moment for Donald Trump. It's one of those things
where you just lose trust, and once you lose trust,
and you look, I mean, we were talking about the
humiliation rituals that Donald Trump likes to put his deputies
through but it's humiliating for Donald Trump to and he

(58:53):
doesn't see it this way, of course, but to talk
such a tough game about the deep state and transparency
in draining the swamp, and then to be a guy
who comes out there and can't get tough on the
Epstein case, the case that most people want, the case
that's most important to people who want toughness from a

(59:14):
outsider president or outsider president who pledged to take on
the swamp. So that I actually think that is sort
of a humiliating moment for Trump, and I do wonder
if it causes trust with you know, five percent, even
of people who generally give him the benefit of the doubt.
It's one of those things where it's a proxy issue.

Speaker 4 (59:36):
It just I sensed actually, the Republican Study.

Speaker 3 (59:41):
Committee did a new media row yesterday and I was talking,
So I was talking to a bunch of members, and
I got the sense from them that they know their
districts care about this, and they know people are going
to ask them about this, they know they're going to
actual answer questions about it, and so Trump is not
really going be able to hand wave it away, not

(01:00:02):
just because of how Alex Jens and Candazans are reacting,
but also because it's going to stick.

Speaker 4 (01:00:07):
In the minds of regular people.

Speaker 2 (01:00:09):
Yeah, and you know, Trump is a political taflon and
is able to write out a bunch of crises and
already has written out a bunch of CRISI but there's
been massive blowback against the Republican Party in midterm elections,
in particular as a consequence of things that he has
done that has sung the party's chances. So when you

(01:00:30):
think about the midterm elections, which is still a ways
down the road, we're going to have eighty five more
like scandals and outrageous things happen, wars and whatever the
hell we're going to see over the next year and
a half. But between now and then. But this is
the sort of thing that contributes to apathy amongst your base,
where I may you know, they may still say, yes,
I approve of what he's doing, and I'm glad he's

(01:00:50):
in there, and I trust my guy. Am I going
to go out and vote for this Republican member of
Congress who voted against the release of the Epstein files.
Maybe not, Maybe I'll just maybe have got other things
going on on that day. It only takes a couple
points of depressed turnout on the Republican side to really
remake the landscape in terms of, you know what those
midterm elections ultimately look like.

Speaker 3 (01:01:09):
And you know, nobody really agrees that Jeffrey Epstein like
that there's no there there.

Speaker 4 (01:01:13):
I mean, everyone pretty much is like, right, yeah, this
is this is suspicious.

Speaker 3 (01:01:16):
So it's not like there are people in Trump's camp
who are like, you know, I bet, I bet it's
all on the up and up, and you know, like.

Speaker 4 (01:01:23):
That just doesn't even know that doesn't make sense.

Speaker 3 (01:01:25):
And now Trump has introduced this other scandal like that
he was framed by the Biden administration, you know, James
Comey to be implicated in Epstein, which is this is
significant allegation.

Speaker 4 (01:01:34):
So he's yeah open.

Speaker 3 (01:01:36):
That's why Alex Jones is like, dude, stop because now
there's this basically fabricated out of thin air new theory, uh,
that Trump is using to kind of muddy the waters.

Speaker 5 (01:01:46):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (01:01:47):
And maybe there's something too, I mean, maybe they did
if you were a partisan operation and you knew that
there was stuff on the other guy to prevent it
from being released. If Democrats are implicated, you might point
the face at him and leave the files in such
a way that points right like there could be truth
to it, But the idea that they are the only
ones who cooked up the Epstein theory is obviously.

Speaker 2 (01:02:08):
Not true well, and also it's not what the administration
was saying five seconds ago when they were like, there
are no files and there is no client list, and
the case is closed and we need to move on.
If you uncovered this giant conspiracy where Democrats wrote you
into the Ebstein files and deleted themselves or whatever the
fuck he's arguing, even then, why don't you reveal that
instead of saying there's nothing to see here and everyone

(01:02:31):
should move on, and you're a bad person if you don't.
So there's that glaring problem with that theory as well.
And the last thing I'll say about this, Emily is
the people who are backing him up the hardest are
like the Ben Shapiro's, are the pro Israel neocon types.
And that concerns me because not only because of potential
implications there, but it concerns me because of who may

(01:02:54):
gain influence through this. And we all know the people
who come through as like the most loyal servants of
Donald Trump are more likely to get access and favor
and have their viewpoints listened to. And so the fact
that it's the you know, the pro Israel, pro war
faction that may be gaining more power and credibility and
access through all of this is also really concerning to

(01:03:16):
me