July 17, 2025 • 52 mins
Krystal and Saagar discuss Saagar debates Tracey on Epstein and Israel.
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
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 3 (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 3 (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 2 (00:33):
Joining us now for a little friendly Epstein debate in
front of the show. Michael Tracy independent journalist and you
can check him out over at Mtracy dot Nett. Grace Caesar.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
Always a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Yeah see you, Michael.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Absolutely so. I said this before, but I'm even though,
like everybody knows, I'm more on soccer side on this,
but I'm going to try my best to play the
role as neutral moderator so we can have a one
on one and you're not getting just like you know,
teamed up on by both of us on this whole thing.
But you recently wrote an article that takes apart some
of what you described as the Epstein mythology. This is
(01:07):
for Compact mag We can put this up on the screen.
The headline here is the idiocy of the Epstein mythology.
And you've been very vocal on Twitter now x as
well in taking part what you see as some of
the more tenuous theories surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. So before we
dive in, I just I want to sort of level
set with you, Michael of like what do you think
(01:27):
is going on with Trump right now? Like why is
he acting the way that he is around Jeffrey Epstein?
And you know, ran on releasing the files and now
he's not going to release the files and there are
no files and now yes there are files, but they
were written by Obama and screw you. And I don't
even want you to be a supporter if you believe
any of this nonsense. What is your assessment of what
is actually happening here?
Speaker 5 (01:49):
Well, there's no doubt that the Trump administration hasn't roiled
itself in a pr fiasco of its own making.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
I would argue, you.
Speaker 5 (01:58):
Know, I slightly tongue in say at the end of
that article. But I do think that there is a
genuine trafficking conspiracy for people to get upset about. And
it's that so many people in the Trump orbit trafficked
and nonsense for the past several years, namely Cash Battel,
Dan Bongino, et cetera, when they spent their time tantalizing
(02:23):
their followers with these teases about how there was going
to be some explosive revelation once the second Trump administration
got in power and vanquished the deep state, and by
natural extension of that, of course, the quote unquote Epstein
files would be released, because it was the satanic, demonic
(02:44):
Democrats who were for some reason covering up all the damning,
damning information to protect their donors and friends and allies.
Becausecrats in this Cash Patel, Dan Bongino, you know, Rumble Universe,
(03:05):
Imagination are perpetually covering for pedophilic sex trafficking networks. And
Trump was occasionally asked about this when he would go
around on these ass kissing podcasts during the twenty twenty
four campaign, and if you go back and look at
what he said, he would often be a little bit
(03:26):
equivocal or non committal. He would say, yeah, sure, maybe
we'll look into releasing the Epstein files. But it wasn't
as if Trump went around campaigning on this issue of
his own volition. It's just that part of the twenty
twenty four Republican campaign strategy, which I thought was very
clever and effective, was to tailor a message to audiences
(03:51):
who consume this kind of media, meaning the Joe Rogan
Network and kind of related podcast that I would argue
have conspiracism as a sort of habit of mind or
kind of soft ideology. Not that they're wrong, but every
conspiracy theory that they might believe in, but that's just
sort of how they process information. It's like the epistemology.
(04:14):
So these Republican campaigners had the tailor a message to
these people, and Trump just kind of played along with it.
And it was always I think, going to blow up
in their faces once the rubber hit the road and
they were pressed to actually make good on these promises.
Speaker 4 (04:30):
But Trump themself, so let me just really evaded the issue.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Let me just let me just to be really clear
where what your position is. I'll get Soger to respond,
do you believe there's no they're there with regard to
young girls being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Glene Maxwell
to other powerful people, for example, But Clinton, potentially, Donald Trump,
potentially Bill Gates and others. You think there's no there
(04:53):
there with regard to those questions. And do you also
believe there's no there there with regard to potential Intel connections,
whether it's CIA or Masad.
Speaker 5 (05:03):
Yeah, So let me try to spell this out pretty carefully.
I tried to differentiate between what I've been referring to
as Epstein mythology versus the actual factual record when it
comes to Epstein. In the realm of mythology, there exists
this belief and correct me if you guys think I'm wrong.
There exists this widespread belief that a pedophilic sex trafficking
(05:28):
ring has been systematically covered up, and that Jeffrey Eperstein
orchestrated this pedophilic sex trafficking ring by trafficking minors to
prominent third party individuals and then conducted a blackmail operation
(05:48):
to coerce those individuals into silence or complicity or something.
And the idea was that previously the Biden administration was
maliciously covering up this information again to protect the likes
of Bill Clinton or Bill Gates, et cetera.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
But now the idea is shockingly to.
Speaker 5 (06:09):
The MAGA base or the MAGA social media influencers anyway,
which I'm not sure is totally synonymous with the base,
but that's sort of another issue.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
Now, to their.
Speaker 5 (06:18):
Absolute shock, Donald Trump is apparently engaging in this very
same cover up. I would argue that the factual predicate
for that assumption, which I think you guys will agree,
is extremely widespread.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
That's why people were so insensive about this issue.
Speaker 5 (06:32):
The factual predicate for that is not well established at all,
or not nearly as established as you would think, given
the confidence with which people assert the existence of that
thing that there're so certain exists.
Speaker 4 (06:47):
Okay, all right, let's go on the intel thing.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Let's go and get sobeign and then we'll come back
and it can dig more specifically to.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Michael, First of all, I would point out that part
of the reason that the quote unquote factual predicate doesn't
exist for what you're talking about is actually in existence.
In my opinion that if you look at the open
source information for how so many of these prominent individuals
dealt with Epstein, and then eventually the non prosecution agreement
that was eventually signed by Alex Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein,
and eventually, of course the Palm Beach County PD only
(07:14):
bringing a case against him for solicitation of prostitution actually
proves that part of the reason why a lot of
this stuff doesn't exist in the quote unquote factual predicate
and or DOJ documents is part of the reason why
so much of this does not exist in a court basis, etc.
If you actually look at the information. I mean, I
think Leslie Wesner is perhaps the best example for proving
(07:36):
what you were talking about, where we have a actual
high prominent individual in the year nineteen ninety one, one
of the only billionaires here in the United States of America,
the richest man in Ohio, who gives power of attorney
over jeff too Head aftery Epstein over his entire estate,
transfers hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate
over to him, to which Epstein then uses those properties,
as you just pointed out in the factual predicate, as
(07:58):
exists and points out in the Elaine Maxwell trial, which yes,
is only about human trafficking between a young woman and
Epstein himself as and he is the sole person who
is victimizing these women that was on Wexner related properties.
That's a pretty direct example of where nobody, including Wesner himself,
has ever been able to give an example of how
exactly you had this extraordinary situation of signing over power
(08:22):
of attorney and in fact, Vicky Ward, James Stewart, the
biographers who looked into the story say that many of
the people around Wexner believe that it was a result
of a blackmail operation. It's not that difficult to imagine
that the founder of Victoria's Secret, which entails selling lingerie
to teenage girls and surrounding yourselves with beautiful models and
all of this, would be involved in some pretty sketchy
(08:43):
behavior with a known pedophile of Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
So I think that's a pretty.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Clear example tracing all the way back from nineteen ninety one,
showing the ability to use and coerce behavior, perhaps blackmail
and others, to enrich himself. And also, I mean, we
can get into the intelligence case now in the future,
but exactly why so many people I think rightfully can
point in an example like that and say it's very
(09:08):
clear if you look at that pattern that there is
smoke there. Now, I agree this has not yet been proven,
but I would actually argue that the reason that has
not been proven is specifically to cover up the very
type of behavior.
Speaker 5 (09:21):
Well that some people around wester may have believed, as
you put it, that there was some potential explanation for
Epstein's inheritance of this wealth that had to do with blackmail.
Is not a proven factual predicate for anything.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
Well, nobody's saying that, but by that point we're not
supposed to take any reporting. You know, at the end
of the day, you have a multi billionaire who signs
over power of attorney for his entire estate and hundreds
of millions of dollars in real estate, and it's because
he thought he was a money genius that shore.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
I acknowledge.
Speaker 5 (09:55):
I acknowledge that there are aspects to this story that
are non mythological in the sense that they really do
raise questions about the mystery surrounding how he garnered his wealth.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
And so forth.
Speaker 5 (10:08):
But let me give one example that I don't think
has adequately penetrated the popular consciousness nor has it been
adequately covered on alternative media, maybe including this very show.
Virginia Gouffrey, who I think you'll agree if you've studied
this case, which I assume that you have, is the
central figure who spawned the widespread belief that there had
(10:32):
to have been this pedophilic sex trafficking network, because in
late twenty fourteen, she issued a court filing in which
she alleged that she had been sex trafficked to a
myriad of prominent third party individuals like Prince Andrew, like
the former majority leader of the United States Senate George Mitchell,
(10:56):
like the former governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, and
other people. And then she also made a categorical claim
that she had been trafficked to like unnamed prime ministers
and other people of prominence around the world.
Speaker 4 (11:11):
That's what really spawned it.
Speaker 5 (11:13):
And I just don't think it's disputable that Virginia Gouffrey
was a serial fabulist.
Speaker 4 (11:21):
I know people don't want to hear that.
Speaker 5 (11:22):
I know whenever I've commented on this subject anywhere on
the Internet, ninety five percent of the comment sections are
against me, and they think that I'm covering up for
pedophiles or something, as though I love pedophilia and that's
why I'm making this argument.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
That's not the case.
Speaker 5 (11:35):
Virginia Goufrey, per the factual record, was a serial fabuloust.
I'm sure you know, Sagar, that she accused Alan Dershowitz, Yes,
I do, having been one of the third party individuals
to whom she was traffick. She made this accusation adamantly
under the cover of the litigation privilege for nearly a decade.
(11:56):
Then by twenty twenty two, because Dershowitz actually had the
resources and the motivation to pursue this charge against him,
or to dispute it to the point of a settlement,
she then had to retract and recant this signature claim
that she had been making for ten years. Almost that
(12:19):
very much animated the media coverage around this issue. She
withdrew it, she totally obliterated her own credibility, and then,
sure enough, in the g Islaine Maxwell trial of twenty
twenty one, she was not even called as a witness
by the prosecution because she would have been a nightmare
under cross examination because so many of the things, the
(12:42):
most salacious claims that she made around this story just
do not stand up to basic scrutiny. You could even
find examples of her signing on to like literal hoaxes
in terms of these creeps who came out the woodwork
claiming that they had the video footage of illicit sexual
activity in Epstein's properties. And then Goufrey's own attorneys, David Boyce,
(13:08):
who by the way, made a killing on this whole issue.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
That's another thing we could get into.
Speaker 5 (13:13):
How you know, basically the Epstein matter had has subsidized, uh,
the South Florida bar and all these feeding frenzy lawyers
who have made a killing.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
But the other way, Michael, But yeah, yeah, it goes
both ways.
Speaker 5 (13:28):
But the defense attorneys concocted a whole strategy whereby they
would extract enormous payouts for themselves.
Speaker 4 (13:37):
Gives the toxicity of the.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Victim.
Speaker 5 (13:42):
Last point, last point, Virginia Goufrey made millions of dollars.
She was she had a life of luxury as a
result of her deciding to become this professional victim that
was her full time job.
Speaker 4 (13:53):
She launched a scam. Ng O, I thought the right
was supposed.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
To be doing right now, mind, do you know how
it ended up?
Speaker 3 (14:02):
That she ceased because her life and because she was
a very troubled individual. It's not deniable she's pictured there
with Prince Andrew, but to paint it only as a
Virginia Goufrey is one of the only people that is
saying this is just not accurate.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Part of the reason.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
Why he was absolutely integral to the coverage, and largely
it is because of the photo, which you're not going
to deny, I hope, of her picture with Prince Andrew,
which is literally.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
What got him removed from his.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
Public duties, as from his public duties as a member
of the British Royal family. Clearly they believe, at least
in some part, that Prince Andrew was involved in some
pretty sketchy behavior. There was his relationship with Epstein. But
even let's step back.
Speaker 5 (14:44):
Further, the Royal family was coerced through the tsunami of
horrible pr that they were subject to.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
Hanging out with the convicted sex offender and in this
case with a seventeen year old girl with his arm
around here. That's not acceptable behavior, not just.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
For a British role family.
Speaker 5 (15:03):
He wasn't a convicted sex defender at the time that
photo was taken.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
You're right, he's just his routine to be hanging out
with seventeen year old women and to take photos of that.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
Was he a convicted sex offender at the time, that the.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Photoportunity to check the date on what it is.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
But he wasn't.
Speaker 5 (15:17):
He was taken reportedly in two thousand again he was
not a convicted sex.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Fer, saying that in that case that Prince Andrew, the
member of the British role family, was did not have
access to the global elite in which people like Donald
Trump could say on the record in two thousand and
two before Jeffrey Epstein is convicted as a sex offender,
in which he can say, Jeffrey, he likes him young,
and which is an open secret literally among the jet
set class that this type of behavior is acceptable to
(15:41):
Harvey Weinstein and to everybody else. This is this is
open out from vanity fair reporting from from a quote
from Donald Trump himself, that's our current president.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
But beyond that it is an o'.
Speaker 5 (15:52):
Donald Trump said that Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epson is a
great guy, and he tends to.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
Like the company of women.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
He likes.
Speaker 5 (15:58):
It does not prove that Donald Trump is a sex offender.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
No, I didn't say that, it's he proves prove.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
What I'm saying is that it's open knowledge that Epstein
routinely is seen and is pictured with young women at
that time. By the way, and let's continue this, and
this is why so was Donald Trump pegging this entirely
on Virginia Grufrey again is not accurate, and I think
it what.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
Is largely I mean, she's the one who is.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Not because again, the photo of her with any of these.
Speaker 4 (16:23):
Netlix documentaries.
Speaker 5 (16:27):
Center they because she was, they never ever qualify any
of their coverage by noting that she has a proven,
demonstrable record of serial fabulousm.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
Okay, did you can see that she's a serial fabulous?
Speaker 3 (16:40):
I would concede that she was a troubled individual who
clearly as serial fabulous from the way that her attorneys
and others have acknowledged that she did make up some facts.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
And I do think I'm not relying all of this
on Virginia Gufray. That's my point.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
I have a much broader I have a much broader
amount of evidence to point and this is all where
I think it kind of you.
Speaker 5 (17:01):
Don't think conceding that the most high profile accuser who
was integral in the claim of a sex trafficking ring
insofar as her claim was that she was sex trafficked
to prominent third party individuals. I'm not contesting that Epstein
himself was a sexual predator. I mean, he's on the
record saying that he rejects that there should be any
(17:24):
kind of taboo against you know, post pubescans women of
any age or girls of any age being accessible to
men for impregnation. I mean, he had bizarre and creepy
and depraved beliefs around sexual relations with minors.
Speaker 4 (17:40):
I'm not contesting that. I'm contesting this third party sex trafficking.
Speaker 5 (17:44):
Ring that forms the basiness of why people are so
outraged now about something purportedly being covered up and all
these elites getting away with things.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Let me ask you a question about this, Michael, how
do you explain the deal he was able to cut
down in Florida with Alexicostu goes on to be Trump's
labor secretary, who was US attorney at the time, which
led to him serving I believe thirteen minutes in a
county jail with the jail cell was open where he
was able to go to his office for twelve hours
(18:15):
a day. Afterwards he's released. There's significant reporting that indicates
after he was supposed to be on home confinement, he's
flying around, He's doing what he wants to do. That
deal was so sort of outlandish that actually a judge
came in and said, you violated the rights of victims.
This deal was actually technically illegal, And not only did
(18:35):
it provide for very cushy deal and very low level
charge ultimately for Jeffrey Epstein, it also indicated that none
of his potential co conspirators could be charged whatsoever. So
how do you explain this person getting such an incredibly
cushy deal at that point, and a deal again that
(18:56):
allows any even theoretical co conspirators off the hook, which
is it's so extraordinary the even glean Maxwell now is
appealing to the Supreme Court saying, hey, I should have
been part of that deal. What am I in prison
four since you the government said no co conspirators could
have ever been in you know, in diet or found
guilty of anything.
Speaker 5 (19:15):
I'm just not sure why people think it's such a
profound mystery that a wealthy individual, whatever the source of
his wealth, and I agree that if possible, a more
forensic audit should be done of how he acquired his wealth,
But obviously he had the means to hire a dream
team of lawyers to come and negotiate with the government
on his behalf. He brought in Alan Dershowitz, who had
(19:36):
just participated in securing an acquittal for O. J.
Speaker 4 (19:39):
Simpson.
Speaker 5 (19:40):
He brought in Ken Starr to make a federalism argument
to federal prosecutors, arguing that the offenses for which Epstein
was accused were fundamentally state level crimes and did not
enter the purview of federal prosecutors on that ground because
as the federal prosecutors couldn't establish that there was trafficking
(20:03):
across state lines or some other element that would place
the crime in their purview. Were these technical arguments, sure,
But you know, if you want to make this a
scandal about wealthy people having access to powerful lawyers who
can maybe get them a more lenient non prosecution agreement
than the average person would have access to, I'd be
(20:24):
all on board with that. But it seems that people
just immediately launch into the explanation that he must have
been some kind of intelligence asset or agent, and just
to touch on that for a moment, you know, Sager,
I'm not trying.
Speaker 4 (20:38):
I wouldn't. I'm not trying to personally attack you. I
happened to see. I happened.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
I saw a clip going around last week of you
on Tucker's Show in which you asserted that, Okay, maybe.
Speaker 4 (20:51):
You corrected it, but I'm just right. But a lot
of people have repeated this quote.
Speaker 5 (20:55):
That derives from a twenty nineteen Vicky Ward article in
which she's quoting or she's attributing, this quote from alex
Acosta from several years before twenty nineteen, when he's in
a meeting with Trump transition officials and according to Vicky Ward,
a former Trump senior Trump administration official, which sounds a
lot like Steve Bannon's blowing smoke. We don't know that
(21:17):
with one hundred percent certainty. By the way, why is
Steve Bannon sitting on sixteen hours of rawut okay okay?
And why was he strategizing with Epstein about how he
could present himself for a media interview with sixty minutes.
Speaker 4 (21:35):
But anyway, that will leave that aside for the moment.
Speaker 5 (21:38):
But that quote, with a sense, it's like the definition
of hearsay, and yet it got characterized as an on
record like declaratory statement from Acosta of him just asserting
that he had been warned that Epstein belonged to intelligence
pursue it to the two thousand and seven non prosecution
agreement and therefore he should back off.
Speaker 4 (21:58):
That's not what that quote signified.
Speaker 5 (22:00):
And actually, several years later, post twenty eighteen, when the
Miami Herald series brief new life into the story harnessing
the power of me Too, which by the way, I
thought the right was mostly skeptical of. Instead on this
issue and in like select circumstances, we hear the rights
saying believe women, we have to honor all survivors. We
can't use any critical scrutiny of their claims. But after
(22:24):
the me Too energy bolstered this story, the DOJ, the
DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility conducted a review of the
two thousand and seven two thousand and eight non prosecution
agreement and alis Acosta did directly address this claim that
he had once potentially asserted that Epstein belonged to intelligence
and that's why a supposedly more lenient deal was given
(22:46):
and Alex Acosta did deny it on the record. Now
in terms of the leniency of that deal, listen to
what Dershowitz has to say. I'm not saying I agree
with Alan Dershowitz on everything. In fact, I strongly disagree
with him on the issue of Israel.
Speaker 4 (22:59):
It's odd to me that every critic of.
Speaker 5 (23:01):
Israel now has to feel that they have to be
wedded to this particular issue because their criticism of Israel
is bolstered by the idea that the reason that Israel
is so widely supported among power structures is because there's
a pervasive sexual blackmail network. I think that kind of
makes critics of Israel look rather stupid. But Dershowitz says
(23:21):
that Epstein fired him and refused to pay his legal
fees because Epstein felt that he did not get a
lenient deal. He felt that the prostitution charges, state level
prostitutions and charges in Florida that he was required to
plead guilty to were actually overly onerous and he should not.
Speaker 4 (23:39):
Have had to be subject to any kind of.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
Over whether they were actually let me act, Michael.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
The idea that this was because of me too is
complete bullshit. The reason why the energy of the US
district court judge ruled that the non prosecution agreement violated
the rights of the victims who were not informed of
the non prosecution agreement, which you're portraying as standard operating
procedure for some sort of rich person.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
That is just absolutely not.
Speaker 4 (24:08):
Jammy Harold's series came out.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
I agree it came out to REGATROM eighteen, but it
was a twelve year period in which the victims himself
were not informed of the situation sued under their rights
under the I believe it's like the crime the crime.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
I don't exactly Brown.
Speaker 4 (24:23):
Tina Brown, who have covered this issue very much.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
I'm saying is that the district court judge is the
person who who overturned the NPA, which is the reason
why now perhaps some of the motivations of perhaps coming
back for your rights.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
It is indisputable that the.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
Rights of the victims were violated under that non prosecution
agreement number one. As you just pointed out in that
OPR review, they said that a cost to himself exercised
what poor judgment whenever he came to that.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Now, let's addressgen Yeah, but.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Let's address that intelligent. First of all, the transcript of
that has never been made public. And the way that
it was phrased specifically around OPR and when they asked
him about intelligence was he said absolutely not. I did
not have information that he was an intelligence asset. The
way that that question, as you and I know, asked,
is pretty damn specific.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
Now let's talk about Israel as we know. And no, no, no, no,
it was much more.
Speaker 4 (25:14):
It was much more. It was much more.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Did you look at that out? Yes? I did.
Speaker 3 (25:17):
I looked at both the footnote where he said I
was allowed to address it in a classified saturd he
said absolutely not. When asked specifically whether he belonged to intelligence.
Speaker 5 (25:25):
He says, Now he was asked whether he had knowledge
of Epstein being a quote, intelligence asset. Yes, Bossa stated
the OPR that quote. The answer is no. I'm not
sure how much the more direct he could have been.
Speaker 3 (25:35):
The answer is Look, I mean, I'm trying to be
very specific here. I believe that the way that that
question is asked in the transcript and the circumstance are very.
Speaker 4 (25:43):
Important front of me.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
No.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
But but that's my point though, is that even if
you're quote he belonged to intelligence and I was told
to leave it alone.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
Is not direct knowledge.
Speaker 3 (25:50):
These are classic non denial denials, and in his twenty
nineteen press conference he did not actually address it whenever
he was asked on the record publicly. It's only in
this OPR review that he later on comes back to it.
I don't think you're going to deny in twenty nineteen
that he did not leave the door open to the
fact that that report could have had some accuracy. He
said something along the lines of I wouldn't believe everything
you read, but it was a non denial denial. But
(26:12):
at that time of that non prosecution agreement that you're
talking about, Jeffrey Epstein, by verified report, is in Israel
basically brought all of his assets over there, returns from
Israel to Palm Beach in April of two thousand and eight.
So that's the first, in my opinion, sketchy connection for
why he is exactly granted this special status in Israel
whenever he's fighting a pedophile prosecution in the United States
(26:36):
of America.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
But let's just continue down that fact.
Speaker 3 (26:38):
And this is the part that I just don't understand
for somebody who generally looks for links, why do you
have the former Israeli Prime Minister ade Barack, flying on
his plane multiple times, staying at his house for months
on end, pictured when there were dirt women there holding
a scarf in front of his face to Kaida his
identity from the tabloids.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Why is it that? What is it?
Speaker 3 (26:57):
JP Morgan in twenty eleven to rely on Epstein to
broker meeting with Prime Minister net and Yahoo? Why is
it that aud Olmayer and Simon Perez are both linked
to Jeffrey Epstein. Aud Brock was asked, how did you
meet Jeffrey Epstein? I did it via Shimon Perez. Aud
Olmaher is named specifically by the US Virgin Islands as
(27:17):
an Epstein associate. I mean, if we take that and
then combine it here with Leslie Wexner, the fact that
Jeffrey Epstein is on board of the Wexner Foundation and
then pays aud Brock two point three million dollars to
complete two reports, one of which he never finished, I
can continue back further here we have Jeffrey Epstein involved
in multiple sketchy arms transactions from the nineteen eighties. I mean,
(27:40):
this is where I genuinely wonder, like if you're just
trying to be a contrarian.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
Do you accept it as.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
A fact that Stephen Hoffenberg, Douglas Lease, and ad Non
Koshogi Robert Maxwell, who by the way, is a known
MOSAT agent, did not have connections with Jeffrey Epstein in
which it looks like with a source of his wealth
was used as cutouts for use by the US intelligence
or the US and Israel intelligence community. The four individuals
who I just named are known and linked to multiple
(28:05):
sketchy arms deals from the nineteen eighties Kaushogi, Robert Maxwell,
Douglas Lease, Stephen Hoffenberg. They've given on the record statements
about their relationship with Epstein. At one point, Epstein is
flying on a private jet with Douglas Lease in the
nineteen eighties when he's just twenty eight years old. I mean,
I don't know how you can't look at that, specifically
hear about the money, even ignore the sex trafficking, and
(28:26):
not saying that he did not have connections here to
intelligence or at the very least for cutouts and use
as an intelligence asset in the past. I genuinely do
not know how you cannot look at that and specifically
where the source of his wealth is complete bullshit. He
starts a firm in nineteen eighty eight Jay Epstein in Associates,
where he says, I only take on people with a
billion dollars. There are only one hundred and forty one
(28:49):
hundred and fifty people in the country or in the
world at that time who have a billion dollars under management.
He's never been a registered money manager, he has no
proven tax record. He called himself a coot high level
bounty hunter when he forms an international assets group. In
what way does this not look suspicious for everything that
I have just laid out there in the highest level.
Speaker 5 (29:09):
I totally get I don't know what we're doing around
this issue.
Speaker 4 (29:13):
But if you come out and.
Speaker 3 (29:15):
Say, fact, yeah he was Mosad, That's not how it works, Michael.
The CIA doesn't come out and say, yeah, we killed Kennedy.
We connect all of the dots. I mean, do you
believe then the official Warren What you're saying is that
because the Warren Commission said that the magic bullet theory
is true.
Speaker 5 (29:31):
So now we're going to go with you a detour
into the Warren Commission. But what I mean you're saying, well,
that's discuss this issue. But that's a fact like one
coherent training, that's a factual.
Speaker 4 (29:40):
The War Commission that.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
The primary Epstein accuser is a serial fabri.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
By the way, by the way, there are two other
individuals who had named her name, Prince Andrew Johanna Schobert,
and I need to find her name who's.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
Been named here a Let me ahead and get that
is the case in particular? You know it, sober lay
down the connections with what four different Israeli or is
really prime prime ministers? You know, how do you how
do you assimilate that information?
Speaker 1 (30:10):
What's your response to that?
Speaker 4 (30:11):
Sure?
Speaker 5 (30:11):
First of all, I have to just address the idea
that I'm just being arbitrarily contrarian. I can't tell you
how many issues I've received that accusation on over the years.
Whether it was the Trump Russia story which contained conspiratorial
elements where I was accused of being a contrarian, whether
it was the twenty twenty George Floyd riots, which I
went around and critically covered the poor media coverage of
I was widely denounced for being a contrarian.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
I'll give you all the evidence. Whether it was the war.
Speaker 5 (30:35):
In Ukraine, This just happens to be an issue where people,
I guess more on the right now think I'm being
a contrarian, and so they're particularly in range.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
I shouldn't, I should not have impened your motives.
Speaker 5 (30:45):
But god, okay, yeah, well so, I just don't believe
it's not contrarianism to critically cover how media narratives can
ngeal in the absence of what I think to be
a reliable factual basis, and.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
People believe me linked up with all these I mean,
you had Dave.
Speaker 5 (31:00):
Smith, who I think you guys have had on to
discuss this, or you had on a regular guest who
was at the Talking Points conference and accused Donald Trump
of covering up a child sex trafficking or child rapering.
I mean, soccer, do you think that that was a
credible statement. I simply don't.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
I mean, so again, I would not.
Speaker 5 (31:18):
So, but let me let me address the Israelisraeli officials, okay,
so yes, It's not disputed that hud Barack, for instance,
was a long time associate of Epstein.
Speaker 4 (31:29):
They engaged in some business deals together.
Speaker 5 (31:32):
They even edhud Barack, amazingly enough, was actually present when
Epstein was on a media strategizing session with Steve Bannon
where they were planning how he could rehabilitate his image
in the wake of the twenty eighteen Miami Herald series,
and Bannon was having to educate Epstein about how me
too had changed cultural attitudes around this stuff. So you
(31:54):
couldn't just be as obstinate as maybe you were able
to be before in the past in rejecting some of
these charges.
Speaker 4 (32:01):
So Steve Bannon was.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Actually announce smear the women basically, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4 (32:05):
You had to be more sensitive.
Speaker 5 (32:06):
So Steve Bannon conducted this fit in the sixteen hours
of preparatory interviews with Epstein to kind of tell him
how he would be questioned in the context of the
sixty minutes interview or something on the Israel connection. Yes,
edhud Barack was a longtime associate of Epstein. Epstein had
longtime associations with an astonishing array of people. I'm not
(32:27):
doubting that he was a consummate bullshitter. He had alliances with,
as we know, everybody from Bill Gates to Donald Trump
to Bill Clinton over the years. So it does as
it surprise me that some of those people included the
Israeli government, no or the Saudy arms deal stuff that
he was involved in in the nineteen eighties.
Speaker 4 (32:47):
No, I'm not surprised about any of that.
Speaker 5 (32:50):
And I'm also allowing for the possibility, as I wrote
in that Compact article, that over the course of his
bizarre international jet setting, perhaps he did come into contact
with somebody who was associated with the Israeli security services
and who Barack himself would have been the head of
MASAD when he was Prime minister.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
So is it.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
Inconceivable ahead of military intelligence?
Speaker 4 (33:14):
So is it sure?
Speaker 5 (33:14):
So is it inconceivable that over the course of their
meetings who Barack obtained some piece of information that maybe
he passed along to somebody.
Speaker 4 (33:23):
No, that's not inconceivable at all. I just don't see.
Speaker 5 (33:26):
It as dispositive or as like all encompassingly explanatory of
Epstein supposedly getting away with this child sex trafficking ring,
whose existence I don't regard as having been anywhere near established.
You know, in the Gislaine Maxwell trial, interestingly, Maureen Coley
(33:48):
was the prosecutor who was just fired yesterday, and she
then tried to prosecute you know, p Diddy, Combs, et cetera,
under like similar auspices of like you know, asserting a
sex track a ring, but like weirdly narrowing the claimed
contours of the sex trafficking to two people or one person.
So people hear trafficking and they think they must be
(34:09):
the sprawling, multi layered ring, when in reality, the grounds
on which Maxwell was convicted was a sex trafficking que
unquote conspiracy that literally consisted of two people according to
the government and according to what the four purported victims
in that trial even claimed. Oh and by the way,
those victims in that trial just received multi million dollar
(34:34):
payouts from the Epstein estate and from JP Morgan. And
there was a similar Deutsche back settlement that came out
where by they could confidentially and non adversarily have their
claims adjudicated by a mediator. So if you had any
tangential connection to Epstein, or if I had any tangential
connection to Epstein, of course I would work with my lawyers,
(34:56):
who are going to get cut to come up with
a story.
Speaker 1 (35:03):
I become.
Speaker 4 (35:06):
Purchase focused on.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
I literally just told you there is another I had
to I have her name here in my notes.
Speaker 1 (35:13):
I've got it right.
Speaker 4 (35:17):
The latest.
Speaker 3 (35:19):
Prince Andrew of inappropriate sexual contact while posing for a
photo at the Epstein mansion, suggesting that she was traffick there.
That's in a sworn affidavit in the very defamation case
they're talking about Caroline be another anonymous individual.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
But listen, I mean, this is my thing. I did
you read the door?
Speaker 3 (35:35):
Did you read the Deutsche Bank settlement with the New
York Yes?
Speaker 1 (35:39):
And what does it say in there?
Speaker 3 (35:40):
Epstein had Epstein had multiple financial transactions which broke bank rules,
in which he's transferring money to Eastern European women for
apparent sex trafficking purposes.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
It's in the fucking.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
Report there, Michael from the New York Financial Services in
which they find the bank for breaking its own policies
for sending men wiring money all over the world our
apparent purposes.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
After he's a convicted sex defender.
Speaker 3 (36:02):
I mean, do you think he's wiring all of these
money for hulkers just for himself? Because that's not even
what they say in the New York Financial Services document
regarding the Deutsche banks elpment.
Speaker 4 (36:14):
Money at Rich.
Speaker 5 (36:14):
If he's trafficking, mind, if he's participating in a trafficking
conspiracy to supply miners to others, how is it that,
over the course of over a decade of incredibly intensive
and lucrative litigation, not a single credible allegation of a
third party individual having miners trafficking them to has been established.
(36:36):
How come after every media outlet, at least post twenty
eighteen became hugely invested in this story. So you have
Netflix documentaries, HBO documentaries, newspaper and magazine articles, podcasts out
the wazoo. How come none of them have ever established
(36:57):
any third party individual to whom a minor was traffic
Or is it because everybody is just so afraid of
offending Bill Clinton?
Speaker 4 (37:05):
Really?
Speaker 1 (37:06):
Well, no, no, but that's not accurate because.
Speaker 5 (37:08):
That couldn't extract a lucrative settlement for Bill Clinton. The
virgin I be accused of having a minor trafficy in the.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
US Virgin Islands.
Speaker 3 (37:16):
Who has the most evidence around this because so many
of the heinous accusations, I won't say crime were committed
on their soil. Had an Attorney General who actually was
going forward with a lot of this prosecution. What happened
to that Attorney General, Michael They were fired and the
current Attorney General who.
Speaker 1 (37:32):
Is in charge of the case.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
What you were still work for the Epstein estate, So
that seems like a little bit of a cover up
and a problem there no, especially whenever that's something that
happened to have been intersected in the past week, exactly
the lucrative dispersion of much of the Epstein estate.
Speaker 1 (37:46):
They have Attorney general after this, let.
Speaker 4 (37:48):
Me ask you this that Soger, Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 5 (37:50):
Would you concede that there is a perverse incentive or
or an incentive for purported self.
Speaker 4 (37:55):
Identified victims because by the.
Speaker 5 (37:57):
Terms of these settlements, all the court victims have to
do is self identify as a victim. They can do
so confidentially, meaning they don't have to be cross examined,
they don't have to have their claims adversarially scrutinized, and
then there's no downside reputational risk for them in the
fact that they're not adjudicated to.
Speaker 4 (38:14):
The modified victims.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
And you know, why would you agree that there's a.
Speaker 5 (38:17):
Perverse incentive in terms of dramatizing claims to maximize one's
chances to receive the biggest possible payout. And were you
aware that the four people that the that Maureen Komi
and her fellow prosecutors had to settle on to bring
forward in the Maxwell trial in twenty twenty one, receiving
multimillion dollar payoffs because they were counseled by their attorneys
(38:42):
that in order to obtain the biggest possible settlement, they
should prosecution.
Speaker 4 (38:48):
Does that create a perverse incentive structure?
Speaker 3 (38:51):
I agree that, or contrarians, I agree that it could
create a perverse and censor structure. At the same time,
many of these are legally justifiable because of their proven
claim in a court where she was convicted by a
jury of her peers.
Speaker 5 (39:04):
In which he was Did you know that full flesh adults,
so not minors adults were eligible for these payouts and
actually one adult testified at the Maxwell trial.
Speaker 4 (39:14):
Meaning she was above legal.
Speaker 3 (39:17):
Able to sue somebody or have legal you know, have
legal justification whenever they are a victim of sec like
in the case of.
Speaker 5 (39:27):
The fact that people who were adults could receive payouts.
Speaker 4 (39:30):
Because many years after the fact they could.
Speaker 3 (39:32):
Adults never be able to sue anybody else and be
able to get any money for it for damages.
Speaker 1 (39:37):
I mean, it's like, what are you saying.
Speaker 3 (39:38):
That their entire legal civil court system is false and
stuff by that standard. The ability to claim damages in
itself is a perverse incentive. Now, I agree it can
be weaponized, but I mean, in the Maxwell case, the
basically yeah, okay, but then I don't.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
Know what to say, Michael, what's a financial game?
Speaker 3 (39:56):
And the shuld support Republicans who want tort reform or whatever?
Speaker 1 (39:59):
The fuck?
Speaker 5 (39:59):
You know that all that is, they do not support
to a reform around this particular issue because it's been
so insanely.
Speaker 2 (40:05):
Let me ask, let me ask, We'll try to close
this up, Soccer. A question for you is one of
the things that I've seen from people who say, look there,
you know, we believe Trump and there's no there there
as they say, well, look, if the Democrats had access
to this material and Trump is potentially implicated, don't you
think they would have released that. What is your response
to that claim?
Speaker 3 (40:27):
Me?
Speaker 1 (40:28):
Mind?
Speaker 3 (40:28):
Yeah, you Soccer, Okay, yeah for me, I mean, look,
I originally thought that it was actually a decent argument,
but considering Trump's behavior now so far, and this is
actually where I wonder if Michael would disagree with me. Michael,
why don't we just release all of the evidence within
the FBI and within whatever the case that has from
the Department of Justice, the secret indictment from two thousand
(40:50):
and seven, which has never yet been made public, that
was prior to that non prosecution agreement. Release everything that's
in the case file and just show it to the
American public and we can all make up our minds.
I mean, that's where maybe you'll be vindicated, Michael. Maybe
you won't show any of.
Speaker 4 (41:04):
The release everything.
Speaker 1 (41:06):
I don't everything.
Speaker 4 (41:07):
I agree with Dershowitz.
Speaker 5 (41:08):
Okay, Dershowitz said for said for for the past ten years. Look,
release everything. I waive any right to privacy. I've been
falsely accused. I'm going to be vindicated, so I want
maximum disclosure.
Speaker 4 (41:19):
I'm in favor of that.
Speaker 5 (41:20):
But there are there are two judges in New York
who are keeping materials under seal, you know why, to
protect the purported victims, mainly maybe to protect others who
could be defamed by those victims. So if people want
to go lobby, I mean, Breaking Points should go lobby
in the Southern District of New York for disclosure the
files that remain under seal. But I think the fact
(41:40):
that Dan Bongino, I mean, talker, would you agree with
me that Dan Bongino and Cash Betel and all these
people obviously dangle these tantalizing little tidbits in front of
the right wing social media audience on the idea that
Trump was going to storm into office with his most loyal,
tenacious soldiers and expose the deep state, demonic sex trafficking Democrats,
(42:03):
and that whole narrative was obviously politically expedient, you know,
bullshit that they very cleverly used to gin up excitement
to vote Republican in twenty twenty four, and it wouldn't
necessarily translate to any concrete revelations. Once these thought there
was a consolidated Epstein list that the DOJ hasn't some
(42:25):
vault somewhere that they could just release. Was always kind
of like, I agree population to get people all exercise.
Speaker 3 (42:32):
I'm on the record here at Michael, I completely agree
with you for the political expedience purposes, but I don't
agree that it's bullshit when I have also said it's
a canard to say that there's some Epstein client lists
where it's like, hey, fuck the kid now supports Israel.
That's not the way. Look, I'm not here to defend Cashpitel.
I agree with you completely that the way that they
frame Look, there's two options. They either ginned it up
(42:52):
and exploited perhaps what they claim is the rape of
thousands of children or hundreds of victims or whatever for
politically expeding purposes, or they did that, which is disgusting,
or they are covering upset thing, which is equally disgusting,
perhaps more so actually on the line, I would love
for them.
Speaker 4 (43:06):
I totally agree.
Speaker 5 (43:08):
I would love for the maximum amount of material to
come out, because you know what, Virginia, who you happily
conceded was a serial fabulous.
Speaker 3 (43:16):
No, I didn't say that. She's a old woman who, yes,
has been proven to it.
Speaker 4 (43:20):
Now you don't agree, I didn't know.
Speaker 3 (43:22):
I'm not going to use your level of framing, which
I actually do frankly think is disgusting because it points
her as the central character, which you've self appointed. It
ignores the other individuals.
Speaker 5 (43:33):
I want to introduce the whole sex trafficking theory fourteen
with the photo.
Speaker 1 (43:40):
The photo exists, Virginia photo exists.
Speaker 5 (43:42):
Finish your point, Okay, So I mean I agree that
the maximum disclosure should.
Speaker 4 (43:48):
Be made and that these.
Speaker 5 (43:52):
Concealments that are still in place to protect the supposed accusers,
many of whom are serial fabulous, but yet received enormous
payouts from these settlement funds that.
Speaker 4 (44:03):
Claims because when when when when that stremely was applied
to Virginia Gouffrey.
Speaker 5 (44:08):
As more and more information had to be revealed, she
had to concede that she just made an enormous amount
of stuff. So I think that that would that would
probably with Extreedian luxury. Uh, you know, it's just whatever.
Speaker 4 (44:23):
She didn't She did not live a life of luxury.
Speaker 5 (44:25):
She didn't have an ocean front mansion in Australia and
a ranch, and she didn't make it.
Speaker 4 (44:30):
She didn't make.
Speaker 3 (44:31):
Fifteen suicide bro, Like, yeah, this is what I'm saying, Like,
let me. It was so it was so great for
her that she decided to Let mean, I don't yeah, because.
Speaker 5 (44:39):
She hadstic because she got accorded to her a strange husband.
She became increasingly violent and attacked him the local Australian.
That's a husband, and then she lost custody of her
children and became distraught. I mean, could that maybe reflect
on her credibility that way to what.
Speaker 4 (44:55):
She was not called as a witness in the Maxwell trial.
Speaker 3 (44:57):
Reflects to me somebody a pattern of behavior of somebody
who was obviously, in my opinion, abused whenever she was
young and as a child, and that's its credibility.
Speaker 2 (45:06):
So Michael, let me let me wrap.
Speaker 4 (45:08):
Up with you. Obviously, did I know it's like it's
difficult to admit because.
Speaker 3 (45:15):
Hearing smirts somebody who killed herself and who obviously was
a troubled.
Speaker 4 (45:22):
Prominent individual for a decade.
Speaker 1 (45:24):
Okay, your feelings at there so are mine? All right?
Go ahead, Michael.
Speaker 2 (45:28):
The final question here for you, Uh, how do you
explain the fact that you had the Trump administration go
from the big influencer Phase one Epstein files coming out.
We're reviewing Pam Bondi's I'm reviewing thousands of hours of
footage to two page memo. Nothing to see here. We're
(45:48):
moving on case closed to Trump now saying well, there
are files they were creating a creator by Obama and
Hillary and Comy and Brennan and it's all a hoax
and you know that everyone needs to move on and
there's nothing to see here. So how do you explain
his specifically changing narrative of what's going on here? And
(46:12):
you know the fact that Obviously, it seems bizarre the
way he's handling this in the worst possible way just
for him politically, let alone anything else.
Speaker 5 (46:21):
Well, I mean, I think people in the right wing
media universe are Charlatans, and they exploit their charlatanism to
politically expediently cater to this long standing.
Speaker 2 (46:32):
Belief that Trump specifically no I know.
Speaker 5 (46:35):
I got it, but it leads into Trump meaning there's
like a pervasive, ever present belief within right wing media
circles whom Trump harnesses for political power, that there's a
pedophilic sex trafficking ring that's perpetually waiting to be uncovered.
That's why they were so into Q andons and that
(46:55):
kind of transferred over to Epstein. Well, but it explains
it in that, like why did Pam Bondi in that
now notorious February twenty twenty five interview with Fox News
say she had the Epstein files waiting on her decks
desks because there was an incentive within this mill you
to dangle the most appetizing little snippets in front of
(47:19):
the audience. Like the beating heart of right wing social
media and like comments sections always believes that there's a
that the you know, the triumphant anti deep state warriors
in the Trump administration are finally going to unveil the
true heart of evil at the core of elite networks
and expose the pedophiles. Pat cashpertellus to put on her
big point pants and tell us who the pedophiles are,
(47:42):
and so Bondi was kind of playing into that assumption,
and she used, like, in precise language, is she are
these people?
Speaker 4 (47:50):
Charlatan's You're not getting an argument for me. I was
trying to.
Speaker 5 (47:53):
Make this argument like last year when they were pumping
out this stuff for their own elector or advantage. Now,
I will say, is there a possibility that there are
some additional materials somewhere that could be embarrassing to Trump?
Of course, we know that he was a friend of
Jeffrey Epstein's for like fifteen years. Jeffrey Epstein is on
(48:16):
tape that was released by Michael Wolfe saying I'm Donald
Trump's closest friend or I was his closest friend. Now
could that be puffery by Epstein who loved to exaggerate.
Speaker 1 (48:26):
People also him for fifteen years?
Speaker 4 (48:28):
Yeah, exactly, So.
Speaker 5 (48:29):
I mean, so there could be something that is embarrassing
on Trump somewhere in the archives here that wouldn't be
surprising at all. Michael Wolfe claims that Epstein displayed to
him like pictures or polaroid photos of Trump like sitting
around with like topless young women or something. That there
(48:51):
was no claim that those women in the photos were miners,
but like Trump was also in these modeling circles.
Speaker 4 (48:56):
That's how you've met Milania, right, and Epstein And also.
Speaker 3 (49:01):
Michael, I just got to point out, man, this is
the same hearsay that you're indicting the intelligence quote. You're like, oh,
Michael Wolfe, But by the way, Michael wolf is a
fucking serial fabulous Are we're gonna sit here and not
say that he literally made ship up in his book
in fury?
Speaker 5 (49:14):
Uh?
Speaker 3 (49:14):
Like, why is it that the second hand account here
from Michael.
Speaker 1 (49:18):
Wolf I'm not saying it's worse, No, what it is.
Speaker 5 (49:20):
You're always that's not it's not it's not here. By
the way, it's not hearsay for Michael wolf to say
I was shown this photo like he could testify in
court to that.
Speaker 4 (49:30):
He couldn't testify in court.
Speaker 5 (49:32):
That he was told by somebody that somebody else told him,
Michael Wolf.
Speaker 4 (49:37):
They spoke to Alex Acosta two years prior to that.
Speaker 5 (49:40):
So it's a different level if you're saying, I'm not
saying it's dispositive reporting.
Speaker 1 (49:44):
Yeah. Fine, Wolf has.
Speaker 5 (49:46):
Shown that he has recordings of Epstein, He has hours
of tape. Vicky Ward as Quo quotes on that record.
Why why is she a worst report? By the way,
Vicky Ward And I'm not claiming.
Speaker 4 (49:57):
That that Trump is a sexual predator.
Speaker 5 (49:58):
I'm trying to I'm arguing against that assumption now that
has overtaken these these popular assumptions, right, So I mean,
I'm not I'm not trying to argue that Trump is
a sexual predator.
Speaker 1 (50:10):
I agree with him reporting from other people.
Speaker 4 (50:15):
Here's the Okama's razor that I tend to use with Trump.
Speaker 5 (50:18):
Obviously, he'll just launder whatever bullshit he can to get
through a current controversy. And the way that he's handled
this issue is really amazing. I mean, now he's like
voluntarily bringing it up when he calls into these right
wing like Real America's Voice shows and saying Epstein oaks.
Speaker 4 (50:34):
He's disowning his supporters over it.
Speaker 5 (50:36):
So obviously I don't know, like does he have the
presence of mind to know how to negotiate this story
in a way that is befitting him.
Speaker 4 (50:45):
Maybe not.
Speaker 5 (50:46):
I mean he's seventy seventy eight years old now, so
that could be an explanation. It is interesting to me
that never once do you hear Trump express sympathy for
the quote unquote victims, like a traditional politician would say,
we sympathize with the victims. They've been through trauma. We're
not going to re traumatize them. This uh, this horrible
(51:07):
person Epstein was a pedophile, sprays some whatever like Trump
doesn't even make any perfunctory gestures along those lines. He
just like goes nuclear now on his own supporters. So
is he handling this artfully?
Speaker 1 (51:20):
You know?
Speaker 4 (51:21):
But like I think there are.
Speaker 5 (51:23):
Some you know, more simple explanations than oh that means
he's covering up the child rape ring that people accused
Democrats of covering up, and now Trump is following suits.
Speaker 4 (51:33):
I just don't find that to be that plausible.
Speaker 2 (51:35):
All right, Michael, thank you appreciate your time.
Speaker 5 (51:37):
Okay, and one more thing, like, Okay, I know this
guy a little heated, and it's genuinely nothing personal against Sager.
Speaker 4 (51:43):
I mean, I'm well.
Speaker 5 (51:44):
I'm waiting for the avalanche of comments denouncing me, and
that's fine to.
Speaker 2 (51:49):
Quote whoever was Dan BUNGEI and know I think we
all have our big boy pants on here. So good
to see you, Thank you.
Speaker 1 (51:57):
Thanks so much for watching guys.
Speaker 3 (51:58):
We appreciate it. We will see you all tomorrow for
the Friday show.
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 3 (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 3 (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 2 (00:33):
Joining us now for a little friendly Epstein debate in
front of the show. Michael Tracy independent journalist and you
can check him out over at Mtracy dot Nett. Grace Caesar.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
Always a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Yeah see you, Michael.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Absolutely so. I said this before, but I'm even though,
like everybody knows, I'm more on soccer side on this,
but I'm going to try my best to play the
role as neutral moderator so we can have a one
on one and you're not getting just like you know,
teamed up on by both of us on this whole thing.
But you recently wrote an article that takes apart some
of what you described as the Epstein mythology. This is
(01:07):
for Compact mag We can put this up on the screen.
The headline here is the idiocy of the Epstein mythology.
And you've been very vocal on Twitter now x as
well in taking part what you see as some of
the more tenuous theories surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. So before we
dive in, I just I want to sort of level
set with you, Michael of like what do you think
(01:27):
is going on with Trump right now? Like why is
he acting the way that he is around Jeffrey Epstein?
And you know, ran on releasing the files and now
he's not going to release the files and there are
no files and now yes there are files, but they
were written by Obama and screw you. And I don't
even want you to be a supporter if you believe
any of this nonsense. What is your assessment of what
is actually happening here?
Speaker 5 (01:49):
Well, there's no doubt that the Trump administration hasn't roiled
itself in a pr fiasco of its own making.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
I would argue, you.
Speaker 5 (01:58):
Know, I slightly tongue in say at the end of
that article. But I do think that there is a
genuine trafficking conspiracy for people to get upset about. And
it's that so many people in the Trump orbit trafficked
and nonsense for the past several years, namely Cash Battel,
Dan Bongino, et cetera, when they spent their time tantalizing
(02:23):
their followers with these teases about how there was going
to be some explosive revelation once the second Trump administration
got in power and vanquished the deep state, and by
natural extension of that, of course, the quote unquote Epstein
files would be released, because it was the satanic, demonic
(02:44):
Democrats who were for some reason covering up all the damning,
damning information to protect their donors and friends and allies.
Becausecrats in this Cash Patel, Dan Bongino, you know, Rumble Universe,
(03:05):
Imagination are perpetually covering for pedophilic sex trafficking networks. And
Trump was occasionally asked about this when he would go
around on these ass kissing podcasts during the twenty twenty
four campaign, and if you go back and look at
what he said, he would often be a little bit
(03:26):
equivocal or non committal. He would say, yeah, sure, maybe
we'll look into releasing the Epstein files. But it wasn't
as if Trump went around campaigning on this issue of
his own volition. It's just that part of the twenty
twenty four Republican campaign strategy, which I thought was very
clever and effective, was to tailor a message to audiences
(03:51):
who consume this kind of media, meaning the Joe Rogan
Network and kind of related podcast that I would argue
have conspiracism as a sort of habit of mind or
kind of soft ideology. Not that they're wrong, but every
conspiracy theory that they might believe in, but that's just
sort of how they process information. It's like the epistemology.
(04:14):
So these Republican campaigners had the tailor a message to
these people, and Trump just kind of played along with it.
And it was always I think, going to blow up
in their faces once the rubber hit the road and
they were pressed to actually make good on these promises.
Speaker 4 (04:30):
But Trump themself, so let me just really evaded the issue.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Let me just let me just to be really clear
where what your position is. I'll get Soger to respond,
do you believe there's no they're there with regard to
young girls being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Glene Maxwell
to other powerful people, for example, But Clinton, potentially, Donald Trump,
potentially Bill Gates and others. You think there's no there
(04:53):
there with regard to those questions. And do you also
believe there's no there there with regard to potential Intel connections,
whether it's CIA or Masad.
Speaker 5 (05:03):
Yeah, So let me try to spell this out pretty carefully.
I tried to differentiate between what I've been referring to
as Epstein mythology versus the actual factual record when it
comes to Epstein. In the realm of mythology, there exists
this belief and correct me if you guys think I'm wrong.
There exists this widespread belief that a pedophilic sex trafficking
(05:28):
ring has been systematically covered up, and that Jeffrey Eperstein
orchestrated this pedophilic sex trafficking ring by trafficking minors to
prominent third party individuals and then conducted a blackmail operation
(05:48):
to coerce those individuals into silence or complicity or something.
And the idea was that previously the Biden administration was
maliciously covering up this information again to protect the likes
of Bill Clinton or Bill Gates, et cetera.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
But now the idea is shockingly to.
Speaker 5 (06:09):
The MAGA base or the MAGA social media influencers anyway,
which I'm not sure is totally synonymous with the base,
but that's sort of another issue.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
Now, to their.
Speaker 5 (06:18):
Absolute shock, Donald Trump is apparently engaging in this very
same cover up. I would argue that the factual predicate
for that assumption, which I think you guys will agree,
is extremely widespread.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
That's why people were so insensive about this issue.
Speaker 5 (06:32):
The factual predicate for that is not well established at all,
or not nearly as established as you would think, given
the confidence with which people assert the existence of that
thing that there're so certain exists.
Speaker 4 (06:47):
Okay, all right, let's go on the intel thing.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Let's go and get sobeign and then we'll come back
and it can dig more specifically to.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Michael, First of all, I would point out that part
of the reason that the quote unquote factual predicate doesn't
exist for what you're talking about is actually in existence.
In my opinion that if you look at the open
source information for how so many of these prominent individuals
dealt with Epstein, and then eventually the non prosecution agreement
that was eventually signed by Alex Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein,
and eventually, of course the Palm Beach County PD only
(07:14):
bringing a case against him for solicitation of prostitution actually
proves that part of the reason why a lot of
this stuff doesn't exist in the quote unquote factual predicate
and or DOJ documents is part of the reason why
so much of this does not exist in a court basis, etc.
If you actually look at the information. I mean, I
think Leslie Wesner is perhaps the best example for proving
(07:36):
what you were talking about, where we have a actual
high prominent individual in the year nineteen ninety one, one
of the only billionaires here in the United States of America,
the richest man in Ohio, who gives power of attorney
over jeff too Head aftery Epstein over his entire estate,
transfers hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate
over to him, to which Epstein then uses those properties,
as you just pointed out in the factual predicate, as
(07:58):
exists and points out in the Elaine Maxwell trial, which yes,
is only about human trafficking between a young woman and
Epstein himself as and he is the sole person who
is victimizing these women that was on Wexner related properties.
That's a pretty direct example of where nobody, including Wesner himself,
has ever been able to give an example of how
exactly you had this extraordinary situation of signing over power
(08:22):
of attorney and in fact, Vicky Ward, James Stewart, the
biographers who looked into the story say that many of
the people around Wexner believe that it was a result
of a blackmail operation. It's not that difficult to imagine
that the founder of Victoria's Secret, which entails selling lingerie
to teenage girls and surrounding yourselves with beautiful models and
all of this, would be involved in some pretty sketchy
(08:43):
behavior with a known pedophile of Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
So I think that's a pretty.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Clear example tracing all the way back from nineteen ninety one,
showing the ability to use and coerce behavior, perhaps blackmail
and others, to enrich himself. And also, I mean, we
can get into the intelligence case now in the future,
but exactly why so many people I think rightfully can
point in an example like that and say it's very
(09:08):
clear if you look at that pattern that there is
smoke there. Now, I agree this has not yet been proven,
but I would actually argue that the reason that has
not been proven is specifically to cover up the very
type of behavior.
Speaker 5 (09:21):
Well that some people around wester may have believed, as
you put it, that there was some potential explanation for
Epstein's inheritance of this wealth that had to do with blackmail.
Is not a proven factual predicate for anything.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
Well, nobody's saying that, but by that point we're not
supposed to take any reporting. You know, at the end
of the day, you have a multi billionaire who signs
over power of attorney for his entire estate and hundreds
of millions of dollars in real estate, and it's because
he thought he was a money genius that shore.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
I acknowledge.
Speaker 5 (09:55):
I acknowledge that there are aspects to this story that
are non mythological in the sense that they really do
raise questions about the mystery surrounding how he garnered his wealth.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
And so forth.
Speaker 5 (10:08):
But let me give one example that I don't think
has adequately penetrated the popular consciousness nor has it been
adequately covered on alternative media, maybe including this very show.
Virginia Gouffrey, who I think you'll agree if you've studied
this case, which I assume that you have, is the
central figure who spawned the widespread belief that there had
(10:32):
to have been this pedophilic sex trafficking network, because in
late twenty fourteen, she issued a court filing in which
she alleged that she had been sex trafficked to a
myriad of prominent third party individuals like Prince Andrew, like
the former majority leader of the United States Senate George Mitchell,
(10:56):
like the former governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, and
other people. And then she also made a categorical claim
that she had been trafficked to like unnamed prime ministers
and other people of prominence around the world.
Speaker 4 (11:11):
That's what really spawned it.
Speaker 5 (11:13):
And I just don't think it's disputable that Virginia Gouffrey
was a serial fabulist.
Speaker 4 (11:21):
I know people don't want to hear that.
Speaker 5 (11:22):
I know whenever I've commented on this subject anywhere on
the Internet, ninety five percent of the comment sections are
against me, and they think that I'm covering up for
pedophiles or something, as though I love pedophilia and that's
why I'm making this argument.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
That's not the case.
Speaker 5 (11:35):
Virginia Goufrey, per the factual record, was a serial fabuloust.
I'm sure you know, Sagar, that she accused Alan Dershowitz, Yes,
I do, having been one of the third party individuals
to whom she was traffick. She made this accusation adamantly
under the cover of the litigation privilege for nearly a decade.
(11:56):
Then by twenty twenty two, because Dershowitz actually had the
resources and the motivation to pursue this charge against him,
or to dispute it to the point of a settlement,
she then had to retract and recant this signature claim
that she had been making for ten years. Almost that
(12:19):
very much animated the media coverage around this issue. She
withdrew it, she totally obliterated her own credibility, and then,
sure enough, in the g Islaine Maxwell trial of twenty
twenty one, she was not even called as a witness
by the prosecution because she would have been a nightmare
under cross examination because so many of the things, the
(12:42):
most salacious claims that she made around this story just
do not stand up to basic scrutiny. You could even
find examples of her signing on to like literal hoaxes
in terms of these creeps who came out the woodwork
claiming that they had the video footage of illicit sexual
activity in Epstein's properties. And then Goufrey's own attorneys, David Boyce,
(13:08):
who by the way, made a killing on this whole issue.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
That's another thing we could get into.
Speaker 5 (13:13):
How you know, basically the Epstein matter had has subsidized, uh,
the South Florida bar and all these feeding frenzy lawyers
who have made a killing.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
But the other way, Michael, But yeah, yeah, it goes
both ways.
Speaker 5 (13:28):
But the defense attorneys concocted a whole strategy whereby they
would extract enormous payouts for themselves.
Speaker 4 (13:37):
Gives the toxicity of the.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Victim.
Speaker 5 (13:42):
Last point, last point, Virginia Goufrey made millions of dollars.
She was she had a life of luxury as a
result of her deciding to become this professional victim that
was her full time job.
Speaker 4 (13:53):
She launched a scam. Ng O, I thought the right
was supposed.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
To be doing right now, mind, do you know how
it ended up?
Speaker 3 (14:02):
That she ceased because her life and because she was
a very troubled individual. It's not deniable she's pictured there
with Prince Andrew, but to paint it only as a
Virginia Goufrey is one of the only people that is
saying this is just not accurate.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Part of the reason.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
Why he was absolutely integral to the coverage, and largely
it is because of the photo, which you're not going
to deny, I hope, of her picture with Prince Andrew,
which is literally.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
What got him removed from his.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
Public duties, as from his public duties as a member
of the British Royal family. Clearly they believe, at least
in some part, that Prince Andrew was involved in some
pretty sketchy behavior. There was his relationship with Epstein. But
even let's step back.
Speaker 5 (14:44):
Further, the Royal family was coerced through the tsunami of
horrible pr that they were subject to.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
Hanging out with the convicted sex offender and in this
case with a seventeen year old girl with his arm
around here. That's not acceptable behavior, not just.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
For a British role family.
Speaker 5 (15:03):
He wasn't a convicted sex defender at the time that
photo was taken.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
You're right, he's just his routine to be hanging out
with seventeen year old women and to take photos of that.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
Was he a convicted sex offender at the time, that the.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Photoportunity to check the date on what it is.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
But he wasn't.
Speaker 5 (15:17):
He was taken reportedly in two thousand again he was
not a convicted sex.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Fer, saying that in that case that Prince Andrew, the
member of the British role family, was did not have
access to the global elite in which people like Donald
Trump could say on the record in two thousand and
two before Jeffrey Epstein is convicted as a sex offender,
in which he can say, Jeffrey, he likes him young,
and which is an open secret literally among the jet
set class that this type of behavior is acceptable to
(15:41):
Harvey Weinstein and to everybody else. This is this is
open out from vanity fair reporting from from a quote
from Donald Trump himself, that's our current president.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
But beyond that it is an o'.
Speaker 5 (15:52):
Donald Trump said that Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epson is a
great guy, and he tends to.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
Like the company of women.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
He likes.
Speaker 5 (15:58):
It does not prove that Donald Trump is a sex offender.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
No, I didn't say that, it's he proves prove.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
What I'm saying is that it's open knowledge that Epstein
routinely is seen and is pictured with young women at
that time. By the way, and let's continue this, and
this is why so was Donald Trump pegging this entirely
on Virginia Grufrey again is not accurate, and I think
it what.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
Is largely I mean, she's the one who is.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Not because again, the photo of her with any of these.
Speaker 4 (16:23):
Netlix documentaries.
Speaker 5 (16:27):
Center they because she was, they never ever qualify any
of their coverage by noting that she has a proven,
demonstrable record of serial fabulousm.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
Okay, did you can see that she's a serial fabulous?
Speaker 3 (16:40):
I would concede that she was a troubled individual who
clearly as serial fabulous from the way that her attorneys
and others have acknowledged that she did make up some facts.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
And I do think I'm not relying all of this
on Virginia Gufray. That's my point.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
I have a much broader I have a much broader
amount of evidence to point and this is all where
I think it kind of you.
Speaker 5 (17:01):
Don't think conceding that the most high profile accuser who
was integral in the claim of a sex trafficking ring
insofar as her claim was that she was sex trafficked
to prominent third party individuals. I'm not contesting that Epstein
himself was a sexual predator. I mean, he's on the
record saying that he rejects that there should be any
(17:24):
kind of taboo against you know, post pubescans women of
any age or girls of any age being accessible to
men for impregnation. I mean, he had bizarre and creepy
and depraved beliefs around sexual relations with minors.
Speaker 4 (17:40):
I'm not contesting that. I'm contesting this third party sex trafficking.
Speaker 5 (17:44):
Ring that forms the basiness of why people are so
outraged now about something purportedly being covered up and all
these elites getting away with things.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Let me ask you a question about this, Michael, how
do you explain the deal he was able to cut
down in Florida with Alexicostu goes on to be Trump's
labor secretary, who was US attorney at the time, which
led to him serving I believe thirteen minutes in a
county jail with the jail cell was open where he
was able to go to his office for twelve hours
(18:15):
a day. Afterwards he's released. There's significant reporting that indicates
after he was supposed to be on home confinement, he's
flying around, He's doing what he wants to do. That
deal was so sort of outlandish that actually a judge
came in and said, you violated the rights of victims.
This deal was actually technically illegal, And not only did
(18:35):
it provide for very cushy deal and very low level
charge ultimately for Jeffrey Epstein, it also indicated that none
of his potential co conspirators could be charged whatsoever. So
how do you explain this person getting such an incredibly
cushy deal at that point, and a deal again that
(18:56):
allows any even theoretical co conspirators off the hook, which
is it's so extraordinary the even glean Maxwell now is
appealing to the Supreme Court saying, hey, I should have
been part of that deal. What am I in prison
four since you the government said no co conspirators could
have ever been in you know, in diet or found
guilty of anything.
Speaker 5 (19:15):
I'm just not sure why people think it's such a
profound mystery that a wealthy individual, whatever the source of
his wealth, and I agree that if possible, a more
forensic audit should be done of how he acquired his wealth,
But obviously he had the means to hire a dream
team of lawyers to come and negotiate with the government
on his behalf. He brought in Alan Dershowitz, who had
(19:36):
just participated in securing an acquittal for O. J.
Speaker 4 (19:39):
Simpson.
Speaker 5 (19:40):
He brought in Ken Starr to make a federalism argument
to federal prosecutors, arguing that the offenses for which Epstein
was accused were fundamentally state level crimes and did not
enter the purview of federal prosecutors on that ground because
as the federal prosecutors couldn't establish that there was trafficking
(20:03):
across state lines or some other element that would place
the crime in their purview. Were these technical arguments, sure,
But you know, if you want to make this a
scandal about wealthy people having access to powerful lawyers who
can maybe get them a more lenient non prosecution agreement
than the average person would have access to, I'd be
(20:24):
all on board with that. But it seems that people
just immediately launch into the explanation that he must have
been some kind of intelligence asset or agent, and just
to touch on that for a moment, you know, Sager,
I'm not trying.
Speaker 4 (20:38):
I wouldn't. I'm not trying to personally attack you. I
happened to see. I happened.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
I saw a clip going around last week of you
on Tucker's Show in which you asserted that, Okay, maybe.
Speaker 4 (20:51):
You corrected it, but I'm just right. But a lot
of people have repeated this quote.
Speaker 5 (20:55):
That derives from a twenty nineteen Vicky Ward article in
which she's quoting or she's attributing, this quote from alex
Acosta from several years before twenty nineteen, when he's in
a meeting with Trump transition officials and according to Vicky Ward,
a former Trump senior Trump administration official, which sounds a
lot like Steve Bannon's blowing smoke. We don't know that
(21:17):
with one hundred percent certainty. By the way, why is
Steve Bannon sitting on sixteen hours of rawut okay okay?
And why was he strategizing with Epstein about how he
could present himself for a media interview with sixty minutes.
Speaker 4 (21:35):
But anyway, that will leave that aside for the moment.
Speaker 5 (21:38):
But that quote, with a sense, it's like the definition
of hearsay, and yet it got characterized as an on
record like declaratory statement from Acosta of him just asserting
that he had been warned that Epstein belonged to intelligence
pursue it to the two thousand and seven non prosecution
agreement and therefore he should back off.
Speaker 4 (21:58):
That's not what that quote signified.
Speaker 5 (22:00):
And actually, several years later, post twenty eighteen, when the
Miami Herald series brief new life into the story harnessing
the power of me Too, which by the way, I
thought the right was mostly skeptical of. Instead on this
issue and in like select circumstances, we hear the rights
saying believe women, we have to honor all survivors. We
can't use any critical scrutiny of their claims. But after
(22:24):
the me Too energy bolstered this story, the DOJ, the
DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility conducted a review of the
two thousand and seven two thousand and eight non prosecution
agreement and alis Acosta did directly address this claim that
he had once potentially asserted that Epstein belonged to intelligence
and that's why a supposedly more lenient deal was given
(22:46):
and Alex Acosta did deny it on the record. Now
in terms of the leniency of that deal, listen to
what Dershowitz has to say. I'm not saying I agree
with Alan Dershowitz on everything. In fact, I strongly disagree
with him on the issue of Israel.
Speaker 4 (22:59):
It's odd to me that every critic of.
Speaker 5 (23:01):
Israel now has to feel that they have to be
wedded to this particular issue because their criticism of Israel
is bolstered by the idea that the reason that Israel
is so widely supported among power structures is because there's
a pervasive sexual blackmail network. I think that kind of
makes critics of Israel look rather stupid. But Dershowitz says
(23:21):
that Epstein fired him and refused to pay his legal
fees because Epstein felt that he did not get a
lenient deal. He felt that the prostitution charges, state level
prostitutions and charges in Florida that he was required to
plead guilty to were actually overly onerous and he should not.
Speaker 4 (23:39):
Have had to be subject to any kind of.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
Over whether they were actually let me act, Michael.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
The idea that this was because of me too is
complete bullshit. The reason why the energy of the US
district court judge ruled that the non prosecution agreement violated
the rights of the victims who were not informed of
the non prosecution agreement, which you're portraying as standard operating
procedure for some sort of rich person.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
That is just absolutely not.
Speaker 4 (24:08):
Jammy Harold's series came out.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
I agree it came out to REGATROM eighteen, but it
was a twelve year period in which the victims himself
were not informed of the situation sued under their rights
under the I believe it's like the crime the crime.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
I don't exactly Brown.
Speaker 4 (24:23):
Tina Brown, who have covered this issue very much.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
I'm saying is that the district court judge is the
person who who overturned the NPA, which is the reason
why now perhaps some of the motivations of perhaps coming
back for your rights.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
It is indisputable that the.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
Rights of the victims were violated under that non prosecution
agreement number one. As you just pointed out in that
OPR review, they said that a cost to himself exercised
what poor judgment whenever he came to that.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Now, let's addressgen Yeah, but.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Let's address that intelligent. First of all, the transcript of
that has never been made public. And the way that
it was phrased specifically around OPR and when they asked
him about intelligence was he said absolutely not. I did
not have information that he was an intelligence asset. The
way that that question, as you and I know, asked,
is pretty damn specific.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
Now let's talk about Israel as we know. And no, no, no, no,
it was much more.
Speaker 4 (25:14):
It was much more. It was much more.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Did you look at that out? Yes? I did.
Speaker 3 (25:17):
I looked at both the footnote where he said I
was allowed to address it in a classified saturd he
said absolutely not. When asked specifically whether he belonged to intelligence.
Speaker 5 (25:25):
He says, Now he was asked whether he had knowledge
of Epstein being a quote, intelligence asset. Yes, Bossa stated
the OPR that quote. The answer is no. I'm not
sure how much the more direct he could have been.
Speaker 3 (25:35):
The answer is Look, I mean, I'm trying to be
very specific here. I believe that the way that that
question is asked in the transcript and the circumstance are very.
Speaker 4 (25:43):
Important front of me.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
No.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
But but that's my point though, is that even if
you're quote he belonged to intelligence and I was told
to leave it alone.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
Is not direct knowledge.
Speaker 3 (25:50):
These are classic non denial denials, and in his twenty
nineteen press conference he did not actually address it whenever
he was asked on the record publicly. It's only in
this OPR review that he later on comes back to it.
I don't think you're going to deny in twenty nineteen
that he did not leave the door open to the
fact that that report could have had some accuracy. He
said something along the lines of I wouldn't believe everything
you read, but it was a non denial denial. But
(26:12):
at that time of that non prosecution agreement that you're
talking about, Jeffrey Epstein, by verified report, is in Israel
basically brought all of his assets over there, returns from
Israel to Palm Beach in April of two thousand and eight.
So that's the first, in my opinion, sketchy connection for
why he is exactly granted this special status in Israel
whenever he's fighting a pedophile prosecution in the United States
(26:36):
of America.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
But let's just continue down that fact.
Speaker 3 (26:38):
And this is the part that I just don't understand
for somebody who generally looks for links, why do you
have the former Israeli Prime Minister ade Barack, flying on
his plane multiple times, staying at his house for months
on end, pictured when there were dirt women there holding
a scarf in front of his face to Kaida his
identity from the tabloids.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Why is it that? What is it?
Speaker 3 (26:57):
JP Morgan in twenty eleven to rely on Epstein to
broker meeting with Prime Minister net and Yahoo? Why is
it that aud Olmayer and Simon Perez are both linked
to Jeffrey Epstein. Aud Brock was asked, how did you
meet Jeffrey Epstein? I did it via Shimon Perez. Aud
Olmaher is named specifically by the US Virgin Islands as
(27:17):
an Epstein associate. I mean, if we take that and
then combine it here with Leslie Wexner, the fact that
Jeffrey Epstein is on board of the Wexner Foundation and
then pays aud Brock two point three million dollars to
complete two reports, one of which he never finished, I
can continue back further here we have Jeffrey Epstein involved
in multiple sketchy arms transactions from the nineteen eighties. I mean,
(27:40):
this is where I genuinely wonder, like if you're just
trying to be a contrarian.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
Do you accept it as.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
A fact that Stephen Hoffenberg, Douglas Lease, and ad Non
Koshogi Robert Maxwell, who by the way, is a known
MOSAT agent, did not have connections with Jeffrey Epstein in
which it looks like with a source of his wealth
was used as cutouts for use by the US intelligence
or the US and Israel intelligence community. The four individuals
who I just named are known and linked to multiple
(28:05):
sketchy arms deals from the nineteen eighties Kaushogi, Robert Maxwell,
Douglas Lease, Stephen Hoffenberg. They've given on the record statements
about their relationship with Epstein. At one point, Epstein is
flying on a private jet with Douglas Lease in the
nineteen eighties when he's just twenty eight years old. I mean,
I don't know how you can't look at that, specifically
hear about the money, even ignore the sex trafficking, and
(28:26):
not saying that he did not have connections here to
intelligence or at the very least for cutouts and use
as an intelligence asset in the past. I genuinely do
not know how you cannot look at that and specifically
where the source of his wealth is complete bullshit. He
starts a firm in nineteen eighty eight Jay Epstein in Associates,
where he says, I only take on people with a
billion dollars. There are only one hundred and forty one
(28:49):
hundred and fifty people in the country or in the
world at that time who have a billion dollars under management.
He's never been a registered money manager, he has no
proven tax record. He called himself a coot high level
bounty hunter when he forms an international assets group. In
what way does this not look suspicious for everything that
I have just laid out there in the highest level.
Speaker 5 (29:09):
I totally get I don't know what we're doing around
this issue.
Speaker 4 (29:13):
But if you come out and.
Speaker 3 (29:15):
Say, fact, yeah he was Mosad, That's not how it works, Michael.
The CIA doesn't come out and say, yeah, we killed Kennedy.
We connect all of the dots. I mean, do you
believe then the official Warren What you're saying is that
because the Warren Commission said that the magic bullet theory
is true.
Speaker 5 (29:31):
So now we're going to go with you a detour
into the Warren Commission. But what I mean you're saying, well,
that's discuss this issue. But that's a fact like one
coherent training, that's a factual.
Speaker 4 (29:40):
The War Commission that.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
The primary Epstein accuser is a serial fabri.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
By the way, by the way, there are two other
individuals who had named her name, Prince Andrew Johanna Schobert,
and I need to find her name who's.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
Been named here a Let me ahead and get that
is the case in particular? You know it, sober lay
down the connections with what four different Israeli or is
really prime prime ministers? You know, how do you how
do you assimilate that information?
Speaker 1 (30:10):
What's your response to that?
Speaker 4 (30:11):
Sure?
Speaker 5 (30:11):
First of all, I have to just address the idea
that I'm just being arbitrarily contrarian. I can't tell you
how many issues I've received that accusation on over the years.
Whether it was the Trump Russia story which contained conspiratorial
elements where I was accused of being a contrarian, whether
it was the twenty twenty George Floyd riots, which I
went around and critically covered the poor media coverage of
I was widely denounced for being a contrarian.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
I'll give you all the evidence. Whether it was the war.
Speaker 5 (30:35):
In Ukraine, This just happens to be an issue where people,
I guess more on the right now think I'm being
a contrarian, and so they're particularly in range.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
I shouldn't, I should not have impened your motives.
Speaker 5 (30:45):
But god, okay, yeah, well so, I just don't believe
it's not contrarianism to critically cover how media narratives can
ngeal in the absence of what I think to be
a reliable factual basis, and.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
People believe me linked up with all these I mean,
you had Dave.
Speaker 5 (31:00):
Smith, who I think you guys have had on to
discuss this, or you had on a regular guest who
was at the Talking Points conference and accused Donald Trump
of covering up a child sex trafficking or child rapering.
I mean, soccer, do you think that that was a
credible statement. I simply don't.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
I mean, so again, I would not.
Speaker 5 (31:18):
So, but let me let me address the Israelisraeli officials, okay,
so yes, It's not disputed that hud Barack, for instance,
was a long time associate of Epstein.
Speaker 4 (31:29):
They engaged in some business deals together.
Speaker 5 (31:32):
They even edhud Barack, amazingly enough, was actually present when
Epstein was on a media strategizing session with Steve Bannon
where they were planning how he could rehabilitate his image
in the wake of the twenty eighteen Miami Herald series,
and Bannon was having to educate Epstein about how me
too had changed cultural attitudes around this stuff. So you
(31:54):
couldn't just be as obstinate as maybe you were able
to be before in the past in rejecting some of
these charges.
Speaker 4 (32:01):
So Steve Bannon was.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Actually announce smear the women basically, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4 (32:05):
You had to be more sensitive.
Speaker 5 (32:06):
So Steve Bannon conducted this fit in the sixteen hours
of preparatory interviews with Epstein to kind of tell him
how he would be questioned in the context of the
sixty minutes interview or something on the Israel connection. Yes,
edhud Barack was a longtime associate of Epstein. Epstein had
longtime associations with an astonishing array of people. I'm not
(32:27):
doubting that he was a consummate bullshitter. He had alliances with,
as we know, everybody from Bill Gates to Donald Trump
to Bill Clinton over the years. So it does as
it surprise me that some of those people included the
Israeli government, no or the Saudy arms deal stuff that
he was involved in in the nineteen eighties.
Speaker 4 (32:47):
No, I'm not surprised about any of that.
Speaker 5 (32:50):
And I'm also allowing for the possibility, as I wrote
in that Compact article, that over the course of his
bizarre international jet setting, perhaps he did come into contact
with somebody who was associated with the Israeli security services
and who Barack himself would have been the head of
MASAD when he was Prime minister.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
So is it.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
Inconceivable ahead of military intelligence?
Speaker 4 (33:14):
So is it sure?
Speaker 5 (33:14):
So is it inconceivable that over the course of their
meetings who Barack obtained some piece of information that maybe
he passed along to somebody.
Speaker 4 (33:23):
No, that's not inconceivable at all. I just don't see.
Speaker 5 (33:26):
It as dispositive or as like all encompassingly explanatory of
Epstein supposedly getting away with this child sex trafficking ring,
whose existence I don't regard as having been anywhere near established.
You know, in the Gislaine Maxwell trial, interestingly, Maureen Coley
(33:48):
was the prosecutor who was just fired yesterday, and she
then tried to prosecute you know, p Diddy, Combs, et cetera,
under like similar auspices of like you know, asserting a
sex track a ring, but like weirdly narrowing the claimed
contours of the sex trafficking to two people or one person.
So people hear trafficking and they think they must be
(34:09):
the sprawling, multi layered ring, when in reality, the grounds
on which Maxwell was convicted was a sex trafficking que
unquote conspiracy that literally consisted of two people according to
the government and according to what the four purported victims
in that trial even claimed. Oh and by the way,
those victims in that trial just received multi million dollar
(34:34):
payouts from the Epstein estate and from JP Morgan. And
there was a similar Deutsche back settlement that came out
where by they could confidentially and non adversarily have their
claims adjudicated by a mediator. So if you had any
tangential connection to Epstein, or if I had any tangential
connection to Epstein, of course I would work with my lawyers,
(34:56):
who are going to get cut to come up with
a story.
Speaker 1 (35:03):
I become.
Speaker 4 (35:06):
Purchase focused on.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
I literally just told you there is another I had
to I have her name here in my notes.
Speaker 1 (35:13):
I've got it right.
Speaker 4 (35:17):
The latest.
Speaker 3 (35:19):
Prince Andrew of inappropriate sexual contact while posing for a
photo at the Epstein mansion, suggesting that she was traffick there.
That's in a sworn affidavit in the very defamation case
they're talking about Caroline be another anonymous individual.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
But listen, I mean, this is my thing. I did
you read the door?
Speaker 3 (35:35):
Did you read the Deutsche Bank settlement with the New
York Yes?
Speaker 1 (35:39):
And what does it say in there?
Speaker 3 (35:40):
Epstein had Epstein had multiple financial transactions which broke bank rules,
in which he's transferring money to Eastern European women for
apparent sex trafficking purposes.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
It's in the fucking.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
Report there, Michael from the New York Financial Services in
which they find the bank for breaking its own policies
for sending men wiring money all over the world our
apparent purposes.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
After he's a convicted sex defender.
Speaker 3 (36:02):
I mean, do you think he's wiring all of these
money for hulkers just for himself? Because that's not even
what they say in the New York Financial Services document
regarding the Deutsche banks elpment.
Speaker 4 (36:14):
Money at Rich.
Speaker 5 (36:14):
If he's trafficking, mind, if he's participating in a trafficking
conspiracy to supply miners to others, how is it that,
over the course of over a decade of incredibly intensive
and lucrative litigation, not a single credible allegation of a
third party individual having miners trafficking them to has been established.
(36:36):
How come after every media outlet, at least post twenty
eighteen became hugely invested in this story. So you have
Netflix documentaries, HBO documentaries, newspaper and magazine articles, podcasts out
the wazoo. How come none of them have ever established
(36:57):
any third party individual to whom a minor was traffic
Or is it because everybody is just so afraid of
offending Bill Clinton?
Speaker 4 (37:05):
Really?
Speaker 1 (37:06):
Well, no, no, but that's not accurate because.
Speaker 5 (37:08):
That couldn't extract a lucrative settlement for Bill Clinton. The
virgin I be accused of having a minor trafficy in the.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
US Virgin Islands.
Speaker 3 (37:16):
Who has the most evidence around this because so many
of the heinous accusations, I won't say crime were committed
on their soil. Had an Attorney General who actually was
going forward with a lot of this prosecution. What happened
to that Attorney General, Michael They were fired and the
current Attorney General who.
Speaker 1 (37:32):
Is in charge of the case.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
What you were still work for the Epstein estate, So
that seems like a little bit of a cover up
and a problem there no, especially whenever that's something that
happened to have been intersected in the past week, exactly
the lucrative dispersion of much of the Epstein estate.
Speaker 1 (37:46):
They have Attorney general after this, let.
Speaker 4 (37:48):
Me ask you this that Soger, Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 5 (37:50):
Would you concede that there is a perverse incentive or
or an incentive for purported self.
Speaker 4 (37:55):
Identified victims because by the.
Speaker 5 (37:57):
Terms of these settlements, all the court victims have to
do is self identify as a victim. They can do
so confidentially, meaning they don't have to be cross examined,
they don't have to have their claims adversarially scrutinized, and
then there's no downside reputational risk for them in the
fact that they're not adjudicated to.
Speaker 4 (38:14):
The modified victims.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
And you know, why would you agree that there's a.
Speaker 5 (38:17):
Perverse incentive in terms of dramatizing claims to maximize one's
chances to receive the biggest possible payout. And were you
aware that the four people that the that Maureen Komi
and her fellow prosecutors had to settle on to bring
forward in the Maxwell trial in twenty twenty one, receiving
multimillion dollar payoffs because they were counseled by their attorneys
(38:42):
that in order to obtain the biggest possible settlement, they
should prosecution.
Speaker 4 (38:48):
Does that create a perverse incentive structure?
Speaker 3 (38:51):
I agree that, or contrarians, I agree that it could
create a perverse and censor structure. At the same time,
many of these are legally justifiable because of their proven
claim in a court where she was convicted by a
jury of her peers.
Speaker 5 (39:04):
In which he was Did you know that full flesh adults,
so not minors adults were eligible for these payouts and
actually one adult testified at the Maxwell trial.
Speaker 4 (39:14):
Meaning she was above legal.
Speaker 3 (39:17):
Able to sue somebody or have legal you know, have
legal justification whenever they are a victim of sec like
in the case of.
Speaker 5 (39:27):
The fact that people who were adults could receive payouts.
Speaker 4 (39:30):
Because many years after the fact they could.
Speaker 3 (39:32):
Adults never be able to sue anybody else and be
able to get any money for it for damages.
Speaker 1 (39:37):
I mean, it's like, what are you saying.
Speaker 3 (39:38):
That their entire legal civil court system is false and
stuff by that standard. The ability to claim damages in
itself is a perverse incentive. Now, I agree it can
be weaponized, but I mean, in the Maxwell case, the
basically yeah, okay, but then I don't.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
Know what to say, Michael, what's a financial game?
Speaker 3 (39:56):
And the shuld support Republicans who want tort reform or whatever?
Speaker 1 (39:59):
The fuck?
Speaker 5 (39:59):
You know that all that is, they do not support
to a reform around this particular issue because it's been
so insanely.
Speaker 2 (40:05):
Let me ask, let me ask, We'll try to close
this up, Soccer. A question for you is one of
the things that I've seen from people who say, look there,
you know, we believe Trump and there's no there there
as they say, well, look, if the Democrats had access
to this material and Trump is potentially implicated, don't you
think they would have released that. What is your response
to that claim?
Speaker 3 (40:27):
Me?
Speaker 1 (40:28):
Mind?
Speaker 3 (40:28):
Yeah, you Soccer, Okay, yeah for me, I mean, look,
I originally thought that it was actually a decent argument,
but considering Trump's behavior now so far, and this is
actually where I wonder if Michael would disagree with me. Michael,
why don't we just release all of the evidence within
the FBI and within whatever the case that has from
the Department of Justice, the secret indictment from two thousand
(40:50):
and seven, which has never yet been made public, that
was prior to that non prosecution agreement. Release everything that's
in the case file and just show it to the
American public and we can all make up our minds.
I mean, that's where maybe you'll be vindicated, Michael. Maybe
you won't show any of.
Speaker 4 (41:04):
The release everything.
Speaker 1 (41:06):
I don't everything.
Speaker 4 (41:07):
I agree with Dershowitz.
Speaker 5 (41:08):
Okay, Dershowitz said for said for for the past ten years. Look,
release everything. I waive any right to privacy. I've been
falsely accused. I'm going to be vindicated, so I want
maximum disclosure.
Speaker 4 (41:19):
I'm in favor of that.
Speaker 5 (41:20):
But there are there are two judges in New York
who are keeping materials under seal, you know why, to
protect the purported victims, mainly maybe to protect others who
could be defamed by those victims. So if people want
to go lobby, I mean, Breaking Points should go lobby
in the Southern District of New York for disclosure the
files that remain under seal. But I think the fact
(41:40):
that Dan Bongino, I mean, talker, would you agree with
me that Dan Bongino and Cash Betel and all these
people obviously dangle these tantalizing little tidbits in front of
the right wing social media audience on the idea that
Trump was going to storm into office with his most loyal,
tenacious soldiers and expose the deep state, demonic sex trafficking Democrats,
(42:03):
and that whole narrative was obviously politically expedient, you know,
bullshit that they very cleverly used to gin up excitement
to vote Republican in twenty twenty four, and it wouldn't
necessarily translate to any concrete revelations. Once these thought there
was a consolidated Epstein list that the DOJ hasn't some
(42:25):
vault somewhere that they could just release. Was always kind
of like, I agree population to get people all exercise.
Speaker 3 (42:32):
I'm on the record here at Michael, I completely agree
with you for the political expedience purposes, but I don't
agree that it's bullshit when I have also said it's
a canard to say that there's some Epstein client lists
where it's like, hey, fuck the kid now supports Israel.
That's not the way. Look, I'm not here to defend Cashpitel.
I agree with you completely that the way that they
frame Look, there's two options. They either ginned it up
(42:52):
and exploited perhaps what they claim is the rape of
thousands of children or hundreds of victims or whatever for
politically expeding purposes, or they did that, which is disgusting,
or they are covering upset thing, which is equally disgusting,
perhaps more so actually on the line, I would love
for them.
Speaker 4 (43:06):
I totally agree.
Speaker 5 (43:08):
I would love for the maximum amount of material to
come out, because you know what, Virginia, who you happily
conceded was a serial fabulous.
Speaker 3 (43:16):
No, I didn't say that. She's a old woman who, yes,
has been proven to it.
Speaker 4 (43:20):
Now you don't agree, I didn't know.
Speaker 3 (43:22):
I'm not going to use your level of framing, which
I actually do frankly think is disgusting because it points
her as the central character, which you've self appointed. It
ignores the other individuals.
Speaker 5 (43:33):
I want to introduce the whole sex trafficking theory fourteen
with the photo.
Speaker 1 (43:40):
The photo exists, Virginia photo exists.
Speaker 5 (43:42):
Finish your point, Okay, So I mean I agree that
the maximum disclosure should.
Speaker 4 (43:48):
Be made and that these.
Speaker 5 (43:52):
Concealments that are still in place to protect the supposed accusers,
many of whom are serial fabulous, but yet received enormous
payouts from these settlement funds that.
Speaker 4 (44:03):
Claims because when when when when that stremely was applied
to Virginia Gouffrey.
Speaker 5 (44:08):
As more and more information had to be revealed, she
had to concede that she just made an enormous amount
of stuff. So I think that that would that would
probably with Extreedian luxury. Uh, you know, it's just whatever.
Speaker 4 (44:23):
She didn't She did not live a life of luxury.
Speaker 5 (44:25):
She didn't have an ocean front mansion in Australia and
a ranch, and she didn't make it.
Speaker 4 (44:30):
She didn't make.
Speaker 3 (44:31):
Fifteen suicide bro, Like, yeah, this is what I'm saying, Like,
let me. It was so it was so great for
her that she decided to Let mean, I don't yeah, because.
Speaker 5 (44:39):
She hadstic because she got accorded to her a strange husband.
She became increasingly violent and attacked him the local Australian.
That's a husband, and then she lost custody of her
children and became distraught. I mean, could that maybe reflect
on her credibility that way to what.
Speaker 4 (44:55):
She was not called as a witness in the Maxwell trial.
Speaker 3 (44:57):
Reflects to me somebody a pattern of behavior of somebody
who was obviously, in my opinion, abused whenever she was
young and as a child, and that's its credibility.
Speaker 2 (45:06):
So Michael, let me let me wrap.
Speaker 4 (45:08):
Up with you. Obviously, did I know it's like it's
difficult to admit because.
Speaker 3 (45:15):
Hearing smirts somebody who killed herself and who obviously was
a troubled.
Speaker 4 (45:22):
Prominent individual for a decade.
Speaker 1 (45:24):
Okay, your feelings at there so are mine? All right?
Go ahead, Michael.
Speaker 2 (45:28):
The final question here for you, Uh, how do you
explain the fact that you had the Trump administration go
from the big influencer Phase one Epstein files coming out.
We're reviewing Pam Bondi's I'm reviewing thousands of hours of
footage to two page memo. Nothing to see here. We're
(45:48):
moving on case closed to Trump now saying well, there
are files they were creating a creator by Obama and
Hillary and Comy and Brennan and it's all a hoax
and you know that everyone needs to move on and
there's nothing to see here. So how do you explain
his specifically changing narrative of what's going on here? And
(46:12):
you know the fact that Obviously, it seems bizarre the
way he's handling this in the worst possible way just
for him politically, let alone anything else.
Speaker 5 (46:21):
Well, I mean, I think people in the right wing
media universe are Charlatans, and they exploit their charlatanism to
politically expediently cater to this long standing.
Speaker 2 (46:32):
Belief that Trump specifically no I know.
Speaker 5 (46:35):
I got it, but it leads into Trump meaning there's
like a pervasive, ever present belief within right wing media
circles whom Trump harnesses for political power, that there's a
pedophilic sex trafficking ring that's perpetually waiting to be uncovered.
That's why they were so into Q andons and that
(46:55):
kind of transferred over to Epstein. Well, but it explains
it in that, like why did Pam Bondi in that
now notorious February twenty twenty five interview with Fox News
say she had the Epstein files waiting on her decks
desks because there was an incentive within this mill you
to dangle the most appetizing little snippets in front of
(47:19):
the audience. Like the beating heart of right wing social
media and like comments sections always believes that there's a
that the you know, the triumphant anti deep state warriors
in the Trump administration are finally going to unveil the
true heart of evil at the core of elite networks
and expose the pedophiles. Pat cashpertellus to put on her
big point pants and tell us who the pedophiles are,
(47:42):
and so Bondi was kind of playing into that assumption,
and she used, like, in precise language, is she are
these people?
Speaker 4 (47:50):
Charlatan's You're not getting an argument for me. I was
trying to.
Speaker 5 (47:53):
Make this argument like last year when they were pumping
out this stuff for their own elector or advantage. Now,
I will say, is there a possibility that there are
some additional materials somewhere that could be embarrassing to Trump?
Of course, we know that he was a friend of
Jeffrey Epstein's for like fifteen years. Jeffrey Epstein is on
(48:16):
tape that was released by Michael Wolfe saying I'm Donald
Trump's closest friend or I was his closest friend. Now
could that be puffery by Epstein who loved to exaggerate.
Speaker 1 (48:26):
People also him for fifteen years?
Speaker 4 (48:28):
Yeah, exactly, So.
Speaker 5 (48:29):
I mean, so there could be something that is embarrassing
on Trump somewhere in the archives here that wouldn't be
surprising at all. Michael Wolfe claims that Epstein displayed to
him like pictures or polaroid photos of Trump like sitting
around with like topless young women or something. That there
(48:51):
was no claim that those women in the photos were miners,
but like Trump was also in these modeling circles.
Speaker 4 (48:56):
That's how you've met Milania, right, and Epstein And also.
Speaker 3 (49:01):
Michael, I just got to point out, man, this is
the same hearsay that you're indicting the intelligence quote. You're like, oh,
Michael Wolfe, But by the way, Michael wolf is a
fucking serial fabulous Are we're gonna sit here and not
say that he literally made ship up in his book
in fury?
Speaker 5 (49:14):
Uh?
Speaker 3 (49:14):
Like, why is it that the second hand account here
from Michael.
Speaker 1 (49:18):
Wolf I'm not saying it's worse, No, what it is.
Speaker 5 (49:20):
You're always that's not it's not it's not here. By
the way, it's not hearsay for Michael wolf to say
I was shown this photo like he could testify in
court to that.
Speaker 4 (49:30):
He couldn't testify in court.
Speaker 5 (49:32):
That he was told by somebody that somebody else told him,
Michael Wolf.
Speaker 4 (49:37):
They spoke to Alex Acosta two years prior to that.
Speaker 5 (49:40):
So it's a different level if you're saying, I'm not
saying it's dispositive reporting.
Speaker 1 (49:44):
Yeah. Fine, Wolf has.
Speaker 5 (49:46):
Shown that he has recordings of Epstein, He has hours
of tape. Vicky Ward as Quo quotes on that record.
Why why is she a worst report? By the way,
Vicky Ward And I'm not claiming.
Speaker 4 (49:57):
That that Trump is a sexual predator.
Speaker 5 (49:58):
I'm trying to I'm arguing against that assumption now that
has overtaken these these popular assumptions, right, So I mean,
I'm not I'm not trying to argue that Trump is
a sexual predator.
Speaker 1 (50:10):
I agree with him reporting from other people.
Speaker 4 (50:15):
Here's the Okama's razor that I tend to use with Trump.
Speaker 5 (50:18):
Obviously, he'll just launder whatever bullshit he can to get
through a current controversy. And the way that he's handled
this issue is really amazing. I mean, now he's like
voluntarily bringing it up when he calls into these right
wing like Real America's Voice shows and saying Epstein oaks.
Speaker 4 (50:34):
He's disowning his supporters over it.
Speaker 5 (50:36):
So obviously I don't know, like does he have the
presence of mind to know how to negotiate this story
in a way that is befitting him.
Speaker 4 (50:45):
Maybe not.
Speaker 5 (50:46):
I mean he's seventy seventy eight years old now, so
that could be an explanation. It is interesting to me
that never once do you hear Trump express sympathy for
the quote unquote victims, like a traditional politician would say,
we sympathize with the victims. They've been through trauma. We're
not going to re traumatize them. This uh, this horrible
(51:07):
person Epstein was a pedophile, sprays some whatever like Trump
doesn't even make any perfunctory gestures along those lines. He
just like goes nuclear now on his own supporters. So
is he handling this artfully?
Speaker 1 (51:20):
You know?
Speaker 4 (51:21):
But like I think there are.
Speaker 5 (51:23):
Some you know, more simple explanations than oh that means
he's covering up the child rape ring that people accused
Democrats of covering up, and now Trump is following suits.
Speaker 4 (51:33):
I just don't find that to be that plausible.
Speaker 2 (51:35):
All right, Michael, thank you appreciate your time.
Speaker 5 (51:37):
Okay, and one more thing, like, Okay, I know this
guy a little heated, and it's genuinely nothing personal against Sager.
Speaker 4 (51:43):
I mean, I'm well.
Speaker 5 (51:44):
I'm waiting for the avalanche of comments denouncing me, and
that's fine to.
Speaker 2 (51:49):
Quote whoever was Dan BUNGEI and know I think we
all have our big boy pants on here. So good
to see you, Thank you.
Speaker 1 (51:57):
Thanks so much for watching guys.
Speaker 3 (51:58):
We appreciate it. We will see you all tomorrow for
the Friday show.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.