7/24/25: Trump Exposed In Epstein Files, Judge Denies Release Of Epstein Docs, Nelk Boys Scripted Bibi Interview

Krystal and Saagar discuss Trump is in the Epstein files, judge denies Epstein files release, Nelk boys admit Bibi interview scripted.

 

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

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

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

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

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

Speaker 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. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. Have an amazing
show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal?

Speaker 2 (00:37):
Indeed, we do many things to talk about this morning,
including a new Wall Street Journal bombshell. Trump is officially
in the Epstein files and was informed of such, so
we will break all of that down. Also have a
little bit of pulling to dig through on all of
those matters as well. Some interesting new note Boys fallout too.
We are learning God to save them that they were
actually given a list of interview questions before their big

(01:00):
Net Nyahuo interview. They're sort of still spiraling there, so
interesting to dig into that. As a media story, I
think a significant one. Actually some very dire news coming
out of Israel. We now have a whistleblower coming forward
from that so called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation talking about the
unbelievable and horrifying force being used against Palestinians in the

(01:22):
context of them trying to obtain AID. We also have
another significant media story here involving Candace Owens, who is
now being sued by the first family of France. Candace
did a long piece alleging that Brigitte Macron, the first
Lady of France, is actually a man, was born a man, etc.

(01:42):
And so they are suing her over those and other claims.
We also have significant economic news. Home prices are continuing
to go up, home sales continuing to go down. In fact,
a significant number of deals that were originally struck in
the housing market fell apart last month, record high member
of those deals falling apart, So still really dire there.

(02:03):
This comes also as Trump has announced a new quote
unquote trade deal with Japan's We'll dig into all of
that and we're going to have a guest onto breakdown
if there is any there there.

Speaker 4 (02:12):
With this big Russia Gate.

Speaker 2 (02:13):
Document drop obviously being used as an attempt to distract
from Epstein, it's not working very well, but we did
want to sift through and see if there's anything we should.

Speaker 3 (02:21):
Know Obamagate as an original Obama Gator myself. Yeah, it's
been difficult, you know, we're having to go back and
reread all the files, etc.

Speaker 1 (02:31):
But yes, we will allow Isaac.

Speaker 3 (02:33):
Isaac has done a fantastic job here from Tangle. He's
actually read through everything, covered the stuff for years, and
so we're going to outsource some of our knowledge over there.
Thank you Eiaac for having us to go. I just
shot into this all right, let's go before we get
to that. Thank you everybody who has been signing up
for our premium membership Breakingpoints dot Com if you would like.
Obviously we have all the benefits, but we are really

(02:55):
supporting the show and we have so many thousands and
thousands of people every day who are joining us from
all of these different issues in our coverage, and we're
really happy to have you. If you can't sign up
for a premium membership, no worries, just do us a favor,
hit the subscribe button on YouTube, or if you guys
are listening to this on a podcast, just go ahead
and send a link to one of your friends. It's
the best possible thing that you could do for us

(03:16):
to help spread the word. So with that, let's go
ahead and start here with the Epstein story. This is
again a very remarkable, very interesting leak coming to the
Wall Street Journal. Let's put it up there on the screen. Quote,
the Justice Department told Donald Trump in May that his
name is among many in the Epstein files. There's a
lot here, and I'm going to go through both the
exact details of the story, but also the timeline, because

(03:38):
the timeline matters a lot.

Speaker 5 (03:39):
Quote.

Speaker 3 (03:40):
When the Justice Apartment reviewed the Attorney General Pam Bondi
called a truckload of documents, they discovered that Donald Trump's
name appeared multiple times. In May, her and her deputy
informed the President at a meeting in White House that
the name his name was in the Epstein files. Quote,
many other high profile figures were also named. Trump was
told being mentioned in the records is not a sign

(04:00):
of wrongdoing. That's obviously correct. And then something that we've
talked about here for quite a long time, they said.
The official said it was part of a routine briefing
covered a number of topics, and that Trump's appearance in
the document was not even the focus.

Speaker 1 (04:11):
They told the.

Speaker 3 (04:12):
President at this meeting that the files contained what officials
felt was quote unverified hearsay about many people, including Trump,
who had socialized with Epstein in the past, some of
the officials said. One of the officials familiar, said that
they contain hundreds of other names. They also said that
Trump told They also told Trump the senior Justice Department
officials didn't plan to release any more documents related to

(04:32):
the investigation of the convicted sex offender because the material
contained child pornography and victim's personal information. Trump said at
the meeting he would defer to the Justice Department. Now
I want to sit on that for a second. So
first and foremost is this Number One is that obviously
they told Trump his name was in the Epstein files.
But the thing is is that within the context, it

(04:52):
makes it even more bizarre about Trump's decision not to
release it, and really why this is a pr crisis
of his own making. Now at the point if he
had released it, where his name in hundreds of other names.
There would be quite literally hundreds of stories to be
able to go into this right and we could all
diagnose and we could take a look at all of
these different connections. By doing the cover up and also

(05:15):
claiming that you were going to release everything, you now
make it so that the singular focus is on you,
the president, for the person here, and actually make it
more likely in my mind, in many people's minds who
are analysts here are like, I don't know, man, maybe
there is some ben a hell of a lot more
which is causing all these journalists. You know, the Epstein
birthday book, all of these old clips were going to

(05:36):
place some here in a little bit just to show people,
like some of the past scrutiny on Epstein and Trump's
own relationship, this is all because of your own actions.
Second is Crystal, Remember this meeting was in May. We
did not get the Epstein memo until almost a month later,
ahead of the visit of the Israeli Prime Minister. So

(05:57):
it seems that they made the decision some one month earlier,
basically around the time cash Ptel and others were going
around on podcasts kind of laying the groundwork for this
but what happened in that one month period They said
they weren't going to release anything, and then a month
later they come out and.

Speaker 1 (06:10):
Kind of say it. So the timing of it is
very suspect.

Speaker 3 (06:12):
Remember also in that interim month, they still were claiming
that they were doing and investigation. So it basically makes
the government look like a whole bunch of liars. It
obviously makes Trump himself look dramatically more implicated in a
cover up, probably makes him now at this point more
intransigent to not release the files, which makes him look
even more guilty. And so it's just a spiraling thing
where again the simplest answer is one which would probably

(06:35):
be to his own benefit and to everybody else.

Speaker 1 (06:37):
Just release everything that what's in there. That's all you
got to do. Man, that's what you said you were
going to do.

Speaker 4 (06:42):
It depends what But that's my point.

Speaker 1 (06:43):
I mean, and now they're making it sketchy.

Speaker 2 (06:45):
But you're yeah, but maybe it's get like you're assuming
that what's in there is just oh, he was at
his wedding and they sent him a birthday card or whatever.

Speaker 4 (06:54):
We don't know that.

Speaker 2 (06:55):
I mean, I wat Trump is acting would indicate that
there may be some much worse things. That is Okham's
razor at this point, just based on the way that
he's acting. But I mean, this story is it is
probably the least surprising story that we've seen thus far,
because and by the way, Elon apparently totally vindicated at
this point. When Elon first said that Trump is in

(07:17):
the Epstein files, what do we say? We said, of
course Trump is in the Epstein files. They were very
close friends for a lot of years. There is zero
doubt that Trump is in the Epstein files. Question mark
of what that means and what the implications are and
what you know all of that, but there's was never
any doubt. We know he flew on Epstein's plane at
least seven times, so it should be no surprise to

(07:40):
anyone that he is quote unquote in the Epstein files.
Whatever you know, that really means. The question is what
you know? What are the specifics here? And why are
you acting so incredibly bizarrely? That's really what it comes
down to. And you're right, that has opened up a
can of worms of people going back, because there was
a lot of memory holding. There was a lot of
deni on the right about just how close they were,

(08:02):
and how much, how long the association lasted, and all
of those sorts of things, and so now you know,
let's go ahead and play. This was Jeffrey Epstein when
he was being deposed, got asked specifically about his relationship
with Donald Trump and about whether or not they had
ever been together in the presence of underage girls. Let's
go ahead and take a listen to how he's fun that.

Speaker 1 (08:22):
Have you ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump?

Speaker 3 (08:29):
What do you mean by personal relationships?

Speaker 1 (08:31):
Have you socialized with him?

Speaker 6 (08:33):
Yes, sir, Yes, yes, sir.

Speaker 3 (08:36):
Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of.

Speaker 1 (08:43):
Females under the age of eighteen?

Speaker 7 (08:49):
Though I'd like to answer that question at least today,
I'm going to have to assert by fifth, sixth, and fourteenth,
and then the radser.

Speaker 2 (08:57):
If they're to be the Midas, touch networking, all kinds
of stuff.

Speaker 1 (09:01):
Well, listen to that. As you said, it's been out there.
I don't deny it either.

Speaker 3 (09:04):
I mean my assumption, perhaps naively, was Yeah, Look, he's
one of the most scrutinized public figures in the world
at this point. Yeah, they went to each other's weddings,
et cetera. I'm not saying I believe Trump in its face,
but I was like, I think we kind of know. Yeah,
they were obviously friends, they had all these you know,
sketchy personal connections in certain ways. But at this point,
considering both his rhetoric and the rhetoric of his administration,

(09:25):
I was like, yeah, they'll probably release it. I mean, again,
I could be totally wrong, and perhaps they are, but
at this point, his behavior is such that is really
vindicating a lot of what you're saying. And that's why
I actually think at this point, you really do have
no choice but to release it, in my opinion, and
also just because of the way that the political wins
continue to shift, both in Washington. Remember they literally had

(09:45):
to shut down the House of Representatives to stop vote.
And even with that, I mean, I got to give
some of the Republicans some credit here, because you know,
just yesterday was the House Oversight Committee, multiple Republicans broke
with the administration. They voted eight to two to subpoena
Glene Maxwell, who have some testimony before them. There are
actually people who are there who are like, no, I'm
not We're not stopping this is going to happen. The
reason they had to shut down the House was because

(10:07):
there were enough Republicans who were willing to join the
Democrats as say no, screw it, yeah we're going forward.

Speaker 2 (10:12):
Well let's let's pause on Glaine for a second, because
I know Ryan and Emily covered this, But the administration
is talking to her. I mean, it's very very very possible,
and she's obviously working to try to get a deal,
try to get a pardon. Yes, And I think that's
very possibly the direction that we go in where she
effectively in exchange for quote unquote exonerating Trump, is let

(10:32):
out of her, has her person sentence commuted it, or
get some sort of a deal.

Speaker 4 (10:36):
So you know, that's possible as well.

Speaker 2 (10:38):
And she has an appeal up to the Supreme Court
right now that right now the government is taking the
position no, you know, she needs to stay in prison.
And that previous sweetheart deal that was struck with Epstein
that said none of your co conspirators could be charged either,
that doesn't apply here for this various various technical reasons.
So I think that is possible as well. I mean
that's the thing is like what regards whatever's in the files,

(11:01):
the way they have played. This is so incredibly stupid.
It's like the worst possible way you could do, because
these people are obviously not above line. We're about to
show you Trump coming out and being like, well, of
course this. You didn't tell me that I was in
the Epstein files. So they could have released some subset,
you know, this ploy that they're doing now with the trial, Oh,
let's release the grand jury testimony, which the courts are

(11:21):
already you know, saying no, we're not going to do
that because there's no you know, we're basically not allowed to.
They could have done that ploy previously to make it
look like they're trying for transparency, but gosh darn at
the court system is just standing their way or something,
or just run out the clock, as you and I,
you know, it's fully expected them to do. And instead
you have made it look like you are so guilty

(11:43):
and maybe you are, and drawn so much attention and
scrutiny that now everybody is going back through every picture,
every video, every deposition, everything that has ever connected you
to Jeffrey Epstein and to that world and looking at
it through a totally different lens.

Speaker 3 (11:59):
At this point, right, And that's actually another thing, which
I think is important to align with the Gallaine stuff.
So Gallaine is actually meeting with the Justice Department today.
But the problem is, at this point you've poisoned the
well right for any substance, I mean, at.

Speaker 1 (12:13):
The end of this is part of what does to
me again point to a cover up.

Speaker 3 (12:17):
Gallaine Maxwell's attorneys and the government say, we never asked
her if she ever had any third what you.

Speaker 1 (12:23):
Never asked her in ninety twenty twenty.

Speaker 3 (12:25):
You never asked her, and now you're asking her at
a time when she's directly asking for a pardon from
Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (12:31):
What She's stupid.

Speaker 3 (12:32):
She can't look at the news and say, hey, I
need to know what I said if they had released
the files and then come to Gallane. Also, by the way,
at this point, I mean, Ghlaine Maxwell, just on the
merits of what she's been convicted of, it's heinous. She
should never be allowed to parton or any of this.
I'm talking about just her crimes with relation to Jeffrey Epstein.
And so let's just leave it at that and say,
all right, Gallaine, maybe we can talk sentence reduction and

(12:54):
all of this, but you have to be able to
give US prosecutable you know, verifiable evidence. I think it's
called like a rule thirty five or something like that,
where a judge can take into consideration your cooperation with
the government but has to uh, it has to like
lead to actually something, Whereas now they've poisoned the well
through their cover up actions. And now if she does
come out and say, oh Trump and she's never an

(13:14):
intelligence asset or none of this, We're like, yeah, come on, man,
I mean, this is just as sketchy as a non
prosecution degree.

Speaker 2 (13:19):
Right, you really couldn't believe anything she says at this point,
because who are you leaving? I mean, you know, she
is not going to implicate Trump, regardless of however much
they're there.

Speaker 1 (13:29):
Blaen's because she wants to deal with it. Glene has
had a year.

Speaker 3 (13:32):
She even gave interviews from her jail cell, right, Like,
It's not like she couldn't say something if she didn't
want to. She's keeping it all in And look, she
was at the Clinton wedding. She knew Donald Trump. She
meant elon her father literally a Mosad asset, you know,
I mean, I could go on forever in terms of
this woman's background.

Speaker 1 (13:48):
It's nuts. All right, I mean Lourene Powell jobs like
she's got all kinds.

Speaker 3 (13:53):
Of stuff on all kinds of people, regardless of, by
the way, whether they're implicated in sex trafficking or not,
just their mere association. We saw with Elon Loreen Pole
job it's a problem. No, it's a problem. And here
we have with Donald Trump again like it's just instinct
to just, you know, basically just come out and lie
about a lot of the information. Here he was asked repeatedly,
did you, but Pam Bondi, ever tell you your name

(14:15):
was in the Epstein files?

Speaker 1 (14:16):
And he said, no, let's take a listen on a
DJ and what subject.

Speaker 4 (14:22):
There were a few of the files, turning Donald pamponi.

Speaker 7 (14:25):
Very very quick briefing.

Speaker 4 (14:26):
Did she tell you what did she tell you about
what you specifically? Did she tell you that all that
your name appeared in?

Speaker 7 (14:33):
No, No, she's she's given us just a very quick briefing.
And in terms of the credibility of the different things
that they've seen. And I would say that you know,
these files were made up by Komi, they were made
up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden
from you know, uh, we and we went three years
of that with the Russia Russia Russia hoax.

Speaker 3 (14:56):
So you know, he's literally said, no, she did not
tell me that I was in the Epstein files. Another
person who a lot of people have been looking to
here is Mark Epstein, the brother, and he directly talked
about some of the contradictions from the president's claim saying
he'd never been in his office, and he said, no,
that's just absolutely not true.

Speaker 1 (15:14):
Let's take a listen to that.

Speaker 4 (15:16):
And the White House their response to us Mark, they
were categorical.

Speaker 8 (15:19):
They said, quote, the President was never in Epstein's office.

Speaker 4 (15:25):
Is that true?

Speaker 5 (15:25):
That the blatant that's just another blatant lie because he
was there. The people that work for Jeffrey in his
office you can find and they can testify that they
saw Trump and Jeffrey's office on numerous occasions, you know,
So for him to say he wasn't there, all I
could say is that's just just another lie.

Speaker 1 (15:43):
So you can say he said that's just another lie.

Speaker 3 (15:45):
I mean, look, Mark Epstein, I understand he's got his
own personal agenda and everybody should keep that in mind.
But a lot of the stuff that Marcus said has
actually turned out to be true. Remember it's Mark also
who has really driven the train of my brother did
not commit suicide. By the way, if everybody want so,
they should go and watch the interview that Ryan and
Emily did yesterday with a former inmate at the MCC.

(16:05):
I mean, this guy, the case that he lays out
about the cameras and the way that everything he works there,
it's just again, it's just not credible. I mean I
knew that, and I'd heard from other people, but to
hear from such an intelligent and articulate person who was
also literally an inmate in this facility, a deep association
knowledge of a lot of these cameras and himself is
a technology expert. You know, you could take it for

(16:26):
you could take it with whatever grain and salt.

Speaker 1 (16:28):
I guess that you want.

Speaker 3 (16:28):
I don't think he has a particular agenda that he's pushing.
He's just like listen, I was there.

Speaker 9 (16:32):
This is how it all worked.

Speaker 3 (16:33):
And I'm telling you the government story doesn't make any
sense whatsoever at all that fits with the original OIG investigation.
And now all this fake footage that's been put out
by Pam Bondi so and the very least you know
with Mark Epstein. A lot of what he has said
has turned out at the very least to be correct. Now,
don't forget, you know, he's also trying to whitewash some
of his brother's crimes and his record.

Speaker 1 (16:52):
So let's put that out there.

Speaker 3 (16:53):
But broadly, I mean what the Trump administration and again,
in all their actions, and this will get to the
kind of the Russia Gate, Obama Gate stuff and even
the MLK files is it's pretty clear they're desperate to
release or to try and distract, at the very least
a lot of their base from what's happening. And yet
the Director of National Intelligence, Tulca Gabbard, she delivered this

(17:14):
long presentation yesterday about Obamagate and referring Obama to criminal prosecution, etc.
As we said, we'll get to that at the ladder
end of the show because we have a guest on
who's going to break it all down for us. But
she's asked here directly about Jeffrey Epstein and intelligence connections.

Speaker 1 (17:28):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 10 (17:29):
I haven't seen any evidence or information that reflects that.
If anything comes before me that changes that in any way,
support the President's statement loud and clear that any credible
evidence comes forward, he wants the American people to see it.

Speaker 3 (17:45):
I haven't they always I haven't seen it. If anything
comes forward, I'll let you know, or we'll look into it,
or it's.

Speaker 1 (17:52):
Like come on again.

Speaker 3 (17:53):
I mean, it's just so preposterous, and it just shows
us that either they don't want to know, or they
do know and.

Speaker 1 (18:00):
Then alying to us. I'm not really sure which one
is worse.

Speaker 3 (18:03):
I guess theoretically, plausible deniability a tale as old as time.

Speaker 1 (18:06):
Right, you're in Washington, but you know you put all
this stuff together.

Speaker 3 (18:12):
Also with the Wall Street I should know, by the way,
multiple other outlets reported it, and the White House is
not even really denying the conversation took place.

Speaker 1 (18:19):
Let's make that clear as well. They're like, yeah, we know.

Speaker 3 (18:22):
And their defense is, oh, you know, they knew each
other at a certain time, they had a falling out
and that's the extent. Okay, fine. I mean, even according
to the Journal, they're like, hey man, it's not like
you're implicated in any wrongdoing here. Your name is in
here along with hundreds of other people.

Speaker 1 (18:36):
It's like, okay, fine. Then released it.

Speaker 3 (18:38):
But clearly Trump is either afraid as that even those
breadcrumbs as to what it will all lead to, that's
very possible. The intelligence angle, by the way, I still
think it's a very very very plausible one beyond his
own personal motivations. And if you just put the totality
of the way that all of the original statements from

(18:58):
the Trump administration now aligned with where we are today,
it just tells you nothing but cover up. I mean,
Pam BONDI thousands of hours of footage, all of these files,
hundreds of FBI agents, et cetera. Remember there was a
statement from Dick Durbin, who the senator from Illinois, I
think he's on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, and
he put out a statement saying, hey, we were told
by FBI agents to flag when Donald Trump's name was

(19:20):
in the files. But now it kind of makes sense, right,
because this is part of probably why they were coming
to Trump just be like, hey, just don't you know,
you know your name is in here, But that is
all just it's such a massive conflict of interest and
for people, you know, the streisand effect of this story
now is unbelievable.

Speaker 1 (19:38):
It's one of the top stories in the country. I'm
not joking.

Speaker 3 (19:41):
If you look at Google traffic, and if especially if
you look at people who are quote a political or
you know, kind of online, a lot of them probably
voted for Trump and may not necessarily consider themselves maga.
They're really starting to break for you know, if you
want evidence, the QAnon shaman has now broken with Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (19:59):
It said, this beats his shit.

Speaker 3 (20:00):
Just saying it all right, Listen, you could say whether
or not, you know, I mean, he's stormed the capital,
you know, on behalf of Donald Trump. I think it's
a constituency of some sort for these types of people.

Speaker 1 (20:11):
He was a hero, you know, if you'll recall.

Speaker 3 (20:13):
So I'm just saying, yeah, all these types of people,
this is a very important story is not going away.

Speaker 2 (20:17):
Well, and I think it's it's really the first time
I can think of where all of Trump's go to
tactics are just really not working. Yeah, you know, he's
normally so good at being able to change the conversation
and get us chasing after something else than having to
deal with someone.

Speaker 4 (20:32):
And obviously he's trying.

Speaker 2 (20:33):
I mean I've seen the lists of like all the
attempted distractions, the cane sugar and the coke and the
Rosi o'donald should be denaturalized and loser citizenship and you know,
the now we've got the Obama Gates stuff, the MLK
files and whatever, and it's like, Nope, people are still
focused on this. And it's so obvious too what he's

(20:53):
trying to do. That not to say that the right
isn't interested in the Russia Gates stuff and whatever. We're
going to cover it in the show, but it is
not throwing people off of this particular case, especially as
the story just continues to drip drip drip.

Speaker 4 (21:07):
Drip continues to develop.

Speaker 2 (21:09):
And then the other thing is, and you and I
were talking about this a little bit before we started
the show, like, I don't think Rupert Murdoch is the
type of media figure who's just gonna be terrified and
and you know, run away from the case because of
the threat of a lawsuit. You know, Trump is already okay,
he's already played that card. He said he threatened them
before they publish their birthday card scoop. He threatened them,

(21:33):
said this is absolutely fake. I will sue you, I
will ruin you, et cetera. They went forward with it anyway,
and so he's already played that card with them. And
then that's the other thing that's significant about this coming
out in the Wall Street Journal after that initial scoop
is it's sort of, you know, a message to him
too of like, Okay, well we're gonna keep out like
you're not slowing us down. Yeah, let's play, let's go.

(21:55):
I'm not afraid we're moving in this direction. And Murdoch, obviously,
you know, has all media empire, including Fox News, including
Wall Street Journal, including the New York Post, all of
which are incredibly important and influential. And I think he
also is someone who does not see Trump as being
bigger than him.

Speaker 3 (22:11):
Murdock always hated Trump or in a secret way like
they despise him. It's it is an alliance of convenience
at the very best. Trump both fears and respects of
Rupert Murdoch and vice versa.

Speaker 6 (22:23):
Right.

Speaker 3 (22:23):
But the thing is people need to understand about Murdock
is and I was reading from Dylan Byers. He works
at POG He's one of the best, like true inside
the room media journalists, and he pointed this out. If
you look at the previous settlements ABC settles with Donald Trump,
why they were gonna win. There's no question that they
were going to win the George Stephanopolis case. Why do

(22:43):
they settle because ABC is owned by Disney. Bob Iger
is like, look, sixteen million, and I get to keep
my theme park permits which print hundreds of millions of
dollars a year. Easy trade, right, even because they don't
care about journalism. They care about business. CBS owned by Paramount,
which needs to merge with Skydance, which needs the FTC

(23:04):
and the FCC to approve their merger. Yeah, sixteen million
is nothing for a multi billion dollar deal. Sherry Redstone
has been trying to offload this shit for years. She's like,
I will pay anything to get rid of this. Oh
and by the way, she's super pro Israel, so at
the same time she's like, I don't care whatever, let's
make a deal. Murdoch, people forget this. He sold the

(23:26):
bulk of the Fox empire, the Fox Networks and all
the other stuff years ago, and he sold it to Disney.
He doesn't need the regulators nearly as much. He still
owns Fox, still owns News Corp.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
That's basically it. A lot of his personal empire has
been offload.

Speaker 3 (23:39):
He's sitting on a shitload of cash as well as
as foreign media empire. He doesn't need the same regulatory approval. Now, Listen,
the FCC can make life miserable for anybody. So I'm
not saying it's theoretically possible. But also what Dylan said,
if you note inside the lawsuit that Trump filed, it
specifically doesn't go after Fox News, It actually doesn't touch

(23:59):
Fox News very carefully. It was crafted to make sure
it only goes after Murdoch, the two journalists, and others.
Another thing is is that Trump may actually have filed
the lawsuit in such a way that it will require
immediately dismissal. Because Florida law basically requires that you have
to wait like five days or something after a story

(24:19):
to be published to actually publish to file suit. They
did it obviously before the five days was up. They
may have actually crafted the lawsuit in a way where
it will require dismissal and then both sides can claim victory.
So it may be possible that they knew it was
a fake lawsuit from the very beginning. It was all posturing.
And also what I mean, let's think about the implication here.
Trump would literally have to sit as President of the

(24:42):
United States for a deposition.

Speaker 1 (24:44):
For hours about Jeffrey his relationship.

Speaker 3 (24:47):
With deposition you really want to go through with that?
And then Murdoch zero, it's not happening.

Speaker 1 (24:54):
You're not happening.

Speaker 3 (24:55):
Yeah, exactly. Like the risk for Trump is exponential, the
risk for Murdoch is not that high. He's sitting on
forty or fifty billion dollars and he's ninety four years old.

Speaker 1 (25:06):
And by the way, he loves to fight.

Speaker 3 (25:08):
As you can look at all of his past wreck
I really recommend people go and look at some of
the past legal broiling. This guy has gotten himself into
here in the UK and in Australia. This is what
animates them, you know. And so I put that all together.
I'm not saying Murdoch may not settle. He may do
it just to basically bribe Trump. Maybe Trump will say
no more Trump administration officials on Fox News.

Speaker 1 (25:30):
I don't think so.

Speaker 3 (25:31):
They need each other. It's a symbiotic relationship. So anyway,
I'm betting on Rupert.

Speaker 9 (25:36):
On this one.

Speaker 2 (25:36):
I really well, Like I said, I think the fact
that they published this scoop so soon after the original one,
it really does send a message of like, we don't care.

Speaker 4 (25:45):
Go ahead, we don't buy.

Speaker 2 (25:47):
That you and your fake threats that this is any
sort of a real risk for us, and we're proceeding.
There are a couple other details that are worth pulling
out in this Wall Street Journal piece that were interesting
as well. First of all, they had some details about
Dan Bongino and Pam Bondi.

Speaker 4 (26:02):
Fighting, so let me read this section.

Speaker 2 (26:04):
They say that Bongino has told colleagues his association with
the administration's decision to keep the files private has eroded
his credibility among the basive support that fueled his rise
as a successful podcaster and media personality on the right.
So he's concerned that this is all damaging his brand
as a podcaster, which is important thing for high level

(26:24):
FBI official to be worried about. Bongino did not respond
to request for comments. They also have these details of
this fight. So on July ninth, they say, after ABC
News reach out to the White House about Bondi's briefing
to the President, Bongino and Bondi clashed in a meeting
in which Bondi alleged Bongino was secretly providing information to
the media to damage her reputation. Bongino in term exploded

(26:46):
about Bondi his face read and called her a liar.
A senior administration official said, they also have some details
in here about FBI Director Cash Battel, who apparently is
privately going around and spreading the information, gossiping about the
fact that Trump's name is in the file. So this
is becoming common knowledge, you know, in DC, and so

(27:07):
no surprise that Elon.

Speaker 1 (27:09):
You know, I think almost certainly the source of where
Elon came from.

Speaker 3 (27:12):
And it makes sense because FBI director was the one
who gave the order to the agents to all Remember
they said hundreds of agents and said, hey, guys, flag
anything there that's in Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (27:24):
So yeah, I mean, look, I mean, nobody can deny this.

Speaker 3 (27:26):
The actions of the administration are so unbelievably sketchy now
at this point that you know, I don't even know
how they dig themselves out of it again other than
a full release.

Speaker 1 (27:37):
But even at that.

Speaker 3 (27:37):
Point, there's just going to be so much scrutiny, so
much requirement for transparency to say, what the hell are
you guys hiding? You have nobody to blame but yourselves.
Let's go to the second part here, because this is
equally important, kind of gets to the whole cover up situation.

Speaker 1 (27:53):
Can't say you weren't warned here on this show. Let's
put it up there on the screen.

Speaker 3 (27:56):
The judge lo and Behold has denied Donald Trump's request
to release the Epstein transcripts in Florida. This is the
grand jury transcripts that are relating to the Epstein case.
You'll remember previously that they had said, quote that the
court said its hands were tied because she could not
release the files from the grand jury convene because transcripts

(28:19):
are quote typically kept secret except in very narrow circumstances,
and that the Department was not requesting the transcript for
use in a judicial proceeding, which actually would have opened
the pathway to disclose the jury records. So, I mean,
this is where a lot of the ways that these
you know, a lot of the way in which they
even like said that they were going to request the transcripts,

(28:40):
it was obvious basically from the beginning that it was
almost certainly likely to fail just moving through the court system.
It just gets to this whole fakery about what the
Epstein files are like. It's in the irs in the
Treasury data and inside of the FBI, which you have
executive purview. You don't need no judge to release any

(29:00):
of that. You can release all of it yourself. If
you want to look at the MLK files, right, you
can release all of this data three to two s etc.

Speaker 1 (29:09):
For the public interest.

Speaker 3 (29:10):
There's direct you know, executive uh, there's executive purview for
all of this.

Speaker 1 (29:15):
You have that ability today.

Speaker 3 (29:17):
You don't be putting this on some judge, and especially
here the grand jury documents. Part of the reason why
I said even that would be dramatically insufficient is that
those grand jury documents and transcripts are specifically about the
narrowly tailored charges against Epstein, which only involve him and

(29:38):
the sex traffic allegations against him. It doesn't get to
any of the broader implication. Senator Ron Wyden, who, by
the way, you gotta give credit to the guy's been
working on this story for multiple years now at this point,
so you know, long before it was convenient. He literally said,
I personally looked at Treasury documents which show one point

(29:59):
five billion dollars suspicious activity reports that were filed after
Epstein's death.

Speaker 1 (30:04):
One point five.

Speaker 3 (30:05):
Billion dollars in wire transfers from the richest and most
powerful people in the world, also connected to sex trafficking
rings all across the world, including Eastern Europe. That fits
with the New York Financial Services document. The government has
it in its ability to release that document, those documents
today if they want to.

Speaker 1 (30:21):
Where is it?

Speaker 3 (30:21):
You know, this is what I'm getting at in terms
of the they're trying to fool the public with stunts
like this, and genuinely is very important for people who
are interested in this to be able to parse and
say and say like, oh, Trump tried, no he didn't. Okay,
this was guaranteed to fail basically from day one. And
you know, it's a stunt. There's no other way to
put it. It's a stunt.

Speaker 2 (30:40):
And you know what, if they had pulled this stunt first, yeah,
then fine, then yeah, not fine.

Speaker 4 (30:46):
But I think people would have bought it more.

Speaker 1 (30:48):
I think you're right, would have been like, oh, we're.

Speaker 4 (30:49):
Trying and the courts of standing in our way in
these liberal Marxist judges blah blah blah.

Speaker 2 (30:54):
And by the way, there's still a question of whether
the Grandeuri transcripts from Manhattan will be released but that
judges also already said basically like, my hands are tied
unless they provide additional submissions and rationale for why we
would do that. So listen, this is very very very
unlikely to happen, and even if it did happen, what
it would provide would not be the quote unquote Epstein files.

(31:15):
But you know, the Ron Widen thing is actually really important.
And this is the thing that Julie K. Brown, who
has been focused on this case down in Miami for
years and years at this point, this is what she
always says. I heard her interview with rosstauthat over at
the New York Times. She said, I've always insisted that
the government has tried too hard to rely on the
victims to build the case instead of following the money.

Speaker 4 (31:37):
She's like, if you really.

Speaker 2 (31:38):
Want to know what was truly going on here, follow
the money. And that's why the Ron Widen piece is
so important.

Speaker 1 (31:45):
I've said it here too, and that's why it's just
it's so preposterous. The money. It is the center of
the Epstein store because that's where the arms.

Speaker 3 (31:54):
Trafficking stuff comes in, his connections with Maxwell, all of
his fake wealth, the you know, the Leslie Westerner stuff.

Speaker 1 (32:02):
And it's because of the money. It's because of what
I believe.

Speaker 3 (32:05):
What I believe is work with these intelligence assets is
what leads to the sweetheart deal of the non prosecution.
It's not that the government was running the quote blackmail
ring or whatever. It's not the government was, you know,
running his sex trafficking operation. It's that when he got
in trouble for that, they're like, all right, guys, we're
gonna help this go away. There are documented instances of
this going back, you know, for decades. Multiple times CIA

(32:26):
officers and others have been let off for sex crimes
because they don't want to release sources and methods. The
actual financial documents and others I believe would show a
vast array of sketchy financial transactions which have basically no
other explanation other than intelligence.

Speaker 4 (32:43):
Yeah where did where did all the money come from?

Speaker 6 (32:46):
Well?

Speaker 1 (32:46):
Yeah, exactly, And who did it go on to go to?
And for what purposes? Why was it all offshore?

Speaker 6 (32:52):
You know?

Speaker 1 (32:52):
Why did all these banks just look the other way?
This is this is the story.

Speaker 3 (32:57):
And yeah, you're right, I'm glad that Julie K. Brown
continue used to beat that drum as well, because that
is the beating heart of why you're allowed to get
away with everything. And also I think that's what would
implicate way more. And this is where look, I mean,
no offense is Donald Trump, but he's not actually even
all that wealthy compared to the people who were actually,
wait now, I was gonna say it now, but at

(33:18):
that time, that's when he's filing for bankruptcy and all
of that dealing in the nineteen eighties with the Atlantic
City and all that, he didn't actually have the chops
to be dealing at the highest levels of global finance.

Speaker 1 (33:27):
The people who did, they have a lot to lose
if those files.

Speaker 2 (33:30):
And I think it was Mark Epstein, Jeffrey's brother, who
said that Trump always wanted to fly on Jeffrey's plane.
They wanted to say again, yeah, So you know, I
think probably the seven times on his plane is probably
an understatement because remember they were basically neighbors in Palm Beach,
lived like a mile away from Manchester, and then you know,
obviously they were they were in Manhattan together as well,

(33:52):
So a lot to pull back there. Trump says, though soccer,
this is all coin great for him, and his approval
rating has never been higher, and take a listen to that.

Speaker 7 (34:01):
We've achieved incredible things in a very short period of time.
And then polling released just last week, it was announced
that the approval for Congressional Democrats under Hakim Jefferies has
reached the lowest ever recorded nineteen percent. And Republicans are
doing well, and I have the best numbers I've ever had.

(34:23):
You know, it's amazing. I watched people on television, well,
what about Donald Trump's polling numbers? Hat that the best
numbers I've ever had. And with this made up hoax
that they're talking about, my numbers have gone up four
and five points. It's they want to do anything to
get us off the subject of making America great again, and.

Speaker 9 (34:41):
We're not going to put up with it.

Speaker 7 (34:45):
And remember, don't let them forget it's so important. Obama
cheated on the election. Look, the camera just went off, Obama,
the red lighte just went off. Can you believe these
people are bad?

Speaker 2 (34:58):
They are so Obviously, approval rating is not going up,
although it is important to have parts these things, because
the polls that have come out so far do show
that with his base, his numbers have stayed the same
or gone up I mean all within the margin of error.
But he certainly hasn't fallen off with like Trump supporting
MAGA based self identifying Republican voters. His numbers haven't fallen

(35:20):
off at all. If anything, they have actually gone up.
But Harry Enton broke down the numbers of how his
approval rating is actually doing at this point overall.

Speaker 4 (35:29):
Let's take a listit to that.

Speaker 5 (35:30):
Look.

Speaker 8 (35:31):
He started off back in January plus six points on
the net approf rating, minus three in March, minus seven May,
and now he's at a term too low at minus
eleven points. His net approval rating has dropped nearly twenty
points in the aggregate since the beginning of his presidency.

Speaker 1 (35:47):
Is he's underwater on all the major issues of the day?

Speaker 8 (35:50):
Trump's net approval rating on all the major issues minus
five points. In immigration is best issue, he's underwater. How
about the economy that was what he was elected for?
Minus fourteen points, how about four and posse minus fourteen points,
how about trade and those terrorforce minus fifteen points, and
of course the Epstein case the lowest of the bunch
minus thirty seven points. I do have one piece of
good news for Donald Trump, and that there is one

(36:12):
other presidency that has a lower net approval rating at
this point than this one. The bad news is that
it was Donald Trump's other presidency. His first presidency net
approval rating six months and the worst was in twenty
seventeen donald Trump was sixteen points underwater. The second worst, however,
is this Donald Trump presidency eleven points underwater. The average

(36:33):
president at this point since nineteen hundred and fifty three
has a plus twenty seven net approval rating.

Speaker 9 (36:40):
So there you go.

Speaker 2 (36:41):
That's the reality of where he actually is. I mean,
with regard to the base numbers. I was talking you
a little bit about this before, but look, I'm sorry.

Speaker 4 (36:49):
The liberals were right. It is a cult.

Speaker 2 (36:51):
And I see this as sort of whether it's an
intentional or unintentional, it's basically a test for his base,
like will you stay with me even as these sort
of like core central mythology of Maga and trump Ism,
even as that is completely blown apart, and it does.
It reminds me of the you know, grabber by the

(37:12):
P word moment. It reminds me of these like doomsday
cults that you know, the day that the world is
supposed to end comes and goes and you would think
that faced with this evidence that like you've been lyed
to and this is all ridiculous and low and behold,
you're in a cult that people go with sort of
snap out of it and go about their lives.

Speaker 4 (37:29):
And some of them do.

Speaker 2 (37:30):
But many of times what happens is they actually, because
they've dedicated so much of their life and their being,
their identity this, they.

Speaker 4 (37:37):
Double down on it.

Speaker 2 (37:38):
And there's some rationalization of, oh, well, actually, God has
given us another chance to recruit more members to are call.
There's some rationalization that's spun. Why didn't happen this time?
But now you have to believe even harder, and when
you look at the numbers just among his base, that
process is unfolding right now as we speak.

Speaker 3 (37:55):
I don't disagree. I mean, I just don't think it's
all that unique, I guess. I mean, it's one of
those where let's think about Russiagate, right, I mean, I mean,
we're going to talk about Russigate later, put the actual
thing and all that aside.

Speaker 1 (38:04):
I mean, even at the after.

Speaker 3 (38:06):
The release of the MULA report, the vast majority of
the Democratic base still believe that Russia stole the election
and directly influenced the vote count in twenty sixteen.

Speaker 1 (38:14):
Bullshit, but they still believed it.

Speaker 3 (38:15):
If you look at the cult around a lot of
political figures, Obama is probably a good example.

Speaker 1 (38:21):
I mean, you have somebody who literally ran on well.

Speaker 3 (38:23):
I mean, I think his approval rating with the Democratic
Party never suffered a significant blow up until the day
that he left office, and in fact, his affinity at
this point is still one of the highest within the
party right. And so I mean that kind of is
unfortunately a deep part of the American system. But this
is why I do think that the base argument is

(38:44):
an irrelevant one, because the base doesn't matter. Bases always
stick together, they always are cultish in their support of
political parties. If Obama had the Democratic base in his pocket,
or the Democrats had their base in their pocket, then
they would have won the election. They did not win
the election. Why because there are independents. There are other
people who still vote, especially in these lower or in

(39:07):
these higher turnout elections like presidential elections. And that ultimately
is how Donald Trump came to the Oval office. I mean,
the MAGA base is not going to win you the
state of Pennsylvania. The MAGA base is not going to
win you Georgia. It's not gonna win you, Michigan, it's
not gonna win you, Wisconsin. It's not gonna win you
North Carolina, Nevada. I could go on Arizona. Right, it's

(39:27):
the swing two to three percent. Go look at the
margins in PA. It's not like it was a blowout.
It was like one percent that he won the state.
Those are the people that matter. I think this is
an important moment for them, and that's part of why
I get frustrated with the conbo because, yeah, political bases
are buying large cults. Now Trump, I'm not going to deny. Okay,

(39:48):
the guy is unique for sure, Like within the context
of all he has.

Speaker 2 (39:52):
I think I think Obama is probably the closest analog.
But I still think.

Speaker 3 (39:55):
Trump is unique, and you're in my lifetime, He's the
closest analog. I'm trying to think about it. Reagan actually
came pretty close in terms of his cult.

Speaker 2 (40:04):
With the because I was young when Reagan and you
weren't even alive, So it's hard for me to like
have a real sensitive Well, I've read her.

Speaker 3 (40:12):
People should read the Nixon Land books that kind of
go into the rhyme of Reagan. That's it's important. I mean,
he was the most beloved figure in the Republican Party
before Donald J.

Speaker 1 (40:20):
Trump.

Speaker 2 (40:20):
Yeah, And I mean I sort of feel like though
his mythology was almost more after the fact, though.

Speaker 3 (40:27):
In some part, I mean, he's still very popular and
they left. I'm trying to actually, Okay, let's put it
this way.

Speaker 1 (40:32):
FDR.

Speaker 3 (40:33):
FDR is probably the most analogous example. Or JFK is
another one where you know, even after he died in
the nineteen eighties, he'd walk into a Boston coffee shop
or something, there'd be a picture of JFK up there
with the Saint Metal or.

Speaker 1 (40:44):
Something like that. That's that's a cult, Okay. I mean
he was a market too, is fair? Yeah, JK amongst Catholic.

Speaker 3 (40:51):
I'm just saying that type of stuff is I wouldn't
say normal, but you know, it rhymes throughout American history.
But that's not enough to win elections. To win elections,
you still have to appeal to a broad enough, you
know base. This is probably a good segue to our
Nelk Boys segment, because that is a watershed cultural moment
for the future of the country and for a lot

(41:14):
of these people who did vote for Donald Trump, putting
NELK the guys out of it.

Speaker 1 (41:18):
I'm talking about young people.

Speaker 3 (41:19):
Remember young men specifically broke hard for Trump in the
twenty twenty four election.

Speaker 1 (41:24):
Now will they come out to vote again?

Speaker 3 (41:25):
Nobody knows, all right, I think so, especially people, especially
age that gain some you know, grasp in society. They
start to and I think this NLK boy's moment is
a very important one for I think both in the
Israel conversation, but really politically and media wise as well.
So it's been let's transition here. Now the NELK boys
continue to talk both about the details of their interview

(41:49):
with Bibing Yahoo, but more importantly the incredible amount of
remorse that they show that they have never done before.

Speaker 1 (41:56):
Remember, these guys have had on Trump. They had Trump
on in twenty twenty.

Speaker 3 (41:59):
I remember when their episode got taken down after he
was talking about, you know, the stolen election or whatever
they had on canvas. They've had, They've had on all
the most controversial people. They've never apologized. And yet this
time the level of freak out from their own audience
and within their own cohort is such that they are
doing public Maya culpas. Here we have Kyle from the

(42:23):
Milk Boys basically not only expressing remorse, but saying he
would have changed everything about the way.

Speaker 1 (42:30):
That he did his interview with Beebie. Let's take a listen.

Speaker 6 (42:32):
I wish we could go back in time and fucking
grill him a thousand times harder. And we just went
in there fucking unequipped to fucking interview him. We have
a lot of Muslim friends. We fucking we've been to
fucking Dagistan. We all know what's in our hearts. We
don't hate anybody. We're not taking sides in this shit.
We love everybody. I'm sleeping great because I know how

(42:54):
I actually feel on the inside. So and I know
a lot of you guys are fucking and this is
not an apology.

Speaker 5 (42:58):
This is just.

Speaker 9 (43:00):
We fucking walked in.

Speaker 6 (43:01):
There and we weren't fucking ready for it, man, and
we were just we walked in there uneducated, and I
can admit that.

Speaker 9 (43:06):
But life goes on.

Speaker 6 (43:09):
There's nothing you could do.

Speaker 1 (43:10):
It's an apology.

Speaker 4 (43:11):
He's sleeping great. You can tell barely even thinking about.

Speaker 3 (43:14):
That, you're thinking, I mean, in some ways I'm saying,
you know, I'm like, look, you got a bunch of
prank frat d jen morons who were walking in there.

Speaker 1 (43:25):
And they didn't know what they're doing, but they haven't enough.

Speaker 4 (43:28):
Okay, these are thirty year old men.

Speaker 9 (43:31):
Yeah, okay.

Speaker 2 (43:31):
This is the other thing, is the like infantilizing even
like that. No, maybe we're right, I know that's how
that's their name or whatever, but like you're a grown
ass man, yes, and people warned you. You knew going
in that's fair, and you didn't do like a day
of research, Like you didn't do five minutes of research
into Oh here's what he's gonna say and here's actually

(43:52):
what all the organizations say about whether or not they're
starving Palestinians. Oh look, here's a picture of a dead
baby who's been starved today, and it's clearly amazing.

Speaker 4 (44:01):
You couldn't be bothered to do that.

Speaker 2 (44:03):
And the part where it's oh, i've been to dagistans
like I mean, and then he's well, we don't take
anybody's side still just in the you know.

Speaker 4 (44:11):
We'll just let people speak their truth.

Speaker 2 (44:13):
You just it's I think it's important because this is
the logical conclusion of the idea that you just platform anyone.
And this is not like against platforming people, but that
you just have anyone on and just let them spin
some bullshit and let them use your platform for their
own ends. And the heartening part about it is that

(44:33):
their audience was not having it like that is actually heartening,
but it's still displays that this approach is completely morally bankrupt.
And I don't care that you're gonna have quote unquote
the other side on. Like you had the biggest monster
on the planet on your podcast and asked him about
Burger King and McDonald.

Speaker 1 (44:53):
No, that was the only time that they pushed back.

Speaker 4 (44:55):
Crysal was on Burger King exactly. I mean, it's just
like unbelievable.

Speaker 3 (45:01):
And you know what, You're right at the end of
the day, Kyle Signe. You guys are thirty years old,
you have built businesses, you're multi millionaires.

Speaker 9 (45:07):
You're right.

Speaker 3 (45:07):
I shouldn't get I shouldn't excuse their idiot because they
were also self aware enough where if you remember, because
you watched the whole thing in the beginning, though.

Speaker 1 (45:16):
We're so not glorified to do this, bro, you know,
like we shouldn't even be doing this.

Speaker 3 (45:19):
I can't believe it, right, and you're like, well, if
you have the self awareness to be saying something like that,
they're like, maybe you shouldn't be saying it. And in fact,
the details are coming out of this make them look
so bad. Here they are admitting that they got a
script from the Israeli government when they walked into the room.

Speaker 1 (45:36):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 6 (45:38):
So we walked in and there was just like twenty
people in suits there. Yeah, the setup was already there,
the like both flags. We couldn't touch anything or move anything, and.

Speaker 1 (45:49):
They don't give you any restrictions like don't ask this.
I'll be honest.

Speaker 6 (45:54):
They gave us a paper with questions to ask, but
they also said you like they kind of you know,
they gave us a script to ask, but we didn't
really follow it. We tried our very best to ask
some questions, but I think I liked the questions.

Speaker 3 (46:12):
Yeah, so we tried our pet but we had this script. Now, look,
I will defend them in a certain respect. I have
interviewed Trump on multiple occasions where the White House will
hand me it's ridiculous, literally looks like it's from Microsoft paint,
and it'll be like Trump accomplishments.

Speaker 1 (46:28):
And it's like a single space document of all of
this stuff. You're just like, oh, thank you.

Speaker 3 (46:33):
And you just you know, put it off or whatever
to the side. But you know, I was prepared. I
had a list of questions that actually wanted to ask.
And it's like, brother, I don't think.

Speaker 1 (46:39):
You asked the questions that you wanted to ask.

Speaker 9 (46:41):
And that's the problem.

Speaker 4 (46:43):
It's not like it's not like he was like, yeah,
they gave us a script in the trash.

Speaker 1 (46:46):
We had no He's like, well, we we didn't like yeah.

Speaker 3 (46:50):
And it also gets to the preconditions, right, so when
you walk in there, so for example, they're like, oh,
we weren't allowed to touch anything.

Speaker 1 (46:56):
Everything was set up. There's twenty guys in the room.

Speaker 3 (46:59):
It basically sounds like what happened is that the Israeli
and White House set this The Israeli government and the
White House set this interview up. Yeah, they were like, sure,
no problem. They didn't give any conditions. They didn't ask
for the ability to ask.

Speaker 1 (47:16):
For whatever they want.

Speaker 3 (47:17):
Apparently, you know, the whole set is there. By the way,
why they're twenty people in the room. That's fucking crazy.
I would never agree to an interview like that, it's
insane to have all these people in there. They didn't
exert any of like the interviewer's prerogative in my opinion. Yeah,
and then you put all that together now with what
we're about to show you, which is that they were
basically used as useful idiots here by the White House.
This was revealed when Hassan started talking with the Nelk

(47:40):
boys about the exact circumstances.

Speaker 1 (47:42):
And here's what they had to say.

Speaker 9 (47:43):
All right, so you guys interviewed the.

Speaker 11 (47:48):
Incarnate Benjamin in Yahoo and now everybody's yelling at you guys.

Speaker 9 (47:52):
Okay, So, first and foremost, who the fuck set that up?

Speaker 12 (47:56):
Some communications team at the White House hit us up,
connected us with communications team, and presented us the opportunity
to do it, but with the full time podcast Hater
to Love It right or wrong. If we ever get
the opportunity to have a controversial guest on, we're never
going to turn it down because, in my opinion, what
we want to do with a full time podcast on
is we're not afraid to have controversial people on. We're

(48:16):
gonna ask some questions. Sure, we're probably not the best
at asking questions. We're not the best journalists never claimed
to be, so we might not be the best at
pressing them. But in my opinion, it's it's up to
the viewer to form their own educated opinion. Just because
we have someone on, we're sitting beside someone, people are
gonna be like, oh my god, noaks with them, Like
I love this person.

Speaker 11 (48:35):
My question is do you feel like there is a
culpability that you have because like, look, Donald Trump is
a contentious figure, and obviously he's responsible for a metric
ton of pain and violence as well, but so was
every other American president.

Speaker 9 (48:48):
That's one thing.

Speaker 11 (48:49):
But Benjamin Nyaho is like unique in the sense that
he's also a foreign leader because he's getting something out
of this, right, he's getting something out of this where
he gets to, I guess, like try and humanize himself.

Speaker 5 (49:01):
That's the thing.

Speaker 12 (49:01):
That's honest. We'll have anyone on, like next episode, we're
going to have someone on with the complete opposite ideology.
We're talking to a few different people and we want
to choose the right person to kind of represent, you know,
the opposite side.

Speaker 9 (49:14):
Okay, but is it just like a podcast, you know
what I mean?

Speaker 11 (49:17):
Like he's literally the prime Minister that is a war
criminal by the International Criminal Court.

Speaker 9 (49:22):
He's like literally branded as a war criminal.

Speaker 12 (49:24):
I think I think if you watch it though too,
I think yes, I mean, I think being signing could
have pressed them a little bit harder. But we did
ask him, what is your response to when people say
you're starving children in Gaza? Do you think October seventh
could have been prevented? Are you trying to implement regime
change in Iran? We definitely did ask him some questions
that I think people wanted to go out.

Speaker 9 (49:43):
Okay, what did he What did he say? I mean,
of course he said.

Speaker 12 (49:46):
He's for starving children in Gaza. He said that they
bring the food in and Hamas steals it and then
sells it.

Speaker 9 (49:52):
That's a lie.

Speaker 11 (49:53):
No human rights organization that works on the ground, from
the UN to the World Food Program has ever agreed
to the Israeli position that this is all Hamas stealing
eight or whatever.

Speaker 3 (50:02):
And that that really is what gets to it is like,
you know, just tossing things out without being prepared on
the facts of it is actually worse because it means
that you just get their response and and you know
he gets It's not I actually think put it quite well.
Trump again, It's one thing, but baby, in the prosecution

(50:23):
of a war, it really is another. When the stakes
are so high for millions of people, and people are dying.

Speaker 1 (50:31):
As a direct result.

Speaker 3 (50:33):
Every single minute of every hour of every day that
this continues, the death toll goes exponential.

Speaker 1 (50:41):
That's another level, right, And I just come. I said
this in our original thing.

Speaker 3 (50:45):
I was like, look, he doesn't sit with his own
goddamn journalists in his country for a reason, because they
would ask him.

Speaker 1 (50:52):
He only he only agrees to interview with the.

Speaker 3 (50:55):
Fucking Milk boys and Brett bay Or who are all
going to glaze him about Iran. They don't even ask
him anything sump to But you know, to the Fox
point sit down with Trey Yings, my brother, go go
sit down with Trey in your own damn country and
see how that goes for you. It's not gonna go well,
like for anybody even who has a quote, you know,
neutral stance or whatever, who's prepared with information.

Speaker 1 (51:18):
And that's the part that just gets me so hard
with this now thing.

Speaker 2 (51:21):
They said something, they say something else interesting there, which
I think is very illustrative of their mindset. They're like,
we'll have on any controversial figure, like they see him
as in the same lane as like candae O Weathers
or like you know, Nick Fuentes or whatever, like they
see him in that same bucket. And I was watching
arm Brown, who has a YouTube channels comedian, his take
on this, and he was like, in their brains there

(51:43):
were two types of people, people who get clicks and
people who don't get clicks. And in their view was like, Oh,
this is someone who it's like the ultimate example of
content brain sure, and it's like, you know, I think
I think either Adam Friedlin or Hassan Piker said this
to them too. They're like, not everything is content, Like
not everything is just about generating clicks and getting eyeballs

(52:05):
and stoking some sort of controversy. So you're the center
of attention, like some things actually matter. This man is
doing a genocide right now, in real time, with the
support of our government, and you are not equipped at all.
You acknowledge you are not equipped at all to actually
know what's going on and be able to ask him
intelligent questions or even more importantly, ask intelligent follow ups
when he lies to your face, as he did multiple times.

(52:27):
And so I think That's what this comes down to,
is like this incredibly a moral view of the world
where it's just about like, who's going to get eyeballs
to my channel. This will be hot, hot topic, this
will get me attention, this will get eyeballs to my channel.
Therefore I'm going to do it. I'll sit down with
any controversial figure. That's what they say, as if this

(52:48):
is just you know, some podcast or somebody like, you know,
trying to sell some merch or sell a book or whatever.
And not to say those things aren't consequential as well,
but this is so different. This is on such a
different scale, and so I hope that it's a cautionary
tale because this did not go well for them. I mean,
their own audience, their subcount has gone down somewhat, their

(53:10):
own audience completely revolted against them. I haven't seen anyone
come out and say I haven't even seen the Israeli
Like they're humiliating, like, oh.

Speaker 3 (53:19):
This was great, and you guys they compared him to
Adolf Hitler afterwards, in what world did that go well
for you?

Speaker 8 (53:24):
Great?

Speaker 2 (53:26):
Like in their post in their post interview Spin, they're like, yeah,
you're somebody wrote in and was like, yeah, you just
interviewed modern day Adolf Hitler, and he's like, yeah, you
kind of got a point there.

Speaker 4 (53:36):
So it's just no one is defending this.

Speaker 2 (53:38):
Let this be a cautionary tale of like, if you're
going to play in these waters.

Speaker 4 (53:43):
Number one, you could bring someone in you could have
as a condition for the interview.

Speaker 2 (53:47):
I need to have whoever it is that you trust
that you think is insightful on this to ask them
real questions. You know, I'm going to have this person
in the room to I'll do it, but we're going
to have this person.

Speaker 4 (53:56):
In the room too, or just don't do it.

Speaker 2 (53:59):
That would have been infinitely superior to this absolute mess
for yourselves and for the world.

Speaker 3 (54:04):
I think it was a good turning point, though in
the culture of I think it could be too. Let's
put this final one up here. This is from Mike Sternovich.
I actually thought it was very insightful. And what he
says is the NLK boys, who were widely popular with Zoomers,
far more than any political or MAGA influencer, had on Netsagna,
who in their audience is furious nets on Ya, who
is deeply hated.

Speaker 1 (54:22):
We are talking ninety ten hated more so than even
I realized.

Speaker 3 (54:25):
He actually followed it up with if you spend time
on Twitter, you would think it's like sixty forty and
he's like, no, guys, it's ninety ten. And in fact,
if you look at the like dislike ratio on the video,
I mean, look to be fair, East can be brigaded.

Speaker 1 (54:37):
And all that, it's like somewhat you know, uh indicated.

Speaker 2 (54:41):
I dug deefens that comment section. I did not see
a single positive comment.

Speaker 3 (54:46):
Here's not one thirty three thousand likes upvotes, one hundred
and sixty eight thousand down. I mean that's insane, you know.
Now again you can be brigaded from outside and all
of that book.

Speaker 1 (54:56):
That's it speaks.

Speaker 3 (54:57):
It speaks to the point where there's not a single defense.
In fact, every single person in their cohort either is
ignoring it or condemning it, right, And that is really like,
very very indicative to me. I also think it's a
bat signal broadly to everybody on this issue, where like

(55:18):
you said, it's not just content. It's really not even
I hesitate to say ditch neutrality, but it's about confrontation,
and it's really about holding facts like like holding people
accountable for facts and really, if you're going to agree
to it, to actually get into the nitty gritty and
not allow some alighting lies.

Speaker 1 (55:40):
And that really was like the biggest problem with them.

Speaker 2 (55:43):
Yeah, And this is what pisses me off to is
because you and I have done many con confrontational interviews.
Neither of us likes doing it. Doing it's not fun.
You have to prepare a lot, it's uncomfortable. You know,
there are some people out there who like enjoy the
are the like debate broads, and they interest me.

Speaker 1 (56:01):
I use peers and all these peo by hate.

Speaker 4 (56:02):
Yeah, I mean I think.

Speaker 2 (56:03):
Glenn loves to get it and make it like there
are people who are wired that way. Most people are
not wired that way. I'm not wired that way. But
when you have someone who's sitting in front of you,
who aspires to power, has some position of prominence, it
isn't a responsibility that you have to be prepared and
to be uncomfortable if that's what the interview requires. And

(56:24):
so this idea that it's somehow like noble and good
to do none of that and just let people spout
off whatever they want it actually pisses me off because
it's a cowards and a lazy way out.

Speaker 4 (56:35):
Yeah, it's not fun to have to do those things.

Speaker 2 (56:37):
I get it, but that is actually if you want
to play in these fonds, if you want to swim
in these waters.

Speaker 4 (56:43):
That is actually what is required. And you don't have
to be an asshole about it.

Speaker 2 (56:47):
It doesn't have to be personal, but you need to
come equipped with facts and replies and think about, Okay,
here's what they're going to say, and here's how I'm
going to follow up. You have to game all of
that out in advance and be willing to sit in
that discomfort and just do it anyway.

Speaker 3 (57:02):
So I agree, and that's why the Nelk guys would
be better off not doing it, and they would have
been off passing. And by the way, the fact that
the Israelis would only agree to Nelk and not to
anybody else.

Speaker 1 (57:11):
I mean, he tells you something, right, Yeah, it really does.

Speaker 3 (57:13):
Like, honestly, I'm being serious, this will sound crazy to say,
even like a pro Zionist political person might have actually
done a better job because they are going to be
equipped with some or they're going to know what to
tee him up on and they're going to actually get
him on the record for various things instead of generic
stuff like what's up with all these people starve it

(57:34):
in Gaza or.

Speaker 1 (57:36):
What did he say?

Speaker 3 (57:36):
He's like, why does everybody hate you? That's a stupid
fucking question.

Speaker 2 (57:40):
He didn't even ask, like why are people starving? He said, yeah,
why if people.

Speaker 1 (57:43):
Say yeah, that's right, yeah, exactly.

Speaker 2 (57:45):
And then Bibe could just go, oh, well, they're lying
and we were love the Palestinians and we're trying to
get them made and Hamas is stealing it. It's just
like