July 28, 2025 • 41 mins
Krystal and Saagar discuss Trump floats Ghislaine pardon, Newsmax says Ghislaine is a victim, Dem approval hits all time low.
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 the 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. Speaking of Israel, by the way, let's punk
to the Jeffrey Epstein story, shall we here? With Donald
Trump now floating a potential pardon for Galaine Maxwell, not
saying he's going to do it, but you know, not ruling.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
It out either. Quote, I am allowed to do it
if I want to. Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Would you consider a pardon or a commutation for Eli Maxwell?
Speaker 1 (00:53):
And if you love something, I haven't thought about it.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
Really, I don't recommend you.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
It's something I'm allowed to do it, but it's something
I have none.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
I've thought about it.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Something I haven't thought about, but I am allowed to
do it, you know, if I am allowed to at it.
This is after Gallaine had this extraordinary meeting with the
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. We have video of her.
I'll talk over it while it is playing. You're actually
watching her walk back into prison in Tallahassee, Florida, carrying
(01:21):
the boxes of her discovery. The details of this, guys,
are extremely unclear. So the circumstances that this all kind
of came about, if we go to the next part,
is that these meetings were initiated by the Department of Justice.
Quote she answered questions for about nine hours over two
days and was quote granted a limited form of immunity. Now,
(01:43):
people took a lot out of this, but let me
just slightly explain. Because she's already been convicted, the limited
form of immunity doesn't necessarily apply in way. People are
thinking that she's not getting away with anything. According to them,
the Gallaine maxwell mentioned over one hundred different names that
bear investigation in relation to the Epstein story. Now that's
(02:04):
according at least to some leaks coming out from the
government as well as statements by the Deputy Attorney General.
But the entire thing stinks to high heaven. And this
kind of gets to the pardon question because all of
this is coming about as these Wall Street Journal story
drops about Trump and Jeffrey Epstein and the letter that
he wrote to him, as well as all of these
(02:25):
other powerful people, all of whom, by the way, have
verified connections to Epstein. We have the photo of the
book now dropped by the New York Times where Trump
signed it to Jeffrey Epstein in nineteen ninety.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Seven, Photos of the two of them being relieved.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
Who was it with James Brown, the singer, just to show,
you know, photos at his second wedding right of Epstein,
who is attending there, Ghlaine Maxwell. Obviously these photos have
all been out there for a long time, not Trump
and Epstein, but you know Glaine at the Clinton wedding right,
So obviously to the way that they were enmeshed in
this high society is part of the entire story. The
question is why now, Because what we've seen previous is
(03:01):
the DOJ said that at no time was Galaine ever
asked about third party individuals who were may or may
not have been enmeshed in this blackmail scheme. But the
problem is that Trump has a direct political incentive right
now to make sure that his own name doesn't surface
in any of this, and so any forms homer of
(03:23):
deal cut by the government that let's say, implicates other people,
it doesn't implicate Trump, and then leads to some sort
of pardon you know, that is immune from the not
immune from the political process, is going to have a
lot of open questions. This is why they should have
a special prosecutor. They should have somebody who's immune from
the political system, who is not you know, directly answerable
to Donald Trump or anyone really on the matter, because
(03:46):
any sort of deal and files or whatever that is
released has to have confidence otherwise this is going to
be some JFK style cover up all over again. So
the whole thing stinks, thinks.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Too high end, well obvious, what's going on here. Wants
a pardon, Trump is thinking of giving it to her.
And what in exchange she thinks she's gonna blow the
whistle on if he did anything wrong.
Speaker 5 (04:06):
Well, of course not.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
It's going to be all about handing over like whatever
Democrats or democratic aligned billionaires you know which, fine, but again,
the government has that we can put the next element
D four up on the screen. The government has like
one hundred thousand pages of doctor. They have terabytes of information,
including financial records and all and videos and all sorts
(04:27):
of information that they could release. We don't have to
pardon a pedo sex criminal trafficker who should spend the
rest of her life in prison and frankly wasn't prosecuted
for even close to all of the crimes that she
actually committed. I mean, let's not get it twisted. This woman.
You want to talk about a groomer like, this woman
(04:48):
is an absolute monster. We're talking at the least hundreds
of girls, young girls that she would recruit and herself
personally victimize and get into the trafficking what was effectively
like a pedo trafficking Ponzi scheme. She was the main
person doing that for years and years and years. So
(05:10):
you know, I'm starting to will cover the like magger
reaction to this idea that she got a raw dealer.
Speaker 5 (05:15):
Oh, this is so unfair.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Like what is unfair is that there aren't other people
in prison alongside of her.
Speaker 5 (05:21):
But she don't get it.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
She belongs there, and so the fact that it's even
being considered, and I think he's going.
Speaker 5 (05:28):
To do it. I do think he's going to do it.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
But he's even considering pardoning her, and we have reporting
from the past, Corny and Michael Wolfe at least that
he had considered pardoning her before. It's so grotesque and
he thinks that we're all stupid that we can't see
what's happening here. People need to acquaint themselves with the term,
if you're not familiar, limited hangout, because that's exactly.
Speaker 5 (05:48):
What's going on here.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Is like in order to sort of like push off
the pressure from this emerging scandal of how closely affiliated
Donald Trump was with Epstein and how he clearly is
acting guilty as how like he's got all kinds of
things to cover up. In order to like diffuse that scandal,
you'll selectively release a little bit of information to try
to convince people that you're blowing the lid off of
(06:12):
this scandal. But obviously you're carefully concealing anything that would
implicate Trump, anything that would implicate anyone on really on
the Republican side of the aisle, but him in particular,
And at this point in time, what is the most
important information that we could Yes, I would expose all
of the pedophile criminals, do that. But the most important
piece of information we need right now is does Masade
(06:33):
have blackmail pedal material on the President of the United States?
And if you if we are not in pursuit of
the relentlessly in pursuit of that information, then it is
you know, we are really really missing the train on
what is going on.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
I mean, it sounds like Russia Gate level stuff and
completely No, That's part of the issue is that I'm
going to be clear. I didn't believe that. I'm still
not really I still don't really believe that. But the
way that Trump is acting makes it so is pretty
clear that you know, you got to ask something about like,
what the hell is going on with your actions around
these files? And from the very beginning, and let's put
(07:10):
this next one up here on the screen, shall we.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
This is from the New York Times.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
D four, because what you see here is quote how
a frantic scouring of the Epstein files consumed the Justice Department.
And in the story they talk specifically by the way,
I don't fully believe this. This is all kind of like,
it's kind of you know the FBI line in terms
of how they didn't end up discovering some sort of
(07:35):
grand conspiracy. But they're saying they compiled more than one
hundred thousand pages of materials related to Epstein in terms
of grand jury testimony, in terms of his bank records,
all of the different stuff that they've seized and all
of that over the years, and that of those one
hundred thousand files, none of them absent what previously has
(07:58):
been released is yet going to be released here by
the government now, they claim. The bureau's oone expert document
reviewers have raised questions about whether it's being rushed or
whether it would violate laws and internal protocols to protect
sensitive information about witnesses, child victims, and other grand jury
material from being released. But let's not pretend that they
care all that much about what they care about, like
(08:19):
the actual privacy of the people who are named in
here that are not the victims. They're afraid and I
guess maybe I'm relatively conflicted about this. They keep saying
things like, oh, well, we don't want innocent people to
be smeared as a result of the release of these files.
But and everyone says like, oh, just appearing in the
file doesn't implicate any sorts of wrongdoing. But that's not
(08:41):
really the point as to the story. Because even let's say,
if you're not in the files but not connected to
the sex trafficking, which by the way, as I've said
here before, I don't even think that's like really the
tip of the spear of the shadiest stuff that he.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Was up against.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
You could still be involved in some extremely like grand
intelligence money laundering bag man operation. So you know, you
might still be guilty of all of this other different stuff.
And at this point, considering the promises and all that
from the Trump administration to just come out with the
memo and just cut everything off from the very beginning
and not release any of the info, you know, especially
(09:18):
that points in the intelligence picture, that just screams.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Cover up at like the highest level.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
So the point is, there's one hundred thousand pages of
Epstein documents. Trump may have a personal compelling interest in
terms of not wanting to get his relationship with Epstein out,
but again, I really still don't think that that's the
full story. I think that the original intelligence impotence stems
from you know, it has been there from day one,
and that these hundred thousand pages and all that inside
of the FBI, and even now all of this talk
(09:45):
with Gilainne Maxwell, like you said, with the Gallaine, the
limited hangout stuff. That's what this entire thing looks like.
And a lot of it has been distracted in terms
of stilation, media covers, and people don't necessarily know the
full story. But when you do, there's so much still
out there that they could easily release, still protecting victims
and all that, and actually give people some compelling information
(10:05):
about what's inside of the you know, the possession of
the government.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
You don't have to go to the courts, and you
don't have to pardon a convicted sex criminal. You don't
have to do any of that. You have in the government,
in the you know.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
FBI, under the executive purview.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Yeah, under the executive purview, you have vastly more information
than you're going to get from this criminal or from
the you know, grand jury testimony, which isn't going to
be released anyway. So you know, so then okay, well,
why doesn't he just release it? And we already know,
you know, this has now been reported.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
He's in the files.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
We know that when they were scouring through this one
hundred thousand pages of information that they were specifically told
to flag his name and identify where he appears in
the files. And we also know and this is you know,
Ryan brought this up and really reminded people of this
whole episode who weren't familiar. These reelis are known. Natanyahu
specifically is known to have blackmailed President Clinton with Monica
(10:57):
Lewinsky recorded sex tapes that they had collect and sort
of drop the information to him in the context of
ongoing negotiations with the Palestinians. So it's not like this
is so outlandish and oh, they would never do that,
And it's crazy to think that they'd be collecting like
sexual blackmail material on American presidence. We know they literally
(11:17):
have already done that. So is is President Trump one
of those American presidents the next in the list of
American presidents who you know, the Israelis are holding some
sort of black mail material material over his head. We
need to know that, and it certainly would explain a
lot of how he has behaved visa VI the Israeli state.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
And oh well, not just him, by the way, there's
other cabinet officials I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Who have some questionable behavior on the topic.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
But it is one of those where you know when
you you make it seem like that is a possibility
in terms of your behavior. The only way to quash
it at this point is to actually release everything to
show that you have nothing to hide. But the Republicans
are not acting that way. The Republican Party right now
quite literally has shut down the entire House of Representatives
(12:04):
just to make sure that none of the Epstein files
get released because they don't want to vote on the
floor any rule, nothing, no piece of legislation to be
able to move through. And the Speaker, Mike Johnson has
a new line. All credible evidence must be released, credible
being the key word in terms of protecting identities and others.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
As if they're so concerned about that, let's take a listen.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Should all of the files related to Jeffrey Epstein be
released and made public.
Speaker 6 (12:32):
Yes, I agree with President Trump, with the Department of Justice,
with the FBI that you need all credible evidence and
information out there. That word credible is important and why
because you have to protect innocent people's names and reputations
whose names might be as you noted at the outset
of the program intertwined into all these files. This has
been a long legal process that the Massey and Kana
(12:53):
discharge petition would require the release. They would require the
DOJ and FBI to release information that they oh is false.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
So there you go in terms of the new line
is all about, you know, credible evidence about this grand
jury stuff. Guys, you know, none of that has anything
to do with all of the vast troves of information
that the government can and should release immediately. So that's
just just everybody keep that in mind. As the story
continues to.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Fold, remind her that this man literally shut down Congress
to avoid Yeah, shut down Congress releasing that.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
I will say, I'm actually somewhat heartened at some of
the congressional Republicans here.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
You know, they basically fold on everything.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
But it's pretty clear from their behavior they actually did
have the votes to vote on the bill. From Tim Burchett,
Thomas Massey, a few others. They have done the subpoena
now for Galade Maxwell. I don't really know what it is,
but they have at the very least are not you know,
sitting down yet right now.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
About the Maxwell is worthless because she's just gonna she's
not gonna she wants a pardon from Trump. She's never
going to implicate him or be fully honest about what
she knows. So I don't really I don't really put
much credence in that whatsoever. But I mean, they clearly
realize that this has a lot of heat with their
basis feeling.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Okay, but let's say so good point.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
But at the end of the day, a subpoena and
a compelling testimony put somebody on the record. If you
lie to Congress, that is a crime, and that's actually
one that a future Congress, let's say, a Democratic Congress.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Can lead you to.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
So if she says you know something about Donald Trump
or whatever, you're under oath right, you literally could be
prosecuted for that, possibly in the future. So I wouldn't
say it's as worthless as you might say, because also
it's important for those transcripts and all that to exist
in a place outside of the Department of Justice and
to have it in an open testimony or at least
have some screened or whatever by intelligence and then release.
(14:37):
The point is about getting other bodies of the US
government actually involved in the investigation which always is important
because that's part.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
Honestly, that's really where a lot.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
Of the information if you look back on the Warren Commission,
nine and eleven commission, that's or you know, Snowden and
so much, a lot of the info that we learned,
it never came from the executive branch, right. Getting Congress
involved here is important. No, I mean at this point,
I don't think.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
There's no way, like even if Trump today, oh I'm
going to really the files, like you couldn't trust that
he's actually like releasing everything. There's no way you could
trust what's coming from them. So so yeah, it's going
to have to come from like either congressional action, whistleblowers, journalism,
Like that's the only way that you're going to get
the funny answer.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
My last word here is it's pretty clear that all
of this is coming from in the FBI in my opinion, Yeah,
Trump letter and the book and everything. Yeah, the reason
the Journal hasn't released the book Guys, they don't have
the book. It's from the pages and they actually even
say in the story these the book is part of
scans that were included in the It doesn't take a
genius to figure out where this is all coming from,
(15:36):
same with that scan that the New York Times release
of that book. They have the scan because it was
part of the scan that's in the FBI. So obviously
Trump is what he's doing is setting up the incentive
mechanism where all these other people in the files, their
names aren't getting leaked, but he's allowing obviously disgruntled er
people or whatever in the FBI to continue to leak
(15:56):
to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or
any of these other people, all of the specific which
he forced them to flag in the files, to the
national media, making him look even more guilty. The only
way out is through. They just do not seem to
believe that, which brings us to our next part here
on Gilaine Maxwell, where the maga kind of media has
(16:18):
now embraced the position where maybe Gilaine is the victim
and she needs a pardon.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
So let's take a listen.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
She just might be a victim. She just might be.
There was a rush to judgment. There was a lot
of chaos there for a while.
Speaker 7 (16:35):
All right.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
Granted she hung out with Jeffrey Epstein, and I know
that's apparently not good.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
She may be a victim. Apparently that's not good. So
you know, you may wonder who.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Is this guy? This is Greg Kelly over.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
At Newsmax, And then you may ask, like, what is Newsmax?
Newsmax obviously like the pro Trump channel that really exploded
after twenty twenty. And then you may want to take
a look at their border directors. And on that board
of directors is a guy whose name is alex Acosta.
Does anybody remember who that is? Oh right, he's the
prosecutor who gave the sweetheart deal to Gallaine Maxwell and
(17:11):
to Jeffrey Epstein. In fact, alex Acosta's sweetheart deal, the
non prosecution agreement, is the very reason that Glaine is
trying to protest her innocence all the way up to
the US Supreme Court, because for her definition of why
she's been unjustly prosecuted is she's like, look, this isn't
about the trafficking. You promised me I can't be prosecuted
(17:33):
back in two thousand and seven, So what am I
just guilty of? Taking a notice to here ast who
exactly has been on the board of directors and is
now saying that Epstein got his or that Gallaine is
actually maybe the victim of prosecution.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
The whole thing is crazy.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
Also, I'm not going to let off the Biden people
here either because the or sorry, the original twenty nineteen,
the Trump people, the sheer acknowledgment of we never asked
her if she had any other Does anyone realize how
insane that is is? We prosecuted her for crimes that
are only narrowly tailored to implicate Glane and Epstein, and
(18:11):
we were never like, hey, do you have any information
on anybody else?
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Yeah, how can you say that?
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Well, because this is one of the things that you know,
people say, oh, there's really no larger conspiracy here. This
is Michael Tracy points yes, right, and he'll say, well, okay, well,
don't you think if she had all this information on
powerful people that she would have sung and you know,
lessened her sentence, made some sort of a deal. And
it's like, what makes you think that the government wanted
that information? Like, what makes you think that this prosecution
(18:39):
wasn't just about Okay, let's narrowly let's get this one
person in prison where we can control her and make
sure that it basically stops there. I mean, that's effectively
the way they went about that case they called it,
remember we covered it that it was called like a
thin case or something like that, where it was like,
we're just going to make it as narrow as possible
on things that were one hundred percent sure we can
get her on.
Speaker 5 (18:59):
And I don't think there's any indication that they.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Were curious about whatever else she may have been able
to tell them. So yeah, I mean, in addition to
you've got that now idea that oh, she's the real victim,
I just you can't, I can't even believe that they
would say these words, like again, this woman was a monster.
She is a monster. Hundreds of go and listen to
(19:25):
these women whose lives were destroyed. They were never the
same after, whether it was one you know, right by
Jeffrey Epstein, or whether it was you know, over a
long period of time of control and abuse, their lives
were destroyed, Like she destroyed these women. And she was
the one. She was constantly on the lookout for, you know,
(19:45):
girls who were getting out of high school and let
me jump out and get their number and let me
get them into this sexual abuse pedophilia ring.
Speaker 5 (19:54):
That was her.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
And so to try to rewrite history now and act
like she you know, oh, she was done dirty and
this was she's a victim and she deserves some sort
of leniency here, or that she's a hero for blowing
the whistle on whoever she's you know, whoever she's talking
about now to the Trump administration. It truly is disgusting.
And we didn't pull the clip, but Alex Jones said
something similar. He's like, he didn't call her a victim,
(20:18):
but he said Trump has opened the floodgates. The democrats
worst night marriage about to come true because Glaine Maxwell,
saying like a Canarian, answered questions about one hundred different
people associated with Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 5 (20:29):
So they're trying to get back to.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
This place of like, oh, this, this scandal has nothing
to do with Republicans. Has certainly has nothing to do
with the Republican president of the United States who was
Jeffrey Epstein's best friend for years and years.
Speaker 5 (20:41):
No one has nothing to do with that.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
It's all about now Glaine is the brave truth teller
blowing the whistle about you know, about all of the
Democrats who were implicated, and listen, it's by partisan Don't
get me wrong here.
Speaker 5 (20:54):
I'm sure they're Democrats. Donors on you know.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Wealthy people who have contributed to both political parties. But
it's so incredibly dishonest to paint this woman as a
brave truth teller, to paint what Trump is doing as
anything other than a desperate scheme to distract and to
cover his own ass from whatever the files have to
say about it.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
Yeah. Another thing that bothers me is having covered the
Galain thing is she was not just convicted of sex trafficking.
You should remember the people who testified at her trial
said that she raped them to she did, and like
that's part of why calling her a victim is so
sick and is so crazy, because it was not just
facilitating but which by the way, I mean, what we're
(21:34):
going to let off the hook of somebody who was
walking up to teenage girls and giving them cash to
continue to mess out. She actually was physically involved in
some of these encounters, right, And that's not my word.
Take it from the jury of her peers that convicted her.
Under the testimony of these charges, I guess Tracy and
others would.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Say that they're liars who only wanted money. But okay,
you know, you can take it up with the legal system.
Speaker 3 (21:55):
You should see them, I guess for defamation or libel
if you want to point that out, merely going off
of even in the narrow conviction for which she was
found guilty of, that's what they presented at trial. And
so that's who we're dealing with here, you know, in
terms of the monster. And not only that, you can
see from the evidence of why she's so dangerous, not
(22:17):
just a trumpet to all these other people, because what
do we learn from the trump The birthday book compiled
by Galane over six thousand names reaching out to the
biggest most powerful people in the world, Bill Clinton, Leon Black, Dershowitz,
Verra Wang, you know, like looking at these people like
Vera Wang, like fashion designers. Stephanopoulos was over at it
(22:43):
like she was his social secretary for like two decades,
just flitting about and basically organizing things on his behalf.
And so that's why the narrowly tailored charges against her
are so so obvious in terms of their ploy Yeah,
it gets to our point previously, but also you can
see how people who are not familiar with the case
(23:03):
are now talking basically about some sort of deal with Gilaine,
which again cannot be trusted. So here was Charlie Kirk
and others talking about it.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 8 (23:12):
Sowell is currently sentenced to twenty years in federal prison
for sex trafficking, but it's pursuing a claim that her
trial was unfair. Since she is still contesting her own case,
that may impact what she is ready to tell prosecutors.
But maybe some kind of a deal could be reached
for information we will.
Speaker 9 (23:30):
Todd Blanche, the deput Attorney General, has met with Gislin
Maxwell over the last two days. She has sung like
a canary and is getting ready to turn States evidence
against Clinton. Bill Gates, the head of Harvard and amongst
other gloveless financiers who literally we're going to Epstein Island,
sometimes living at Epstein's Layer in New York and so
(23:51):
much more so, the Democrats pushing Trump on this and
trying to connect him to all of this has massively backfired.
And I'm gon say, for twenty plus days as this
all broke, Trump needs to lean into this and order
everything release. And that's all starting. Democrat judges all over
the country Florida, New York are trying to block the
release of the Epstein files now, so Trump has called
(24:12):
their bluff. I've done deep research on this. I have
we've seen any real connections anything illegal with Trump at Epstein.
Speaker 7 (24:17):
Everybody's been calling for more transparency. This is what transparency
looks like. And whether you like it or not, join
Nashwell coming forward and then testifying on behalf of what
she knows is what we have been calling for on
this channel.
Speaker 5 (24:32):
Oh my god. So we'll see what real transparency looks like.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
It's just amazing how they buy it all, like hook
line and Sinker is just incredible.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
Well, what they need to point out is, yeah, look,
it is great to esculate, but again, you need to
look at the motivations of the government now in this
particular case, and you also need to make sure that
anything that is said from this point forward is actually done,
you know, in a setting and circumstances which can be trusted,
because the way that this has all been handled is
absolutely insane. So anyway, that's just look, we'll see where
(25:03):
things go. I am already feeling like the Epstein mania,
you know, to the extent where people on the right
were felt betrayed and all of that is dissipating. They
see it in this perverse way. The journal thing is
the best thing that ever happened to Trump because when
they saw that Trump himself was to directly under attack,
a lot of the energy came out of the room
(25:24):
and they were like, oh no, this is an attack vector.
So left wing YouTubers, it's on you guys now, you know,
it's it's up to the Midas Touches in all of
those people of the world to get people whipped up
on this because otherwise it's going to fizzle out like this,
they'll just stop covering.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
Yeah, and I mean in the mainstream pross to continue
to you know, dig and release and whatever. Whistleblowers in
the FBI, I hope I want to say about what's
really going.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
Like I said, you can't really trust their motivation either, right,
Like a lot of them hate it. Fine, you know,
hate Trump. Listen, leak against the guy all you want.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
I think it's great also innovation, but you can you know,
very information.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
My message to the FBI whistleblowers is, gave me some
stuff on you know, listen Trump, keep it up all right, fine,
I have no issue with it.
Speaker 1 (26:04):
Ever, let's go deeper, like, let's see what else is.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
In there, because something tells me that not all of
what's going to look good for all of you and
your buddies either, And that's part of part of my
problem with this whole thing, is the way that it's all,
you know, kind of being massaged about.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
I thought it was important that the Journal also published
that Bill Clinton was in the same birthday book and
other people, because I mean I even saw I saw
jd Vance really trying to like backtrack after that, like
I never said the book was fake, but like, maybe
you know, we don't know that this was really Trump's letter,
and it's like, no, you were claiming that this was
all No, they said, totally made up. And so once
(26:37):
they released like oh Bill Clinton was in it too,
and here's his letter, then suddenly that changed things because
it wasn't just about Trump. It was like, oh, they
have the whole thing, and you know, they aren't just
focusing on this guy. So I think it lent first
for anyone who's like looking at this honestly, which is
frankly very few people. I think it lent more credibility
to that reporting.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
I would hope.
Speaker 3 (26:55):
So, and again I just think it's you know, evidence
of why I mean, I want to see every damn
name in the book to be hones.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Honest, and every single little joke that everybody was.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Writing all the stuff about like protecting the victims, yes,
protecting the powerful people that were running around with this,
Like what are we doing? I'm sorry, I don't really
care why I don't care at this point. You know,
it's disgusting the associations that he had and the number
of people that we know knew what was going on,
including Trump who said he likes him young, like he
fucking knew what he did. I don't know, you know
(27:24):
how directly implicated?
Speaker 5 (27:26):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
He had a modeling agent, he ow in these pageants.
He was running around with Jeffrey Epstein for over a decade,
and he said he likes him young. Like, draw your
own conclusions about how implicated and how much he knew
what was going on here, even if you know whether
or not he directly was involved or not, which I
don't think anyone should be surprised by at this point.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
And it's not just him right, like you have Leon
Black like and others, or Leslie Wexner drawing a pair
of boot right. It's like such a look. I mean,
everyone should ask himself. I'm thirty three, if my friend
was having a birthday book and his wife or I
guess what a companion asked me to made something like
do you know how disgusting that is?
Speaker 1 (28:03):
Are you drawing as a grown for that man?
Speaker 3 (28:06):
And I'm twenty years younger than Trump was whenever he
wrote the letter, or Leon Black or I don't know
Leslie Wester.
Speaker 5 (28:14):
Was, So it is weiry. Yes, Like I said to Kyl,
so can you imagine if Korn like wrote to you.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
That's what people say. People are like, oh, times have change.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
I'm like, not really like, you know, and then around
you know, I was around in the in the frat
pre woke era even at that time, like that would
have been like, dude, you're fucking creep if.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
You're acting like this, right, I mean, even in.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
The hyper sexualized pre woke PC culture of the nineteen
ninety two thousand.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
Yeah, I just don't think so. So that's all I'm
gonna say, you know.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
And again that's the Trump thing, that's Leslie Wester thing,
Leon all these other guys in the book who are
joking about girls and all this stuff, like I'm sorry,
I think it's really gross to be openly acknowledging all that. So, yeah,
I don't particularly care about your privacy whenever you're filthy
rich and obviously who is engaging, you know, with this
in this type of behavior and perhaps again implicated in
(29:05):
some sort of vast like intelligence you know, money laundering apparatus.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
I think you should come out.
Speaker 5 (29:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
I think it was John Stewart that said every line
of that letter from Trump sounded like something you was
some code you would have to say to get into
some like masked.
Speaker 5 (29:17):
Eyes, wide shut.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
Yeah, totyle party.
Speaker 5 (29:19):
It was like our wonderful secret and oh you know.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
There is I still wonder about that movie. By the way,
if anybody's not seen that movie, it's in such an
incredible film, but deeply to yeah it is. But I'm like,
was there you know, did did Stanley Kubrick know something like?
Speaker 1 (29:35):
Did you know?
Speaker 3 (29:36):
Did I need to go in to read more about
kind of the inspiration and all of that for the
film and the background, because it's a little on the
nose in terms of how pressient it really was for
the epstine and by the way, it came out in
nineteen ninety nine, which was literally in the Epstein hate
at the height of it. And it's set in the
New York It's set in New York City, right, you know,
implicating these like powerful the leads about this dangerous like
(29:58):
sex cult. I'm like, and you know eight shows, Tom Cruise, like,
I don't want to spoil it too much if people
haven't seen it, but I'm just saying it was deeply,
deeply prescient. And I actually do wonder if you knew anything.
Someone should ask Tom actually if or Nicole Kidman for
what the inspiration and all that from the screen.
Speaker 5 (30:14):
Point, maybe I would be fascinated, you know what. Maybe
the work mind, you never.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
Know, maybe they want to cover it up to.
Speaker 5 (30:21):
So how are the Democrats doing? So?
Speaker 2 (30:23):
The Republican Party is not doing great right now? Trump
is certainly his approval rating has fallen off. Independence are
disgusted young man or fleeing, blah blah blah. How's it
going for the Democrats? Let's put this up on the screen,
oh lo and behold. Their approval rating has plunged to
the lowest level in thirty five years.
Speaker 5 (30:40):
According to The Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
They find that sixty three percent of voters hold an
unfavorable view of the Democratic Party. That is the highest
share in journal polls dating to nineteen ninety and thirty
percentage points higher than the thirty three percent who hold
a favorable view. So you've got only thirty three percent
of the country who have a favorable view at this
point of the Democratic Party. And you know, I think
(31:03):
there's a lot going on here. I mean, first of all,
I wouldn't read into this necessarily that like, oh, Republicans
are going to do great in the midterms if you
look at the generic battle and whatever, and just the
fact that you have voters who are center left and
liberal and left much more energized at this point. They're
disgusted with Trump. There's a big backlash and all of that.
But I really think this is about Democratic based voters
(31:27):
being disgusted with and disapproving of the Democratic Party. Like
that's really the only way we get to that low
of a level. And so you know, if you look
at the shift over time, that's really where they I mean,
they're not popular. Obviously Republicans hate the Democrats. That goes
without saying independents also disgusted with the Democratic Party, but
it's based Democratic voters saying I am not I am
(31:50):
not feeling what this party is selling at this point
and being disgusted with their failure to fight Trump. I
think also the you know, failure to recognize Gaza as
the clear moral evil and opposed gen side in any
sort of a clear way. I think those failings of
the Democratic Party are what really have led to them
reaching the absolute basement level of support that they have.
Speaker 5 (32:09):
Now.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
What's interesting is also if you look at the issue
by issue handling for President and Congress, so this is
just preference for Republicans over Democrats. In Congress, it's economy, inflation, immigration,
illegal immigration with that's actually where I find the most
fascinating divide.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
But if then if you look at.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
The areas where they at least have some support, it'll
be on healthcare, vaccines, but on foreign policy and on
Ukraine there's still sorry. On foreign policy in particular, there
is a lot of dissatisfaction. What I just think is
interesting is, like you said, you can only get to
this extremely low level when you have your own democratic
base and the supermajority of the public that kind of
(32:49):
come together and are like, no, we don't really believe
in what you're saying.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
This also gets to the credibility theory.
Speaker 5 (32:54):
It's also like, what are they even saying?
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Yeah, that's like, I mean, I don't even know what
the Democratic Party stands for selling at this point.
Speaker 5 (33:01):
I genuinely don't you know.
Speaker 3 (33:02):
That's part of the issue. Yeah, and can we put
F two up there on the screen. This is absolutely
fascinating because at the same time, what you showed here,
you found this is that the percentage of people who
are extremely votivated to vote. If you go back in
time and you look at October of twenty twenty two,
Republicans were very extremely motivated to vote, but in July
of twenty twenty five, Democrats are extremely.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
Motivated to vote.
Speaker 3 (33:23):
So they're motivated to vote against something, but they're not
necessarily motivated to vote for something. And this is the
biggest problem that I think the Democrats have, And it
gets to the credible messenger theory, where people are obviously
dissatisfied at least.
Speaker 1 (33:38):
Right now with some of the Republican Party.
Speaker 3 (33:40):
The way the Republicans were able to win in twenty
twenty four is by being a credible outsider kind of
threat to the democratic establishment of Biden and of Kamala
Kamala was never seen she was just seen as an insire.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
That's it.
Speaker 3 (33:51):
That's at the end of the day. I think that's
mostly why she lost. But then how do the Democrats
capture that energy of saying we're an outsider and having credibility,
bying able to call out everything. That's where the Zoron
model becomes important, because the Gaza thing is not just
about Gaza. It's about speaking in a way that you
never hear from anybody else. And that's what Who's who else? Superpower?
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Was that Trump? Right? That was Trump's?
Speaker 3 (34:17):
So the point is is that you need to appear
above the political fray and say stuff that nobody else
in the political system is willing to say. I don't
see a single real like mainstream democrat who is really
able to do that. Now you have some you know,
progress it and all that, but I not not in
my opinion at the major land, which by the way,
(34:37):
is a big problem because that means then if it
becomes an establishment game, then the people who are gonna
win are the Buddhat Edges and the Gavindusims of the world.
Yeah yeah, and I mean actually the polymarket odds are
out newsome is currently leading so for the twenty twenty
eight presidential nominie.
Speaker 2 (34:51):
Yeah, I mean maybe I don't know. I'm not sure
I buy the newsom Hi. I just you're right about that.
I mean, the problem is that they're outside of Zoron,
who can't run for president because he was born and
you got there is actually no one in the Democratic
Party Rashida to leave an Ilhan Omer, I think are
the two who have been the most sort of like
clear and morally consistent on the issue of Gaza, and
(35:12):
you know, neither one of those is going to be
presidential contenders.
Speaker 5 (35:15):
AOC.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
You have to do better, Like, I mean, it's just
put that like still defending at this point shipping weapons
to Israel for any sort of purpose.
Speaker 5 (35:24):
I just can't.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
And yeah, I know you voted against the whole package,
but you put out a message that was directly defending
the idea of making sure that Israel has all the
weapons to you know, never bear any of the personal
consequences of their insane, rogue actions and genocidal behavior, even
as you call it a genocide like that's it's not acceptable.
(35:46):
So so yeah, I mean that, And I do think
like I'm becoming more and more convinced of how important
this issue is in you know, in the Democratic Party,
in American politics overall, and so put f up on
the screen. So when you have you know, the Senate
leader of the Democrats, he has this man Chuck Schumer
(36:07):
ken Klipenstein has been tracking this. He hasn't done an
interview with the press in like months, okay, but he
has time for this, this anti semitism in the US
jew hating then now and tomorrow with Rigie Torres and
Chuck Schumer and Brett Stevens. This is what you're spending
your time on while our country is backing a genocide
in Gaza. Like it's it's not serious, it's not serious.
(36:31):
It's disgusting. It's like, what is the moral calculus that
leads you to be more concerned, let's say, about a
rally chant on a college campus than babies starving to
death at the hands of our country. Please explain that
moral calculus to me, because I find it disgusting, and
I think the rest of the country does as well,
and certainly the Democratic base does too as well at
(36:51):
this point, and so you know they have in a way,
there's there's an opportunity here because what I've said to
you and what I keep saying is what's really different
this time is that the democratic base is also discussed
with democratic leadership. The Democratic base is also discussed in
a lot of ways with their own media institutions, which
is why you have the Midas, Touched guys and others
(37:12):
that are blowing up because they are looking for alternatives
that are liberal or left liberal, that meet that need,
that are in the right place on issues of you know,
moral like moral issues like gaza. It creates an opportunity.
The Democratic Party is a hollow husk just waiting to
be like knocked over.
Speaker 5 (37:30):
It's a house of cards. I think Zoron proved that.
Speaker 2 (37:33):
That's the other reason why he was so important in
New York is I think he really proved that the
whole edifice is just ready to crumble with the slightest
bit of pressure. But then the question is just like,
who's going to step up and actually do that, And
there's no one, There's no one that's out there right
now that it's that is a clear contender in my view,
(37:54):
who would be well positioned to really make the moral case.
But I so feel like there's an inevitable ability to it,
because you just can't have a situation where the base
of the party is so at odds with the leadership
and not have someone come in and fill that void.
Speaker 5 (38:13):
But you know, thus.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
Far we haven't seen it and certainly not going to
come from democratic leadership.
Speaker 5 (38:17):
Put F four up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (38:18):
This is Hakim Jeffries, who apparently had like not tweeted
about Gaza at all and then puts down another of
these like mealy Mouth though the humanitarian crisis in Gaza
again as if this just came out of nowhere, has
nothing to say about the intentional starvation being implemented by
the Israelis. Still, by the way, hasn't even endorsed Zoron
(38:39):
Mamdani Haqem. Jeffries is himself from New York, by by
the way, zor On one Hqem Jeffrey's district as well
in New York City. So it's just disgusting cowardice that
people are rightfully rejecting, like across the political map. Certainly
Republicans obviously they're not going to be supportive of Democrats,
but independence in even the Democratic base are like no,
(39:00):
like you stand for nothing, you have no principles. You
are sold out, and you know we deserve better, like
we deserve to have at least one party that's against genocide.
I really wish that wasn't too much.
Speaker 3 (39:12):
What I don't forget is where the opportunists don't come
with this. So you have Andy Basheer, he just gave
an interview that Vogue and he said, I believe when
someone is an ally, when you disagree, you don't do
it publicly or through the media. Is saying Israel was
a critical ally and quote we cannot have a nuclear Iran.
Speaker 1 (39:27):
It's like, dude, you're the governor of Kentucky.
Speaker 2 (39:30):
You have no dog in this space, right, And he
hadn't had to say why did you say about this?
Speaker 5 (39:34):
He could have positioned himself anywhere.
Speaker 1 (39:36):
I just don't get it. I'm like, where does this
shit come from?
Speaker 3 (39:39):
I mean, you've got You've probably got better statements than
from like Gavin or Pete Boodhaje Edge or any of
these other people. So I agree, Look, the system is
right for the taking, but there is something perverse in
democratic politics where maybe it's like rule following or something
where actually saying screw you in the way that Trump
was able to just apparently doesn't seem to have the
same like a I don't know what it is, or
(40:01):
at least like the permission structure. Again, I don't know why,
but something like that needs to happen.
Speaker 5 (40:07):
The base once that person they want a party of Trump.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
Cowardly, they're so risk averse, yeah, you know, and they're
so used to like coalition management, and they're so used
to this logic in DC that has been the case
for however long that like all the danger is in
going all the political dangers in going against Israel, and they,
you know, apparently.
Speaker 5 (40:27):
Haven't adjusted it.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
And then they're also all complicit because you can, you know,
immediately turn around and say, oh, well you backed it
when it was Biden, you know, like you helped.
Speaker 5 (40:34):
To ship the weapons.
Speaker 2 (40:36):
But I think, you know, at this point, there's enough
sort of track laid from Trump where you can say, okay,
but he's doing that Nick Cleansing, He's you know, Biden
and say garl you know, Gaza Lago or whatever, which
is kind of bullshit, but at least would give them
some like coverage just oh it's different now, I.
Speaker 3 (40:52):
Don't know, I mean Obama did it in two thousand
and two. I don't know why people don't follow his example.
He gave an outsider literally state senator who gave a
speech on a rock which nobody cared about, and shaky
cam video ends up winning in the Iowa caucuses. It's like, guys,
you know, it's not that hard to figure out in
terms of why and how you're able to, like in
the way that you're able to set your political future
(41:12):
up if you want. But Dean, you know, Dean had
a chance again. I really think he had a chance.
Speaker 5 (41:17):
Threw it away.
Speaker 3 (41:18):
It's like these guys just throw continue to throw it
away on this I'll never understand.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
Yeah, no, it's I think it almost has to be
an outsider. Then I don't know who this person is,
but maybe they exist. Okay, Bilburr looking at you.
Speaker 1 (41:31):
We will see you guys tomorrow
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 the 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. Speaking of Israel, by the way, let's punk
to the Jeffrey Epstein story, shall we here? With Donald
Trump now floating a potential pardon for Galaine Maxwell, not
saying he's going to do it, but you know, not ruling.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
It out either. Quote, I am allowed to do it
if I want to. Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Would you consider a pardon or a commutation for Eli Maxwell?
Speaker 1 (00:53):
And if you love something, I haven't thought about it.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
Really, I don't recommend you.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
It's something I'm allowed to do it, but it's something
I have none.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
I've thought about it.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Something I haven't thought about, but I am allowed to
do it, you know, if I am allowed to at it.
This is after Gallaine had this extraordinary meeting with the
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. We have video of her.
I'll talk over it while it is playing. You're actually
watching her walk back into prison in Tallahassee, Florida, carrying
(01:21):
the boxes of her discovery. The details of this, guys,
are extremely unclear. So the circumstances that this all kind
of came about, if we go to the next part,
is that these meetings were initiated by the Department of Justice.
Quote she answered questions for about nine hours over two
days and was quote granted a limited form of immunity. Now,
(01:43):
people took a lot out of this, but let me
just slightly explain. Because she's already been convicted, the limited
form of immunity doesn't necessarily apply in way. People are
thinking that she's not getting away with anything. According to them,
the Gallaine maxwell mentioned over one hundred different names that
bear investigation in relation to the Epstein story. Now that's
(02:04):
according at least to some leaks coming out from the
government as well as statements by the Deputy Attorney General.
But the entire thing stinks to high heaven. And this
kind of gets to the pardon question because all of
this is coming about as these Wall Street Journal story
drops about Trump and Jeffrey Epstein and the letter that
he wrote to him, as well as all of these
(02:25):
other powerful people, all of whom, by the way, have
verified connections to Epstein. We have the photo of the
book now dropped by the New York Times where Trump
signed it to Jeffrey Epstein in nineteen ninety.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Seven, Photos of the two of them being relieved.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
Who was it with James Brown, the singer, just to show,
you know, photos at his second wedding right of Epstein,
who is attending there, Ghlaine Maxwell. Obviously these photos have
all been out there for a long time, not Trump
and Epstein, but you know Glaine at the Clinton wedding right,
So obviously to the way that they were enmeshed in
this high society is part of the entire story. The
question is why now, Because what we've seen previous is
(03:01):
the DOJ said that at no time was Galaine ever
asked about third party individuals who were may or may
not have been enmeshed in this blackmail scheme. But the
problem is that Trump has a direct political incentive right
now to make sure that his own name doesn't surface
in any of this, and so any forms homer of
(03:23):
deal cut by the government that let's say, implicates other people,
it doesn't implicate Trump, and then leads to some sort
of pardon you know, that is immune from the not
immune from the political process, is going to have a
lot of open questions. This is why they should have
a special prosecutor. They should have somebody who's immune from
the political system, who is not you know, directly answerable
to Donald Trump or anyone really on the matter, because
(03:46):
any sort of deal and files or whatever that is
released has to have confidence otherwise this is going to
be some JFK style cover up all over again. So
the whole thing stinks, thinks.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Too high end, well obvious, what's going on here. Wants
a pardon, Trump is thinking of giving it to her.
And what in exchange she thinks she's gonna blow the
whistle on if he did anything wrong.
Speaker 5 (04:06):
Well, of course not.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
It's going to be all about handing over like whatever
Democrats or democratic aligned billionaires you know which, fine, but again,
the government has that we can put the next element
D four up on the screen. The government has like
one hundred thousand pages of doctor. They have terabytes of information,
including financial records and all and videos and all sorts
(04:27):
of information that they could release. We don't have to
pardon a pedo sex criminal trafficker who should spend the
rest of her life in prison and frankly wasn't prosecuted
for even close to all of the crimes that she
actually committed. I mean, let's not get it twisted. This woman.
You want to talk about a groomer like, this woman
(04:48):
is an absolute monster. We're talking at the least hundreds
of girls, young girls that she would recruit and herself
personally victimize and get into the trafficking what was effectively
like a pedo trafficking Ponzi scheme. She was the main
person doing that for years and years and years. So
(05:10):
you know, I'm starting to will cover the like magger
reaction to this idea that she got a raw dealer.
Speaker 5 (05:15):
Oh, this is so unfair.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Like what is unfair is that there aren't other people
in prison alongside of her.
Speaker 5 (05:21):
But she don't get it.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
She belongs there, and so the fact that it's even
being considered, and I think he's going.
Speaker 5 (05:28):
To do it. I do think he's going to do it.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
But he's even considering pardoning her, and we have reporting
from the past, Corny and Michael Wolfe at least that
he had considered pardoning her before. It's so grotesque and
he thinks that we're all stupid that we can't see
what's happening here. People need to acquaint themselves with the term,
if you're not familiar, limited hangout, because that's exactly.
Speaker 5 (05:48):
What's going on here.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Is like in order to sort of like push off
the pressure from this emerging scandal of how closely affiliated
Donald Trump was with Epstein and how he clearly is
acting guilty as how like he's got all kinds of
things to cover up. In order to like diffuse that scandal,
you'll selectively release a little bit of information to try
to convince people that you're blowing the lid off of
(06:12):
this scandal. But obviously you're carefully concealing anything that would
implicate Trump, anything that would implicate anyone on really on
the Republican side of the aisle, but him in particular,
And at this point in time, what is the most
important information that we could Yes, I would expose all
of the pedophile criminals, do that. But the most important
piece of information we need right now is does Masade
(06:33):
have blackmail pedal material on the President of the United States?
And if you if we are not in pursuit of
the relentlessly in pursuit of that information, then it is
you know, we are really really missing the train on
what is going on.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
I mean, it sounds like Russia Gate level stuff and
completely No, That's part of the issue is that I'm
going to be clear. I didn't believe that. I'm still
not really I still don't really believe that. But the
way that Trump is acting makes it so is pretty
clear that you know, you got to ask something about like,
what the hell is going on with your actions around
these files? And from the very beginning, and let's put
(07:10):
this next one up here on the screen, shall we.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
This is from the New York Times.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
D four, because what you see here is quote how
a frantic scouring of the Epstein files consumed the Justice Department.
And in the story they talk specifically by the way,
I don't fully believe this. This is all kind of like,
it's kind of you know the FBI line in terms
of how they didn't end up discovering some sort of
(07:35):
grand conspiracy. But they're saying they compiled more than one
hundred thousand pages of materials related to Epstein in terms
of grand jury testimony, in terms of his bank records,
all of the different stuff that they've seized and all
of that over the years, and that of those one
hundred thousand files, none of them absent what previously has
(07:58):
been released is yet going to be released here by
the government now, they claim. The bureau's oone expert document
reviewers have raised questions about whether it's being rushed or
whether it would violate laws and internal protocols to protect
sensitive information about witnesses, child victims, and other grand jury
material from being released. But let's not pretend that they
care all that much about what they care about, like
(08:19):
the actual privacy of the people who are named in
here that are not the victims. They're afraid and I
guess maybe I'm relatively conflicted about this. They keep saying
things like, oh, well, we don't want innocent people to
be smeared as a result of the release of these files.
But and everyone says like, oh, just appearing in the
file doesn't implicate any sorts of wrongdoing. But that's not
(08:41):
really the point as to the story. Because even let's say,
if you're not in the files but not connected to
the sex trafficking, which by the way, as I've said
here before, I don't even think that's like really the
tip of the spear of the shadiest stuff that he.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Was up against.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
You could still be involved in some extremely like grand
intelligence money laundering bag man operation. So you know, you
might still be guilty of all of this other different stuff.
And at this point, considering the promises and all that
from the Trump administration to just come out with the
memo and just cut everything off from the very beginning
and not release any of the info, you know, especially
(09:18):
that points in the intelligence picture, that just screams.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Cover up at like the highest level.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
So the point is, there's one hundred thousand pages of
Epstein documents. Trump may have a personal compelling interest in
terms of not wanting to get his relationship with Epstein out,
but again, I really still don't think that that's the
full story. I think that the original intelligence impotence stems
from you know, it has been there from day one,
and that these hundred thousand pages and all that inside
of the FBI, and even now all of this talk
(09:45):
with Gilainne Maxwell, like you said, with the Gallaine, the
limited hangout stuff. That's what this entire thing looks like.
And a lot of it has been distracted in terms
of stilation, media covers, and people don't necessarily know the
full story. But when you do, there's so much still
out there that they could easily release, still protecting victims
and all that, and actually give people some compelling information
(10:05):
about what's inside of the you know, the possession of
the government.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
You don't have to go to the courts, and you
don't have to pardon a convicted sex criminal. You don't
have to do any of that. You have in the government,
in the you know.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
FBI, under the executive purview.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Yeah, under the executive purview, you have vastly more information
than you're going to get from this criminal or from
the you know, grand jury testimony, which isn't going to
be released anyway. So you know, so then okay, well,
why doesn't he just release it? And we already know,
you know, this has now been reported.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
He's in the files.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
We know that when they were scouring through this one
hundred thousand pages of information that they were specifically told
to flag his name and identify where he appears in
the files. And we also know and this is you know,
Ryan brought this up and really reminded people of this
whole episode who weren't familiar. These reelis are known. Natanyahu
specifically is known to have blackmailed President Clinton with Monica
(10:57):
Lewinsky recorded sex tapes that they had collect and sort
of drop the information to him in the context of
ongoing negotiations with the Palestinians. So it's not like this
is so outlandish and oh, they would never do that,
And it's crazy to think that they'd be collecting like
sexual blackmail material on American presidence. We know they literally
(11:17):
have already done that. So is is President Trump one
of those American presidents the next in the list of
American presidents who you know, the Israelis are holding some
sort of black mail material material over his head. We
need to know that, and it certainly would explain a
lot of how he has behaved visa VI the Israeli state.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
And oh well, not just him, by the way, there's
other cabinet officials I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Who have some questionable behavior on the topic.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
But it is one of those where you know when
you you make it seem like that is a possibility
in terms of your behavior. The only way to quash
it at this point is to actually release everything to
show that you have nothing to hide. But the Republicans
are not acting that way. The Republican Party right now
quite literally has shut down the entire House of Representatives
(12:04):
just to make sure that none of the Epstein files
get released because they don't want to vote on the
floor any rule, nothing, no piece of legislation to be
able to move through. And the Speaker, Mike Johnson has
a new line. All credible evidence must be released, credible
being the key word in terms of protecting identities and others.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
As if they're so concerned about that, let's take a listen.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Should all of the files related to Jeffrey Epstein be
released and made public.
Speaker 6 (12:32):
Yes, I agree with President Trump, with the Department of Justice,
with the FBI that you need all credible evidence and
information out there. That word credible is important and why
because you have to protect innocent people's names and reputations
whose names might be as you noted at the outset
of the program intertwined into all these files. This has
been a long legal process that the Massey and Kana
(12:53):
discharge petition would require the release. They would require the
DOJ and FBI to release information that they oh is false.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
So there you go in terms of the new line
is all about, you know, credible evidence about this grand
jury stuff. Guys, you know, none of that has anything
to do with all of the vast troves of information
that the government can and should release immediately. So that's
just just everybody keep that in mind. As the story
continues to.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Fold, remind her that this man literally shut down Congress
to avoid Yeah, shut down Congress releasing that.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
I will say, I'm actually somewhat heartened at some of
the congressional Republicans here.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
You know, they basically fold on everything.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
But it's pretty clear from their behavior they actually did
have the votes to vote on the bill. From Tim Burchett,
Thomas Massey, a few others. They have done the subpoena
now for Galade Maxwell. I don't really know what it is,
but they have at the very least are not you know,
sitting down yet right now.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
About the Maxwell is worthless because she's just gonna she's
not gonna she wants a pardon from Trump. She's never
going to implicate him or be fully honest about what
she knows. So I don't really I don't really put
much credence in that whatsoever. But I mean, they clearly
realize that this has a lot of heat with their
basis feeling.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Okay, but let's say so good point.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
But at the end of the day, a subpoena and
a compelling testimony put somebody on the record. If you
lie to Congress, that is a crime, and that's actually
one that a future Congress, let's say, a Democratic Congress.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Can lead you to.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
So if she says you know something about Donald Trump
or whatever, you're under oath right, you literally could be
prosecuted for that, possibly in the future. So I wouldn't
say it's as worthless as you might say, because also
it's important for those transcripts and all that to exist
in a place outside of the Department of Justice and
to have it in an open testimony or at least
have some screened or whatever by intelligence and then release.
(14:37):
The point is about getting other bodies of the US
government actually involved in the investigation which always is important
because that's part.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
Honestly, that's really where a lot.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
Of the information if you look back on the Warren Commission,
nine and eleven commission, that's or you know, Snowden and
so much, a lot of the info that we learned,
it never came from the executive branch, right. Getting Congress
involved here is important. No, I mean at this point,
I don't think.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
There's no way, like even if Trump today, oh I'm
going to really the files, like you couldn't trust that
he's actually like releasing everything. There's no way you could
trust what's coming from them. So so yeah, it's going
to have to come from like either congressional action, whistleblowers, journalism,
Like that's the only way that you're going to get
the funny answer.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
My last word here is it's pretty clear that all
of this is coming from in the FBI in my opinion, Yeah,
Trump letter and the book and everything. Yeah, the reason
the Journal hasn't released the book Guys, they don't have
the book. It's from the pages and they actually even
say in the story these the book is part of
scans that were included in the It doesn't take a
genius to figure out where this is all coming from,
(15:36):
same with that scan that the New York Times release
of that book. They have the scan because it was
part of the scan that's in the FBI. So obviously
Trump is what he's doing is setting up the incentive
mechanism where all these other people in the files, their
names aren't getting leaked, but he's allowing obviously disgruntled er
people or whatever in the FBI to continue to leak
(15:56):
to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or
any of these other people, all of the specific which
he forced them to flag in the files, to the
national media, making him look even more guilty. The only
way out is through. They just do not seem to
believe that, which brings us to our next part here
on Gilaine Maxwell, where the maga kind of media has
(16:18):
now embraced the position where maybe Gilaine is the victim
and she needs a pardon.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
So let's take a listen.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
She just might be a victim. She just might be.
There was a rush to judgment. There was a lot
of chaos there for a while.
Speaker 7 (16:35):
All right.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
Granted she hung out with Jeffrey Epstein, and I know
that's apparently not good.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
She may be a victim. Apparently that's not good. So
you know, you may wonder who.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Is this guy? This is Greg Kelly over.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
At Newsmax, And then you may ask, like, what is Newsmax?
Newsmax obviously like the pro Trump channel that really exploded
after twenty twenty. And then you may want to take
a look at their border directors. And on that board
of directors is a guy whose name is alex Acosta.
Does anybody remember who that is? Oh right, he's the
prosecutor who gave the sweetheart deal to Gallaine Maxwell and
(17:11):
to Jeffrey Epstein. In fact, alex Acosta's sweetheart deal, the
non prosecution agreement, is the very reason that Glaine is
trying to protest her innocence all the way up to
the US Supreme Court, because for her definition of why
she's been unjustly prosecuted is she's like, look, this isn't
about the trafficking. You promised me I can't be prosecuted
(17:33):
back in two thousand and seven, So what am I
just guilty of? Taking a notice to here ast who
exactly has been on the board of directors and is
now saying that Epstein got his or that Gallaine is
actually maybe the victim of prosecution.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
The whole thing is crazy.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
Also, I'm not going to let off the Biden people
here either because the or sorry, the original twenty nineteen,
the Trump people, the sheer acknowledgment of we never asked
her if she had any other Does anyone realize how
insane that is is? We prosecuted her for crimes that
are only narrowly tailored to implicate Glane and Epstein, and
(18:11):
we were never like, hey, do you have any information
on anybody else?
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Yeah, how can you say that?
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Well, because this is one of the things that you know,
people say, oh, there's really no larger conspiracy here. This
is Michael Tracy points yes, right, and he'll say, well, okay, well,
don't you think if she had all this information on
powerful people that she would have sung and you know,
lessened her sentence, made some sort of a deal. And
it's like, what makes you think that the government wanted
that information? Like, what makes you think that this prosecution
(18:39):
wasn't just about Okay, let's narrowly let's get this one
person in prison where we can control her and make
sure that it basically stops there. I mean, that's effectively
the way they went about that case they called it,
remember we covered it that it was called like a
thin case or something like that, where it was like,
we're just going to make it as narrow as possible
on things that were one hundred percent sure we can
get her on.
Speaker 5 (18:59):
And I don't think there's any indication that they.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Were curious about whatever else she may have been able
to tell them. So yeah, I mean, in addition to
you've got that now idea that oh, she's the real victim,
I just you can't, I can't even believe that they
would say these words, like again, this woman was a monster.
She is a monster. Hundreds of go and listen to
(19:25):
these women whose lives were destroyed. They were never the
same after, whether it was one you know, right by
Jeffrey Epstein, or whether it was you know, over a
long period of time of control and abuse, their lives
were destroyed, Like she destroyed these women. And she was
the one. She was constantly on the lookout for, you know,
(19:45):
girls who were getting out of high school and let
me jump out and get their number and let me
get them into this sexual abuse pedophilia ring.
Speaker 5 (19:54):
That was her.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
And so to try to rewrite history now and act
like she you know, oh, she was done dirty and
this was she's a victim and she deserves some sort
of leniency here, or that she's a hero for blowing
the whistle on whoever she's you know, whoever she's talking
about now to the Trump administration. It truly is disgusting.
And we didn't pull the clip, but Alex Jones said
something similar. He's like, he didn't call her a victim,
(20:18):
but he said Trump has opened the floodgates. The democrats
worst night marriage about to come true because Glaine Maxwell,
saying like a Canarian, answered questions about one hundred different
people associated with Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 5 (20:29):
So they're trying to get back to.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
This place of like, oh, this, this scandal has nothing
to do with Republicans. Has certainly has nothing to do
with the Republican president of the United States who was
Jeffrey Epstein's best friend for years and years.
Speaker 5 (20:41):
No one has nothing to do with that.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
It's all about now Glaine is the brave truth teller
blowing the whistle about you know, about all of the
Democrats who were implicated, and listen, it's by partisan Don't
get me wrong here.
Speaker 5 (20:54):
I'm sure they're Democrats. Donors on you know.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Wealthy people who have contributed to both political parties. But
it's so incredibly dishonest to paint this woman as a
brave truth teller, to paint what Trump is doing as
anything other than a desperate scheme to distract and to
cover his own ass from whatever the files have to
say about it.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
Yeah. Another thing that bothers me is having covered the
Galain thing is she was not just convicted of sex trafficking.
You should remember the people who testified at her trial
said that she raped them to she did, and like
that's part of why calling her a victim is so
sick and is so crazy, because it was not just
facilitating but which by the way, I mean, what we're
(21:34):
going to let off the hook of somebody who was
walking up to teenage girls and giving them cash to
continue to mess out. She actually was physically involved in
some of these encounters, right, And that's not my word.
Take it from the jury of her peers that convicted her.
Under the testimony of these charges, I guess Tracy and
others would.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Say that they're liars who only wanted money. But okay,
you know, you can take it up with the legal system.
Speaker 3 (21:55):
You should see them, I guess for defamation or libel
if you want to point that out, merely going off
of even in the narrow conviction for which she was
found guilty of, that's what they presented at trial. And
so that's who we're dealing with here, you know, in
terms of the monster. And not only that, you can
see from the evidence of why she's so dangerous, not
(22:17):
just a trumpet to all these other people, because what
do we learn from the trump The birthday book compiled
by Galane over six thousand names reaching out to the
biggest most powerful people in the world, Bill Clinton, Leon Black, Dershowitz,
Verra Wang, you know, like looking at these people like
Vera Wang, like fashion designers. Stephanopoulos was over at it
(22:43):
like she was his social secretary for like two decades,
just flitting about and basically organizing things on his behalf.
And so that's why the narrowly tailored charges against her
are so so obvious in terms of their ploy Yeah,
it gets to our point previously, but also you can
see how people who are not familiar with the case
(23:03):
are now talking basically about some sort of deal with Gilaine,
which again cannot be trusted. So here was Charlie Kirk
and others talking about it.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 8 (23:12):
Sowell is currently sentenced to twenty years in federal prison
for sex trafficking, but it's pursuing a claim that her
trial was unfair. Since she is still contesting her own case,
that may impact what she is ready to tell prosecutors.
But maybe some kind of a deal could be reached
for information we will.
Speaker 9 (23:30):
Todd Blanche, the deput Attorney General, has met with Gislin
Maxwell over the last two days. She has sung like
a canary and is getting ready to turn States evidence
against Clinton. Bill Gates, the head of Harvard and amongst
other gloveless financiers who literally we're going to Epstein Island,
sometimes living at Epstein's Layer in New York and so
(23:51):
much more so, the Democrats pushing Trump on this and
trying to connect him to all of this has massively backfired.
And I'm gon say, for twenty plus days as this
all broke, Trump needs to lean into this and order
everything release. And that's all starting. Democrat judges all over
the country Florida, New York are trying to block the
release of the Epstein files now, so Trump has called
(24:12):
their bluff. I've done deep research on this. I have
we've seen any real connections anything illegal with Trump at Epstein.
Speaker 7 (24:17):
Everybody's been calling for more transparency. This is what transparency
looks like. And whether you like it or not, join
Nashwell coming forward and then testifying on behalf of what
she knows is what we have been calling for on
this channel.
Speaker 5 (24:32):
Oh my god. So we'll see what real transparency looks like.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
It's just amazing how they buy it all, like hook
line and Sinker is just incredible.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
Well, what they need to point out is, yeah, look,
it is great to esculate, but again, you need to
look at the motivations of the government now in this
particular case, and you also need to make sure that
anything that is said from this point forward is actually done,
you know, in a setting and circumstances which can be trusted,
because the way that this has all been handled is
absolutely insane. So anyway, that's just look, we'll see where
(25:03):
things go. I am already feeling like the Epstein mania,
you know, to the extent where people on the right
were felt betrayed and all of that is dissipating. They
see it in this perverse way. The journal thing is
the best thing that ever happened to Trump because when
they saw that Trump himself was to directly under attack,
a lot of the energy came out of the room
(25:24):
and they were like, oh no, this is an attack vector.
So left wing YouTubers, it's on you guys now, you know,
it's it's up to the Midas Touches in all of
those people of the world to get people whipped up
on this because otherwise it's going to fizzle out like this,
they'll just stop covering.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
Yeah, and I mean in the mainstream pross to continue
to you know, dig and release and whatever. Whistleblowers in
the FBI, I hope I want to say about what's
really going.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
Like I said, you can't really trust their motivation either, right,
Like a lot of them hate it. Fine, you know,
hate Trump. Listen, leak against the guy all you want.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
I think it's great also innovation, but you can you know,
very information.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
My message to the FBI whistleblowers is, gave me some
stuff on you know, listen Trump, keep it up all right, fine,
I have no issue with it.
Speaker 1 (26:04):
Ever, let's go deeper, like, let's see what else is.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
In there, because something tells me that not all of
what's going to look good for all of you and
your buddies either, And that's part of part of my
problem with this whole thing, is the way that it's all,
you know, kind of being massaged about.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
I thought it was important that the Journal also published
that Bill Clinton was in the same birthday book and
other people, because I mean I even saw I saw
jd Vance really trying to like backtrack after that, like
I never said the book was fake, but like, maybe
you know, we don't know that this was really Trump's letter,
and it's like, no, you were claiming that this was
all No, they said, totally made up. And so once
(26:37):
they released like oh Bill Clinton was in it too,
and here's his letter, then suddenly that changed things because
it wasn't just about Trump. It was like, oh, they
have the whole thing, and you know, they aren't just
focusing on this guy. So I think it lent first
for anyone who's like looking at this honestly, which is
frankly very few people. I think it lent more credibility
to that reporting.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
I would hope.
Speaker 3 (26:55):
So, and again I just think it's you know, evidence
of why I mean, I want to see every damn
name in the book to be hones.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Honest, and every single little joke that everybody was.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Writing all the stuff about like protecting the victims, yes,
protecting the powerful people that were running around with this,
Like what are we doing? I'm sorry, I don't really
care why I don't care at this point. You know,
it's disgusting the associations that he had and the number
of people that we know knew what was going on,
including Trump who said he likes him young, like he
fucking knew what he did. I don't know, you know
(27:24):
how directly implicated?
Speaker 5 (27:26):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
He had a modeling agent, he ow in these pageants.
He was running around with Jeffrey Epstein for over a decade,
and he said he likes him young. Like, draw your
own conclusions about how implicated and how much he knew
what was going on here, even if you know whether
or not he directly was involved or not, which I
don't think anyone should be surprised by at this point.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
And it's not just him right, like you have Leon
Black like and others, or Leslie Wexner drawing a pair
of boot right. It's like such a look. I mean,
everyone should ask himself. I'm thirty three, if my friend
was having a birthday book and his wife or I
guess what a companion asked me to made something like
do you know how disgusting that is?
Speaker 1 (28:03):
Are you drawing as a grown for that man?
Speaker 3 (28:06):
And I'm twenty years younger than Trump was whenever he
wrote the letter, or Leon Black or I don't know
Leslie Wester.
Speaker 5 (28:14):
Was, So it is weiry. Yes, Like I said to Kyl,
so can you imagine if Korn like wrote to you.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
That's what people say. People are like, oh, times have change.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
I'm like, not really like, you know, and then around
you know, I was around in the in the frat
pre woke era even at that time, like that would
have been like, dude, you're fucking creep if.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
You're acting like this, right, I mean, even in.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
The hyper sexualized pre woke PC culture of the nineteen
ninety two thousand.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
Yeah, I just don't think so. So that's all I'm
gonna say, you know.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
And again that's the Trump thing, that's Leslie Wester thing,
Leon all these other guys in the book who are
joking about girls and all this stuff, like I'm sorry,
I think it's really gross to be openly acknowledging all that. So, yeah,
I don't particularly care about your privacy whenever you're filthy
rich and obviously who is engaging, you know, with this
in this type of behavior and perhaps again implicated in
(29:05):
some sort of vast like intelligence you know, money laundering apparatus.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
I think you should come out.
Speaker 5 (29:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
I think it was John Stewart that said every line
of that letter from Trump sounded like something you was
some code you would have to say to get into
some like masked.
Speaker 5 (29:17):
Eyes, wide shut.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
Yeah, totyle party.
Speaker 5 (29:19):
It was like our wonderful secret and oh you know.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
There is I still wonder about that movie. By the way,
if anybody's not seen that movie, it's in such an
incredible film, but deeply to yeah it is. But I'm like,
was there you know, did did Stanley Kubrick know something like?
Speaker 1 (29:35):
Did you know?
Speaker 3 (29:36):
Did I need to go in to read more about
kind of the inspiration and all of that for the
film and the background, because it's a little on the
nose in terms of how pressient it really was for
the epstine and by the way, it came out in
nineteen ninety nine, which was literally in the Epstein hate
at the height of it. And it's set in the
New York It's set in New York City, right, you know,
implicating these like powerful the leads about this dangerous like
(29:58):
sex cult. I'm like, and you know eight shows, Tom Cruise, like,
I don't want to spoil it too much if people
haven't seen it, but I'm just saying it was deeply,
deeply prescient. And I actually do wonder if you knew anything.
Someone should ask Tom actually if or Nicole Kidman for
what the inspiration and all that from the screen.
Speaker 5 (30:14):
Point, maybe I would be fascinated, you know what. Maybe
the work mind, you never.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
Know, maybe they want to cover it up to.
Speaker 5 (30:21):
So how are the Democrats doing? So?
Speaker 2 (30:23):
The Republican Party is not doing great right now? Trump
is certainly his approval rating has fallen off. Independence are
disgusted young man or fleeing, blah blah blah. How's it
going for the Democrats? Let's put this up on the screen,
oh lo and behold. Their approval rating has plunged to
the lowest level in thirty five years.
Speaker 5 (30:40):
According to The Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
They find that sixty three percent of voters hold an
unfavorable view of the Democratic Party. That is the highest
share in journal polls dating to nineteen ninety and thirty
percentage points higher than the thirty three percent who hold
a favorable view. So you've got only thirty three percent
of the country who have a favorable view at this
point of the Democratic Party. And you know, I think
(31:03):
there's a lot going on here. I mean, first of all,
I wouldn't read into this necessarily that like, oh, Republicans
are going to do great in the midterms if you
look at the generic battle and whatever, and just the
fact that you have voters who are center left and
liberal and left much more energized at this point. They're
disgusted with Trump. There's a big backlash and all of that.
But I really think this is about Democratic based voters
(31:27):
being disgusted with and disapproving of the Democratic Party. Like
that's really the only way we get to that low
of a level. And so you know, if you look
at the shift over time, that's really where they I mean,
they're not popular. Obviously Republicans hate the Democrats. That goes
without saying independents also disgusted with the Democratic Party, but
it's based Democratic voters saying I am not I am
(31:50):
not feeling what this party is selling at this point
and being disgusted with their failure to fight Trump. I
think also the you know, failure to recognize Gaza as
the clear moral evil and opposed gen side in any
sort of a clear way. I think those failings of
the Democratic Party are what really have led to them
reaching the absolute basement level of support that they have.
Speaker 5 (32:09):
Now.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
What's interesting is also if you look at the issue
by issue handling for President and Congress, so this is
just preference for Republicans over Democrats. In Congress, it's economy, inflation, immigration,
illegal immigration with that's actually where I find the most
fascinating divide.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
But if then if you look at.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
The areas where they at least have some support, it'll
be on healthcare, vaccines, but on foreign policy and on
Ukraine there's still sorry. On foreign policy in particular, there
is a lot of dissatisfaction. What I just think is
interesting is, like you said, you can only get to
this extremely low level when you have your own democratic
base and the supermajority of the public that kind of
(32:49):
come together and are like, no, we don't really believe
in what you're saying.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
This also gets to the credibility theory.
Speaker 5 (32:54):
It's also like, what are they even saying?
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Yeah, that's like, I mean, I don't even know what
the Democratic Party stands for selling at this point.
Speaker 5 (33:01):
I genuinely don't you know.
Speaker 3 (33:02):
That's part of the issue. Yeah, and can we put
F two up there on the screen. This is absolutely
fascinating because at the same time, what you showed here,
you found this is that the percentage of people who
are extremely votivated to vote. If you go back in
time and you look at October of twenty twenty two,
Republicans were very extremely motivated to vote, but in July
of twenty twenty five, Democrats are extremely.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
Motivated to vote.
Speaker 3 (33:23):
So they're motivated to vote against something, but they're not
necessarily motivated to vote for something. And this is the
biggest problem that I think the Democrats have, And it
gets to the credible messenger theory, where people are obviously
dissatisfied at least.
Speaker 1 (33:38):
Right now with some of the Republican Party.
Speaker 3 (33:40):
The way the Republicans were able to win in twenty
twenty four is by being a credible outsider kind of
threat to the democratic establishment of Biden and of Kamala
Kamala was never seen she was just seen as an insire.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
That's it.
Speaker 3 (33:51):
That's at the end of the day. I think that's
mostly why she lost. But then how do the Democrats
capture that energy of saying we're an outsider and having credibility,
bying able to call out everything. That's where the Zoron
model becomes important, because the Gaza thing is not just
about Gaza. It's about speaking in a way that you
never hear from anybody else. And that's what Who's who else? Superpower?
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Was that Trump? Right? That was Trump's?
Speaker 3 (34:17):
So the point is is that you need to appear
above the political fray and say stuff that nobody else
in the political system is willing to say. I don't
see a single real like mainstream democrat who is really
able to do that. Now you have some you know,
progress it and all that, but I not not in
my opinion at the major land, which by the way,
(34:37):
is a big problem because that means then if it
becomes an establishment game, then the people who are gonna
win are the Buddhat Edges and the Gavindusims of the world.
Yeah yeah, and I mean actually the polymarket odds are
out newsome is currently leading so for the twenty twenty
eight presidential nominie.
Speaker 2 (34:51):
Yeah, I mean maybe I don't know. I'm not sure
I buy the newsom Hi. I just you're right about that.
I mean, the problem is that they're outside of Zoron,
who can't run for president because he was born and
you got there is actually no one in the Democratic
Party Rashida to leave an Ilhan Omer, I think are
the two who have been the most sort of like
clear and morally consistent on the issue of Gaza, and
(35:12):
you know, neither one of those is going to be
presidential contenders.
Speaker 5 (35:15):
AOC.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
You have to do better, Like, I mean, it's just
put that like still defending at this point shipping weapons
to Israel for any sort of purpose.
Speaker 5 (35:24):
I just can't.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
And yeah, I know you voted against the whole package,
but you put out a message that was directly defending
the idea of making sure that Israel has all the
weapons to you know, never bear any of the personal
consequences of their insane, rogue actions and genocidal behavior, even
as you call it a genocide like that's it's not acceptable.
(35:46):
So so yeah, I mean that, And I do think
like I'm becoming more and more convinced of how important
this issue is in you know, in the Democratic Party,
in American politics overall, and so put f up on
the screen. So when you have you know, the Senate
leader of the Democrats, he has this man Chuck Schumer
(36:07):
ken Klipenstein has been tracking this. He hasn't done an
interview with the press in like months, okay, but he
has time for this, this anti semitism in the US
jew hating then now and tomorrow with Rigie Torres and
Chuck Schumer and Brett Stevens. This is what you're spending
your time on while our country is backing a genocide
in Gaza. Like it's it's not serious, it's not serious.
(36:31):
It's disgusting. It's like, what is the moral calculus that
leads you to be more concerned, let's say, about a
rally chant on a college campus than babies starving to
death at the hands of our country. Please explain that
moral calculus to me, because I find it disgusting, and
I think the rest of the country does as well,
and certainly the Democratic base does too as well at
(36:51):
this point, and so you know they have in a way,
there's there's an opportunity here because what I've said to
you and what I keep saying is what's really different
this time is that the democratic base is also discussed
with democratic leadership. The Democratic base is also discussed in
a lot of ways with their own media institutions, which
is why you have the Midas, Touched guys and others
(37:12):
that are blowing up because they are looking for alternatives
that are liberal or left liberal, that meet that need,
that are in the right place on issues of you know,
moral like moral issues like gaza. It creates an opportunity.
The Democratic Party is a hollow husk just waiting to
be like knocked over.
Speaker 5 (37:30):
It's a house of cards. I think Zoron proved that.
Speaker 2 (37:33):
That's the other reason why he was so important in
New York is I think he really proved that the
whole edifice is just ready to crumble with the slightest
bit of pressure. But then the question is just like,
who's going to step up and actually do that, And
there's no one, There's no one that's out there right
now that it's that is a clear contender in my view,
(37:54):
who would be well positioned to really make the moral case.
But I so feel like there's an inevitable ability to it,
because you just can't have a situation where the base
of the party is so at odds with the leadership
and not have someone come in and fill that void.
Speaker 5 (38:13):
But you know, thus.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
Far we haven't seen it and certainly not going to
come from democratic leadership.
Speaker 5 (38:17):
Put F four up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (38:18):
This is Hakim Jeffries, who apparently had like not tweeted
about Gaza at all and then puts down another of
these like mealy Mouth though the humanitarian crisis in Gaza
again as if this just came out of nowhere, has
nothing to say about the intentional starvation being implemented by
the Israelis. Still, by the way, hasn't even endorsed Zoron
(38:39):
Mamdani Haqem. Jeffries is himself from New York, by by
the way, zor On one Hqem Jeffrey's district as well
in New York City. So it's just disgusting cowardice that
people are rightfully rejecting, like across the political map. Certainly
Republicans obviously they're not going to be supportive of Democrats,
but independence in even the Democratic base are like no,
(39:00):
like you stand for nothing, you have no principles. You
are sold out, and you know we deserve better, like
we deserve to have at least one party that's against genocide.
I really wish that wasn't too much.
Speaker 3 (39:12):
What I don't forget is where the opportunists don't come
with this. So you have Andy Basheer, he just gave
an interview that Vogue and he said, I believe when
someone is an ally, when you disagree, you don't do
it publicly or through the media. Is saying Israel was
a critical ally and quote we cannot have a nuclear Iran.
Speaker 1 (39:27):
It's like, dude, you're the governor of Kentucky.
Speaker 2 (39:30):
You have no dog in this space, right, And he
hadn't had to say why did you say about this?
Speaker 5 (39:34):
He could have positioned himself anywhere.
Speaker 1 (39:36):
I just don't get it. I'm like, where does this
shit come from?
Speaker 3 (39:39):
I mean, you've got You've probably got better statements than
from like Gavin or Pete Boodhaje Edge or any of
these other people. So I agree, Look, the system is
right for the taking, but there is something perverse in
democratic politics where maybe it's like rule following or something
where actually saying screw you in the way that Trump
was able to just apparently doesn't seem to have the
same like a I don't know what it is, or
(40:01):
at least like the permission structure. Again, I don't know why,
but something like that needs to happen.
Speaker 5 (40:07):
The base once that person they want a party of Trump.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
Cowardly, they're so risk averse, yeah, you know, and they're
so used to like coalition management, and they're so used
to this logic in DC that has been the case
for however long that like all the danger is in
going all the political dangers in going against Israel, and they,
you know, apparently.
Speaker 5 (40:27):
Haven't adjusted it.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
And then they're also all complicit because you can, you know,
immediately turn around and say, oh, well you backed it
when it was Biden, you know, like you helped.
Speaker 5 (40:34):
To ship the weapons.
Speaker 2 (40:36):
But I think, you know, at this point, there's enough
sort of track laid from Trump where you can say, okay,
but he's doing that Nick Cleansing, He's you know, Biden
and say garl you know, Gaza Lago or whatever, which
is kind of bullshit, but at least would give them
some like coverage just oh it's different now, I.
Speaker 3 (40:52):
Don't know, I mean Obama did it in two thousand
and two. I don't know why people don't follow his example.
He gave an outsider literally state senator who gave a
speech on a rock which nobody cared about, and shaky
cam video ends up winning in the Iowa caucuses. It's like, guys,
you know, it's not that hard to figure out in
terms of why and how you're able to, like in
the way that you're able to set your political future
(41:12):
up if you want. But Dean, you know, Dean had
a chance again. I really think he had a chance.
Speaker 5 (41:17):
Threw it away.
Speaker 3 (41:18):
It's like these guys just throw continue to throw it
away on this I'll never understand.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
Yeah, no, it's I think it almost has to be
an outsider. Then I don't know who this person is,
but maybe they exist. Okay, Bilburr looking at you.
Speaker 1 (41:31):
We will see you guys tomorrow
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.