Unpacking the newest Epstein Files

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
We are minutes, mere minutes away from the House of
Representatives sitting down and voting on the adjusted cr that
has come through the Senate, adjusting some things, but also
throwing in a couple of details right to move this
state back to January thirtieth, and all of a sudden,

(00:23):
we are back in action. The government is back. How
many days is that? Everyone? Like the forty two Wow,
new record, ladies and gentlemen, we did it. Beat the
old one by a week. I don't know what to say.
I'm so gracious, I'm so pleased. This is so amazing.

(00:47):
I'm glad that we have officially hit the finish line
on this thing. Congrats to everybody who's out there who
had a play a part to play in this. Oh
and by the way, I only going to be doing
the stuff that they were supposed to be doing, all
five hundred and thirty five or five hundred and thirty
eight of them, whatever. And you know what I mean.

(01:10):
One of these people has not been sworn in. This
individual is a representative who was elected seven weeks ago
in the state of Arizona. She was not sworn in
because Mike Johnson, the speaker that said we're not swearing
anyone in until we get this shut down finished up.
The government is not open. What do you want from me?

(01:35):
Of course, people were saying, you could still swear her in,
she could still have the ability to take part in
any action. What are you waiting for? Is a political
back and forth. There was another thing for Mike Johnson
in the Republicans to hold off on. And the reason
that she is such a big part of this is
because she has said I will be the two hundred

(01:56):
and eighteenth person in the House of Representatives to vote
in favor of releasing more information about Jeffrey Epstein. In
the House of Representatives, there are a few Republicans who
are in that group. I don't know how the Epstein
files became a partisan thing like it is, and we've
talked about it a lot, and I know that it's

(02:17):
an exhausting thing to talk about. But it's back in
the news. We have gone from the government shutdown dominating
political news in Washington, DC for what six weeks and
finally we're back in action. And before the House of
Representatives could even vote today, somebody gave a green light

(02:45):
to the national media and said, now's the time hit
send and a bunch of media outlets this morning started
reporting about newly released emails from Jeffrey Epstein and his
cohorts over the last several years and what they were

(03:08):
talking about and how many times Donald Trump's name does appear.
The smoking gun, if you will, that everybody seems to
be pointing at as an email from twenty eleven. This
would be before Donald Trump got heavily involved in running
for political office. He had dabbled before this is you know,
that was the you know, it wasn't until twenty fifteen

(03:30):
that he really caught fire and became a legitimate candidate
to some people, and eventually he rode that wave all
the way to the presidency. But in twenty eleven, there's
an email that suggests that Donald Trump spoke with one
of the victims and certainly would have known about all
the business going on, knowing about the girls. As the

(03:51):
email says, a lot of people were trying to dig
into this. That summer twenty eleven, there was another email
Jeffrey Epstein wrote to Peggy Siegel, who was a publicist,
and told her to reach out to Arianna Huffington, who

(04:12):
helped start the Huffington Post of course, and said that
Huffington should be asked to dispatch reporters to investigate the
accuser of Prince Andrew, whom has been in the news
recently because he has been stripped of all of his
royal titles, even though he has denied any wrongdoing. You know,

(04:33):
this is pretty interesting. There are a lot of this stuff,
a lot of exchanges, twenty three thousand of them documents
that have been pulled out and released. And the Democrats
disclosed certain emails that were in that group. The Republicans said,

(04:54):
here's all of them. Democrats disclosed this House Oversight Committee Chairman,
Representative James Comer obtain these in August because of a subpoena.
And wow, after House Democrats released one of the emails

(05:17):
from Epstein, that's when House Republicans are like, well, here's
all of them, so you can get them all. And
all that happens the morning that we were supposed to
reopen the government. This is what the games that they
play watch House of Cards. I'm telling you now, it
is a TV show. It is highly dramatic, and the
stuff that happens absolutely would not ever actually happen, and

(05:38):
people get away with it. But the context of a
lot of that stuff. You know, those discussions are real
when you watch House of Cards, especially season one, and
you're just like, wow, is this really happened in Washington.
I don't think all of it happens, but the manipulation
of the media, the manipulation of the storylines, manipulating what
the news cycle looks like to either distract from one thing,

(06:01):
get everybody looking at the left hand while the right
hand's doing something else. All that stuff is happening. And
we couldn't get the government even open before these emails hit,
and we're released today and people saying, oh, what more
evidence do you need? Donald Trump was involved? Look you here.
There are a few different angles that we can take

(06:21):
on this. The timeline in and of itself is inconsistent
with the way both sides seem to have approached this.
We will revisit that. I know I've said at nauseum
over the last several months about how I feel about this,
but we will revisit for any new listeners, and then
we'll open the phones and get your perspective on this

(06:43):
as well. And if you want to call this, we'll
just open the phone lines now. Four h two five,
five eight eleven ten, and we'll run through phone calls,
we'll get through emails. I just want to talk about
this and let's be as fair as we can about it. This.
Let's let's not beat around the bush. This is obviously
not a smoking gun that's going to throw people in jail.
This is not something that would be a backbreaking situation.

(07:09):
But what could become a bigger situation is if additional
files are released and we start getting more clarity about
what names and how often certain names are brought up
in certain conversations and about what they do or don't know,
or what they did or did not participate in. With
the end of the government shutdown, what's the new cycle
going to bring us. Well, we've got two hundred and

(07:31):
eighteen votes, we think in the House. After the swearing
in of new Arizona Representative at Alita Grijalva, and she
gets sworn in, she'll be vote number two eighteen. They
will bring it to the table, they will vote on it.
If two hundred and eighteen of the four hundred and
thirty five people in the House vote on it, there
will be more Epstein files that will be released. At

(07:52):
least that we know of obviously that there's other procedures,
but that will be a big procedure step in moving
into the next chapter of this saga, which has been
going on for years. Phone lines are open if you
have thoughts on this. Because this morning media didn't even
have a chance to wait, they released a bunch of emails.

(08:13):
Twenty three thousand documents in all but a few emails
with Trump's name in them were released ahead of time
by Democrats looking to stir the pot here on a
morning where certainly the news cycle was ready for the
next thing after the government shutdown is wrapping up. John's
on the phone line to start the conversation with us today. John,
Welcome to the show. What's on your mind?

Speaker 2 (08:34):
Hey, I haven't talk to you in a while. Man,
how you been doing.

Speaker 1 (08:37):
I'm good man, what's up?

Speaker 2 (08:39):
Oh? Well, you know, do you know that one of
the Congress peoples is going over to the White House
to meet with the dj FBI, And really they have
already said they're trying to get her to Lord Boba. Yeah,
trying to get her to change her vote. I have
so I'm just yeah, you heard, I have heard this, yes, okay.

(09:02):
So the onlyest thing that I'm saying Emory again, and
I'm not putting this on you, but I just can't believe.
I really can't, man, why there's so many Republicans out
there that is covering up And I don't know if
Donald Trump did anything or not. And I'm not saying that,
but while all these Republicans who said they live and
God by the Constitution, flagg dy all this stuff, that

(09:26):
they will turn a blind eye for child molested you know, predators.
That's what gets me, man, and everybody when you ask
them a question, well I didn't read that. Well I
didn't hear that, so I can't speak on that. What
would you have to read or speak on to say
that you are totally against child predators, child molesters. And

(09:51):
I just can't believe it, man, And I'm saying not
you per se, but this radio station is pushing that.
And Donald Trump favored trying to head and keep them
away from him.

Speaker 1 (10:02):
That is saying that, Yeah, John, And I can't speak
for anybody but the four hours I'm on the air. Yeah,
but you know, you know me, I appreciate your thoughts
even if we don't SEEI and a lot of stuff
I do appreciate that you call in and you make
your voice heard, John, and I do appreciate your call today,
not too much. Yeah, So before I get to the

(10:23):
next call, do I we And like John said, we
don't have We don't know, and he's not saying that
Trump is guilty of stuff. But we are forgetting the
victims here. You know, we talk about this as it's
just another political discussion. We're not thinking when we talk

(10:43):
about all the political ramifications of this, what the victims
went through. Okay, And this is one thing that I
would hope that we can get back to is this
was a heinous individual who committed horrendous crimes, had a
ring of people who were willing to do this, powerful
people we are led to believe. And we are just

(11:06):
trying to figure out what the story is going to
come out and if it will be ever completed, because
it's a bunch of hearsay, a lot of it is,
and we're trying to get a paper trail to figure
out what did or didn't happen and who is it
being implicated. But this has become, for better or worse,
a witch hunt against one individual. And yes, we mentioned
that Prince Andrew lost, his titles, had stripped. All of

(11:30):
his stuff is stripped because of what he's been alleged
to have been connected with. But all of this is
coming out because of Donald Trump. Now, Donald Trump isn't
a saint in this, because he campaigned on the idea
that he was going to uncover the Epstein Files. He
had that big shindig with all of those conservative talkers

(11:50):
and influencers that showed up to the White House in February.
They handed over a big binder, a giant binder, had
a ton of stuff in it and on the outside
they took pictures of it, and it's at Epstein Files
Phase one. The people in the White House administration, like Pambondi,
the Attorney General, and the people around her, brought these

(12:10):
people from social media, gave them a giant binder and said,
this is just the beginning. We are going to be
the most transparent administration in the history of the United States.
And we're not even trusting the mainstream media with this stuff.
We're giving it to actual influencers, people who are on
social media. They're not beholden to anybody except themselves. And
we gave them that information and then we heard nothing

(12:33):
from them. We heard nothing about what's in the files,
We heard nothing about what was in the binders. We
heard nothing. And then in the summer months later, when
the flooding in Texas was running rampant, and that was
the big story in America, at around midnight Eastern time
on a Sunday and to Monday, while the entire country
is paying attention to what's happening in Texas with the flooding,

(12:57):
it just quietly comes out that there was nothing more
in the PC files. And Epstein killed himself in prison,
and there was no co conspirator or anything like that
that did anything to him, and there's no list, there's
no more information. Let's move on, as if people were
just going to ignore that al and then as people

(13:18):
kept asking the questions, all of a sudden, Donald Trump's
tune changed. He kept saying, why are we talking about this?
It's a hoax from the Democrats. They're trying to come
after me. Now you have all this other stuff that's
going on in the world, and you're paying attention to
Jeffrey Epstein, You're a loser. When the only reason his
name was still in the news is because Trump was
running on this in twenty twenty four. Jeffrey Epstein died

(13:42):
in August of twenty nineteen. That's over six years ago. Now,
now we have a lot of questions. We've got a
lot of victims who are showing their face, They're going
out and about, they're saying, we demand justice, we want justice,
show the files. I hate to say this, but couldn't

(14:07):
they just start naming names if they really wanted to? Yes,
Jeffrey Epstein was up to no good. It seems like
for decades. What about all the information that other previous
presidents who may have been connected to him have We
don't know, right, and if this would have ended Donald Trump,
and there was a lot of stuff in there that

(14:29):
could have ended Donald Trump, do you think, especially knowing
Joe Biden was not going to be in the White
House after the twenty twenty four election, don't you think
that the Democrats would have just tried to get that
out before when? Do you think that they would try
to release it before the election even happened? It could
have ended Donald Trump there if there was anything truly incriminating.
But that's not what this is about. It's about optics,

(14:51):
it's about blame, it's about needing something in the news
cycle to keep our brains occupied. And the fact that
Donald Trump his flip flopped on this so radically from
how he was before the election, how his administration was
handling this just earlier this year, and then all of
a sudden it becoming this kind of taboo topic that
he says, you're a loser if you're thinking about it

(15:13):
or you're talking about it, and we can't escape it.
We still can't escape it. Sorry about my little dietribe there,
but it really is about partisan politics and trying to
witch hunt Donald Trump more than it is about the victims, unfortunately,
And it's about trying to end Donald Trump more than
it is about anybody in the victims or trying to
prevent anything from happening like this in the future. It's

(15:34):
all about a witch hunt to get one guy, whether
or not he did anything bad. I would be surprised
at this point we would have heard about it by now,
besides just having his name implicated in a few emails,
or somebody very specifically who may have been a victim
would have pointed and said, I know he knows, I
know he was there. It doesn't all make sense if

(15:59):
you use the entire timeline, especially post Epstein's death. Then
we are still sitting here with a puzzled look on
our faces to what actually happened. I'll take Jeff's call
real quick here, Jeff, sorry about that. I appreciate you
for holding what's on your mind today.

Speaker 3 (16:16):
Now you're golden man. My number one. I'd like to see,
of course, all the files be released after people's after
victims' names have been removed, et cetera. What I think
is happening is this. I think that obviously, if Trump
was really agreevous to guilty of anything, that would have
slipped out into Biden administration. There would have been a leak.

(16:36):
Somebody would have leaked the information. Even if there was
a court order, they would have leaked it. You know
that that's where that stuff works. My guess is that
the reason why Trump has changed his tune is because
he is using that list to blackmail other people. Now
if he has, you know, I mean, you're giving that
list to that kind of power, And I mean, you know,

(16:59):
you know Donald Trump. I mean I wouldn't put anything,
you know, vote for him, but I wouldn't put a
lot of past him. And he could he can take
he can. He could move billionaires off of supporting Democratic
candidates with a threat because he's got the list.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
Yeah, well, and that's that's not a bad angle to
take here, Jeff, because that list and if it is
in some way being used behind the scenes for blackmail
or anything like that, I mean that's politics too. There's
a lot of stuff like that in politics, like hey,
I'm going to release this stuff unless you give me x,
Y and Z. And when you have that, that's a

(17:34):
lot of power that you have behind the scenes too.
But like you said, if Trump really was implicated with
legitimate wrongdoing, this would have leaked before that election last year.
They would not have even allowed him to make it
to election day with this stuff if it was really
that incriminating to him. Jeff, thank you for the call today.
I appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (17:52):
Thank you.

Speaker 4 (17:52):
Man.

Speaker 1 (17:53):
You're expecting at some point here in the next few
hours at the latest, that we're going to get a
vote to reopen the government from the House representatives. We're
going to have the right amount of people and there's
not going to be a question, but it's what's going
to happen after that. We're going to have the swearing
in of representative at Elitat Grijalva, who is the special
election winner from Arizona. She's won that election for over

(18:16):
seven weeks now, but they're just now going to put
her in office thanks to, of course, the government shut down.
Mike Johnson said he's not going to swear her in
until after the government shutdown. Now, with that being said,
she becomes the two hundred and eighteenth vote potentially for
this Epstein file release from the House. And before they

(18:39):
could even do that, there was these this report of
all these emails and Trump being implicated by Epstein in
different ways, not implicated, but just mentioned in different ways.
And what do we really learn from them? What is
the moral of that story? Those are the things we're
trying to understand as people are coming through three thousand

(19:02):
different documents that were released today as part of this thing.
It is a story that just will not quit. Steve's
on the phone line. We're getting your thoughts on this
any angle, honestly, because there are plenty of them to
go over. Steve, thank you for calling in. What's on
your mind today?

Speaker 3 (19:17):
Well before I started waiting, I had two questions. Now
I have three, okay, and I'm not necessarily in line
with what would be expected at this except that at
this time. But one of them was, has anybody noticed
that the minority whip in, a minority leader in Congress
has the exact same voice patterns is Barack Obama? And

(19:40):
then the second thing would be, I'm watching the news yesterday.
They're talking about the insurance and they mentioned that there's
like nine thousand or more people than that walking around
that don't even know they're getting it, that they have
insurance that they're being paid for.

Speaker 1 (19:58):
Yeah. So the answer to your first question, like are
you you're drawing similarities to from Hakeem Jeffries to Barack
Obama is what you.

Speaker 3 (20:07):
Said speech patterns, Yes, exactly, like.

Speaker 1 (20:09):
Yeah, I'm the best thing I can say, Yeah, the
best thing I could say, Steve. Yeah, but the best
thing I could say, Steve. And this is maybe not accurate,
but it's how I see politics in a way, because
when Trump got elected, there were a bunch of kind
of Trump spawns after that as well, the Marjorie Taylor Greens,

(20:31):
the JD Vance, the uh Nancy Mace's of the world,
who you know, kind of realized that that type of
communication is resonating with the American people and they emulate that.
It's kind of like when I was a kid watching
Michael Jordan play basketball. All the kids were trying to
do what Michael Jordan did, and that spawned players like
Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade who basically were attempting their

(20:53):
version of what Michael Jordan did. They you see somebody
get to the heights that you want to achieve and
they are successful, then you try to emulate them. I
think that's just a natural human behavior. I just think
that Hikeem Jeffreyes just happens to be in a pretty
high ranking position, so we have to listen to him
a lot, versus so maybe other people who share the

(21:13):
same qualities.

Speaker 3 (21:15):
Stepping over, stepping over my second point one thing I
wanted to ask or point out, and I understood this.
I listened to this while was going out. We were
stuck in a car for three days when Obama when
Obamacare was passed. But I believe that it was passed
by a Republican that stepped across the lines with his vote.
And I haven't seen anybody bringing that up, but I
you know, I'd swear to my grave that that's what happened?

Speaker 1 (21:37):
Okay, yeah, I can. I can find that out.

Speaker 3 (21:40):
He was He was an East Coast Democrat, older guy.
I think he passed away like three or four years ago.

Speaker 1 (21:48):
Yeah, I'll uh, I'm sorry, I'm not going to be
able to pull this up like immediately. I'll look into
it though and see if I can't find that. Okay,
is that all right?

Speaker 3 (21:57):
Okay?

Speaker 1 (21:58):
Yeah? Sorry? But and again on your insurance question, Steve,
I couldn't. I couldn't give you a good answer on
that because what we know is that there are a
lot of people who don't pay or put in for
insurance that would have credits to utilize. But that's the
other thing too, is there's so much red tape around
some of this stuff. I think if you pulled every

(22:18):
single person who's a functioning adult that's in charge of
their own insurance in America, I would imagine that there's
probably seventy five percent that don't really know what is
or is it covered by their insurance? You know what
I mean?

Speaker 5 (22:30):
Right?

Speaker 3 (22:30):
So, I guess what I was wondering, is this just
a free throw of moneys between the government and an
insurance company, or is there actually some substance in the
molasies themselves.

Speaker 1 (22:42):
Yeah. Yeah, it's a good point. It's a great point,
a Steve. I'll try my best to get better answers
for you, but I'm sorry, I just don't really have
the answers for you. But I appreciate the call today,
thank you. Yeah, which I was an insurance expert. What
I do know is that there are are, you know,
certain specific pieces of Obamacare that have those credits that

(23:05):
as and this is what they're going to vote on
next month as to whether or not to extend those
But there are people who are not they you would
not anticipate the government should be covering them for their
health insurance, and we're putting money into them. And then
the insurance companies and the way that they're operating or
working with the government, and whether or not that in

(23:28):
and of itself is a tricky scenario. I wish I
had a h I wish I had more clarity and
a better answer for for Steve there, but I don't.
Matt is on the phone line of four h two five, five,
eight eleven ten. What's on your mind?

Speaker 4 (23:42):
Matt, Hey, I'll give you some clarity. It was Ben
Nelson who delivered the final vote that pushed Obamacare over
are great Ben Nelson of Nebraska there is he made
a deal and so it was uh yeah, thanks.

Speaker 1 (24:00):
Okay, yeah, yeah, I appreciate you. Yeah, and thanks for
the clarity there, Matt. I was going to have to
dig into that. Yeah, when that happened. I'll be honest
with you. I was in college, so I did, and
I wasn't living in Nebraska at the time. But it's
a good history lesson. And what is interesting is that
Ben Nelson, a Democrat, first of all, from a member

(24:26):
of the Democrat Party, previously served as a thirty seventh
governor of Nebraska, and then he's the last Democrat to
have won or held statewide office in the state of Nebraska.
And yeah, so he would have voted for it, but
it doesn't really necessarily explain what like a Republican stepping

(24:48):
across the line, so he voted for it. But I
think Steve's point was that there was a Republican on
the East coast somewhere that stepped across the line and voted.
I'm looking at the two thousand and six the last
election that was one one by Ben Nelson for the
Senate and basically All of Nebraska voted blue in that election,
except some very random West Panhandle Nebraska counties. Like the

(25:12):
entire state voted blue. In twenty years, the entire state,
except for basically two counties, vote red. It's crazy how
fast this stuff can change. The best I could come
up with was that famous John McCain vote in twenty
seventeen where he joined still controversial Republican Senator Susan Collins
of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. John McCain was

(25:35):
the deciding vote who voted against repealing Obamacare, and that
ended up, you know, certainly put McCain in the doghouse.
That's the most likely scenario. He's not East Coast, he's
from Arizona. But that was I think that was probably
what our previous caller had been alluding to.

Speaker 5 (25:57):
There.

Speaker 1 (25:57):
We're talking about different items. It relates to the government reopening,
including EPSTEIN, including healthcare, including assurance. Raised on our phone
line four h two ten, Ray, welcome to the show.
It's on your mind.

Speaker 6 (26:11):
Yes, I was just your other guy. Free me to
the punch on that by being ben Nelson was the
final vote on that, and then Ben Nelson actually had
it worked it on out with Obama to have what
they called the Nebraska kickback, so that we had special
privileges in Nebraska if he would vote for the Obamacare

(26:32):
package and stuff. So and then everybody was they were
on the news and news is in channel six and
stuff like this. The day before the final vote for
where he was Nelson is going to announce his vote.
He was the final vote on it, and that they
asked him how he was going to vote. He says, well,
seventy percent of the people want me to vote for

(26:52):
the bill. And they go, well, nobody's been in his
office all day answering the phone. The phones you've been
ringing the true and everybody else is really high. It's
nobody can get through because nobody was answering the phone.
So he basically made the deal, went through with Yeah,
it's terrible.

Speaker 1 (27:09):
Yeah. My only my best answer to that there, y
is that there's the fact that he was a Democrat, right,
and I know it's hindsight's twenty twenty and it's fifteen
years in the past, but expecting somebody in the Democrat Party,
especially in the last in the Obama years and even afterwards,
this is one thing that don Bacon told me last

(27:30):
week when he called in, is they usually stick together
on most things, you know, which was why it was
such a surprise to see somebody like Fetterman break ranks
so willingly to you know, vote in favor of keeping
the government open and things of that nature. Right, So
it would have been, in hindsight surprising to hear a

(27:51):
guy like a Democrat who won Nebraska, by the way,
in two thousand and six when he his second election,
when he beat Pete Ricketts, who was running against him.
He won that race with sixty four percent of the vote.
I mean, he dominated that. It's hard to imagine a
Nebraska where Democrats were winning regularly, but that was less

(28:14):
than twenty years ago. And yeah, i mean, just looking
back on it now and I'm reading about I'm kind
of looking through this Cornhusker kickback situation, you know. I
just you're right. I mean, it's it's a pretty controversial
thing that he did, but I'm just not surprised that
a Democrat would do that, especially if they were given
additional benefits.

Speaker 6 (28:36):
One thing I've got to ask you is when remember
Floucy Flowscy's favorite thing is you have to vote for
this to see what you've got. And that was nobody
read the Obama bill when it was being passed.

Speaker 2 (28:50):
It was it was still hot.

Speaker 6 (28:52):
From the press and they printed it on out.

Speaker 1 (28:54):
I don't know, I don't know how anybody reads anything
that they passed. To be honest with you, which is,
you know, I cannot believe leave.

Speaker 6 (29:00):
Yea, they have all kinds of stuff in there, exactly.
You think that's why I'm saying that illegal. They shouldn't
be in their passing building.

Speaker 1 (29:09):
Yeah, and Ray, I appreciate. I appreciate the callment. I'll
run out of time here, but I thinks, yeah, have
a good day. Uh yeah. The big Beautiful bill, for instance,
was over thirteen hundred pages or something like that. It
got it down to like nine point fifty. If a
bill is more than one hundred pages, we're probably doing
it wrong. The end of the government shutdown is looming,
and we were talking in the first hour a bit

(29:31):
about the Epstein files situation and two hundred and eighteen
people net are needed to vote to you know, the househovers.
That committee provided like twenty three thousand emails. There are
a few that the Democrats somehow got out to the
media and then the Republicans decided, hey, let's just push

(29:53):
out all of them that we have. They have this stuff, guys,
they have it. The subpoena gave it to them, and
they waited until the end of the government shutdown to
basically say, oh, lookye here they're playing political games with us.
You have to understand, it's like a variation of reality
television more than it is about politics than it is

(30:14):
about government. Now, real things are happening, and it really
is affecting people's lives. It isn't just done for entertainment,
but it has become a reality television saga. And they
had all this stuff since August, but they didn't want
to release it. These emails in the midst of another

(30:34):
major story happening, which became, for better or worse, the
government shut down. And as soon as we are on deck,
I mean it is happening soon. It is happening very
soon when they are going to reopen this government. And
at Alita representative at Alita gri Helva there it is

(30:58):
Can I just call her Adelita, like, do I have
to be all prim and proper about this? At Alita Grihalva.
I've said it one hundred Times today and I cannot
get it right. Drives me nuts, stupid anyway, she's getting
sworn in. That could be vote number two eighteen for

(31:19):
this Epstein situation, and that has become the new darling
subject for the media today, and it's probably going to
be the darling subject for the media for the next
couple of days because there will be continued developments on
what is or isn't real or and people are going
to ask Donald Trump. He's going to be throwing other
stuff out there, and it's just going to continue to

(31:43):
fester in the cycle for a while. But here's what
we know. We know that these emails occurred for you know,
long ago. A couple of the most interesting ones are
from you know, like twenty eleven when Epstein is emailing
Glenell and talks about him knowing about the girls or whatever.

(32:04):
Twenty fifteen, there's one in there about one of the
confidants of Jeffrey Epstein seemed to somehow believe that during
one of the primary debates that the Republicans are doing,
you know, Trump is on top at this point in
the polls. Late in twenty fifteen. He seems to have
an inkling that Trump is going to be asked a

(32:24):
question by CNN, who was hosting a debate about his
connection to Jeffrey Epstein, And in that email's like, hey,
can should we formulate some answer to try to feed
him and get him to say it? Or if he doesn't,
you know, he's going to have to He's going to
get hung up on his own words. They referenced him
hanging himself by either answering or not answering that question. Now,

(32:47):
based on what we know, that question was never asked
by CNN, So I have no idea where that guy
got his information, And it didn't seem like a big
enough deal at the time for CNN not to even
ask what his relationship would have been with Jeffrey Epstein
back in twenty fifteen when he was on his way up,
Which is again, why did this only catch on now? Now? Again,

(33:07):
the only reason it got brought back up in the
last calendar year or so has everything to do with
the fact that Donald Trump himself was campaigning on releasing
what he knew about these files. I don't know if
he didn't think that there was a lot to it
or a lot there. I have no idea what the
story would be as far as it relates to that.

(33:30):
But the change up from where he was earlier this
year and even on the campaign trail last year, to
what he is saying about it now, he's lost the plot,
I think from most of his supporters who have said,
wait a second, we want this information. This is important stuff.
You were telling it with us, it was important. So

(33:54):
let's just go ahead and play through this a little bit.
What happens next? Right? Are there other names that are
implicated here? Because this is also part of the equation.
We imagine the Bill Clinton is going to be pretty
heavily implicated. If we had a client list, we know
that Prince Andrew who just lost his prince title. So

(34:14):
do we just call him Andrew? Now? Did you hear
what his name is now that he's been stripped? No?
I haven't heard, all right, So it is he is
now Andrew mount Baton Windsor. Andrew mount Baton Windsor is
an official name. You can't call him Prince Andrew. Is

(34:37):
Andrew mount Baton Windsor. But if you said that to me,
I'd be like, who exactly? So Andrew Baton Windsor would
be a high profile person on the Epstein client list,
you would imagine, and there may be a lot of
other people that are in Congress that are high ranking
officials in major companies and people who are in charge

(35:00):
of companies that have a big presence in the stock market.
All that stuff, right, But based on what we know
about how the Democrats really hate Donald Trump and they
didn't want him to be in office, they did everything
they could. They had him indicted in multiple times. He
was charged with like ninety one counts found guilty of

(35:23):
a felony last year. You remember that thirty four counts
he was found guilty of. What happened with that, I mean,
it was basically a waste of everybody's time. It didn't matter.
There wasn't even a sentencing here, and they canceled all
that stuff because he won the presidency. It was all
for show. We were yanked around, we all were. It

(35:43):
was just a complete waste of time. But you're telling
me they were going to all of these lengths to
try to get him out of the race, to try
to eliminate him from people wanting to vote for him.
And they allegedly had all this information that they were
sitting on about the Epstein files. And they did release
it to end him. They were afraid of what that

(36:04):
would look like, afraid of who else would be implicated
in that. I mean, think about it. If it implicates
Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States who
already had been impeached, by the way, even though a
lot of people who are Democrats look pretty fondly about
his presidency in the nineties, what does that have to
do with anything now? It really doesn't, right. I mean,

(36:25):
we can go back and we can try to destroy
the reputation of every guy who's ever been president of
the United States. I'm sure we could figure out a
way if you really wanted to. If you had that
information and it could end the future of Donald Trump,
when you had the chance before twenty twenty four election,
they would have put it out there. I don't believe

(36:47):
for a second that if there was something that really
would have ended Donald Trump, that they would hold it
back because they were afraid of who else it may implicate.
They would have sacked every single person possible to get
Donald Trump out of there, and they didn't. What new

(37:09):
information has come out, by the way, from twenty nineteen,
when Epstein died killed himself, with all the conspiracy theories
about who did it. He couldn't have done it himself,
somebody else would have had to do it. Well, that
doesn't seem to be the case according to our current
Department of Justice. And the only reason that we keep
talking about it is because they kept breaking it up.

(37:31):
And now the Democrats see those optics and they're like, oh,
we must be involved. It didn't help when Elon Musk
did the same thing earlier this year when they had
a fallout. When they had their falling out, Elon was like, oh, yeah,
he's on the Epstein files. That's why they haven't been
released yet, and that just reignited that fire. So yes,

(37:52):
do I think that there's anything in here that's going
to end Donald Trump? I do not. Am I hopeful
that we can stop talking about it it's point and
let the victims rest. Sure do I hope that the
victims feel like justice has been served. Sure? I do.
I think that is more of a justice thing than
it should be a political thing. Unfortunately, it has been

(38:14):
a political thing since it's been brought up for the
last several years, and both sides are really to blame
for that. Donald Trump himself has to bear a lot
of the blame for that, the way he campaigned on
releasing everything and then pulling a one to eighty as
the year went on. I just am ready to bury
this forever. But we may not get to that point

(38:34):
because now that we keep talking about information and files
that aren't Like Donald Trump talked about releasing MLK and
JFK files and all that stuff, and then stuff like
that got released, and then people are like, there's nothing
new here. There's nothing like sensational that I was expecting
that people were hiding. The government was hiding this information
from us, and now we're going to actually be told
what's going on. And then we get found out that,

(38:56):
like we find out after that release, you're just kind
of like, wait a second, there's really not anything else
that's different here. Because we get ourselves all talked up
about all this stuff that we think might exist that
we don't know for a fact exists, and then we're
really let down and disappointed when there's nothing there. Now

(39:17):
I'm not saying there's nothing in the Epstein files, and
I'm sure that there's more than what we've been led
to believe that there is, but is there anything that
is going to implicate and basically bury somebody like Donald
Trump or anyone else in politics for that matter, without
hard evidence that they were participating actively throughout Epstein's operation.

(39:40):
I don't think so. I would be very surprised at
this point. It would have come out somehow, some way
by now, and we're talking about the Epstein thing because
the emails that were released today, and then likely what
the vote is going to be, I know, the lower
and Robert aspect of this. We've heard that there are
people pressure ring Lauren Bobert and Nancy Mace to try

(40:03):
to change their vote and vote against that, which they
would become the two hundred and eighteenth person on the
other side if that happens. But they certainly would have
to answer a lot of questions about why they changed
their vote and to come to that pressure if it
comes to that. But I again kind of mentioned before
the break, I'm just not so sure that anything major

(40:24):
is going to be found out here, because wouldn't we
have found out by now. Phil's on our phone line
four two five, five, eight eleven ten. Welcome in, Phil.
What's on your mind today?

Speaker 7 (40:34):
All right, Amory? You made the statement a number of
different times today. The Donald Trump campaigned on releasing the
Epstein files. He never said any such thing when he
was campaigning.

Speaker 1 (40:52):
Well, what did he say, then, Phil, Because he mentioned,
he mentioned, he mentioned multiple times that he was going
to release the JFK, the MLK, the Epstein files, and
they were going to be the most transparent administration in America.
In February, I say, Phil.

Speaker 7 (41:07):
Astein file.

Speaker 1 (41:09):
Phil. He did, though, and I know he did. I
watched him do it, and then it does like I okay,
but so so Phil, So Phil, So Phil, if you so, Phil,
if you if you are are going to stay in
that lane on this, I'm going to stay on this
lane on this. Then how do you explain In February
when the White House invited thirteen conservative influencers, gave them

(41:31):
a binder that said Epstein Files Phase one and said
this is just the beginning of unleashing what they have
about the Epstein files, only for months later for them
to say, actually, no, there's nothing here. Okay like thirty
there's no consistency with it.

Speaker 6 (41:49):
Here's what I want.

Speaker 7 (41:51):
I wanted here to play the audio of him promising
to release the Epstein file.

Speaker 1 (41:57):
All right, Phil, I don't understand what we're gaining here,
because all right, Phil, I'll try to dig that up.
I don't know what that changes here. Because Donald Trump
was in favor of releasing all the files. I know
he was. He invited people to the White House to
celebrate them releasing the files, only for later in the
year them to say there's nothing to release. I don't

(42:18):
understand what me wasting more time bringing up audio from
last year when we know the inconsistencies are there. We
are so far down this rabbit hole, Phil, I got
to move on, man. And I appreciate you for being
on the show, and I like talking to you, but
this is we're protecting a guy who has been insanely

(42:39):
inconsistent on this. He has been, and if we're just
going to ignore that because he's Donald J. Trump, then
we're not being fair to ourselves. All right. So I'll
see if I can't find it for Phil. Guys, Gary's
on our phone line four oh two, five five, eight
eleven ten. What's up, Gary.

Speaker 5 (42:57):
I'm no experts, gentlemen, But wouldn't have Biden's DOJ released
these files? If Trump was implicated in any wrongdoing, you.

Speaker 1 (43:07):
Would think would have done that. You would think, but
that's That's my point is if they had him for
four years, ending Trump would have been more valuable to
them than protecting any one person. So it like the
argument that they didn't want to release it because they
thought it was going to implicate other people. I just
don't think that that's true. I think they literally just

(43:29):
didn't have enough to implicate him.

Speaker 5 (43:33):
If they had, they would have loved nothing more to
find him doing something wrong before the election last year.

Speaker 6 (43:41):
They would have loved it.

Speaker 1 (43:43):
Yeah, No, one hundred percent. And they would have done
it too because they were trying to get him thrown
in jail. They indicted him multiple times, They charged him
with over ninety counts of different things that they were
hoping to throw him in jail so he couldn't run
for office. You don't think if given the chance, they
would have been able to release this hundred percent. Gary
appreciate the call.

Speaker 5 (44:03):
Also, I don't know if any of the victims have
been ever mentioned Donald Trump either, Have they?

Speaker 1 (44:09):
Yeah? Well, that's the other thing too, is you would
think that they would just name names if they're willing
to be public about it, but they haven't done that.
They want the list that they say exists and if
it does exist and they know what the list is for,
then sure. But it's been six years since the guy died.
He's been in jail for a lot longer than that.

(44:32):
Don't you think we would have this stuff by.

Speaker 3 (44:33):
Now, you know, like he got in he got in
or Sam.

Speaker 1 (44:38):
Yeah, twenty nineteen. It's been over six years.

Speaker 5 (44:41):
Yeah, Okay, I appreciate you. I appreciate your time, gentlemen.

Speaker 3 (44:45):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (44:45):
Yep, thanks, Gary, appreciate it real quick. I'm gonna squeeze more.
Call in here. Landy's on the phone line. Welcome in, Landy.
What's on your mind, Laney?

Speaker 8 (44:52):
I was just Landey. I just can't tell you. You're absolutely right.
I'm a megabu and still is wrong. Trump did campaign
on that, and I watched it myself. So if he
wants to do the dirty work, he can easily just
do as anybody else and get on the internet and
go to YouTube maybe and and find the speech. But

(45:14):
you're absolutely right, he did say that.

Speaker 5 (45:17):
Yeah, and I agree.

Speaker 8 (45:18):
I agree when you're saying that if they wanted to
do some dirt on him, they would have done it
years ago. So this is just a bogus move and
just the way they like to play the Democrats.

Speaker 1 (45:28):
Yeah, no doubt a lady, appreciate the call today. Thanks
so much for listening to us.

Speaker 8 (45:33):
Yeah, thank you.

Speaker 1 (45:34):
Yeah, no problem. And again I don't want to try
to mean what Phil you know, was mentioning and stuff,
but I mean I found something. When he was interviewed
by Fox and Friends, he said, yeah, I would declassify
the Epstein files. And you know that I could go
on and on here. The fact that we're still in
like the process of trying to prove that he felt

(45:55):
that way when he obviously had gone up against it.
He he was trying to make a big scene about
releasing the Epstein files in February of this year. The
inconsistencies are there, that is apparent. That doesn't mean he's guilty,
but it certainly means from my perspective that there's something

(46:17):
amiss here, and that's what the Democrats are trying to
pounce on.