July 15, 2025 • 14 mins
While often forgotten conversationally when discussing all things Epstein related – there’s still one person, with the living, who knows exactly what happened and with whom. And she happens to be in Florida right now.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to the Brian Mud Show. Thanks for listening. Passion
plus talent is unstoppable. It's time for today's Top three
Takeaways econ Maxwell's House and team autopim my top three
takeaways for you on this Tuesday. Before we get going,
something that hit in the afternoon yesterday. That is a
(00:25):
big development from the Supreme Court pertaining to the US
Department of Education. Box has shared.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Alpert A divided Supreme Court lifted a district judges order
that temporarily reverse plan layoffs and other cuts from the
Department of Education. It means the Trump administration can resume
laying off nearly fourteen hundred employees part of a broader
effort to eliminate the cabinet level department, even as a
legal challenge continues.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
That is a big deal and that is something that
I will continue to to work on. I'll have more
for you tomorrow. My top takeaway today is a lot
online today. So today the start of the second quarter
earning season for Corporate America, and with stock prices essentially
sitting at a record highs, with uncertainty about tariff's deficits inflation,
(01:12):
a lot on the line with the reports that would
begin to roll in first from the big banks, and
if hearning's delivered with solid guidance, the recent rally can
be justified. If hernings falter with weak or no guidance,
you could quickly see the market reach correction territory. But
speaking of markets and inflation, today's inflation report for June,
the Consumer Price Index report is probably going to be
(01:35):
the most significant of the Trump presidency. The rate of
inflation has fallen from three percent when Trump became president
to two point four percent most recently. Now, the Fed
and most economists have been wrong about the effect of
Trump's tariff policy and the impact on the US economy.
(01:55):
The question is whether they're going to continue to be walls.
Read expectations call for inflation to have risen from the
two point four percent just mentioned to two point seven
percent in June as the full effect of Trump's Liberation
Day terrorifts kicked in. If that holds true, drome pal
(02:16):
also known as too late, and the Fed will continue
to sit on interest rates, leaving them unchanged feeling justified
in their stands. If inflation is flat or actually manages
to do the highly unexpected and track lower, Trump would
have all the ammunition, he would need to demand rates
be lowered immediately or at least in the next FED
(02:37):
meeting in two weeks. Also, most on Wall Street at
that point would agree with Trump. So stand by for
news today. A very big day with those things going
on economically. My second takeaway for you today, enter Gilaine
into the conversation. So first on the whole Epstein thing,
the big question mark entering the day yesterday was ludbyd
(03:01):
gino stay or what do he go?
Speaker 3 (03:03):
The Justice Department released the Epstein memo last week that
insisted not only was Epstein's death a suicide, but there
is no client list. Trump invited Bondi to sit near
him at the FIFA soccer game on Sunday in New Jersey,
a sign of public support. Fox has told Deputy FBI
Director Dan Bongino came to work on Monday after not
showing up on Friday.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
There you go. Bongino came to work. So there's that,
all right. So, while often forgotten conversationally when discussing all
things Epstein related, he realized there's still one person with
the living who knows exactly what happened. Everybody acts like,
oh my gosh, everything died with Epstein. No, No, there's
(03:46):
another person living who knows exactly what happened with whom
and she happens to be in Florida right now. Now
safe to say that without the stunning and discussing recruitment
and grimming program put in place for the better part
of a couple decades by gil Lane Maxwell, the use
and abuse of Epstein's victims never would have reached the
prolific levels that it did. Thus wouldn't have likely included
(04:07):
this seemingly extensive clientele that participated in it, and that
is what landed Maxwell a twenty year sentence in a
federal penitentiary in Tallahassee, which is where she resides today
and is currently scheduled to spend every day until twenty
forty two, although she could be eligible for early release
as soon as July seventeenth of twenty thirty seven. But anyway,
(04:32):
is the Daily Mail first reported on Monday according to
an alleged source. Anyway, I hold out that this is
the Daily Mail, citing an alleged source, But no one
according to this is a quote from the Daily Mail.
No one from the government has ever asked her to
share what she knows she remains the only person to
(04:54):
be jailed in connection to Epstein, and she would be
she would welcome the chance to tell the American the truth. Okay,
two things about this first, and so what Ironically, given
the backlash there's been over the past week since the
DOJ's memo leak, taxios stating that hey, I know Epstein
(05:15):
list after all, hitting Bondi when she said that, oh yeah,
I must saw my desk right now at the file
no less after all, and then it's really case closed
as far as the DJ goes. The Maxwell factor looms
large here right. In fact, one of the things that
(05:35):
has always been the case, but I suppose just really
has not been talked about or considered by many. The
best evidence there has ever been that Jeffrey Epstein potentially
wasn't murdered as some part of a criminal cover up
conspiracy is that his literal partner in crime, Elaine Maxwell,
(05:56):
is still with the living. Like, if that's the whole thing,
you can't have Epstein out there, who could spill the beams?
Why are you going to leave Maxwell?
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (06:09):
I never thought about that, but that is a good point.
Brian A loose end well and that's what happens with conspiracies, right,
I mean, people only go in the direction they want
to go. Consider it. It's not an analytical thing for
the most part. Every now and then again conspiracy, you
can't find conspiracies that turn out to be real. And
when when all analytical aspects are are considerates, typically when
(06:30):
you are able to connect todds. In this case, there's
never been an analytical case that could be made because
of Maxwell. And again that doesn't mean that everything was
on the up and up with Epstein and that the
DOJ is being completely forthright here, but it is a huge,
huge dot that is unconnected to the others if you
are all in on the conspiratorial path. Because look, there
(06:55):
is no doubt that not only does she know anything
that Epstein would have known, she probably knows more about
the victims than Jeffrey did day to day, because Jeffrey
didn't have any personal connection to these girls. She did.
She's the one who ran the recruitment operation. She's the
one who went out there along with her partners and
(07:16):
crime and located these girls and hooked them, groomed them.
So that's worth considering if you're on the conspiracy track,
but hadn't considered it. But here's the next point. As
far as the potential for maxwell testimony goes, what did
it even matter? This is the really big thing from
(07:36):
where I sit. With that aspect brought up conversationally, Hesan
would either side those who believe the DOJ and those
who think it's a conspiracy. Would either side actually trust
what Maxwell would have to say, because, after all, she's
proven to be as deviious and deceptive as a person
(07:57):
could potentially be, So why was she something to be
telling the truth now? However, there is a little doubt
the public interest in this case would lead to the
desire to hear what Maxwell has to say, right. I mean,
if you ask the average person, hey, do you want
to hear from her? Where they going to say? Heck? Yeah, right?
I bet you'd get ninety percent plus to people say yes. So,
news of Maxwell's alleged willingness to spill the beans on
(08:20):
the alleged black book and has all the makings, And
it was also seemingly time for maximum effect. If you're wondering, okay,
why now? Is it just because as a concerned citizen
suddenly Maxwell not? Not? Really? Here's the interesting thing about
this coming up yesterday. As Maxwell has been appealing her
(08:44):
twenty twenty two conviction in the Epstein case. It just
so happens that yesterday was the date the Attorney General
Pam Bondi and her DOJ had to issue a response
related to the appeal in that case. Maxwell's trying to
take this to the United States Supreme Court. So it
appears that she is seeking to exploit Bondie's public vulnerability
(09:04):
on this issue right now to use the court of
public opinion maybe to get another day in court. That's
what the angle really was by her yesterday to the
again to the extent that we can trust this unnamed
source by the Daily Mail. So I do throw that
into the mix. So the question is do you want
to hear from Gilane but also without knowing what it
(09:26):
is that she would say, and then would you trust
what she has to say? Because I believe that if
you're based upon what she says and what you want
to believe is what you would choose to believe about
what she was, I don't think would clear anything up.
I think it would be a conspiracy either way for
those who who don't hear what they want to hear
(09:46):
based upon her testimony, or it would be the absolute truth.
My third takeaway for you today, team autopen. We had
this develop development yesterday, Fox's Madeline Rivera.
Speaker 4 (09:58):
Biden is pushing back, say I was deeply involved. I
laid on a strategy how I want to go about
these dealing with pardons and commutations. Republicans, though, say the
new information bolsters their argument that Biden's team took executive
action without his approval.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
What does that even mean? Anyway, I was deeply involved.
This was your decision to make, so you either made
it or he didn't. I was deeply involved, like you
know I was. I was laying flat face down on
the table when people around me were making decisions. I mean,
I was deeply involved. Did you make the decision or
did you not? But anyway, I have a correction to
(10:33):
make in my top three takeaways from January twenty first,
the day after inauguration Day, I remember having said this yesterday.
I went back and found my notes. I'm like, yep,
I said this. I included this, I said. While President
Biden spent his final hours in office Monday signing preemptive
pardons for his family members, The Fouch Mark Milly and
(10:56):
the entire Sham January sixth Committee. Literally, his last pardens
were for his family members at eleven thirty eight, twenty
two minutes before officially exiting office, Donald Trump was squarely
focused on nushering in a new era of national success.
So obviously, the creation I have to make is that,
as we've come to learn, President Biden not only did
(11:16):
not sign those partons himself, but there's also an open
question regarding how much he ever really signed himself. Team
autopen was in instead on Monday, the drip drip drip
of how dimension Joe's administration would really go about its business.
The New York Times has now reported that it wasn't
Joe who issued those final pardons. No, it was just
(11:39):
chief of staff who did the autopen through an email.
So an auto pen through email. But wait, there's more, because,
somewhat remarkably, according to The New York Times, the email
from Biden's chief of staff said this, I approve the
use of the autopen for the execution of all of
the following pardons. Okay, so all those final day partons,
(12:02):
those last minute partons. I approved the use of the autopen. Seriously,
so that's how team autopen worked. A chief of staff
would send the emails. This very well could be an
issue that if presents up in front of courts, because
what happened here does have the potential to be a
constitutional crisis if true. So the Constitution does not address
(12:25):
matters that arrive at the level of an autopen. What
is clear is that it's the president's signature that must
be applied to any legal documents. While autopens have been
known to have been in use since the Eisenhower administration
the nineteen fifties, the operating legal opinion from the executive
branch is this. There was a two thousand and five
legal opinion that is the current law on this matter.
(12:48):
It determined that auto pen signatures were legal for the
president under Article one, Section seven, provided that the president
authorizes its use and in tends for to have legal effect.
Case the president authorizes its use and intends to have
it for legal effects. But if the Times is accurate
(13:11):
in their reporting, where is it that the president explicitly
authorized achieves for those partons. We only have the authorization
from the chief of staff. And did you notice that
he didn't even say President Biden approved the use of
the autopen, he said, I approve the use of the autopen.
(13:34):
What so this makes it only to the constitutional questions
around those partons, but also probably provides additional insight into
how team aut have been worked. I know, Joel, you
are really on the whole Hunter track. And for me,
I think Jill played an outsiders the role in all this,
but I think he had some ideas and they were
probably carried out. Chief of staff seems like he I mean,
(13:57):
because that's audacious, I approved use of the autopen. Wow,
who are you, chief of staff? Right? What does that
have to do with this? So it clearly was a
practice that becomes standing operating operating procedure, right that you
just chief of staff? Since an email I say autopen
(14:17):
for these that's that. Wow. So how much of what
was signed during the Biden administration may have happened not
only through autopen, but maybe even without the president's express consent.
You know, if Bondi's DJ is competent, they'll get to
the bottom of this.
Welcome to the Brian Mud Show. Thanks for listening. Passion
plus talent is unstoppable. It's time for today's Top three
Takeaways econ Maxwell's House and team autopim my top three
takeaways for you on this Tuesday. Before we get going,
something that hit in the afternoon yesterday. That is a
(00:25):
big development from the Supreme Court pertaining to the US
Department of Education. Box has shared.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Alpert A divided Supreme Court lifted a district judges order
that temporarily reverse plan layoffs and other cuts from the
Department of Education. It means the Trump administration can resume
laying off nearly fourteen hundred employees part of a broader
effort to eliminate the cabinet level department, even as a
legal challenge continues.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
That is a big deal and that is something that
I will continue to to work on. I'll have more
for you tomorrow. My top takeaway today is a lot
online today. So today the start of the second quarter
earning season for Corporate America, and with stock prices essentially
sitting at a record highs, with uncertainty about tariff's deficits inflation,
(01:12):
a lot on the line with the reports that would
begin to roll in first from the big banks, and
if hearning's delivered with solid guidance, the recent rally can
be justified. If hernings falter with weak or no guidance,
you could quickly see the market reach correction territory. But
speaking of markets and inflation, today's inflation report for June,
the Consumer Price Index report is probably going to be
(01:35):
the most significant of the Trump presidency. The rate of
inflation has fallen from three percent when Trump became president
to two point four percent most recently. Now, the Fed
and most economists have been wrong about the effect of
Trump's tariff policy and the impact on the US economy.
(01:55):
The question is whether they're going to continue to be walls.
Read expectations call for inflation to have risen from the
two point four percent just mentioned to two point seven
percent in June as the full effect of Trump's Liberation
Day terrorifts kicked in. If that holds true, drome pal
(02:16):
also known as too late, and the Fed will continue
to sit on interest rates, leaving them unchanged feeling justified
in their stands. If inflation is flat or actually manages
to do the highly unexpected and track lower, Trump would
have all the ammunition, he would need to demand rates
be lowered immediately or at least in the next FED
(02:37):
meeting in two weeks. Also, most on Wall Street at
that point would agree with Trump. So stand by for
news today. A very big day with those things going
on economically. My second takeaway for you today, enter Gilaine
into the conversation. So first on the whole Epstein thing,
the big question mark entering the day yesterday was ludbyd
(03:01):
gino stay or what do he go?
Speaker 3 (03:03):
The Justice Department released the Epstein memo last week that
insisted not only was Epstein's death a suicide, but there
is no client list. Trump invited Bondi to sit near
him at the FIFA soccer game on Sunday in New Jersey,
a sign of public support. Fox has told Deputy FBI
Director Dan Bongino came to work on Monday after not
showing up on Friday.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
There you go. Bongino came to work. So there's that,
all right. So, while often forgotten conversationally when discussing all
things Epstein related, he realized there's still one person with
the living who knows exactly what happened. Everybody acts like,
oh my gosh, everything died with Epstein. No, No, there's
(03:46):
another person living who knows exactly what happened with whom
and she happens to be in Florida right now. Now
safe to say that without the stunning and discussing recruitment
and grimming program put in place for the better part
of a couple decades by gil Lane Maxwell, the use
and abuse of Epstein's victims never would have reached the
prolific levels that it did. Thus wouldn't have likely included
(04:07):
this seemingly extensive clientele that participated in it, and that
is what landed Maxwell a twenty year sentence in a
federal penitentiary in Tallahassee, which is where she resides today
and is currently scheduled to spend every day until twenty
forty two, although she could be eligible for early release
as soon as July seventeenth of twenty thirty seven. But anyway,
(04:32):
is the Daily Mail first reported on Monday according to
an alleged source. Anyway, I hold out that this is
the Daily Mail, citing an alleged source, But no one
according to this is a quote from the Daily Mail.
No one from the government has ever asked her to
share what she knows she remains the only person to
(04:54):
be jailed in connection to Epstein, and she would be
she would welcome the chance to tell the American the truth. Okay,
two things about this first, and so what Ironically, given
the backlash there's been over the past week since the
DOJ's memo leak, taxios stating that hey, I know Epstein
(05:15):
list after all, hitting Bondi when she said that, oh yeah,
I must saw my desk right now at the file
no less after all, and then it's really case closed
as far as the DJ goes. The Maxwell factor looms
large here right. In fact, one of the things that
(05:35):
has always been the case, but I suppose just really
has not been talked about or considered by many. The
best evidence there has ever been that Jeffrey Epstein potentially
wasn't murdered as some part of a criminal cover up
conspiracy is that his literal partner in crime, Elaine Maxwell,
(05:56):
is still with the living. Like, if that's the whole thing,
you can't have Epstein out there, who could spill the beams?
Why are you going to leave Maxwell?
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (06:09):
I never thought about that, but that is a good point.
Brian A loose end well and that's what happens with conspiracies, right,
I mean, people only go in the direction they want
to go. Consider it. It's not an analytical thing for
the most part. Every now and then again conspiracy, you
can't find conspiracies that turn out to be real. And
when when all analytical aspects are are considerates, typically when
(06:30):
you are able to connect todds. In this case, there's
never been an analytical case that could be made because
of Maxwell. And again that doesn't mean that everything was
on the up and up with Epstein and that the
DOJ is being completely forthright here, but it is a huge,
huge dot that is unconnected to the others if you
are all in on the conspiratorial path. Because look, there
(06:55):
is no doubt that not only does she know anything
that Epstein would have known, she probably knows more about
the victims than Jeffrey did day to day, because Jeffrey
didn't have any personal connection to these girls. She did.
She's the one who ran the recruitment operation. She's the
one who went out there along with her partners and
(07:16):
crime and located these girls and hooked them, groomed them.
So that's worth considering if you're on the conspiracy track,
but hadn't considered it. But here's the next point. As
far as the potential for maxwell testimony goes, what did
it even matter? This is the really big thing from
(07:36):
where I sit. With that aspect brought up conversationally, Hesan
would either side those who believe the DOJ and those
who think it's a conspiracy. Would either side actually trust
what Maxwell would have to say, because, after all, she's
proven to be as deviious and deceptive as a person
(07:57):
could potentially be, So why was she something to be
telling the truth now? However, there is a little doubt
the public interest in this case would lead to the
desire to hear what Maxwell has to say, right. I mean,
if you ask the average person, hey, do you want
to hear from her? Where they going to say? Heck? Yeah, right?
I bet you'd get ninety percent plus to people say yes. So,
news of Maxwell's alleged willingness to spill the beans on
(08:20):
the alleged black book and has all the makings, And
it was also seemingly time for maximum effect. If you're wondering, okay,
why now? Is it just because as a concerned citizen
suddenly Maxwell not? Not? Really? Here's the interesting thing about
this coming up yesterday. As Maxwell has been appealing her
(08:44):
twenty twenty two conviction in the Epstein case. It just
so happens that yesterday was the date the Attorney General
Pam Bondi and her DOJ had to issue a response
related to the appeal in that case. Maxwell's trying to
take this to the United States Supreme Court. So it
appears that she is seeking to exploit Bondie's public vulnerability
(09:04):
on this issue right now to use the court of
public opinion maybe to get another day in court. That's
what the angle really was by her yesterday to the
again to the extent that we can trust this unnamed
source by the Daily Mail. So I do throw that
into the mix. So the question is do you want
to hear from Gilane but also without knowing what it
(09:26):
is that she would say, and then would you trust
what she has to say? Because I believe that if
you're based upon what she says and what you want
to believe is what you would choose to believe about
what she was, I don't think would clear anything up.
I think it would be a conspiracy either way for
those who who don't hear what they want to hear
(09:46):
based upon her testimony, or it would be the absolute truth.
My third takeaway for you today, team autopen. We had
this develop development yesterday, Fox's Madeline Rivera.
Speaker 4 (09:58):
Biden is pushing back, say I was deeply involved. I
laid on a strategy how I want to go about
these dealing with pardons and commutations. Republicans, though, say the
new information bolsters their argument that Biden's team took executive
action without his approval.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
What does that even mean? Anyway, I was deeply involved.
This was your decision to make, so you either made
it or he didn't. I was deeply involved, like you
know I was. I was laying flat face down on
the table when people around me were making decisions. I mean,
I was deeply involved. Did you make the decision or
did you not? But anyway, I have a correction to
(10:33):
make in my top three takeaways from January twenty first,
the day after inauguration Day, I remember having said this yesterday.
I went back and found my notes. I'm like, yep,
I said this. I included this, I said. While President
Biden spent his final hours in office Monday signing preemptive
pardons for his family members, The Fouch Mark Milly and
(10:56):
the entire Sham January sixth Committee. Literally, his last pardens
were for his family members at eleven thirty eight, twenty
two minutes before officially exiting office, Donald Trump was squarely
focused on nushering in a new era of national success.
So obviously, the creation I have to make is that,
as we've come to learn, President Biden not only did
(11:16):
not sign those partons himself, but there's also an open
question regarding how much he ever really signed himself. Team
autopen was in instead on Monday, the drip drip drip
of how dimension Joe's administration would really go about its business.
The New York Times has now reported that it wasn't
Joe who issued those final pardons. No, it was just
(11:39):
chief of staff who did the autopen through an email.
So an auto pen through email. But wait, there's more, because,
somewhat remarkably, according to The New York Times, the email
from Biden's chief of staff said this, I approve the
use of the autopen for the execution of all of
the following pardons. Okay, so all those final day partons,
(12:02):
those last minute partons. I approved the use of the autopen. Seriously,
so that's how team autopen worked. A chief of staff
would send the emails. This very well could be an
issue that if presents up in front of courts, because
what happened here does have the potential to be a
constitutional crisis if true. So the Constitution does not address
(12:25):
matters that arrive at the level of an autopen. What
is clear is that it's the president's signature that must
be applied to any legal documents. While autopens have been
known to have been in use since the Eisenhower administration
the nineteen fifties, the operating legal opinion from the executive
branch is this. There was a two thousand and five
legal opinion that is the current law on this matter.
(12:48):
It determined that auto pen signatures were legal for the
president under Article one, Section seven, provided that the president
authorizes its use and in tends for to have legal effect.
Case the president authorizes its use and intends to have
it for legal effects. But if the Times is accurate
(13:11):
in their reporting, where is it that the president explicitly
authorized achieves for those partons. We only have the authorization
from the chief of staff. And did you notice that
he didn't even say President Biden approved the use of
the autopen, he said, I approve the use of the autopen.
(13:34):
What so this makes it only to the constitutional questions
around those partons, but also probably provides additional insight into
how team aut have been worked. I know, Joel, you
are really on the whole Hunter track. And for me,
I think Jill played an outsiders the role in all this,
but I think he had some ideas and they were
probably carried out. Chief of staff seems like he I mean,
(13:57):
because that's audacious, I approved use of the autopen. Wow,
who are you, chief of staff? Right? What does that
have to do with this? So it clearly was a
practice that becomes standing operating operating procedure, right that you
just chief of staff? Since an email I say autopen
(14:17):
for these that's that. Wow. So how much of what
was signed during the Biden administration may have happened not
only through autopen, but maybe even without the president's express consent.
You know, if Bondi's DJ is competent, they'll get to
the bottom of this.
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.