Epstein Is a Bad Guy. That's Why He Didn't Keep a List

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I don't want to say I called it, but I
called it. The DOJ has basically admitted what I have
been saying, what I have been predicting, what I have
been boldly proclaiming against basically every other human being in

(00:24):
all of talk radio, that the Trump people are going
to come in. They're going to release all the files
about all of these cases that provoke tons of conspiracy
theory to not quite conspiracy theory, to borderline conspiracy theory,

(00:44):
speculation JFK, RFK, Martin, Luther King Junior, and of course
the crowning jewel of them all, the Epstein case. And
it's the Epstein case that I want to focus on today.
I predicted that the Trump people would come in, We'd
have all these Trump people who everyh you know, pro

(01:05):
Trump person in the lead up is saying, this is it.

Speaker 2 (01:09):
We're gonna get the truth. We're finally gonna figure it out.
Bam Bundy's gonna figure it out. Cash Battel's gonna figure
it out. Dan Bungino, He's gonna figure it out. Dan
Bungino has a radio show that means he's a hardcore,
hardcore right winger. We're gonna find out the whole client
list for for Epstein.

Speaker 1 (01:28):
Not David Epstein. I think David Epstein was like some
sort of sports executive or something. Jeffrey Epstein. Who is
David Epstein? I think I keep I constantly accidentally say
David Epstein rather than Jeffrey Epstein. David Epstein was an
American journalist, the author of the new number one New

(01:48):
York Times bestseller book range Why Generalists Triumph in a
Specialized World. Okay, I don't know why I keep saying, Okay,
Jeffrey Epstein, and the news comes out today After the
first raft of Epstein files got released a couple months ago,
and it was hugely embarrassing because the first raft, Oh,

(02:10):
everyone's trumpeting.

Speaker 3 (02:11):
This, here we go, We've got the Epstein case. Oh
we got all the Epstein documents. And Pam Bondi even
said at one point the Epstein client list was on
her desk. And then they released the first raft of

(02:32):
Epstein documents and.

Speaker 1 (02:34):
What is it. It's a big fat Nothenburger. A bunch
of the stuff that they released in the first trance
of documents that they released a couple months ago, a
lot of it was stuff that was already publicly known.
There was nothing interesting. Some of it was redacted, even
though other versions had already been made public that were unredacted,

(02:56):
so it was totally useless. Bondy does this se eya
where she where? She yells, oh, I.

Speaker 3 (03:04):
Learned that the FBI Field office in Manhattan apparently had
a bunch of Epstein documents that they didn't release to me,
and that's unacceptable.

Speaker 1 (03:13):
Eye on answers. And then so she holds out hope
that there's more documents that we don't know about. Well,
apparently we have this announcement today from the DJ. We

(03:34):
don't have a client list, we don't have any names
of other people. We do think Epstein died by suicide.
That's it. Now here's what I think happened. Bondi comes
into office and she said, I'm gonna reveal it all

(03:55):
and she talks up this big game, but she doesn't
really have much. Because that's my conclusion to all of this.
I am in no way limiting whatever Jeffrey Epstein's perfidy
may have been. Okay, he was a very strange guy
doing very evil things, involved with lots of weird stuff

(04:19):
with international espionage, Giselainne Maxwell. Her dad was like this
well known spy worked for half a dozen countries or whatever.
But here's the problem. The structure of the conspiracy theory
about Epstein, which I don't even know what is the

(04:39):
end of the conspiracy. Basically, the end of this conspiracy
is that lots of extremely powerful people in the news
that we think are otherwise unblemished, we're going to Jeffrey
Epstein's island to have sex with minors. I guess I
think that's the general end conclusion of the conspiracy theory.

(05:01):
And the thing that we need to learn is who
were all the people who went to Epstein's island to
have sex with minors? We know some of them, allegedly,
We know some of the people who went to the island.
We don't have enough to you know, convict him. We
know Clinton went there. We've got a weird picture of
Clinton getting a massage from some Epstein gal. You know,

(05:26):
Stephen Hawking went there. We have his flight logs, but
we don't have much beyond that. And that's the problem
is we have access to a lot of the women
who were victimized by Epstein who haven't been able to

(05:46):
produce names. We know Prince Andrew, what's going down there,
Prince Charles's brother, King Charles's brother, But we don't have
enough to bring actual cases. And that is the I

(06:06):
think the long and short of this. I don't think
there is a client list. All right. Let me explain
to believe this conspiracy theory that there are powerful people
who were having sex with minors, Epstein had dirt on
them and was using it for some kind of blackmail

(06:31):
and that or those people were blackmailing him perhaps, and
that's why Epstein was killed in prison because those powerful
people did not want their names and info released. And
this is the reason why Epstein was never prosecuted for
so long, and that the FBI is in on it.
That's the other thing with this conspiracy theory. You have

(06:52):
to believe that federal prosecutors, the Department of Justice, the FBI,
et cetera, that they are in on the concernspiracy, because
that's the only reason why they're not releasing the information now.
It's why they didn't release the information before, and that's
why Epstein was for so long able to go untouched. Well,
here's the problem with that whole line of thought. Epstein

(07:14):
did eventually get touched. He got prosecuted. That's why he
was in jail. He was indicted for his whole enterprise
with trafficking women for sex to his island. So I
guess you have to believe Epstein had dirt on powerful

(07:39):
figures within the DOJ and the FBI for a long time.
That's why they didn't touch him. But then the DOJ
and the FBI got brave, brave enough to indict him,
brave enough to indict Giselene Maxwell. But still he has
so much dirt on them that they can't now at

(07:59):
this point, and even after he's dead, release the names.
So the FBI is afraid of either Epstein or the
people who controlled Epstein. Whatever, they are afraid of them now.
They weren't afraid of them when they indicted Epstein and
when they indicted and convicted Julene Maxwell. I don't know.

(08:23):
That seems like a not very reasonable chain of events.
Either the DOJ and FBI are in on it or
they're not, because that's the thing. They did indict Epstein,
they did indict and convict Giselainne Maxwell. And it gets to,

(08:45):
you know, this core problem to actually it's one thing
to speculate on social media that someone's guilty. It's another
thing when you're talking about the DOJ doing it. The
DOJ isn't going to prosecute someone unless they've got a

(09:07):
good case. Even liberals in the DOJ, they're not going
to prosecute someone unless they have a case that they
think they can win. That doesn't always necessarily mean a
fair case. All right, Look at the January sixth prosecutions. Okay,
a lot of the January sixth prosecutions were not fair,

(09:28):
but they knew they were cases they could win because
they're not morons. They have really good lawyers the Department
of Justice, US Attorney's offices. They're staffed by people who
were really good in law school. Okay, these are not
dummy lawyers. You don't bring a case unless you think
you can win. In the standard of proof for criminal

(09:52):
prosecution is beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not even a
preponderance of the evidence. It's beyond a reasonable doubt. It's
more than that. It's not just a majority of the evidence.
It's not more likely than not. You've got to prove
it beyond a reasonable doubt. They had that for Epstein. Okay,

(10:16):
they had physical evidence at his property. They had women testifying.
You know, they had the pilot, pilot logs, et cetera.
I mean that they had a lot of stuff. But
if all you have is well he took a plane
flight down to the island, that's not enough to convict

(10:41):
someone for prostitution. You need something more than that. And
people have been fast that, people have been fantasizing. I
think about this idea of where is his list of clients,
as if we know that that is a thing. But
think this through. Epstein himself was a very evil person,

(11:07):
but was not a stupid person. Okay, made a lot
of money, made a lot of money, engineered this fabulous
lifestyle for himself, was committing horrific crimes and evading the
notice of the public authorities for decades. He was not
a dummy. Do you really think he wrote down Aha,

(11:31):
here is my list of clients who had sex with
the women I am trafficking for sex. March third, two
thousand and two, Bill Clinton came to the island and
had sex with a fifteen year old. March fourth, two

(11:52):
thousand and three, Bill Gates came to the island and
had sex with a sixteen year old. Actually she was fourteen.
Why would you write that down? He's not a moron,
I mean, why would he unnecessarily create evidence against himself

(12:15):
or create evidence against his people? Like, he's not a
total moron. And that's why I you know, that's why
I think the whole thing, the idea that there were
all these smoking guns, he would have had to make

(12:35):
the smoking guns, and I just don't think. I mean,
this guy was a hedge fund manager managing gazillions of dollars.
I just don't think he was a moron. So we

(12:56):
now get to this point where Pambondi frankly, Pambondi looks
like an idiot because she had all of these ridiculous statements,
all these ridiculous quotes she made that she had hours
of evidence on Epstein. Like in March, Bondi says the
FBI has tens of thousands of Epstein videos. April cash

(13:17):
Ptel says that they've vanished or something. I just don't
believe they had all this stuff. I think Bondi wanted
to talk it up like, oh here we are, we're
so cool, and maybe they've got something, but it's clearly
not the smoking gun that they think or want it
to be, because that's the thing. If the DOJ was

(13:43):
brave enough, uncorrupted enough to bring the initial indictments against
Epstein and Giselene Maxwell, why are they now so compromised
under of all people, a Trump appoint like Pam Bondi,
a Trump appointee like Cash Pattel, a Trump appointee like

(14:06):
Dan Bongino, who's saying all three of them are saying
the same thing. Do you guys think Dan Bongino got corrupted? Oh,
that they now have the dirt on Dan Bongino, that
he's part of the deep state. The guy was like
railing against the deep state five minutes ago on whatever,
his podcast radio, whatever he's got. Really you think within

(14:29):
when was he appointed, like February, it's July. Really in
five months, five months, he goes from railing against the
deep state to now he's part of the deep state. Guys,
Maybe they just don't have it. Maybe Epstein didn't actually
keep really good, obviously incriminating records of his perfidy. And

(14:51):
maybe the DOJ that is now under leadership that would
desperately love to not look like morons, because that's exactly
what they look like. The DJ would love to bring
prosecutions against a bunch of people who went to Epstein's island.
Do you really think that, Trump? And because that's the
thing to whom are they answerable? Who are these powerful

(15:15):
forces at work that are going to all that are
gonna kill Pam Bondy. No one's gonna kill Pam Bondy.
No one's gonna kill Dan Bongino if she prosecutes Bill Gates.
There's nobody who's going to be more powerful than Bill Gates.
He's the second or third richest man in the world.
If they had enough evidence to bring a case and

(15:36):
convict Bill Gates, thorn in the side of conservatives. His
horrible nonprofits have done all kinds of horrible things throughout
the world, Rectavic during COVID, Big Fat Loser. If they
had enough dirt to bring a case against Bill Gates,

(15:56):
I guarantee you they would bring it. They clearly just
don't have enough evidence. So that's the thing. I just
don't necessarily believe that we have any Epstein stuff, because

(16:19):
I think if they did, they would bring the case. Again.
To believe the conspiracy theory still, you'd have to believe
one that the FBI and dj were corrupted, then they
were uncorrupted when they indicted Epstein and Maxwell, then they
got recorrupted again. That all of the new Trump appointed

(16:40):
leadership of the DOJ and the FBI, Bondi, cash Ptel,
Dan Bongino, all of them got instantly corrupted by the
deep state within five months of taking office, in spite
of desperately wanting to present something to the public. I mean, basically,

(17:05):
we have to think that they all got corrupted completely
and that that's rather than believe I think the more
straightforward answer, which is Epstein's probably a horrible guy. Epstein
probably did all kinds of terrible things with terrible people,
and he didn't retain the evidence. He either didn't create

(17:25):
the evidence to you know, that would help to convict
the people who went to his island. He either didn't
create it, or he didn't retain it, or it got destroyed.
I don't know. I just find that a lot more
plausible than Ah Pam Bondi's now in on it. I

(17:46):
just don't believe that. We'll dig into it more after
the break. This is the John Girardi Show on Power Talk.
The more I see on the internet about the Epstein
files being released and the reaction everyone basically the DJ saying,
we don't have a client list. Look, we don't have

(18:07):
a client list. We don't have much other evidence other
than what we already had. The only evidence they had
was that Epstein was trafficking these people. But we don't
have enough evidence linking Epstein's activity to any individual John's.
It makes again, there's a difference here between what we

(18:31):
can suspect versus what we can prove. We know that
Prince Andrew was going to the island, we know that
Bill Gates was hanging out with Epstein, we know that
Stephen Hawking went down there. All these people were hanging
out there, and I'm sure they weren't there just for

(18:51):
you know, catch some waves or whatever. But the problem
is that's not enough to sustain a criminal conviction. Might
not be enough to bring a criminal charge. And that's
the issue here, Like we're not dealing with posting cool
stuff on Twitter. What you would want out of all

(19:14):
of this, this release of information is not for us
to feel good. What you would want is to get
a conviction, to bring trials and get convictions. And clearly
the DJ and the FBI don't think that they have
that again, which we have to follow the train of reasoning.
The DJ and FBI didn't touch Epstein before. Then they

(19:34):
got brave and they did indict Epstein in Maxwell and
convicted them. Then they got corrupted again such that they
won't indict all the people on the list in spite
of the fact that who on the list would we
be afraid of for bringing charges? Would the Trump administration

(19:55):
led DOJ be afraid of? Would they really be afraid
of bringing charge against Bill Clinton? Donald Trump would not
be afraid of that he had charges brought against him.
He wouldn't be afraid of bringing charges against Bill Clinton.
I don't think. I don't think he would be afraid
of bringing charges against any of these people. Bill Gates,

(20:16):
Bill Gates is a piece of turd. No one likes
Bill Gate. No one in the Trump administration likes Bill Gates.
No one's afraid of Bill Gates. And you can't bring
this case unless you've got the goods. I think in
the final analysis, whatever information there was, and I'm not

(20:37):
saying there wasn't originally more information. But this is the
problem with evidence. Evidence goes stale, Evidence gets corrupted. Bad
people when they realize they're about to get nailed. Destroy evidence.
I just don't think the evidence is there. If the
evidence were there, I think the DJ would have brought

(20:59):
prosecution and spy.

Speaker 2 (21:00):
Now.

Speaker 1 (21:02):
The last thing I think is that somehow the entire
team of people who worked on this and reviewed it,
all of them got corrupted, all at the same time
in the same ways. And when you read their statements
early on, they were clearly they had this directive from

(21:24):
the president released all the files, and so Pam Bondi
was saying things like, well, I have hours worth of
tape to review about Epstein's crimes and names and to review.
Maybe she hadn't quite reviewed it yet. They say that,

(21:47):
I mean, there just is guys. I'm I'm. I just
find it much easier to believe the actual story presented
here that we just don't have the evidence, rather than
they have the evidence. They're keeping it from us because
Cash Patel and Dan Bongino and Pam Bondi all got
corrupted within five months of their new getting their new jobs.

(22:09):
Because they're afraid of prosecuting Bill Gates. They would love
to prosecute Bill Gates. What are you talking about? They
would love to They would love to prosecute these people.
These are extremely well protected people who aren't all of
them all at once, all getting corrupted in the exact
same way. Epstein was a bad guy. He did lots

(22:33):
of bad things with lots of bad people. They had
enough evidence to charge and convict him. They had enough
evidence to charge and convict Zlane Maxwell. Why because they
had eyeball witnesses. They had the girls who were willing
to testify about how they were horribly abused, trafficked, et cetera.

(22:55):
And if they had that evidence from those girls about
some of the johns, probably would see some convictions and
they don't. And did he keep tapes, Yeah, but clearly
he didn't keep him forever. Did he have a client list?
Seems unlikely to me. Seems unlikely to me. You'd write,

(23:15):
how ah, my list of people that I will convict
slash get convicted. Day one Alan Dershwaer whoever was it
Alan Dershowitz who came to his zigeland? I can't remember,
you know. Day one Stephen Hawking had sex with fourteen
year olds. Day two Bill Glint had sex with fourteen
year olds. Day three Prince Andrew had sex with fourteen

(23:36):
year olds. Day four, Bill Gates had sex with fourteen
year olds? Why would he do that? Why would he
create a record for hanging himself? Why would he create
a record for figuratively speaking also possibly literally speaking? Why
would he create this record just to allow himself to
get convicted? Because if he wrote down incriminating evidence like

(23:58):
that about other people, well it would also be incriminating
to him anyway. In short, I told you guys, this
wasn't going to be very interesting, and of course it
turned out not to be very interesting. John Girardi takes
a victory lap when we return Elon Musk's dumb third
party idea. Next on The John Girardi Show, Elon Musk

(24:22):
is running around talking about this America Party thing, and
I think it's a really stupid idea for about twenty
different reasons. How do I count the ways? So, first
of all, this isn't the first time that a billionaire unsatisfied,
dissatisfied with the performance of the two major parties got

(24:45):
the idea in his head to go off and start
a third party and proceeded to usher in a decade
of Democrat presidential dominance. Ross Perrot, there's a name for
all you guys, real blast from the path, an erratic
billionaire oil man who really blew a real chance to

(25:07):
get elected in nineteen ninety two, Like there was a
real minute there where Perrot was like in the lead
and then bizarrely like dropped out. He said there was
something about his daughter and he needed to drop out.
But then he jumped back in. But of course he
snagged enough of the conservative leaning vote that Bill Clinton

(25:28):
winds up winning with like forty two percent of the
national popular vote. So Paro, and then, of course Pero
proceeds to do the same thing, continue to be a
spoiler in the nineteen ninety six election. People under appreciate that.
They just think that Bob Dole was a total loser,
which you know, I don't think anyone would accuse Bob

(25:51):
Dole of being the life of the party. Although interestingly,
my dad did once see Ross Perrot speak for it
was like an Orthopeda convention he was at and they
had Ross, not not Ross Bro Bob Dole. He saw
Bob Dole speak and he was like, Wow, this guy
is like magnetic, He's so engaging. Where was this guy

(26:13):
during the presidential campaign. I don't know, I guess running
for president just turns into a robot or something. Anyway,
people underappreciate that Ross pro also sunk Bob Dole's chances
in the nineteen ninety six election. Bill Clinton did not
get a majority of the vote in nineteen ninety six,
but certainly Pierrot's presence was enough to derail everything. And

(26:40):
one wonders with Elon Musk's whole idea for an America
Party whether it could have the same effect. I somewhat
predict that it won't have the same kind of spoiler
effect as Ross Perrot's deal did, and I think this
will be a bit more of a flop. Let me
give you the pros and cons for why that might

(27:03):
come to be. First, Elon Musk's position is just very unpopular,
as much as some level of fiscal sanity that he's
talking about here actually does make sense. The problem why
fiscal sanity is not popular, why the fiscal sanity that

(27:25):
he is proposing is not embraced by the Republicans or
the Democrats, is because it's very unpopular. Republicans don't want
to increase taxes, and because the electorate doesn't want their
taxes increased. Republicans. Republicans don't want to cut spending as
much as is necessary to balance our budgets or whatever,

(27:47):
because the American people don't want to decrease spending. Okay,
David Valadeo's quite possibly going to lose his seat over
the relatively more limited and targeted cuts that we made
to medicaid in the OBB beat. Okay, David Valdeo could
very well lose his seat. Other Republicans are going to
be at risk of losing their seats because of their

(28:07):
vote for the OBBB, which did not really cut spending
that much, just for that, just for that minimal amount
of spending reduction. Trump has also this is also the thing.
I remember the twenty sixteen Republican primary debate and it
was asked, and so you've got a million people up there, Trump,
Jeb Bush, Scott Walker I think was there, Ted Cruz,

(28:34):
Marco Rubio, this big field. The question was asked them,
will you pursue are you open to pursuing some kind
of cuts, reforms, whatever needs to happen for Social Security
in order to stabilize it. Social Security is out of control,
It is not on a stable track. It's this unfunded

(28:56):
liability that we're facing. Do you pledge to do something
to fix, to cut limit social security. Who was the
one guy on that stage who did not raise his
hand and say, yes, I'm gonna do something to cut
social Security? Donald John Trump. He was the only one
who didn't do that. Why because he realized, you know what,

(29:18):
old people don't like anyone screwing around with their social security.
They don't like it. They don't like anyone talking about
social security cuts. Older conservative Republican voters, who are one
of the big voting demographics during a primary especially, they
don't want their social security touched. They still talk about

(29:42):
social security as if it's like an investment. I paid
into social Security for forty years, I want my money back. Well, ethel.
If it was your social security, then that was the
crappiest investment in human history. You could have put it
in the S and P five forgot about it for
four hundred for forty years, and you would have eons

(30:05):
more money than what you're gonna get back in social security.
Because that's not what social security is. It's not a
you put in your money in, you know, nineteen seventy two,
and now that you're retired, you're pulling it out. No,
ethel that's not how it works. The money you put
in in nineteen seventy two, old people in nineteen seventy
two were getting it right then. Because it's a money in,

(30:25):
money out system. It's not a long term if it
were a long term investment. And actually that's what George W.
Bush kind of wanted to do. And guess what, he
had majorities in both Houses of Congress, and the American
people basically said no, we don't want it because old
people don't like their social Security messed with. And it

(30:46):
probably would have made well, probably would have fixed the
program long term if we had privatized social Security like
George W. Bush wanted. But no, the old geezers of
that era said, don't touch my social Security, and they
believed all the scared mongering that George W. Bush was
gonna cut Social Security. And and Donald Trump, the distinction

(31:09):
between him and everyone else who was on the Republican
primary debate stage with him is that Donald Trump won
because he's smart politically and he realizes, you know what
people don't like. They don't like their entitlements getting cut.
So I'm not going to vote for that I'm not
gonna push for it, I'm never gonna endorse it, And
never during his two presidential terms has he talked about

(31:35):
doing anything to fix Social Security, anything to fix Medicare.
He finally okay to cut to Medicaid. Why, well, in
part because I think there's this is probably partially true.
I think most Medicaid beneficiaries are probably Democrats, and he

(31:56):
probably doesn't quite mind as much as he would with
medical care and Social Security beneficiaries. I think that's part
of it. Now. I agree Medicaid is out of control.
I agree it's expanded wildly beyond the scope of whom
it was supposed to care for. I think some kind
of work requirement for able bodied persons makes sense. But

(32:20):
you know, I think that's true. So I don't understand
why Elon Musk ever hitched his wagon to Trump if
that was the thing he really cared about. If it
was just the anti trans stuff, Okay, But and that's
that's a weird thing with the Musk. I guess maybe
this is the way I would act if I was
a drug using richest man in the world. It's not

(32:47):
that he like kind of liked Trump. He gave Trump
tens of millions of dollars during his campaign without sort
of thinking through. Trump has never cared about fiscal responsibility.
He didn't care about it in his first term. You know,
I don't think he cares about it to the extent
that you know that Musk does. I mean, Musk is

(33:08):
all mad that Trump is clashing with Thomas Massey and
wants to primary Thomas Massy. Trump has hated Thomas Massey
and wanted a primary Thomas Massey since the first term.
He's always hated Massy. Why Because fundamentally, the American people
don't want their taxes increased, and they don't want their

(33:30):
spending priorities entitlement programs cut. And unless you're willing to
cut entitlements, you're not really serious about fixing the budget.
The deficits that we have, the debt that we have
is driven by four things medicare, Medicaid, social Security, and
the military. Unless you're willing to seriously cut one or

(33:50):
all of those four things, you're not really serious about
cutting spending. And the American people don't want any of
those four things really cut all that much. So Trump's
not gonna And that's why I kind of think there's
going to be very limited appeal to this whole America
Party thing because it's taking a fundamentally unpopular position of

(34:11):
we need to cut entitlements, which the American people don't want.
The other reason when we return is that I don't
think it will have any person able to drive it.
That Musk has a kind of limited likability and he
can't actually be the leader of it. I'll explain when

(34:32):
we return. This is the John you already show on
Power Talk. Why am I not necessarily afraid of Elon
Musk's America Party really getting off the ground and thereby
taking a bunch of votes from Republicans and derailing the
JD Vans for President twenty twenty eight campaign. Well, I
guess in large part it's because I don't think his

(34:54):
message is very popular. People don't The reason why Republicans
Democrats don't balance the budget is because the American people
pretty much don't want it. They don't want their taxes increased,
and they don't want their entitlement programs cut. If you're
not going to do one of those two things, you're
not going to balance the budget. They don't want their
entitlement programs or the military cut. So if you don't

(35:15):
cut the military or entitlements or massively increased taxes, you're
not going to balance the budget. Secondly, Musk can't really
lead such a party because he wasn't born in America,
so he can't run for president. It's one thing when

(35:37):
you're billionaire financier of your renegade third party is Ross Perrot,
who is the guy with the charisma and the vision,
and he can actually run for president. Musk can't run
for president. He's a naturalized citizen. He was born in
South Africa. He's ineligible to be president. So if you

(35:59):
think think that Musk is going to take a bunch
of votes from Republicans, you have to think Musk is
going to find a politician to do this ridiculous suicide
run to go against whoever's the nominee for the Republicans
in twenty eight I assume JD. Vance. So Musk is
going to find somebody to run against JD. Vans that

(36:21):
you think is going to take some votes from him,
I don't know who that is. Nobody's voting for Thomas
Massey instead of JD. Vance. Sorry. I like Thomas Massey.
I admire Thomas Massey. I think a lot of a
lot of what he's saying makes sense, but fundamentally he's
not very popular, nor is Elon Musk relative to jd Vance.

(36:49):
So in short, I find this Musk dance to be
a little silly, and I do sort of wonder about
you know, he's a brilliant guy, he's a weird guy.
Though he has admitted to using different kinds of drugs
in different kinds of ways, his behavior seems wildly mercurial,

(37:12):
like to the level of I'm gonna spend ninety million
dollars to support Donald Trump in you know, October of
twenty twenty four, and by June of twenty twenty five,
I don't like him anymore. And I'm gonna say that
they're not releasing Epstein stuff because Trump is Trump was
abusing girls on Epstein whatever. Look, I don't know that

(37:38):
this is not normal human behavior. You don't flip flop
on a person that hard in nine months, I guess,
unless you're dating them or something. I don't know, but
I mean, it just seems to me like the appeal
of this America Party is going to be pretty limited
because fundamentally it's not a very popular position, and Musk

(37:58):
can't really lead it and be the face of it.
If it's we were talking about presidential politics in twenty
twenty eight, that'll do it. John Dilady show se y'all
next time on Power Talk