11-18-25 - 11am - Epstein Files Vote Today

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, the new laws that the legislative body have passed
against landlords in the state are horrifying.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
And because of that, all the costs have gone up
for landlords. And what will happen if they try to
put rent cats down now to put a bandage on
the problem that they created. Landlords will just leave the state.
So I think that's their goal. They want all government
owned housing here in Colorado, and not just in Colorado.

(00:34):
I think that again. You know, I get no commission
off this, but if you've never read a book by
Carol Roth Roth called You Will Own Nothing, I would
encourage you to go read that, because that is kind
of the path that we're going on, and of course
that's the path that socialists and Marxist communists for that matter,

(00:55):
would really want us to have. I have tate to
do this next story, but it's timely, and I want
you to consider some alternate universes. I will tell you
up front that I'm as sick of the story as

(01:17):
you probably are, except it's one of those things that
you simply can't you. I'm Michael, I never rubber neck.
You know what. When I see a pile up on
the highway, I put my eyes forward, and I gripped
that steering wheel, and I never look to my left
or my right. I keep my head straight up, straightforward.

(01:39):
You probably do, but your eyes are looking at the
peripheral vision as much as you can trying to look.
You're trying to convince yourself that you're not looking. But
you're looking. I know you're looking, especially when my wife's
in the car. Why because he gets mad at you
for reverdecking. Yep, but amostly she's looking, but she's on

(02:01):
the bitch about you looking. So you got to keep
your head straight ahead, but your for that's a real
test for your peripheral vision when you're trying to look
as far to your right or left you can to
see as much as you can. We've kind of come
to the agreement that a fine, I won't look, but
you have to tell me what you saw. Yes, But
then you, depending on where you are, the medium gets

(02:21):
in your way and you can't see what's really happened.
If you're going to have a wreck, have it over
on the shoulders. We can all see it, and well,
I can see it exactly, that's exactly right. Well, I'm
talking about the train wreck called get the idea. What
this is bin fine, bingo, this is why you're my producer.
That's exactly right. I listened to Mike Johnson and then

(02:43):
I heard Chad talking about it during the news break,
and I I gotta do it. You gotta do it.
Here's Speaker Johnson. This morning, as I was driving into.

Speaker 1 (02:55):
Work with so many pressing issues on our plate, Really, what's.

Speaker 2 (03:01):
Going on in the world. Is there anything going on
the world, the economy, world affairs, We got the world's
largest aircraft carrier down in the Caribbean. No, there's nothing
going on, just.

Speaker 1 (03:11):
Very frustratingly to us, the Democrats are delaying that work
even further with a political show vote. They're forcing a
political show vote on the Epstein file. So we're just
going to address that right at the top here this morning,
because they've spent so much time the Democrats have spinning
the facts and trying to confuse the people that I
wanted to come in this morning and just clearly explain

(03:33):
for the people back home how we got here and
why this vote is happening right now.

Speaker 2 (03:39):
You're always love. When I watched these press conferences, are
all the hostages that stand behind the speaker, and by
in this case, I don't mean literally the Speaker of
the House, but whoever's doing the press conference. There's always
people standing behind them looking as if they're being held hostage.
Then the Speaker goes on to say.

Speaker 1 (03:59):
This number two, the discharge petition could create new victims, okay,
because it requires the DOJ to release information even in
cases where the DJ or the FBI has already reviewed
it and determined it is not credible, it is false information.
Doing this and requiring this to come out could ruin

(04:20):
the reputations of completely innocent people, such as those who
may just have known Epstein but knew nothing of his crimes, or.

Speaker 2 (04:27):
Whose names he exploited.

Speaker 1 (04:30):
Think of this innocent people whose names he exploited and
used to try to get close to his intended victims.

Speaker 2 (04:36):
Now I want to say something about that, because he
won't say what I'm going to say. Speaker Johnston is
right about that, Johnson, Speaker Johnson, Mike Johnston is Mike Johnson.
Speaker Johnson is correct. The cabal will take everybody's name

(04:56):
that appears anywhere in any document at that has anything
to do with the Epstein case, and they will grab
their camera crew and they'll grab their their remote mics
and they will run to their offices, they'll run to
their homes and they'll knock on their doors and they'll demand,
what do you have to say about this? Well, I

(05:17):
he asked me for a he asked me for an
invitation to a party, or he was trying to get
in touch with so and so, and he knew that
I was one degree of separation from So they won't
make any difference to the cabal. Your name appears in
the tranch of documents that are going to be released.

Speaker 1 (05:35):
Their names may be in these files, and they had
nothing to do with this, And so by just haphazardly
releasing it, you're going to destroy their reputations. Release and
information containing the names of innocent people would subject those
innocent people to a guilt by association. It would create
an entirely new group of victims who have no means
to clear their names. That's a concern of Congress, and

(05:56):
it should be should be.

Speaker 2 (05:58):
Now, I know, I listen, I can hear you. We
have a super duper little machine here that allows me
to hear what you're thinking. Little bit. Michael Bubba was involved,
and I want bubb exposed. I want them to know
that bub was involved in this somehow, Michael, I know,
I know that Donald Trump is guilty of bubo or whatever.
Really do you think that Donald Trump knowing all the

(06:20):
way back to twenty fifteen, that the Democrats knew that
Trump's name was in these files, that if there was
something there there, they wouldn't have released it and gone
after him, and we would never had Trump one point oh,
let alone Trump two point oh. The Biden Justice Department
had all of this and they did nothing. And you're
telling me that all Trump's in trouble. Trump's in trouble.

(06:41):
Get a life, Mike.

Speaker 3 (06:43):
When I was an information operator at the phone company,
they instructed us always to use oh for the letter
zero or the number zero, so it was three oh three,
not three zero three.

Speaker 2 (07:00):
I don't care. I don't care. They're trying to save
to you a syllable because people are lazy and they're
listening three oh three three zero three, be correct. I
don't care what you were taught. You were not wrong.
Let me make something clear about the stupid Epstein files.

(07:25):
I honestly don't give a rats ask whether they're released
or not. And simply because I'm ambiguous about it. I
am okay, okay. Not doesn't mean that I'm trying to
protect child predators, child sexual abuse, or anything else, because

(07:46):
you never people never get beyond that. People can't think
beyond that, and consider for a moment that. And actually,
this is an argument to release the files because I
don't trust the government, and I don't trust them at all,
and I've got a hell of a lot more reasons
not to trust the government than you do, based on

(08:06):
my experience. But if, just if there is a unprosecuted
because remember these files have been in the hands of
Republican and Democrat Departments of Justices for years, So if
there is evidence of child molestation or child abuse or

(08:31):
child sexual you know, molestation, whatever, then a pox on
the government for having not prosecuted those So I operate
from a presumption that if the if the Department of
Justice had evidence of Jeffrey Epstein committing sexual crimes, as

(08:54):
they have with others, why why would some have been
prosecuted and others not prosecuted? And I know why. I
can hear you say, oh, because it was Jamie Diamond,
or it was Bill Clinton, or it was Donald Trump,
or it was I don't care, name any other rich person,
name any other famous person, and that's your logic. Your
logic fails, and your logic makes an assumption that they

(09:16):
particularly ignored those cases. Guess what, you may never know
the truth about those cases anyway, because it's protected by
grand jury testimony. So those cases may have been presented
to the Southern District of New York and there was
not a return of an indictment, so thought he was

(09:37):
ever prosecuted. So now you released the new information. Oh
so a grand jury decided not to indict someone because
there was not sufficient evidence to do so. But now
that documents are going to be released, and now you're
going to expose those people who were found in essence
not guilty by a grand jury at all. Of that

(10:01):
release the damn files. But be aware that when you do.
Speaker Johnson, no need to go back and finish what
he said. But Johnson raises concerns that the petition lacks
language preventing the release of child sexual abuse material also
known as child pornography CSAM that is a very specific

(10:25):
crime child sex abuse material, and sealed grand jury testimony,
the latter of which has had no adversarial challenge. What
do I mean by that? Never a chance to cross examine?
A defendant whose case goes before a grand jury does
not have the opportunity to cross examine a witness. So

(10:50):
the speaker explains that our side, the Republican side, has
been insistent that this matter must be handled very carefully,
before detailing that language in the Democrat led discharge petition
is so vague that it provides zero protection for Jeffrey
Epstein's victims, or even provisions to bar the release of

(11:15):
child's sexual abuse materials collected from Epstein's properties. Do you
really want that released? If you have a child who
is a victim of child's sexual abuse and they have
that on video or film or photos, do you really
want that released? Do you really want that to become

(11:37):
public domain material? I don't. If it were my child,
I wouldn't. I would be pursuing civil lawsuits against those
perpetrators if I knew who the perpetrators were. But there's
no guarantee that this information is going to tell you
who the perpetrators were. Now, Johnson goes on to say
that we want maximum transparency, but he warns that it's

(11:58):
currently written this discharge petition, it's probably going to uddy
the waters even further. Overall, House Republicans presented five key
objections to the Democrat led discharged position as it was written,
namely that it fails to protect the right to privacy
of the victims. While a number of women preyed upon
by the deceased pedophile finance fendans here have come forward,

(12:21):
there are still many who have chosen not to go
public with their allegations or their horrific experiences. That is
their right to do so. But yet I think some
people want to force them to have to deal with this. Well,
wait a minute, that's not your choice. That's the victim's choice,
not yours. I got a question for you. I could

(12:44):
leave you a text to three three one oh three,
But if it's your exclusive line, why the hell do
I have to say?

Speaker 1 (12:50):
Michael?

Speaker 2 (12:51):
Michael? And actually that's a great question, and that's a
question that we've been asking for i'd say a couple
of weeks now, and unfortunately I found out when Member
Stacy right, for weeks, you mean years, we've been dealing
with this problem because it's just well, in the last
couple well the last couple of weeks since coming over here,

(13:12):
I've refocused on it again. And guess who's no longer
employed by the company. Stacy's no longer there. So I'm
still trying to dig to find the person that so
we can get that corrected. So I I get it,
I know, But leave it to, you know, leave it
to a gadfly to point it out to us, you know,
to you know, to you know, make fun of us.
Let me tell you about grand jury proceedings. Grand jury proceedings,

(13:36):
including testimony, documents, videos, photographs, everything are sealed by tradition
and by law to protect the grand jury's functioning. The
secrecy is codified in US law through the Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure Rule six e. Now states have similar rules.

(13:56):
The key reason for secrecy was established to US Supreme
Court in cases like US versus Procter and Gamble way
back in nineteen fifty eight. This is not something new,
and then in a case called Douglas Oil Company versus
Petrol Stops in nineteen seventy nine. These are the reasons
for the secrecy. Let me just give you like five
key reasons. It's to prevent suspects under investigation from learning

(14:22):
about it and therefore fleeing or tampering with the evidence
or the witnesses. That's a really good reason to keep
it secret. Number two, to protect the witnesses from being
intimidated or retaliation against the witnesses. And in order to
encourage you witness to testify freely and fully knowing this
is going to be kept secret. Those are really important reasons. Third,

(14:47):
and this is where I think it's important here, safeguarding
the reputations of individuals investigated but not indided, so you
avoid public disclosure of accusations that did not result in charges.
Many of you who are saying that, oh, this is
to protect pedophiles are making a big ass assumption that

(15:08):
somebody was indicted by a grand jury and then never
that indictment was never presented to a federal criminal court.
That's just simply not true. It means that if let's
just say the dragon red Beard is a billionaire financier philanthropist,

(15:29):
and his name was brought before a grand jury because
we think he engaged in pedophilia with Jeffrey Epstein. So
they take the case to a grand jury. The grand
jury says, no, we don't there's not enough evidence there's
a lot of reasonable doubt here. In fact, we refuse
to return an indictment. Now you want Dragon red Beard's

(15:50):
name out there, No, we don't do it that way.
We safeguard the reputations of individuals who are investigated but
got indicted. The fifth reason I think I'm a number four. Actually,
we want to encourage grand jurors to deliberate, investigate without
any sort of external pressure. And then, of course we

(16:13):
want to maintain the overall independence and of course the
efficiency of the grand jury process. Secrecy is indefinite. It
does not automatically in when the grand jury finishes its
work or there's an indictment issued or not issued. So
release of grand jury material disclosure is prohibited unless one

(16:35):
of the explicit exceptions in Rule six e applies. The
most commonly invoked exception for public release is Rule sixty
e three E, commonly called the particularized need or the
special circumstances exception, that allows the court to authorize disclosure

(16:55):
preliminarily two or in connection with a judicial proceeding. In fact,
that's the main path almost always used, because there's been
an indictment and so now part of that evidence needs
to be used in the criminal case in federal court. Now,
I'm only talking about federal court here. Two at the
request of a defendant who shows that a ground may

(17:17):
exist to dismiss the indictment because it's something that occurred
in front of the grand jury. Those are the two
that are most likely ever used. They're not being used
here now. Other automatic disclosures, like to government lawyers, to
other grand juries, that doesn't apply to a public release.
Those are still kept secret and only disclosed in those

(17:39):
very specific instances. But one hundred percent of the time
it requires a judge's order. Now, many of you have said, oh, well,
these are Clinton and Obama appointees. No, they're only Abama.
The judge in the Southern District of New York, her
name is Robinson, is appointee. Now since the Court's decision

(18:03):
back in Proctor Gamble nineteen fifty eight, the party seeking
disclosure must show that the material is needed to avoid
a possible injustice in another proceeding. It's very specific, not
just a possible injustice, but a possible injustice in another
criminal or judicial proceeding, and that the need for disclosure

(18:27):
is greater than the need for secrecy, and that the
request by the party one ant released is structured to
cover only materials so needed, meaning particularized. You're looking for
particular things to be released. And in practice, courts also
release historical grand jury jury records, but secrecy concerns have dissipated.

(18:51):
For example, Watergate's done. Presidents resigned. Now it's been twenty
or thirty years, we release the material for historians. Look
at the Rosenberg case, the alger Hears case, alger His case,
certain civil rights era cases, even things like the guy
that Jack Ruby case and the Kennedy assassination. And if

(19:17):
a judge refuses, listen closely. If this judge refuses, that
can be appealed. Nobody's appealed. So the rules set by
Rule six e apply. Now let's go back to the
politics of this thing. I have a simple question that

(19:39):
I want you to think about. Four Republicans, only four Republicans,
the Republican squad if you want to call them, that
wanted to vote on releasing the Epstein files. Two hundred
and fourteen Democrats joined them. If Nancy Pelosi voted yes,
then why doesn't somebody ask her why she waited six years?

(20:02):
Since she was the speaker starting beginning back in twenty nineteen,
the same year that Epstein was charged. Why haven't Democrats
for the past six years not done anything they could
be If you believe that somebody is trying to hide Trump,
you don't think Democrats wouldn't have done everything possible. They

(20:25):
would do the same thing they're doing now. I think
Speaker Johnson. I don't necessarily think Speaker Johnson is a
great speaker, but I think right here he's doing the
right thing. He's going to follow a discharged position. He's
following Roberts rules of orders, he's following the House rules,
and because enough people have voted to release them, to
have a discharge petition to release these records. Now, remember

(20:48):
there are two sets of records. They are the records
that DOJ has, and there are the records that the
House Oversight Committee has. Guess who has more records, the
House Oversight Committee, not the Department of Justice. So everybody
that's yelling cover up, you're yelling at the wrong people.

(21:10):
You ought to be yelling at the House Oversight Committee,
which has been releasing documents. So what the Democrats are
doing with the discharge petition is simply saying you know what,
let's just stop, let's stop this dribbling out of leak
here or there, and let's just you know, take the big, old, gigantic,
big ass banker's box and just throw it in the
middle of the room, take the lid off and say

(21:33):
here it is, and let the vultures go feed. I'm
for that, except I have a very genuine concern for
victims who don't want to relive the horrific things they
went through. That's their decision. That's not your decision. It's

(21:54):
not my decision. Now there are some victims who do
want it released. So now you've got to figure out, Okay,
are we going to release all of them? Or if
the record pertains to Marry but it doesn't pertain to Sue,
are you going to release just Mary's or most Mary's
and Sue when one wants it in one doesn't want it.

(22:16):
You see, this is nothing but a big ass political gain.
Thomas Massey, Republican congressman from Kentucky. He's the one that
drafted the discharge petition in the House. They would force
a vote by the House on legislation that Massey has
proposed ordering the Trump administration to release publicly all of

(22:40):
the investigative records related to Epstein and his quote associates.
Now that discharge petition is the mechanism by which individual
members can force a floor vote on legislation when the
Speaker won't bring that legislation up for a vote in
their regular order. To force such a vote, a petition
needs the sayignatures of a majority of the members of

(23:01):
the House in this In this case, two hundred and eighteen,
two hundred and fourteen Democrats have joined in, So they
need four Republicans. They've got four Republicans. They've got Massey,
They've got Bobert from Colorado. They've got Marjorie Taylor Green

(23:24):
and Nancy Mason New York. So they got the four.
Massey's a party of one. Don't get me wrong. I
like Thomas Massey, but sometimes he's just an object of
just he just stands in the way of getting anything done.
Sometimes on principle, sometimes I question that. Sometimes I think

(23:45):
it's just because he wants the attention, and now he's
got all the attention in the world. His famed fiscal
conservatism is entirely situational. He always seems to withhold a
vote when the president of his own party asks for it,
But when the president of a opposition party asks for it, oh,

(24:09):
he does it. Then he'll help a Democrat, but he
won't help a Republican. All of what's going on right
now is kind of a replay of Matt Gates's move
to alsk Kevin McCarthy from the speakership, and Gates succeeded
with the votes of two or ten Democrats added to
the votes of eight Republicans led by Gates, and that
allowed the minority Democrat caucus to force a decision on

(24:31):
the Republicans about who would be the next speaker if
they were not ready to make Then you had chaos
for three weeks and we almost lost the majority of
the House because of Matt Gates and that stupid play.
And that's what's going on here now. Again, You've got
to separate the politics of this from the substance of
the documents, because you're not going to get the grand

(24:53):
jury evidence unless those six specific exceptions are met and
the judge orders the release of the documents. Now, there's
no statue limitations on charging anybody with child sexual abuse none.
The only one that I think might apply is there's

(25:14):
a ten year statute after the death of a victim,
So after a victim dies, the forever statue that never
ends gets limited to ten years. I think I'm interpreted
that right. Criminal lawyer might correct me on it, but
I think that's right. So you're not going to get

(25:35):
the grand jury information. I think that's where everybody gets
confused about. Grand jury testimony, grand jury documents, grand jury photographs,
grand jury evidence of whatever format takes. You're not going
to get unless a judge grants that. Now, if the
judge refuses to grant it, any of those parties can appeal.

(25:57):
They can appeal to the Court of Al that covers
New York. If they deny it, they can take it
to the Supreme Court, who may or may not hear it. Now,
let's think about whether or not we're doing something to
try to protect, you know, child predators, pedophilias. I don't
think so. I think that's what everybody wants to believe.

(26:19):
And what scares me about that is this, and I
keep using Jamie Diamond. There is zero evidence that Jamie
Diamond was somehow involved in child sexual molestation, yet his
name is all over these documents. As you would expect
because either chairman of JP Morgan Chase, so they circled

(26:42):
around in the same circles in New York and Washington,
in that whole DC New York corridor. So if the
documents get released and Jamie Diamond's name appears there, how
many people are going to claim, Oh, Jamie Diamond must
have been a pedophile. I don't know Jamie Diamond from Adam,
don't know, don't care, don't necessarily like JP Morgan Chase,

(27:03):
doesn't make any difference to me. But people just seem
to be on this this sort of oh, there's something there,
there's there. Everybody's hiding something. Listen to yourselves. If if
I had to make a Hobson's choice, if I if
I put a gun to my head and say release

(27:24):
the files, don't release the files, We're I gonna tell
you which way. I would release the files, and I
would release the files just to shut everybody up. But
you know what, it's not gonna shut everybody up. They're
going to continue to argue about what does this mean,
What does this mean? Well, we think that so and
so was involved, where's the document about him. It's a
never ending process. So that's why I say, just release

(27:48):
all the bull crap. Just release it and go from there.
Right now, everything that I think the Republican squad is
doing Massy in those three women, I think it is
for purely political perform. Hormans, Green, Mace, and Bobert are
potentially and maybe likely on their way out of politics.
Massey might as well be out right now, because he's
a he's a guy without a party part. You know,

(28:11):
he's capable of accomplishing nothing right now that isn't provided
to him by maybe Ran Paul and maybe Mitch McConnell.
But mcconnald's Gonson. McConnell's basically dad is a politician right now,
he's just a gadfly. Mitch McConnell, what's the most powerful
person in the Senate right now, is unable to influence
legislation or any sort of Republican Party policy. So it's

(28:35):
Massey and these three women. They're the ones that are
giving the Democrats the power to get these documents released.
So if you're if you're solely focused on getting this
this discharge petition done, remember that has nothing to do
with grand jury material. Now, could there be some overlap?

(28:56):
Could the House Oversight Committee have some material that they
didn't get from a grand jury, but it's the same
document that might exist in a grand jury file somewhere. Yes,
but it doesn't mean that from a technical viewpoint, that
they pierced the veil of the grand jury. That's Rule

(29:17):
six cy of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. And
nobody that I can find has gone and said no,
I take that back. Pam Bondi's DOJ has gone to
this judge and has made the request to have the
grand jury materially released. The judge said to the Department
of Justice, on what basis are you asking? Well, because
politically we just want to get it out there. That's

(29:39):
not a reason under the law. So for all of
you who are always bitching and moaning about wow, you're
the rule of laws disappearing. Now you want to just
violate the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure sixty just because
you're curious about what's in these documents. Give me a break,
Give me a freaking break. Either you want to follow
the law or you don't want to follow the law.

(30:00):
You can't have it both ways. If Trump went of
the files released, you know what you do he'd pick
up the phone. He'd call Pam Bondi with those instructions,
release what you've got. But she's still bound by the
grand jury, so she'll release Let's say she's got two boxes.
She has one box over here there's all the investigating material.

(30:22):
Then she has in another box all of the stuff
that she presented to the grand jury. She can't release
the second box. That's the violation of the law. So
you want the Attorney General of the United States of America.
When we bitched about all the Democrats attorney generals violating
the law, you now want a Republican attorney general to
violate the law. I can't join you in that. I

(30:44):
cannot join you in that. I'm done.