Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good morning, Michael and Dragon.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
I hear we're still talking about the pardons and Biden's
mental acuity.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
If we beat this dead horse any longer, he might
get up and start running again.
Speaker 4 (00:16):
Well, we've moved on from that dead horse onto another
dead horse. Yeah, this is just dead horse week on
the situation with Michael Brown Epstein.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Ah, bear with me, So, Pam Bondy, I've.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
You know, this is the twentieth anniversary of Katrina, so
I'm already starting to get you know, all of these
requests for you know, interviews and appearances and stuff to
talk about it, and I'm just really not in the
mood for it. I just, you know, it's the same
old crap. I don't mind going on.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
You know.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
For example, of all places I'm doing, Tavis Smiley, that
should be interesting today, Tavis Smiley, who is devoutly progressive,
wants to talk about Trump's idea about restructuring female Well,
I'm wasn't happy to talk about that. But I sometimes
(01:30):
feel like Pam Bondi must feel about Epstein the way
I feel about Katrina. Okay, how many times are going
to hash over the same thing over and over and
over again, So you might say that this segment is
really what did Pam Bondy really say, because I'm not
(01:50):
sure people really know what she did say?
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Real quick, I know, I'm sorry, but I have to
do this. I just check the talkbacks and this one
came through.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Okay, I am worried. I'm not sure if I should
be tuning in. Wouldn't tell us what it's going to
be about. Very fraid it's another Jeffrey Epstein thing. But
here we go.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
That wouldn't make sense if I played that in the
next segment because he left that right during the news
and I didn't see it until just now.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
But it's totally appropriate, perfect for right.
Speaker 4 (02:28):
And all I would tell you is this is a
different angle, a different tact, and it is really kind
of because because the president through a and this is
where I really do believe the S words is appropriate.
He threw an S word fit on the tarmac the
other day when he was asked a question about Epstein.
(02:49):
So it just keeps getting churned and turned and churned.
So let's but instead of saying it's really about Epstein,
but I mean, I guess in the grand scheme thing
it is, but this is really more about Pam Bondy.
Now I'm gonna swerve into Epstein. Don't get me wrong,
because I can't discuss Pam Bondy without discussing Jeffrey Epstein.
(03:14):
And I do think going back to a text message
that it is worthy of some interest, because let's see,
this is this is Ubert nine five zero nine. So
if you want to blame anybody for this, although it
was already on my list, it just gives me a
reason to talk about it now, as opposed to later,
(03:36):
nine five zero nine wrote this, Mike, I don't think
people are actually mad about this topic. Now this person
was referring to the Pardons. But what but this? I
don't know why I keep waying to say she nine
five zero nine?
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Are you and she? I don't know why I keep
going to say she that phone number identify as a she?
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Well, that's that's it. It just screams female to me.
I mean nine, I mean, that's just got to be
a woman, right, or maybe or maybe it's a you know,
trans woman. I I you know what, maybe it's a
z Z that's it, you know, so Z writes this.
I think this topic is just the current target of
a frustration with a hypocrisy and the double standard of
(04:19):
the elite never being held accountable for anything that us
basic goobers would be sent to prison for. We want
these clowns to go to jail. We all know it's
never going to happen. Thus, Pam BONDI, she's been accused
across the entirety of the cabal, particularly by a segment
(04:41):
of what I would just say only for classification purposes.
We've got the far left. We've got the Communists, the
Marxist the socialists over here on the far left. Then
you've got the old you know, old school liberal Democrats.
Then you got the yellow dog Democrats, and then you
got the people in the middle, the people that I
say are straddling the fence. And I don't know why
(05:03):
men would ever straddle the fence, because I think that
would hurt you. You know, It's like, you know, you're
riding your bike and you you know, you're learning to
ride your bike and you you kind of fall, Well
it hurts down there when you fall. So why guys,
why do you straddle the fence?
Speaker 1 (05:20):
I don't get it.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
And then you've got the moderates, and then you've got
the kind of you know, the somewhat conservatives, and then
you got the right wing nut jobs, and then you
got the maga, and then you got the ultra maga.
So there's there's Michael's political spectrum. And I would say
that the ultra maga right never concedes being wrong. So
(05:44):
Pam Budy's a cruiser is accused across the entire media
of having suggested or said outright that there was in
fact a Jeffrey Epstein so called client list on her
desk waiting her review prior to it being made. When
did she make that comment. She made that comment during
(06:05):
a one on one TV interview with John Roberts on
Fox News February twenty one. She had been in office
for seven I think seventeen days. I think she was
confirmed maybe back on February four, somewhere thereabouts. Robert asked her, Uh, well,
(06:25):
let me just go to as they say, let's just
go to the tape, shall We.
Speaker 5 (06:30):
Saw your appearance and steep back with Ben and with
Ted Cruz and one of the things that you alluded to,
and this is something Donald Trump is talking.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
One of the things you've alluded to and one of
the things that Donald trumped.
Speaker 5 (06:43):
About the DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey
Epstein's clients.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Well, that really happened.
Speaker 6 (06:49):
It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's
been a directive by President Trump. I'm reviewing that. I'm
reviewing JFK files, MLK files. That's all in the process
of being reviewed because that was done at the directive
of the president from all of these agencies.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
Have you seen anything there?
Speaker 5 (07:06):
You said, Oh, my gosh, not yet. Okay, Well, we'll
check back with you, Madam Attorney General.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Pam. Great to spend time with you so much, Madam
Attorney General.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
But I gotta call you Pam, because I know you,
so I want to make sure everybody knows that I
know you. I would note that a list of clients
DOJ may be releasing. John Roberts said, DOJ may be
releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen? Well,
(07:41):
I would just suggest that a list of clients is
not synonymous with a client list, because the latter suggests
that it was something created by Epstein himself. My client list,
they would have been his clients. Again, the verbatim text
(08:01):
of her entire answer. It is sitting on my desk
right now for a review that's been directed by President Trump.
I'm reviewing that. I'm reviewing the JFK files, the MLK files.
That's all in the process of being reviewed, because that
was done at the director of the President to all
(08:22):
of these agencies. Have you seen anything that you said, Oh,
my gosh, not yet.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
That's it.
Speaker 4 (08:29):
It was forty one seconds. Forty one seconds the entirety
of the exchange. So much has been read into that answer,
beyond what she was said that it is simply projection
by those insisting that there is a list, and somehow
she confirmed the existence of a list, and now the
(08:50):
claim is that the Trump administration is covering up the
existence of a list and those on it. Let's separate
for the moment her answer in the interview from other
efforts to keep the administration momentum in the first thirty
or forty five days after relentless criticism from the cabal
(09:11):
reached these full throated levels. The most egregious episode connected
to this issue was really the horribly produced, choreographed, whatever
it was, release of the Epstein binders to those self
(09:35):
important social media influencers by the way dragon. That was
the word that was used yesterday incessantly in the meeting influencers.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Your talent, you're an influencer.
Speaker 4 (09:45):
Right now, I need to throw away the talent tag
and get an influencer tag. I'm an influencer on broadcast,
by the way.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
You influenced me to turn off the radio.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
Well, apparently I did that talkback. We're down to eleven
listeners right now, so there's room for another one right now.
If somebody's in line wanted to jump in, now would
be a good time to jump in. So I think
the most egregious episode, and I do fault now. I
can't entirely fault Pam Bondi for it, but she should
(10:23):
have had a little more self awareness when she turned
over to those so called social media influencers. By the way,
they were there for a meet and greet on February
twenty seven, and the original meeting was with the vice president.
That's what they were told. It was in the cabinet room.
(10:46):
I've listened to so many stories about this. I'm just
I can talk about it in my sleep because I've
been in those meetings where you invite a group of
people might be donors they might be you know, special
interest groups, they might be lobbyists, they might be you know,
(11:08):
ordinary citizens that have you know, somehow the President said, hey,
I want to invite this group into the White House.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
So they come and you know, you you and I'm fortunate.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
I feel very honored that the White House asked me
on numerous occasions to come and make a presentation to
these group of influencers that would show up for these
meetings there. It's standard operating procedure. Every administration does it.
I just think this one happened to me be mishandled
(11:42):
because Pam Bondi did not fully comprehend the choreography that
was going to take place where she handed those binders
to them. I've listened to many people. I think Megan
has interviewed. One of them, who a female. I forget
(12:04):
her name. I'm sorry, I guess she's not that much
of an influencer, but I don't remember her name. And
she described how, you know, they were handed these binders
and they were all frantically trying to look through them
to see what was in it, and they all began
to realize that this is all just the already publicly
available material. But then what happened was, as often occurs
(12:29):
in the White House, schedules get behind and so then
the staff starts trying to speed stuff up. So they're
trying to move this group of influencers from the Cabinet Office,
which is in the West Wing, over to the old
Executive Office building, the Eisenhower Building, which is across West's
(12:49):
Executive Drive. So you have to go downstairs and you
go out this door that exits the West Wing. You're
walking west, you crossed West Executive Drive and then you
go up these steps into the the old Executive Office building,
the OEO B. They either went out that direction or
(13:13):
they went out the front reception area of the West
Wing where Pebble Beach is located where the news media is,
and you can cross West Executive Drive there to go
into the Old Executive Office building. But either way, because
they were running behind. Why were they running behind? They
were running behind because I think it was the British
(13:34):
Prime Minister that was showing up. So all of the
cabal was there with their cameras. So they walk out
and suddenly they start getting shouted questions about what do
you have and they hold up, oh, we have the
Epstein files. We have the Epstein binders. Well, that was
horribly handled, horribly handled. Let's now the binders or I think,
(14:01):
honestly this is my opinion, yours, you know, your mileage
may vary. I think the binders were a pr stunt.
They were meant to placate those voices who were asking
after ten days or fifteen days, whatever was they were
in office, where are the Epstein documents that you promised
(14:23):
to release? And I think the second thing. The second
thing was it was to get buy in from the
influencers on the idea that the so called new media,
who had played a huge role in the outcome of
the election, could now transition to a counter balance against
the relentless criticism by the cabal, by the legacy media
(14:50):
that are so infected with these horrendous levels of Trump
derangement syndrome. So anticipation levels were extremely high. You had Epstein,
you had the FBI whistleblow reclaim. In the aftermath of
that huge volume of Epstein material that been that had
been hidden from Pattel and BONDI remember, had been hidden
(15:13):
in the Southern District of New York. They suddenly like
what we asked for all the files, and now we
find out that their files still in New York. Get
those down here. So maybe Pam Bondy deserves criticism for
mishandling that entire episode, and.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
Maybe not.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Because there are so many extenuating circumstances. Did she have
time in the meeting the interview I listened to, they
weren't really told until later, Oh, yeah, this is nothing new.
We just wanted you to have these documents because we
want you to know that we really are digging into this.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
But there is no room for error.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
In the White House because you're constantly under a microscope.
You and and again they were new at this. Pam Bondy,
she had not been to US Attorney General before. She
wasn't familiar with I'm going to make an assumption here
that she wasn't familiar with how the media is constantly
(16:25):
on the prow that if they're waiting for the British
Prime Minister, but they see the Attorney General of the
United States walking out with these so called influencers and
they're all carrying binders, of course they're going to swivel
around and click click click, click, click click click start
taking photos of that. She should have known that, and
(16:45):
she should have known or somebody on the staff should
have told her, Hey, don't take them this direction. Take
them the other direction, because we got the whole phalanx
of pelanx of photographers and reporters and everybody out here
in beach. Take them down the take them downstairs out
that way. If that it happened, this wouldn't be that
(17:07):
big of a story. But let's let's go back to
what she said in the interview, and then, more importantly,
what was said jointly by the FBI and the Department
of Justice on Sunday, July sixth, in the written statement
concerning those Epstein materials.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
All right, let's do that now, Michael.
Speaker 5 (17:30):
If someone wanted to seek a pardon for beating a
dead horse, would that come from the president or would
it have to come from the governor where the beating occurred.
Speaker 4 (17:37):
Thanks, I'm going to beat you to death, is what
I'm going to do. I'm going to beat you to death.
If I want to beat a dead horse, by damn,
I'll beat a dead horse. So let's go back to
what Pam Bondi said. Listen closely, all right.
Speaker 5 (18:03):
She back with Ben and with Ted Cruz, and one
of the things that you alluded to, and this is
something Donald Trump has talked about. But DOJ may be
releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients, Well, that really happened.
Speaker 6 (18:16):
It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
Speaker 4 (18:25):
Well, she had already seen a list, which is the
claim made by those who argue that she confirmed the
existence of the list. Why would she still need to
review it before releasing it. If she was actually confirming
its existence, then she would have already reviewed it. That's
how she would have known that a list existed, but
(18:48):
she said she had not yet reviewed it. Now, the critics,
they claim, including a large number of hostile media outlets
who just trying to flame this fire in order to
hurt the administration. By the way, I just happened to
glance up during the break. Guess what Fox News is
talking about right now? Yeah, so dead horse? Uh huh
(19:13):
call Fox News too. That her critics claim that that
she is purposely dissembling by claiming now that what she
meant was the Epstein file was on her desk and
she was not confirming that Epstein had a client list
that was on her desk. I guess we can you
(19:36):
know rather than is it depends on the meaning of
the word it it?
Speaker 1 (19:43):
What does it mean?
Speaker 4 (19:45):
Well, the first clue there was a problem with her
answer was the suggestion that the Epstein materials were on
her desk. You ever been involved that You probably haven't.
Can you imagine if they were all if all of
the documents, the videos, the photos, everything, you know, the
(20:11):
photos were actually you know, printed color or black and
white photos printed on you know, eight and a half
by eleven you know paper. The videos were actually you know,
on cassettes or CDs or something, and all the paper
was actually paper in Manila binders and folders and three
(20:33):
ring binders and blah blah blah. Can you imagine how
much she wouldn't find her desk. She probably couldn't get
inside her office, and the attorney Jones's office is a
big ass office. Those materials were probably in a multi terrabyte.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
Hard drive of some sort.
Speaker 4 (20:54):
Now, I don't think there's any question that John Roberts
was very specific in mentioning a of clients. But there's
also no question that Bondie's answer made explicit reference to
her being in the process of reviewing files. She specifically
mentioned the JFK files the Martin Luther King files as
(21:16):
all part of the same directive from Trump to release
more information from all of them to the public. She said,
I'm reviewing that, I'm reviewing the JFK files, the MLK files,
that's all in the process of being reviewed. So is
there a serious suggestion being made that her review of
(21:38):
Epstein didn't involve a review of the quote file like
JFK and MLK, but she was only reviewing instead a list,
and that her differentiation between the two was intentional. So
we have an it the list, and we have that
the files supposedly are explicit confirmations by her. This somehow
(22:03):
a list of clients existed and somehow was on her desk.
Was her answer simply imprecise because she had not yet
reviewed the documents on her desk, she hadn't plugged it
into her computer to go through the files yet, or
did she intentionally after you know, ten twelve, fifteen, twenty
(22:24):
days on the job, did she intend to confirm the
existence of a list of clients while saying at the
same time that she was reviewing it. In anticipation of
releasing it. The problem is that those wedded to this
issue read into or answer what it was that they
wanted her.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
To be saying.
Speaker 4 (22:45):
They wanted to be saying, Yes, there was an Epstein
client list with names of the powerful and the wealthy
men of probably mostly liberal elites. Let's be honest, who
had been raping little girls on a private Caribbean island
in the company of one another with impunity because they
were protecting the deep state, and somehow they were then
made into intelligence assets from aside in the CIA via
(23:07):
black Man. They've been doing it for decades? Have I
did I get it.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
All in there?
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Or the Trump administration was going to bring the wrath
of the Department of Justice down upon them at last?
And the day of reckoning was only just days away.
Promise you didn't say any of those things, she said,
there was a review underway, and her personal review had
not even started yet. So now let's go to the
(23:34):
announcement that was put out would be now eleven days ago,
the statement put out on that Sunday night. Now, don't
get me wrong, there's no question in my mind that
the timing of the release of that announcement was an
attempt to deny the story of all the oxygen they
could as possibly as much oxygen as they could, because
(23:57):
the administration knew that it be received very badly by
the Epstein pedophile Island conspiracy crowd that oh my god,
you know they're trying to hide something. That statement included
the following paragraph, This systematic review revealed no incriminating, incriminating
(24:18):
client list. There was also no credible evidence found that
Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We
did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against
uncharged third parties. So, well, what did I just read?
(24:38):
No incriminating client list is not the same as no
client list. He goes on to say there was no
credible evidence he blackmailed others, But that's a concession that some.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Evidence of that might be in the files.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
By saying it's not credible, I think Department of Justice
is confirming that it investigated that evidence and found some
reasons to conclude that it was not truthful or accurate,
or it was not sufficient enough to move forward with
an investigation. Because here's what you've got to understand the
(25:18):
level of evidence required to predicate, which is just a
fancy word to start an investigation.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
Is pretty low. So the comment in that.
Speaker 4 (25:28):
Announcement that the evidence found didn't even reach that level
I find to be pretty significant. And the announcement confirms
there are third parties who are uncharged, but maybe they're
uncharged because of insufficient evidence of criminality by them. You know,
(25:49):
at this stage, all I can think about are all
of the videos I've seen and all the photographs I've
seen of all of these elites with Jeffrey Epstein, I've
not seen, and I'm not looking to see it, but
I'm not seen. And let's just randomly pull out someone's name,
(26:10):
Bill Clinton. Maybe it wasn't random. Do you think there
is a video of Bill Clinton having sex with a
fifteen year old girl. I'm not saying it's not impossible.
I might even think. I might even think it's probable,
(26:32):
but I have no reason to believe that it actually exists.
All I've seen are pictures of Bill Clinton and Hillary
Clinton and Donald Trump and every person you could possibly
think of in the world, including the Supreme Court, the
Chief Justice John Roberts, you know, sitting on a beach
with Jeffrey Epstein and other people, none of who might recognize.
(26:58):
There are probably hundreds of not thousands of people in
a picture with me that if you showed me the
picture I probably couldn't identify any of them, and no
criminality involved. Standing together for a photograph is not a crime. Now,
that's not to say that we don't have definitive answers
(27:24):
about whether or not there were actual crimes involved. Nobody
knows that, although we have lots of questions about it.
There are lots of questions. If Glene Maxwell is in
(27:44):
jail for trafficking sex, trafficking, human trafficking underage girls to
whom only Jeffrey Epstein, I don't know. How about we
find those files? How about we just asked that question.
You see, this is the problem with this entire story.
(28:07):
And we get to the point too where you have
to ask yourself, is Trump playing three D four D
multiple dimensional chess here? Because now he's gone from saying
I'm sick and tired of this, this is all bull
crap blah blah blah to I've told the Attorney General,
(28:29):
and she can when she's ready, release whatever credible evidence
she finds. We've gone the full Gamut with the President himself.
Speaker 7 (28:40):
Good morning, Mike or Michael. I've heard what you've replayed
over and over what Pam Bondi said.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
I've heard it.
Speaker 7 (28:50):
I've heard it a hundred times that you've played it,
and I believe that she was talking about.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
The file myself.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
So Scott the dead horse, we get it.
Speaker 4 (29:03):
As Now let me put a twist in all of this,
which obviously I'm not gonna be able to finish in
the short period of time. But have you thought about
The Free Press has an article that prompted this. It's
from yesterday. What the headline is, what the Epstein fight
(29:29):
is really about? The subhead is the current drama isn't
just populous conspiracy, conspiracism running muck.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
It's a power grab.
Speaker 4 (29:42):
And the story goes through to describe everything that I've
talked about in terms of the populist right, the radical left,
and the internal support spectrum within the right, within the
current Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
You know, over on.
Speaker 4 (30:07):
Drudge right now they have a post on x from
Donald Trump Junior show us all the Epstein client lists. Now,
why would anyone protect these scumbags?
Speaker 1 (30:18):
Ask yourself?
Speaker 4 (30:20):
Ask yourselves this question daily and the answer becomes very apparent,
and Laura Trump herself has also come out demanding that
the files be released.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
Who's pushing this?
Speaker 4 (30:37):
Have you stopped and looked Megan Kelly, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson,
And Tucker Carlson probably is one of the most Well,
they're all driving forces, but Tucker went over the really
far in and at turning point, USA's conference last weekend
(31:03):
or at the beginning of this week is explicitly tied
Epstein to Masad, the CIA and all these so called
pedophiles that exist. Why would he have done that? Well,
very briefly, and I do mean very briefly, I'll tell
you why next
Good morning, Michael and Dragon.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
I hear we're still talking about the pardons and Biden's
mental acuity.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
If we beat this dead horse any longer, he might
get up and start running again.
Speaker 4 (00:16):
Well, we've moved on from that dead horse onto another
dead horse. Yeah, this is just dead horse week on
the situation with Michael Brown Epstein.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Ah, bear with me, So, Pam Bondy, I've.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
You know, this is the twentieth anniversary of Katrina, so
I'm already starting to get you know, all of these
requests for you know, interviews and appearances and stuff to
talk about it, and I'm just really not in the
mood for it. I just, you know, it's the same
old crap. I don't mind going on.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
You know.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
For example, of all places I'm doing, Tavis Smiley, that
should be interesting today, Tavis Smiley, who is devoutly progressive,
wants to talk about Trump's idea about restructuring female Well,
I'm wasn't happy to talk about that. But I sometimes
(01:30):
feel like Pam Bondi must feel about Epstein the way
I feel about Katrina. Okay, how many times are going
to hash over the same thing over and over and
over again, So you might say that this segment is
really what did Pam Bondy really say, because I'm not
(01:50):
sure people really know what she did say?
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Real quick, I know, I'm sorry, but I have to
do this. I just check the talkbacks and this one
came through.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Okay, I am worried. I'm not sure if I should
be tuning in. Wouldn't tell us what it's going to
be about. Very fraid it's another Jeffrey Epstein thing. But
here we go.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
That wouldn't make sense if I played that in the
next segment because he left that right during the news
and I didn't see it until just now.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
But it's totally appropriate, perfect for right.
Speaker 4 (02:28):
And all I would tell you is this is a
different angle, a different tact, and it is really kind
of because because the president through a and this is
where I really do believe the S words is appropriate.
He threw an S word fit on the tarmac the
other day when he was asked a question about Epstein.
(02:49):
So it just keeps getting churned and turned and churned.
So let's but instead of saying it's really about Epstein,
but I mean, I guess in the grand scheme thing
it is, but this is really more about Pam Bondy.
Now I'm gonna swerve into Epstein. Don't get me wrong,
because I can't discuss Pam Bondy without discussing Jeffrey Epstein.
(03:14):
And I do think going back to a text message
that it is worthy of some interest, because let's see,
this is this is Ubert nine five zero nine. So
if you want to blame anybody for this, although it
was already on my list, it just gives me a
reason to talk about it now, as opposed to later,
(03:36):
nine five zero nine wrote this, Mike, I don't think
people are actually mad about this topic. Now this person
was referring to the Pardons. But what but this? I
don't know why I keep waying to say she nine
five zero nine?
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Are you and she? I don't know why I keep
going to say she that phone number identify as a she?
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Well, that's that's it. It just screams female to me.
I mean nine, I mean, that's just got to be
a woman, right, or maybe or maybe it's a you know,
trans woman. I I you know what, maybe it's a
z Z that's it, you know, so Z writes this.
I think this topic is just the current target of
a frustration with a hypocrisy and the double standard of
(04:19):
the elite never being held accountable for anything that us
basic goobers would be sent to prison for. We want
these clowns to go to jail. We all know it's
never going to happen. Thus, Pam BONDI, she's been accused
across the entirety of the cabal, particularly by a segment
(04:41):
of what I would just say only for classification purposes.
We've got the far left. We've got the Communists, the
Marxist the socialists over here on the far left. Then
you've got the old you know, old school liberal Democrats.
Then you got the yellow dog Democrats, and then you
got the people in the middle, the people that I
say are straddling the fence. And I don't know why
(05:03):
men would ever straddle the fence, because I think that
would hurt you. You know, It's like, you know, you're
riding your bike and you you know, you're learning to
ride your bike and you you kind of fall, Well
it hurts down there when you fall. So why guys,
why do you straddle the fence?
Speaker 1 (05:20):
I don't get it.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
And then you've got the moderates, and then you've got
the kind of you know, the somewhat conservatives, and then
you got the right wing nut jobs, and then you
got the maga, and then you got the ultra maga.
So there's there's Michael's political spectrum. And I would say
that the ultra maga right never concedes being wrong. So
(05:44):
Pam Budy's a cruiser is accused across the entire media
of having suggested or said outright that there was in
fact a Jeffrey Epstein so called client list on her
desk waiting her review prior to it being made. When
did she make that comment. She made that comment during
(06:05):
a one on one TV interview with John Roberts on
Fox News February twenty one. She had been in office
for seven I think seventeen days. I think she was
confirmed maybe back on February four, somewhere thereabouts. Robert asked her, Uh, well,
(06:25):
let me just go to as they say, let's just
go to the tape, shall We.
Speaker 5 (06:30):
Saw your appearance and steep back with Ben and with
Ted Cruz and one of the things that you alluded to,
and this is something Donald Trump is talking.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
One of the things you've alluded to and one of
the things that Donald trumped.
Speaker 5 (06:43):
About the DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey
Epstein's clients.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Well, that really happened.
Speaker 6 (06:49):
It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's
been a directive by President Trump. I'm reviewing that. I'm
reviewing JFK files, MLK files. That's all in the process
of being reviewed because that was done at the directive
of the president from all of these agencies.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
Have you seen anything there?
Speaker 5 (07:06):
You said, Oh, my gosh, not yet. Okay, Well, we'll
check back with you, Madam Attorney General.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Pam. Great to spend time with you so much, Madam
Attorney General.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
But I gotta call you Pam, because I know you,
so I want to make sure everybody knows that I
know you. I would note that a list of clients
DOJ may be releasing. John Roberts said, DOJ may be
releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen? Well,
(07:41):
I would just suggest that a list of clients is
not synonymous with a client list, because the latter suggests
that it was something created by Epstein himself. My client list,
they would have been his clients. Again, the verbatim text
(08:01):
of her entire answer. It is sitting on my desk
right now for a review that's been directed by President Trump.
I'm reviewing that. I'm reviewing the JFK files, the MLK files.
That's all in the process of being reviewed, because that
was done at the director of the President to all
(08:22):
of these agencies. Have you seen anything that you said, Oh,
my gosh, not yet.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
That's it.
Speaker 4 (08:29):
It was forty one seconds. Forty one seconds the entirety
of the exchange. So much has been read into that answer,
beyond what she was said that it is simply projection
by those insisting that there is a list, and somehow
she confirmed the existence of a list, and now the
(08:50):
claim is that the Trump administration is covering up the
existence of a list and those on it. Let's separate
for the moment her answer in the interview from other
efforts to keep the administration momentum in the first thirty
or forty five days after relentless criticism from the cabal
(09:11):
reached these full throated levels. The most egregious episode connected
to this issue was really the horribly produced, choreographed, whatever
it was, release of the Epstein binders to those self
(09:35):
important social media influencers by the way dragon. That was
the word that was used yesterday incessantly in the meeting influencers.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Your talent, you're an influencer.
Speaker 4 (09:45):
Right now, I need to throw away the talent tag
and get an influencer tag. I'm an influencer on broadcast,
by the way.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
You influenced me to turn off the radio.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
Well, apparently I did that talkback. We're down to eleven
listeners right now, so there's room for another one right now.
If somebody's in line wanted to jump in, now would
be a good time to jump in. So I think
the most egregious episode, and I do fault now. I
can't entirely fault Pam Bondi for it, but she should
(10:23):
have had a little more self awareness when she turned
over to those so called social media influencers. By the way,
they were there for a meet and greet on February
twenty seven, and the original meeting was with the vice president.
That's what they were told. It was in the cabinet room.
(10:46):
I've listened to so many stories about this. I'm just
I can talk about it in my sleep because I've
been in those meetings where you invite a group of
people might be donors they might be you know, special
interest groups, they might be lobbyists, they might be you know,
(11:08):
ordinary citizens that have you know, somehow the President said, hey,
I want to invite this group into the White House.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
So they come and you know, you you and I'm fortunate.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
I feel very honored that the White House asked me
on numerous occasions to come and make a presentation to
these group of influencers that would show up for these
meetings there. It's standard operating procedure. Every administration does it.
I just think this one happened to me be mishandled
(11:42):
because Pam Bondi did not fully comprehend the choreography that
was going to take place where she handed those binders
to them. I've listened to many people. I think Megan
has interviewed. One of them, who a female. I forget
(12:04):
her name. I'm sorry, I guess she's not that much
of an influencer, but I don't remember her name. And
she described how, you know, they were handed these binders
and they were all frantically trying to look through them
to see what was in it, and they all began
to realize that this is all just the already publicly
available material. But then what happened was, as often occurs
(12:29):
in the White House, schedules get behind and so then
the staff starts trying to speed stuff up. So they're
trying to move this group of influencers from the Cabinet Office,
which is in the West Wing, over to the old
Executive Office building, the Eisenhower Building, which is across West's
(12:49):
Executive Drive. So you have to go downstairs and you
go out this door that exits the West Wing. You're
walking west, you crossed West Executive Drive and then you
go up these steps into the the old Executive Office building,
the OEO B. They either went out that direction or
(13:13):
they went out the front reception area of the West
Wing where Pebble Beach is located where the news media is,
and you can cross West Executive Drive there to go
into the Old Executive Office building. But either way, because
they were running behind. Why were they running behind? They
were running behind because I think it was the British
(13:34):
Prime Minister that was showing up. So all of the
cabal was there with their cameras. So they walk out
and suddenly they start getting shouted questions about what do
you have and they hold up, oh, we have the
Epstein files. We have the Epstein binders. Well, that was
horribly handled, horribly handled. Let's now the binders or I think,
(14:01):
honestly this is my opinion, yours, you know, your mileage
may vary. I think the binders were a pr stunt.
They were meant to placate those voices who were asking
after ten days or fifteen days, whatever was they were
in office, where are the Epstein documents that you promised
(14:23):
to release? And I think the second thing. The second
thing was it was to get buy in from the
influencers on the idea that the so called new media,
who had played a huge role in the outcome of
the election, could now transition to a counter balance against
the relentless criticism by the cabal, by the legacy media
(14:50):
that are so infected with these horrendous levels of Trump
derangement syndrome. So anticipation levels were extremely high. You had Epstein,
you had the FBI whistleblow reclaim. In the aftermath of
that huge volume of Epstein material that been that had
been hidden from Pattel and BONDI remember, had been hidden
(15:13):
in the Southern District of New York. They suddenly like
what we asked for all the files, and now we
find out that their files still in New York. Get
those down here. So maybe Pam Bondy deserves criticism for
mishandling that entire episode, and.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
Maybe not.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Because there are so many extenuating circumstances. Did she have
time in the meeting the interview I listened to, they
weren't really told until later, Oh, yeah, this is nothing new.
We just wanted you to have these documents because we
want you to know that we really are digging into this.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
But there is no room for error.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
In the White House because you're constantly under a microscope.
You and and again they were new at this. Pam Bondy,
she had not been to US Attorney General before. She
wasn't familiar with I'm going to make an assumption here
that she wasn't familiar with how the media is constantly
(16:25):
on the prow that if they're waiting for the British
Prime Minister, but they see the Attorney General of the
United States walking out with these so called influencers and
they're all carrying binders, of course they're going to swivel
around and click click click, click, click click click start
taking photos of that. She should have known that, and
(16:45):
she should have known or somebody on the staff should
have told her, Hey, don't take them this direction. Take
them the other direction, because we got the whole phalanx
of pelanx of photographers and reporters and everybody out here
in beach. Take them down the take them downstairs out
that way. If that it happened, this wouldn't be that
(17:07):
big of a story. But let's let's go back to
what she said in the interview, and then, more importantly,
what was said jointly by the FBI and the Department
of Justice on Sunday, July sixth, in the written statement
concerning those Epstein materials.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
All right, let's do that now, Michael.
Speaker 5 (17:30):
If someone wanted to seek a pardon for beating a
dead horse, would that come from the president or would
it have to come from the governor where the beating occurred.
Speaker 4 (17:37):
Thanks, I'm going to beat you to death, is what
I'm going to do. I'm going to beat you to death.
If I want to beat a dead horse, by damn,
I'll beat a dead horse. So let's go back to
what Pam Bondi said. Listen closely, all right.
Speaker 5 (18:03):
She back with Ben and with Ted Cruz, and one
of the things that you alluded to, and this is
something Donald Trump has talked about. But DOJ may be
releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients, Well, that really happened.
Speaker 6 (18:16):
It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
Speaker 4 (18:25):
Well, she had already seen a list, which is the
claim made by those who argue that she confirmed the
existence of the list. Why would she still need to
review it before releasing it. If she was actually confirming
its existence, then she would have already reviewed it. That's
how she would have known that a list existed, but
(18:48):
she said she had not yet reviewed it. Now, the critics,
they claim, including a large number of hostile media outlets
who just trying to flame this fire in order to
hurt the administration. By the way, I just happened to
glance up during the break. Guess what Fox News is
talking about right now? Yeah, so dead horse? Uh huh
(19:13):
call Fox News too. That her critics claim that that
she is purposely dissembling by claiming now that what she
meant was the Epstein file was on her desk and
she was not confirming that Epstein had a client list
that was on her desk. I guess we can you
(19:36):
know rather than is it depends on the meaning of
the word it it?
Speaker 1 (19:43):
What does it mean?
Speaker 4 (19:45):
Well, the first clue there was a problem with her
answer was the suggestion that the Epstein materials were on
her desk. You ever been involved that You probably haven't.
Can you imagine if they were all if all of
the documents, the videos, the photos, everything, you know, the
(20:11):
photos were actually you know, printed color or black and
white photos printed on you know, eight and a half
by eleven you know paper. The videos were actually you know,
on cassettes or CDs or something, and all the paper
was actually paper in Manila binders and folders and three
(20:33):
ring binders and blah blah blah. Can you imagine how
much she wouldn't find her desk. She probably couldn't get
inside her office, and the attorney Jones's office is a
big ass office. Those materials were probably in a multi terrabyte.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
Hard drive of some sort.
Speaker 4 (20:54):
Now, I don't think there's any question that John Roberts
was very specific in mentioning a of clients. But there's
also no question that Bondie's answer made explicit reference to
her being in the process of reviewing files. She specifically
mentioned the JFK files the Martin Luther King files as
(21:16):
all part of the same directive from Trump to release
more information from all of them to the public. She said,
I'm reviewing that, I'm reviewing the JFK files, the MLK files,
that's all in the process of being reviewed. So is
there a serious suggestion being made that her review of
(21:38):
Epstein didn't involve a review of the quote file like
JFK and MLK, but she was only reviewing instead a list,
and that her differentiation between the two was intentional. So
we have an it the list, and we have that
the files supposedly are explicit confirmations by her. This somehow
(22:03):
a list of clients existed and somehow was on her desk.
Was her answer simply imprecise because she had not yet
reviewed the documents on her desk, she hadn't plugged it
into her computer to go through the files yet, or
did she intentionally after you know, ten twelve, fifteen, twenty
(22:24):
days on the job, did she intend to confirm the
existence of a list of clients while saying at the
same time that she was reviewing it. In anticipation of
releasing it. The problem is that those wedded to this
issue read into or answer what it was that they
wanted her.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
To be saying.
Speaker 4 (22:45):
They wanted to be saying, Yes, there was an Epstein
client list with names of the powerful and the wealthy
men of probably mostly liberal elites. Let's be honest, who
had been raping little girls on a private Caribbean island
in the company of one another with impunity because they
were protecting the deep state, and somehow they were then
made into intelligence assets from aside in the CIA via
(23:07):
black Man. They've been doing it for decades? Have I
did I get it.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
All in there?
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Or the Trump administration was going to bring the wrath
of the Department of Justice down upon them at last?
And the day of reckoning was only just days away.
Promise you didn't say any of those things, she said,
there was a review underway, and her personal review had
not even started yet. So now let's go to the
(23:34):
announcement that was put out would be now eleven days ago,
the statement put out on that Sunday night. Now, don't
get me wrong, there's no question in my mind that
the timing of the release of that announcement was an
attempt to deny the story of all the oxygen they
could as possibly as much oxygen as they could, because
(23:57):
the administration knew that it be received very badly by
the Epstein pedophile Island conspiracy crowd that oh my god,
you know they're trying to hide something. That statement included
the following paragraph, This systematic review revealed no incriminating, incriminating
(24:18):
client list. There was also no credible evidence found that
Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We
did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against
uncharged third parties. So, well, what did I just read?
(24:38):
No incriminating client list is not the same as no
client list. He goes on to say there was no
credible evidence he blackmailed others, But that's a concession that some.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Evidence of that might be in the files.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
By saying it's not credible, I think Department of Justice
is confirming that it investigated that evidence and found some
reasons to conclude that it was not truthful or accurate,
or it was not sufficient enough to move forward with
an investigation. Because here's what you've got to understand the
(25:18):
level of evidence required to predicate, which is just a
fancy word to start an investigation.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
Is pretty low. So the comment in that.
Speaker 4 (25:28):
Announcement that the evidence found didn't even reach that level
I find to be pretty significant. And the announcement confirms
there are third parties who are uncharged, but maybe they're
uncharged because of insufficient evidence of criminality by them. You know,
(25:49):
at this stage, all I can think about are all
of the videos I've seen and all the photographs I've
seen of all of these elites with Jeffrey Epstein, I've
not seen, and I'm not looking to see it, but
I'm not seen. And let's just randomly pull out someone's name,
(26:10):
Bill Clinton. Maybe it wasn't random. Do you think there
is a video of Bill Clinton having sex with a
fifteen year old girl. I'm not saying it's not impossible.
I might even think. I might even think it's probable,
(26:32):
but I have no reason to believe that it actually exists.
All I've seen are pictures of Bill Clinton and Hillary
Clinton and Donald Trump and every person you could possibly
think of in the world, including the Supreme Court, the
Chief Justice John Roberts, you know, sitting on a beach
with Jeffrey Epstein and other people, none of who might recognize.
(26:58):
There are probably hundreds of not thousands of people in
a picture with me that if you showed me the
picture I probably couldn't identify any of them, and no
criminality involved. Standing together for a photograph is not a crime. Now,
that's not to say that we don't have definitive answers
(27:24):
about whether or not there were actual crimes involved. Nobody
knows that, although we have lots of questions about it.
There are lots of questions. If Glene Maxwell is in
(27:44):
jail for trafficking sex, trafficking, human trafficking underage girls to
whom only Jeffrey Epstein, I don't know. How about we
find those files? How about we just asked that question.
You see, this is the problem with this entire story.
(28:07):
And we get to the point too where you have
to ask yourself, is Trump playing three D four D
multiple dimensional chess here? Because now he's gone from saying
I'm sick and tired of this, this is all bull
crap blah blah blah to I've told the Attorney General,
(28:29):
and she can when she's ready, release whatever credible evidence
she finds. We've gone the full Gamut with the President himself.
Speaker 7 (28:40):
Good morning, Mike or Michael. I've heard what you've replayed
over and over what Pam Bondi said.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
I've heard it.
Speaker 7 (28:50):
I've heard it a hundred times that you've played it,
and I believe that she was talking about.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
The file myself.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
So Scott the dead horse, we get it.
Speaker 4 (29:03):
As Now let me put a twist in all of this,
which obviously I'm not gonna be able to finish in
the short period of time. But have you thought about
The Free Press has an article that prompted this. It's
from yesterday. What the headline is, what the Epstein fight
(29:29):
is really about? The subhead is the current drama isn't
just populous conspiracy, conspiracism running muck.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
It's a power grab.
Speaker 4 (29:42):
And the story goes through to describe everything that I've
talked about in terms of the populist right, the radical left,
and the internal support spectrum within the right, within the
current Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
You know, over on.
Speaker 4 (30:07):
Drudge right now they have a post on x from
Donald Trump Junior show us all the Epstein client lists. Now,
why would anyone protect these scumbags?
Speaker 1 (30:18):
Ask yourself?
Speaker 4 (30:20):
Ask yourselves this question daily and the answer becomes very apparent,
and Laura Trump herself has also come out demanding that
the files be released.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
Who's pushing this?
Speaker 4 (30:37):
Have you stopped and looked Megan Kelly, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson,
And Tucker Carlson probably is one of the most Well,
they're all driving forces, but Tucker went over the really
far in and at turning point, USA's conference last weekend
(31:03):
or at the beginning of this week is explicitly tied
Epstein to Masad, the CIA and all these so called
pedophiles that exist. Why would he have done that? Well,
very briefly, and I do mean very briefly, I'll tell
you why next
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.