Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What if releasing the list exposes a bunch of business magnets,
powerful people that if knowledge of their wrongdoing would collapse
our economy. Also, what if releasing the list would give
away the power that the executive branch has to use
(00:24):
this as a cudgel against these people.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
That is a great well. I don't necessarily agree that
that is the case. By not releasing even what they
have fully redacted, I don't care if you know you
you look at one eight and a half by eleven
(00:47):
sheet of paper and there's there are a thousand words.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
On that page, and nine hundred of them are redacted.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
I'd be happy with that, But don't you find it
curious that they're not showing.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Us anything at all? But I want to go back.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Because the inconsistency given all this evidence is very troubling
to me. Two. For those of you who just now
waking up and tuning in, we're talking about the Epstein case.
(01:32):
And what's driving me crazy about the Epstein case is
that we know that previously Pam Bondi on the Attorney
General in a conversation with John Roberts of OH I
can't I can't remember the name of their stupid show
(01:53):
it Fox News, something that occurs midday John Robertson, he
has a female co host. On February twenty first, he
asked the Attorney General, who was standing on the north
lawn of the White.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
House, doj maybe releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
Well, that really happened.
Speaker 5 (02:16):
It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
That's been a directive by President Trump.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
I'm reviewing that. I'm reviewing JFK files MLK files.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
So is it true there's a list? And yeah, I'm
reviewing the list. I'm reviewing the list. When confronted yesterday
after the release of this two page memo that says
there's nothing there and we're not releasing anything, Caroline Levitt
is confronted, I think, very respectfully, by the way, by
(02:50):
two reporters, one reporter I don't know who it is,
and the other by Peter Doucy from Fox News, who
follows up with I.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
Have now concluded there was no Jeffrey Epstein client lists,
and whatytail Maggat supporters who say didn't want anyone involved
in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged crimes to be held accountable.
Speaker 6 (03:08):
This administration wants anyone who has ever committed a crime
to be held accountable. And I would argue this administration
has done more to lock up bad guys than certainly
the previous administration. And the Trump administration is committed to
truth and to transparency. That's why the Attorney General and
the FBI Director pledged, at the President's direction, to do
an exhaustive review of all of the files related to
(03:31):
Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and his death, and they put out
a memo in conclusion of that review. There was material
they did not release because frankly, it was incredibly graphic
and it contained child pornography, which is not something that's
appropriate for public consumption. But they committed to an exhaustive investigation.
That's what they did, and they provided the results of that.
(03:52):
That's transparency.
Speaker 5 (03:54):
Okay. So the FBIO looks at the circumstances founding the
death of Jeffrey Epps. According to the report, this systematic
review revealed no incriminating client list.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
So what happened to the Epstein client.
Speaker 5 (04:09):
List that the Attorney General said she had on her desk.
Speaker 6 (04:13):
Well, I think if you go back and look at
what the Attorney General said in that interview, which was
on your network on Fox News.
Speaker 5 (04:20):
Go ahead, and Roberts said, doj may be releasing the
list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Will that really happen?
Speaker 5 (04:25):
And she said, it's sitting on my desk right now
to review.
Speaker 6 (04:29):
Yes, she was saying the entirety of all of the paperwork,
all of the paper in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
That's what the Attorney General was referring to. And I'll
let her speak for that. But again, when it comes
to the FBI and the Department of Justice, they are
more than committed to ensuring that bad people are put
behind bars. They have an operation going on right now
called Summer Heat, which has our murder rate trending in
(04:53):
the lowest direction in United States history. Their emphasis on
violent crime and locking up violent criminals has led to
the arrest of fourteen thousand violent criminals. That's a sixty
two percent increase from the same time period last year.
So this Attorney General and the FBI director are committed
to putting bad people behind bars where they belong. That
they promised an exhaustive review, that's what they did. For
(05:15):
any further details, I would refer you to the Department
of Justice.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
I can't wait to hear what is asked at the
Department of Justice briefing today. Assuming that there is a
Department of Justice briefing, I want you to consider something else.
Think about the talk back. What if all these big
industrial magnates are a part of the list. What if politicians?
(05:39):
What if Prince Andrew really is on there? What if
Bill Gates really is on a client list? So what
would it cause turmoil within those businesses? Well, let's take
Bill Gates for example. I'm not saying he is or
is not, but let's just pretend for a moment that
Bill Gates is on a so called client list. First,
(06:02):
let's think about what that is a client list. Are
those people who went to the island? Are those people
that somehow the list says these are the people and uh,
these names wanted this age of a female or a male,
(06:23):
or they wanted you know, a blonde hair, they wanted
a ginger, they wanted to you know whatever.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
That doesn't prove anything.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
It just implicates them in some sort of nefarious.
Speaker 3 (06:38):
Criminal activity, highly immoral.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
But let let's say that, uh, the president of well,
let's say Tim Cook. We'll use Tim Cook because Tim
Cook is a gay man, so I don't know whether
they had any provision for gay sex on the island
or not. Let's just pretend for a moment that Tim
Cook's name was on that list. Would that cause turmoil
(07:06):
within Apple Computer? Absolutely, the board of directors would immediately
convene a meeting. They would probably suspend Tim Cook while
they did their own investigation. It might cause some institutional
investors to probably not institutional investors, it might cause some
(07:27):
retail investors.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
I wouldn't do it.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
I wouldn't, you know, sell my Apple stock immediately simply
because Tim Cook may be implicated in some sex crime
in an island off the Florida coast somewhere. No, I
wouldn't sell my stock. It would cause me to question
the morality of how Tim Cook conducts business. But I
would rely on the Board of Directors of Apple Computer
(07:51):
to do their own intern In fact, I'm sure they'd
hire the most powerful law firm in the country to
do an investigation, probably suspend him with pay while they
do the investigation, and if anything came out, then they
would probably terminate Tim Cook's contract, which might cost them.
You know, some course it probably be for cause, so
it probably wouldn't cost them any money other than the
(08:12):
cost of the investigation, which could run into the millions
of dollars. But when you're a trillion dollar company, when
you're a multi trillion dollar company, that's a drop in
the bucket. Would it cause turmoil?
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Yes? Would it cause?
Speaker 2 (08:24):
You know, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times,
you know, would they would all be out, you know,
printing stories about it. Yes, it would cause turmoil, to
which I'd say, so what.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
So?
Speaker 2 (08:35):
What if if a crime is being committed, are we
now at the stage where we're not going to investigate
and prosecute a crime because of the people involved. If
that's the case, then we're we're the country as much
bigger do do than what I thought. This is why
(08:57):
this story, I think and neates an administration coming off
an administration which had no credibility to an administration that
pledges transparency, full disclosure, everything with a lot of credibility.
(09:17):
And the first thing, the very first thing, is this
stupid case. I don't have.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
Any personal.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Vendetta one. I don't know who's on the list, but
I don't really I don't know of any fortune. Let's
say fortune five hundred. I don't have any fortune five
hundred friends that my life would be over.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
I would be.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Devastated if I found out that the president or somebody
in the c suite of Northwrop Grumman that I know
is on that list. Would I'd be disappointed, upset, embarrassed.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Yes. Would it alter the course of my life? Probably not?
But what does bother me is that we have.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Gone from the least transparent presidency to us ostensibly the
most transparent presidency. And now we're playing these games again
because the whole Jeffrey Epstein case really is a very
troubling scandal in our lifetimes. Remember, his original conviction goes
(10:36):
all the way back to two thousand and eight down
in Florida. That's where he got the lenient plea deal.
The the inconsistency about there is a list, there's not
a list. Who's on the list, who's not on the list.
You know, Prince Andrew was ostensibly on the list. You know,
(11:00):
King Charles, the family, you know what, you're no longer
to go. You're not going to do anything publicly because
we want to, you know, bury this if we can.
But think about the inconsistency. That's so troubling, especially given
evidence suggesting that Epstein's activities may have intersected with our
(11:20):
intelligence operations. The Wall Street Journal itself back in twenty
twenty three reported that William Burns, who was then a
private citizen who later became the director of the CIA,
met with Epstein multiple times. In twenty seventeen, Alex Acosta,
(11:40):
who oversaw Epstein's pretty lenient two thousand and eight plea deal,
reportedly told Trump transition officials that he was instructed to
back off Epstein because of his Intel connections. And then
do you know that Acosta's emails from that period have
(12:01):
been lost, as admitted by the Justice Department itself. All
of us just deepens the suspicion. And the more suspicion
there is, the more There are outlets for all sorts
of conspiracy theories. But they do raise a critical question,
(12:22):
which is, why is the Trump administration, which pledgs transparency
and accountability appear I'm not saying they are, but it
appears that they're shielding information about Epstein. They've they've withheld
or delayed. I don't know what see, I don't know.
(12:45):
I can't say for certain that they have withheld. I
think they've delayed, or maybe to put it in a
more positive they have yet to disclose certain things. Let's
go with that. The origins of COVID nineteen, the FBI's
actions back in twenty sixteen, the spying on reporters, the
(13:09):
spying on the campaign, the handling of certain news stories
in twenty twenty. Even the CIA's recent admission of airrors
in a twenty seventeen report about foreign election interference.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
Oh, that was limited.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
That signals to me that they have a reluctance fully
to address past mistakes, maybe even mistakes that they weren't
involved in. There's a reluctance that leads to the next point,
(13:43):
the balance of power in this country. The constitution gives
I'm not trying to be condescending here. The Constitution grants
Congress the authority to oversee the executive branch, including the
intelligence agencies, and they do that through budgetary control hearings.
(14:03):
Members of certain committees have access to classified information. Yet
agencies have reportedly delayed responses, they've started redacting documents, or
they invoke national security to avoid scrutiny. How in the
hell can you invoke national security and say we can't
tell the Senate Intel Committee about something, or we can't
tell the Department of Justice, or we can't tell the
(14:25):
National Security Council about something because of national security. Wait
a minute, that seems inherently internally contradictory when elected officials
withhold information from elected representatives, Because that's what's going unelected
officials in the intel community or back in the end
of deep state, the administrative agencies wherever you, however you
(14:46):
want to classify it or categorize it, unelected officials withholding
information from elected representatives. That undermines our right to know.
I'm not going to accuse any single administration or any
particular agency of orchestrating some sort of grand conspiracy. And
(15:08):
actually I try to avoid the term the deep state
because I think that oversimplifies a much more complex reality
about the administrative state. But there is a pattern of secrecy,
selecty disclosures, resistance to oversight. You can't ignore that. We
(15:28):
deserve answers, particularly about a case as grave as Epstein's,
where allegations of elite impunity and potential intelligence involvement strike
at the very heart of the legitimacy that we put
in our government. So I think that this can be
relatively easily resolved. Just release all the relevant Epstein files. Yeah,
(15:54):
to protect those victims, either their faces or do something.
And I'm not trying to be a pervert here. I
don't really want to see it, but make it available
for those who choose to go look at it. Maybe
(16:15):
that's a crime in and of itself. So maybe you
can't release the videos. So we redact any videos that
actually involve child pornography or sex with children, but otherwise
release everything even if you redact it. And if something
(16:37):
needs to be declassified, then declassify it. The COVID origins,
past election related to investigations, demonstrate your commitment to transparency.
And then, last, but not least, I would argue, this
Congress has got to do something. Congress ought to assert
its constitutional role oversight, public hearings, subpoena's unredacted record, all
(17:00):
of those are essential to uncovering the truth and restoring accountability.
So we ought to demand that that happened. The Epstein
case is not just about one man or one scandal.
I think it's now morphed into a test of whether
these institutions can confront uncomfortable truths and uphold the rule
(17:22):
of law. One last thing that I want to do
before we move on, which I really do want to
move on.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
Is.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Read to you a few of the paragraphs from the
memo that was released yesterday, because it really is wow.
Speaker 4 (17:43):
Legalles one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.
PAMBONDI needs to be subpoenaed and testify under oath in
regards to the Epstein matter.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Whatever happens happens.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
To whom testify in front of whom there's no court
of law because there's no pending litigation. So I assume
you mean to Congress, which they themselves may be involved
in this. I want to go through the memo and
(18:28):
then talk about some of the text messages. I think
I've accomplished what I wanted to accomplish in discussing this.
I haven't said that there is a conspiracy. I think
there's a lot of room for upon which you can
build a conspiracy. This is what's troubling to me. I'm
(18:52):
not trying to be anti Trump or pro Trump. I'm
simply pointing out, as I think you are on the
talk back, that you you guys' really screwed this up.
Let's start with one of the text messages. I'm not
going to try to find the particular one right now, said,
but I thought the videos had been deleted or they
(19:16):
couldn't find them or something. Well, there are two sets
of videos, so we're conflating things. The surveillance video from
his first suspected suicide attempt, prosecutors say that was destroyed
(19:36):
by accident. That was in July of twenty twenty, I think,
and then the second attempt was in August, so a
month later he tries to kill himself once in July,
succeeds in August the second attempt. See I can't resist this.
(19:56):
The second attempt is the video which we see, which
may or may not have two minutes missing, because I
can't verify whether it's true or not, and I'm not
gonna tell you it is just based on somebody. Because
if you well, you can't see my x timeline. I
(20:17):
mean you you can't. You can see my timeline, but
you can't see what I you know, the unless you
just go follow everybody that I follow and then read
through everything this it would apear.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
You may not see this.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
But what I saw last night was the video that
showed the surveillance from I don't know. It was like
seems to me it was like seven point thirty in
the evening on the night that he committed suicide, and
it showed the guards, uh, you know, walking him to
(20:50):
a cell, and then it showed a guard checking later,
and then you know, you see the timestamp. Then it
shows the next morning, the guards are showing up to
you know, deliver breakfast. And I'm watching the video and nothing.
You know, I watched this whole stupid thing. It does
fast forward through, you know, several hours overnight, and then
I'm scrolling through it. All of a sudden when I
(21:12):
come back after dinner or something. Now people are posting that, oh,
look there's two minutes missing. And I watch it, and yes,
you can see where it's been edited and there's two
minutes missing. Of course, my first question is the person
who posted it, did you do that?
Speaker 3 (21:30):
Who did that?
Speaker 2 (21:32):
I don't And I can't find any confirmation that there
is actually two minutes or more missing of the video
of the night that he actually did commit suicide.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
You see, it's this is when.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
I when I had to deal with the death of
my brother in law and then ran down to New
Mexico after dealing with that, and I was looking through
I think I commented about this yesterday. I was looking
through Sundays, I got off on Facebook, and I told
(22:12):
you I was watching a video of Air Force one,
and it caught my attention because I've been on Air
Force one, you know, a bazillion times, and I love
the plane and I'm honored to have been able to
fly on the plane and all of that. And so
when I see videos of it taking off or landing
or whatever, I always look at them. It brings back
some really nice memories. But then I realized, well, f this,
(22:35):
I'm watching some artificially AI generated video and now I'm
pissed off because I've wasted I don't know, forty five
seconds of my life or whatever watching it before I realized, oh,
this is a bunch.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
Of AI crap.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
Well, now I'm thinking about the same thing about I spent,
you know, not an in nordn amount of time, but
enough time to convince myself that I couldn't prove one
way or the other whether that video had truly been
altered by you know, the CIA, the NESSA, or some
stupid guards you on Rikers Island. I don't know who
did it, but the fact that it's now out there
(23:13):
opens the door to conspiracy theories, which is why I
go back to we need some sort of transparency. The
memo itself, the file. Let me just read this paragraph.
The files related to Epstein include a large volume of
(23:36):
images of Epstein, images and videos. Let me just start over.
Just please listen closely to my tone and my pauses,
because I don't want to break it down and try
to tell you or imply anything. Although there's implications in
(23:57):
my mind, I hope I can convey it by the
way I read this to you. The files relating to
Epstein include a large volume of images of Epstein, images
and videos of victims who are either miners or appear
(24:17):
to be miners, and over ten thousand downloaded videos and
images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography.
Teams of agents, analysts, attorneys in privacy and civil liberties
experts combed through the digital and documentary evidence with the
(24:41):
aim of providing as much information as possible to the
public while simultaneously protecting victims.
Speaker 3 (24:52):
Much of the.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Material is subject to court ordered sealing. Only a fraction
of this material would have been aired publicly, had Epstein
gone to trial, as the seal served only to protect
victims and did not expose any additional third parties to
(25:15):
allegations of the illegal wrongdoing. Through this review, we found
no basis to revisit the disclosure of those materials, of
those materials and will not permit the release of child pornography. Okay,
(25:37):
well that just just the wording of that raises a
dozen questions in my mind. What about the material that's
not court ordered sealed? What about the video that's not
of illegal child sex abuse? The other pornography, Hell's bells.
(26:01):
You can go find all the pornography you want for
free right now. So why is this pornography any different
than any other pornography? Teams of agents, analysts, attorneys, and
privacy and civil liberty's experts. Now, the only question I
have about that is government privacy and civil liberty experts
(26:23):
or outside privacy and civil liberty experts. And if they're
outside experts, let's know who they are. Did they sign
an NDA and non disclosure agreement? What do they have
to say? Through this review, we found no basis to
revisit the disclosure of those materials and of course, we'll
(26:44):
not permit the breeder's child pornography. I have no problem
with that. But we found no basis to revisit the
disclosure of those materials. How about just the basis of transparency.
Then the next paragraph says this, this systematic review revealed
no incriminating quote client list, close quote. Okay, did it
(27:11):
reveal some other kind of list?
Speaker 3 (27:13):
You see?
Speaker 2 (27:13):
I've always I've always been troubled by the Moniker client list.
We have flight logs. So on a manifest, on a
flight law, you'll have a manifest of the passengers. You know,
sometimes date of birth or you know, you know where
they were picked up and where they were, where they embarked,
and where they disembarked. Okay, what about that? Is that
(27:38):
different than a client list? There was also same paragraph
there was also no credible evidence found. There was no
credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part
of his actions. So there was evidence, you just didn't
(28:01):
find it credible, so you made a judgment call that
it wasn't credible, but there was evidence. That's the way
I read the sentence. There was also no credible evidence
found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals is part of his actions.
Next sentence, We did not uncover evidence that could predicate
an investigation against uncharged third parties. Oh okay, then you
(28:32):
don't find any evidence that would cause you to investigate
third parties.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
You found third parties, So is that a client list
or is that some other list.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
You see when when you when you start to I
love the fact that I used to hate it and
then I became obsessed by it. Learning to diagram sentences,
Oh my god. I had an English teacher that just
pounded it into my head. So when I when I
diagramed the sentence, it raises more questions than it answers.
(29:10):
We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation
against uncharged third parties. Okay, so you uncovered something, but
it just wouldn't be enough to start an investigation. So
what did you uncover? Now I would have to balance
(29:31):
the privacy rights of releasing information. But if let me
use myself for an example, and I would probably put
myself in the same position as Alan Dershowitz if for
whatever bizarre reason that I can't think of, I ended
(29:51):
up on one of Jeffrey Epstein's jets because I thought
I was going to a resort to have a meeting,
but I I didn't do anything. Yes, I would be
concerned about my name being released, but if I didn't
do anything, you know, so what?
Speaker 1 (30:13):
So? What?
Speaker 3 (30:15):
More questions than answers.
Speaker 6 (30:17):
Does it look like the Trump and the administration has
been threatened by deep state and putting the thumb over them?
Speaker 2 (30:27):
I don't know. See that's it. I'm not going to
speculate about it. I know the deep state, the administrative state,
has been involved in varying nefarious activities, spying on a
presidential campaign, lying to affise a court, coordinating and collaborating
with social media platforms to you know, deplatform people, and
(30:48):
to suppress information because it's misinformation. Yeah, we have a
history of that. But one last thing, because this is
from the memo, one of our highest priorities is combating
child exploitations, exploitation and bringing justice to victims. Perpetuating unfounded
(31:10):
theories about Epstein serves neither of those ends. Now, I
agree with that, but failure to disclose all of the
material redacted, even even if ninety percent of all the
material is redacted somewhat redacted, It's better than a two
(31:31):
page memo.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
You don't have to release the videos.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
And why not just say there was no client list.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
Stupid, the whole thing Street
What if releasing the list exposes a bunch of business magnets,
powerful people that if knowledge of their wrongdoing would collapse
our economy. Also, what if releasing the list would give
away the power that the executive branch has to use
(00:24):
this as a cudgel against these people.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
That is a great well. I don't necessarily agree that
that is the case. By not releasing even what they
have fully redacted, I don't care if you know you
you look at one eight and a half by eleven
(00:47):
sheet of paper and there's there are a thousand words.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
On that page, and nine hundred of them are redacted.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
I'd be happy with that, But don't you find it
curious that they're not showing.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Us anything at all? But I want to go back.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Because the inconsistency given all this evidence is very troubling
to me. Two. For those of you who just now
waking up and tuning in, we're talking about the Epstein case.
(01:32):
And what's driving me crazy about the Epstein case is
that we know that previously Pam Bondi on the Attorney
General in a conversation with John Roberts of OH I
can't I can't remember the name of their stupid show
(01:53):
it Fox News, something that occurs midday John Robertson, he
has a female co host. On February twenty first, he
asked the Attorney General, who was standing on the north
lawn of the White.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
House, doj maybe releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
Well, that really happened.
Speaker 5 (02:16):
It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
That's been a directive by President Trump.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
I'm reviewing that. I'm reviewing JFK files MLK files.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
So is it true there's a list? And yeah, I'm
reviewing the list. I'm reviewing the list. When confronted yesterday
after the release of this two page memo that says
there's nothing there and we're not releasing anything, Caroline Levitt
is confronted, I think, very respectfully, by the way, by
(02:50):
two reporters, one reporter I don't know who it is,
and the other by Peter Doucy from Fox News, who
follows up with I.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
Have now concluded there was no Jeffrey Epstein client lists,
and whatytail Maggat supporters who say didn't want anyone involved
in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged crimes to be held accountable.
Speaker 6 (03:08):
This administration wants anyone who has ever committed a crime
to be held accountable. And I would argue this administration
has done more to lock up bad guys than certainly
the previous administration. And the Trump administration is committed to
truth and to transparency. That's why the Attorney General and
the FBI Director pledged, at the President's direction, to do
an exhaustive review of all of the files related to
(03:31):
Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and his death, and they put out
a memo in conclusion of that review. There was material
they did not release because frankly, it was incredibly graphic
and it contained child pornography, which is not something that's
appropriate for public consumption. But they committed to an exhaustive investigation.
That's what they did, and they provided the results of that.
(03:52):
That's transparency.
Speaker 5 (03:54):
Okay. So the FBIO looks at the circumstances founding the
death of Jeffrey Epps. According to the report, this systematic
review revealed no incriminating client list.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
So what happened to the Epstein client.
Speaker 5 (04:09):
List that the Attorney General said she had on her desk.
Speaker 6 (04:13):
Well, I think if you go back and look at
what the Attorney General said in that interview, which was
on your network on Fox News.
Speaker 5 (04:20):
Go ahead, and Roberts said, doj may be releasing the
list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Will that really happen?
Speaker 5 (04:25):
And she said, it's sitting on my desk right now
to review.
Speaker 6 (04:29):
Yes, she was saying the entirety of all of the paperwork,
all of the paper in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
That's what the Attorney General was referring to. And I'll
let her speak for that. But again, when it comes
to the FBI and the Department of Justice, they are
more than committed to ensuring that bad people are put
behind bars. They have an operation going on right now
called Summer Heat, which has our murder rate trending in
(04:53):
the lowest direction in United States history. Their emphasis on
violent crime and locking up violent criminals has led to
the arrest of fourteen thousand violent criminals. That's a sixty
two percent increase from the same time period last year.
So this Attorney General and the FBI director are committed
to putting bad people behind bars where they belong. That
they promised an exhaustive review, that's what they did. For
(05:15):
any further details, I would refer you to the Department
of Justice.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
I can't wait to hear what is asked at the
Department of Justice briefing today. Assuming that there is a
Department of Justice briefing, I want you to consider something else.
Think about the talk back. What if all these big
industrial magnates are a part of the list. What if politicians?
(05:39):
What if Prince Andrew really is on there? What if
Bill Gates really is on a client list? So what
would it cause turmoil within those businesses? Well, let's take
Bill Gates for example. I'm not saying he is or
is not, but let's just pretend for a moment that
Bill Gates is on a so called client list. First,
(06:02):
let's think about what that is a client list. Are
those people who went to the island? Are those people
that somehow the list says these are the people and uh,
these names wanted this age of a female or a male,
(06:23):
or they wanted you know, a blonde hair, they wanted
a ginger, they wanted to you know whatever.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
That doesn't prove anything.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
It just implicates them in some sort of nefarious.
Speaker 3 (06:38):
Criminal activity, highly immoral.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
But let let's say that, uh, the president of well,
let's say Tim Cook. We'll use Tim Cook because Tim
Cook is a gay man, so I don't know whether
they had any provision for gay sex on the island
or not. Let's just pretend for a moment that Tim
Cook's name was on that list. Would that cause turmoil
(07:06):
within Apple Computer? Absolutely, the board of directors would immediately
convene a meeting. They would probably suspend Tim Cook while
they did their own investigation. It might cause some institutional
investors to probably not institutional investors, it might cause some
(07:27):
retail investors.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
I wouldn't do it.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
I wouldn't, you know, sell my Apple stock immediately simply
because Tim Cook may be implicated in some sex crime
in an island off the Florida coast somewhere. No, I
wouldn't sell my stock. It would cause me to question
the morality of how Tim Cook conducts business. But I
would rely on the Board of Directors of Apple Computer
(07:51):
to do their own intern In fact, I'm sure they'd
hire the most powerful law firm in the country to
do an investigation, probably suspend him with pay while they
do the investigation, and if anything came out, then they
would probably terminate Tim Cook's contract, which might cost them.
You know, some course it probably be for cause, so
it probably wouldn't cost them any money other than the
(08:12):
cost of the investigation, which could run into the millions
of dollars. But when you're a trillion dollar company, when
you're a multi trillion dollar company, that's a drop in
the bucket. Would it cause turmoil?
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Yes? Would it cause?
Speaker 2 (08:24):
You know, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times,
you know, would they would all be out, you know,
printing stories about it. Yes, it would cause turmoil, to
which I'd say, so what.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
So?
Speaker 2 (08:35):
What if if a crime is being committed, are we
now at the stage where we're not going to investigate
and prosecute a crime because of the people involved. If
that's the case, then we're we're the country as much
bigger do do than what I thought. This is why
(08:57):
this story, I think and neates an administration coming off
an administration which had no credibility to an administration that
pledges transparency, full disclosure, everything with a lot of credibility.
(09:17):
And the first thing, the very first thing, is this
stupid case. I don't have.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
Any personal.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Vendetta one. I don't know who's on the list, but
I don't really I don't know of any fortune. Let's
say fortune five hundred. I don't have any fortune five
hundred friends that my life would be over.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
I would be.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Devastated if I found out that the president or somebody
in the c suite of Northwrop Grumman that I know
is on that list. Would I'd be disappointed, upset, embarrassed.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Yes. Would it alter the course of my life? Probably not?
But what does bother me is that we have.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Gone from the least transparent presidency to us ostensibly the
most transparent presidency. And now we're playing these games again
because the whole Jeffrey Epstein case really is a very
troubling scandal in our lifetimes. Remember, his original conviction goes
(10:36):
all the way back to two thousand and eight down
in Florida. That's where he got the lenient plea deal.
The the inconsistency about there is a list, there's not
a list. Who's on the list, who's not on the list.
You know, Prince Andrew was ostensibly on the list. You know,
(11:00):
King Charles, the family, you know what, you're no longer
to go. You're not going to do anything publicly because
we want to, you know, bury this if we can.
But think about the inconsistency. That's so troubling, especially given
evidence suggesting that Epstein's activities may have intersected with our
(11:20):
intelligence operations. The Wall Street Journal itself back in twenty
twenty three reported that William Burns, who was then a
private citizen who later became the director of the CIA,
met with Epstein multiple times. In twenty seventeen, Alex Acosta,
(11:40):
who oversaw Epstein's pretty lenient two thousand and eight plea deal,
reportedly told Trump transition officials that he was instructed to
back off Epstein because of his Intel connections. And then
do you know that Acosta's emails from that period have
(12:01):
been lost, as admitted by the Justice Department itself. All
of us just deepens the suspicion. And the more suspicion
there is, the more There are outlets for all sorts
of conspiracy theories. But they do raise a critical question,
(12:22):
which is, why is the Trump administration, which pledgs transparency
and accountability appear I'm not saying they are, but it
appears that they're shielding information about Epstein. They've they've withheld
or delayed. I don't know what see, I don't know.
(12:45):
I can't say for certain that they have withheld. I
think they've delayed, or maybe to put it in a
more positive they have yet to disclose certain things. Let's
go with that. The origins of COVID nineteen, the FBI's
actions back in twenty sixteen, the spying on reporters, the
(13:09):
spying on the campaign, the handling of certain news stories
in twenty twenty. Even the CIA's recent admission of airrors
in a twenty seventeen report about foreign election interference.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
Oh, that was limited.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
That signals to me that they have a reluctance fully
to address past mistakes, maybe even mistakes that they weren't
involved in. There's a reluctance that leads to the next point,
(13:43):
the balance of power in this country. The constitution gives
I'm not trying to be condescending here. The Constitution grants
Congress the authority to oversee the executive branch, including the
intelligence agencies, and they do that through budgetary control hearings.
(14:03):
Members of certain committees have access to classified information. Yet
agencies have reportedly delayed responses, they've started redacting documents, or
they invoke national security to avoid scrutiny. How in the
hell can you invoke national security and say we can't
tell the Senate Intel Committee about something, or we can't
tell the Department of Justice, or we can't tell the
(14:25):
National Security Council about something because of national security. Wait
a minute, that seems inherently internally contradictory when elected officials
withhold information from elected representatives, Because that's what's going unelected
officials in the intel community or back in the end
of deep state, the administrative agencies wherever you, however you
(14:46):
want to classify it or categorize it, unelected officials withholding
information from elected representatives. That undermines our right to know.
I'm not going to accuse any single administration or any
particular agency of orchestrating some sort of grand conspiracy. And
(15:08):
actually I try to avoid the term the deep state
because I think that oversimplifies a much more complex reality
about the administrative state. But there is a pattern of secrecy,
selecty disclosures, resistance to oversight. You can't ignore that. We
(15:28):
deserve answers, particularly about a case as grave as Epstein's,
where allegations of elite impunity and potential intelligence involvement strike
at the very heart of the legitimacy that we put
in our government. So I think that this can be
relatively easily resolved. Just release all the relevant Epstein files. Yeah,
(15:54):
to protect those victims, either their faces or do something.
And I'm not trying to be a pervert here. I
don't really want to see it, but make it available
for those who choose to go look at it. Maybe
(16:15):
that's a crime in and of itself. So maybe you
can't release the videos. So we redact any videos that
actually involve child pornography or sex with children, but otherwise
release everything even if you redact it. And if something
(16:37):
needs to be declassified, then declassify it. The COVID origins,
past election related to investigations, demonstrate your commitment to transparency.
And then, last, but not least, I would argue, this
Congress has got to do something. Congress ought to assert
its constitutional role oversight, public hearings, subpoena's unredacted record, all
(17:00):
of those are essential to uncovering the truth and restoring accountability.
So we ought to demand that that happened. The Epstein
case is not just about one man or one scandal.
I think it's now morphed into a test of whether
these institutions can confront uncomfortable truths and uphold the rule
(17:22):
of law. One last thing that I want to do
before we move on, which I really do want to
move on.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
Is.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Read to you a few of the paragraphs from the
memo that was released yesterday, because it really is wow.
Speaker 4 (17:43):
Legalles one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.
PAMBONDI needs to be subpoenaed and testify under oath in
regards to the Epstein matter.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Whatever happens happens.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
To whom testify in front of whom there's no court
of law because there's no pending litigation. So I assume
you mean to Congress, which they themselves may be involved
in this. I want to go through the memo and
(18:28):
then talk about some of the text messages. I think
I've accomplished what I wanted to accomplish in discussing this.
I haven't said that there is a conspiracy. I think
there's a lot of room for upon which you can
build a conspiracy. This is what's troubling to me. I'm
(18:52):
not trying to be anti Trump or pro Trump. I'm
simply pointing out, as I think you are on the
talk back, that you you guys' really screwed this up.
Let's start with one of the text messages. I'm not
going to try to find the particular one right now, said,
but I thought the videos had been deleted or they
(19:16):
couldn't find them or something. Well, there are two sets
of videos, so we're conflating things. The surveillance video from
his first suspected suicide attempt, prosecutors say that was destroyed
(19:36):
by accident. That was in July of twenty twenty, I think,
and then the second attempt was in August, so a
month later he tries to kill himself once in July,
succeeds in August the second attempt. See I can't resist this.
(19:56):
The second attempt is the video which we see, which
may or may not have two minutes missing, because I
can't verify whether it's true or not, and I'm not
gonna tell you it is just based on somebody. Because
if you well, you can't see my x timeline. I
(20:17):
mean you you can't. You can see my timeline, but
you can't see what I you know, the unless you
just go follow everybody that I follow and then read
through everything this it would apear.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
You may not see this.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
But what I saw last night was the video that
showed the surveillance from I don't know. It was like
seems to me it was like seven point thirty in
the evening on the night that he committed suicide, and
it showed the guards, uh, you know, walking him to
(20:50):
a cell, and then it showed a guard checking later,
and then you know, you see the timestamp. Then it
shows the next morning, the guards are showing up to
you know, deliver breakfast. And I'm watching the video and nothing.
You know, I watched this whole stupid thing. It does
fast forward through, you know, several hours overnight, and then
I'm scrolling through it. All of a sudden when I
(21:12):
come back after dinner or something. Now people are posting that, oh,
look there's two minutes missing. And I watch it, and yes,
you can see where it's been edited and there's two
minutes missing. Of course, my first question is the person
who posted it, did you do that?
Speaker 3 (21:30):
Who did that?
Speaker 2 (21:32):
I don't And I can't find any confirmation that there
is actually two minutes or more missing of the video
of the night that he actually did commit suicide.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
You see, it's this is when.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
I when I had to deal with the death of
my brother in law and then ran down to New
Mexico after dealing with that, and I was looking through
I think I commented about this yesterday. I was looking
through Sundays, I got off on Facebook, and I told
(22:12):
you I was watching a video of Air Force one,
and it caught my attention because I've been on Air
Force one, you know, a bazillion times, and I love
the plane and I'm honored to have been able to
fly on the plane and all of that. And so
when I see videos of it taking off or landing
or whatever, I always look at them. It brings back
some really nice memories. But then I realized, well, f this,
(22:35):
I'm watching some artificially AI generated video and now I'm
pissed off because I've wasted I don't know, forty five
seconds of my life or whatever watching it before I realized, oh,
this is a bunch.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
Of AI crap.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
Well, now I'm thinking about the same thing about I spent,
you know, not an in nordn amount of time, but
enough time to convince myself that I couldn't prove one
way or the other whether that video had truly been
altered by you know, the CIA, the NESSA, or some
stupid guards you on Rikers Island. I don't know who
did it, but the fact that it's now out there
(23:13):
opens the door to conspiracy theories, which is why I
go back to we need some sort of transparency. The
memo itself, the file. Let me just read this paragraph.
The files related to Epstein include a large volume of
(23:36):
images of Epstein, images and videos. Let me just start over.
Just please listen closely to my tone and my pauses,
because I don't want to break it down and try
to tell you or imply anything. Although there's implications in
(23:57):
my mind, I hope I can convey it by the
way I read this to you. The files relating to
Epstein include a large volume of images of Epstein, images
and videos of victims who are either miners or appear
(24:17):
to be miners, and over ten thousand downloaded videos and
images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography.
Teams of agents, analysts, attorneys in privacy and civil liberties
experts combed through the digital and documentary evidence with the
(24:41):
aim of providing as much information as possible to the
public while simultaneously protecting victims.
Speaker 3 (24:52):
Much of the.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Material is subject to court ordered sealing. Only a fraction
of this material would have been aired publicly, had Epstein
gone to trial, as the seal served only to protect
victims and did not expose any additional third parties to
(25:15):
allegations of the illegal wrongdoing. Through this review, we found
no basis to revisit the disclosure of those materials, of
those materials and will not permit the release of child pornography. Okay,
(25:37):
well that just just the wording of that raises a
dozen questions in my mind. What about the material that's
not court ordered sealed? What about the video that's not
of illegal child sex abuse? The other pornography, Hell's bells.
(26:01):
You can go find all the pornography you want for
free right now. So why is this pornography any different
than any other pornography? Teams of agents, analysts, attorneys, and
privacy and civil liberty's experts. Now, the only question I
have about that is government privacy and civil liberty experts
(26:23):
or outside privacy and civil liberty experts. And if they're
outside experts, let's know who they are. Did they sign
an NDA and non disclosure agreement? What do they have
to say? Through this review, we found no basis to
revisit the disclosure of those materials and of course, we'll
(26:44):
not permit the breeder's child pornography. I have no problem
with that. But we found no basis to revisit the
disclosure of those materials. How about just the basis of transparency.
Then the next paragraph says this, this systematic review revealed
no incriminating quote client list, close quote. Okay, did it
(27:11):
reveal some other kind of list?
Speaker 3 (27:13):
You see?
Speaker 2 (27:13):
I've always I've always been troubled by the Moniker client list.
We have flight logs. So on a manifest, on a
flight law, you'll have a manifest of the passengers. You know,
sometimes date of birth or you know, you know where
they were picked up and where they were, where they embarked,
and where they disembarked. Okay, what about that? Is that
(27:38):
different than a client list? There was also same paragraph
there was also no credible evidence found. There was no
credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part
of his actions. So there was evidence, you just didn't
(28:01):
find it credible, so you made a judgment call that
it wasn't credible, but there was evidence. That's the way
I read the sentence. There was also no credible evidence
found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals is part of his actions.
Next sentence, We did not uncover evidence that could predicate
an investigation against uncharged third parties. Oh okay, then you
(28:32):
don't find any evidence that would cause you to investigate
third parties.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
You found third parties, So is that a client list
or is that some other list.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
You see when when you when you start to I
love the fact that I used to hate it and
then I became obsessed by it. Learning to diagram sentences,
Oh my god. I had an English teacher that just
pounded it into my head. So when I when I
diagramed the sentence, it raises more questions than it answers.
(29:10):
We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation
against uncharged third parties. Okay, so you uncovered something, but
it just wouldn't be enough to start an investigation. So
what did you uncover? Now I would have to balance
(29:31):
the privacy rights of releasing information. But if let me
use myself for an example, and I would probably put
myself in the same position as Alan Dershowitz if for
whatever bizarre reason that I can't think of, I ended
(29:51):
up on one of Jeffrey Epstein's jets because I thought
I was going to a resort to have a meeting,
but I I didn't do anything. Yes, I would be
concerned about my name being released, but if I didn't
do anything, you know, so what?
Speaker 1 (30:13):
So? What?
Speaker 3 (30:15):
More questions than answers.
Speaker 6 (30:17):
Does it look like the Trump and the administration has
been threatened by deep state and putting the thumb over them?
Speaker 2 (30:27):
I don't know. See that's it. I'm not going to
speculate about it. I know the deep state, the administrative state,
has been involved in varying nefarious activities, spying on a
presidential campaign, lying to affise a court, coordinating and collaborating
with social media platforms to you know, deplatform people, and
(30:48):
to suppress information because it's misinformation. Yeah, we have a
history of that. But one last thing, because this is
from the memo, one of our highest priorities is combating
child exploitations, exploitation and bringing justice to victims. Perpetuating unfounded
(31:10):
theories about Epstein serves neither of those ends. Now, I
agree with that, but failure to disclose all of the
material redacted, even even if ninety percent of all the
material is redacted somewhat redacted, It's better than a two
(31:31):
page memo.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
You don't have to release the videos.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
And why not just say there was no client list.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
Stupid, the whole thing Street
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.