Kash Patel, Epstein’s Emails & The Honeypot Lawsuit | What You’re Not Told | Conspiracy Podcast - Investigate Earth Conspiracy Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You know that I'm gonna keep it cool with you.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
A fail of breaking rules only looking out with no parachute,
you know, dreaming puns who band around with that clue
only a screaming out where.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
That sits on? Or nothing but guess Sonny Mark, where
that s nothing again?

Speaker 3 (00:26):
Tony Log, you say.

Speaker 4 (00:30):
Hello and welcome to Investigator of podcast. I'm your host
chat alongside my Beautiful Life Sherry. On tonight's episode, we're
getting the two stories that are exploding online. First, newly
serviced Epstein emails are making waves again, this time mentioning
Donald trumping connection to Epstein and Gasline Maxwell. These leaks
are reasons, serious questions, and we're gonna break down exactly
what's real and what's being spun. And then we moved

(00:52):
to the firestorm around Alexis Wilkins and cash matel she's
now suing several podcasters of her claims that she's a
honeypot tied to fourn Intelligence, and the accusations, the lawsuits,
to conspiracies, the truth are putting all on the table.
We're going to talk about it right now. Guys, welcome
to the show. It is November the twelfth, twenty twenty five.
The name of the song is I Need More of

(01:12):
You by Hallman featuring Lee June.

Speaker 5 (01:15):
I believe is that name. And I should know the
date because this is the day before my birthday.

Speaker 6 (01:20):
Oh happy early birthday, babe. But yes, you are catching
up to me. Yeah, every year I'm.

Speaker 7 (01:26):
Getting ore catching up.

Speaker 4 (01:27):
I'd much rather go backwards at least for a little while,
like get to like, I don't know, twenty five. I
don't want to go maybe before twenty five. I would
like to be about twenty five and then start working
my way back up.

Speaker 5 (01:38):
That's what I think.

Speaker 6 (01:39):
Well, that's not going to happen unless we have some
like Fountain of Youth.

Speaker 8 (01:42):
I know, I know.

Speaker 5 (01:44):
But yeah, guys, welcome to the show.

Speaker 4 (01:46):
We we have a couple of subjects to talk about tonight.
We have been away, I guess, longer than usual over
the past couple of months between podcasts. So some of
you have reached out and said, you guys, don't do
as many podcasts as you did.

Speaker 5 (02:01):
We're trying.

Speaker 4 (02:02):
We're trying our very best, but for our sanity, I
guess in some ways we have to kind of separate
this a little bit. So we'll do like a podcast
and we'll take three or four day break and we're
working on a lot of other things as well.

Speaker 5 (02:13):
Sherry's actually helping write a book right now.

Speaker 7 (02:16):
I'm helping.

Speaker 6 (02:16):
I am a co author on a true crime book
that we're almost finished. And as a matter of fact,
I'm glad you brought that up because I need some
help from our audience.

Speaker 7 (02:26):
OK.

Speaker 6 (02:26):
I need to know if there are any editors out
there that would take a look at this book for me.

Speaker 5 (02:32):
Yeah for sure.

Speaker 4 (02:33):
Yeah, So let us know investigate Earth Podcast at ProtonMail
dot com. You can email us or just send us
the message on social media, but email's probably the best
way to reach out for that. But yeah, Sherry's been
working very hard with Pauline Hayes, which is the mother
of the victim Mark Hayes, in the murder that we
had actually covered a few years back on this podcast.
So they're writing a book kind of to tell the

(02:54):
entire story. If you want to talk about corruption, that
is corruption in this little town of Malvern in Arkansas.
I believe in hot Spring County. There's just tons of
corruption around that. And you know, they had a judge
step down. Pauline's son was murdered because they thought, I guess.

Speaker 5 (03:12):
Maybe he was a snitch potentially.

Speaker 4 (03:15):
And it turns out that law enforcement, the Sherif's department
there may have been somewhat involved or covering up stuff.

Speaker 5 (03:22):
Maybe judges as well.

Speaker 4 (03:24):
There was a lot going on in this sleepy little
town of Malvern, Arkansas. And to the point where when
this book comes out, you guys are gonna learn a
lot of stuff. You're gonna learn a lot of stuff
what this victim's family had to go through. This is
literally after they found out that their son was murdered,
and then it was like they were the ones that

(03:45):
now had to watch their ass. I mean, they had
people showing up in their house, or not in their house,
but in their yard. They had people showing up around
their family, almost intimidating them. And not just people that
were involved in the actual murder, but they had people
that were showing up that were involved in law enforcement
and this corrupt system. And I remember after we did
that podcast, Sharry, that we had you know, I had

(04:08):
actually talked to a guy for three or four days
during that whole thing that had driven around with Pauline's
son's body in the call.

Speaker 6 (04:17):
Yeah, his dead body for three days in the car.
And I'm just telling you that's where some of my
burnout is going, because it is really hard to sit
there and listen to the stories, rewrite them, and then
rewrite them again. It takes an emotional toll to write
a true crime book to this extent, and you know.

Speaker 4 (04:38):
Like especially with the mother, Yes, you know, you have
to go through all the storylines with her.

Speaker 6 (04:42):
Yes, And poor Pauline. I text her last night because
I had a little breakdown again. This is my second
one since we started writing the book, and she is
the person that's helping me when I should be helping her,
you know, with what she's going through and what she's endured.

Speaker 4 (04:59):
But me like similar, yeah, because well she's actually already
been through all this and you really haven't been through this.
But like by writing the book and getting these detailed stories,
you're now kind of going through and you're putting your
yourself in her possession.

Speaker 5 (05:12):
Right, So yeah, it's a thing.

Speaker 4 (05:15):
But yeah, the reason I wanted to mention that is
because like what we're going to talk about on tonight's show,
you know, we're talking about corruption, We're talking about you know,
people that you and trust that maybe are betraying you
as an American citizen, as a citizen of this country.
And so obviously with the cash Betel situation and everything
that's going on with that, We've talked a lot about

(05:36):
the Trump administration and Cash Betel and all of that.

Speaker 5 (05:39):
I want to say something before we even start this.

Speaker 4 (05:41):
You know, I talked to my friend Nathan last night,
and Nathan's been on the podcast quite a few times.
And Nathan has also been in Congress and he's been
you know, in Washington, d C. Many many times, and
especially after COVID For those that have been with us
for a while, Nathan Jones, that is the founder and
CEO of Clear, you know, they got sued by the FTC.

(06:03):
This was after, or I guess during COVID, because their
nasal spray was actually showing great results to potentially stop
the viral replication of COVID nineteen. They even had all
these studies that they spent millions of dollars on. And
so what did the government do. Well, the government came
along and said, look, you know, we think your product works,

(06:26):
so we're going to sue you and hopefully we're going
to try to destroy your reputation. Not only are we
going to destroy your reputation, we want to take you
out of business, like we don't want your product to
ever say that it could potentially cure or prevent COVID nineteen,
although they had these studies. So I asked Nathan because
we had actually reached out to him during COVID and

(06:47):
I'm saying all this to get into the podcast tonight.
I had reached out to clear the company, and then
Nathan actually called me. This was back then twenty twenty,
I guess, or twenty twenty one. I think it was
twenty twenty, and so he had actually called me directly,
and I said, hey, you know, what do you want
to know? Here's here's our story, and me and Nathan
became I mean, he's one of my.

Speaker 6 (07:07):
Best friends now, so just like Paulaytena's my best right now.

Speaker 5 (07:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (07:10):
So, and I'd asked Nathan one day, I said, have
you you know because we had talked a lot obviously
since then, I said, have you always been a conspiracy theorist?
Like if you always believed in conspiracies? And I've said
this on other podcasts, but he said no, Actually he said,
you know, he said you. Let me tell you when
I became a conspiracy theorist, When the conspiracy happened to me.
That's when I became a conspiracy exactly. And then for

(07:33):
some people, though, a situation like that will never happens
to them, thankfully, right, Thankfully, for those people, they live
their life. They go to work every day, they wake
up nine to five jobs, they come home, they they
might be broke, they might be struggling, they might be
going through all this, and they might be angry at
the government because they feel like they're paying too much
taxes even though they're broke.

Speaker 5 (07:53):
They have all these things.

Speaker 4 (07:54):
But there are times when you have an awakening, and
there are people that have awakenings. I think so many
that listen to this podcast have had awakenings for whatever reason,
whether it's maybe something you've seen online, maybe it's just
your personal experience the things you've been through.

Speaker 5 (08:10):
But I always go back to.

Speaker 4 (08:12):
Asking Nathan that, and Nathan saying, I was never a
conspiracy theorist until it happened to me. That was the
exact reason why Sharon and I started this podcast, because
when we found out how corrupt the government and especially
and we're not even necessarily talking about the big government,
even though big government is kind of tied to even
the judges in the circuit course and district courts and
the state courts. Obviously, because we've talked about that a ton.

(08:34):
You know, where you have George Soros and funding George Gascon,
which was in Los Angeles, which was a far left
globalist prosecutor to where people could go and loot, burn
down cities, do whatever they wanted to burn down LA
in particular, in George Gascon, which was the installed prosecutor
in Los Angeles, which was funded by George Soros, was
there to make sure that all of their goons were

(08:57):
released without bail, without anything. We've also had Ken Good on.
Ken Good has been fighting against this cashlest bell for
a very long time. Over eight years of this show,
we have realized that corruption exists. And I always go
back to you have to have a great awakening to
really understand and fully comprehend what corruption exists and who

(09:21):
can be corrupted. So one of the things I was
talking about was Sherry and I talked about with Nathan
last night. And the reason I brought up Nathan because
I told him, I said, you know, with the podcast.
For example, we've done this for so long. You know,
it was this podcast was so much easier a year
and a half, two years ago.

Speaker 6 (09:39):
Oh yeah, especially before Trump was in office.

Speaker 5 (09:42):
Yeah, for sure.

Speaker 4 (09:42):
And so the past year to the past year and
a half, and as things have kind of transpired, it's
been tough because we have an audience that has been
built on what I believe and hopefully truth.

Speaker 5 (09:54):
But you know, a lot of our audience was conservatives.

Speaker 4 (09:57):
I think we pissed off a lot of the leftist
and Democrats enough to where they quit listen to us.
Over the years, you know, there would be people that
would show up for the podcast where we're talking about
ancient civilizations, we're talking about UFOs, we're talking about all that,
or even true crime, and so we're bring in all
those people. We're bring in all these people from around
the world and especially on topics like that, and so

(10:19):
half of those people could be far leftists Democrats, and
half of those people could be Republicans. But then as
we started talking about Trump, and as we started saying that, hey,
I think we got to vote for Trump, and I
think that we need to do this because of what
our current situation is with you know, Biden and Harris like,
I think that we got to do this, and I
think Trump is the right way forward. I think MAGA

(10:41):
is a great movement because what does MAGA meane? Make
America great again. I think everybody. Everybody should be on
board with making America great again if you live in America.
And so then when Trump came into office and we
started kind of cross mixing things that we have been
very adamant on in the past eight years in our show,

(11:05):
you know, like for example, the Epstein files, just the
whole transparency of things, you know, where we want a
government that is going to be transparent.

Speaker 5 (11:13):
I think a lot of people that voted.

Speaker 4 (11:15):
For Trump they felt like that Trump was a representative
of them and their voice and kind of the middle
finger and the f you exactly to the system and
the government.

Speaker 6 (11:26):
And what he was saying too, He's like, you know
what they're doing to me, they're doing the same thing
to you.

Speaker 4 (11:31):
Yeah, exactly, And that was his line he continually said.
So people got on board with that because people felt like, hey,
you know what, Trump's one of us. Although yes, Trump
is a billionaire, Trump is an elite, his family's an elite,
he's tied to a lot of other elitists, you know,
as we will get into and just a bit. But
the interesting thing about it was, as we've also said
on other shows that you had Cash matel where Cash

(11:54):
Mattel for a couple of years went around the podcast
circuit and he said, on day one, Jay one, We're
gonna have a transparency office. We're gonna have a declassification office.
We're gonna declassify everything. We're gonna show you everything. I've
seen the files, I've seen this, I've seen everything, and
we're gonna do all of these things. So a lot

(12:15):
of people right now are wondering if Cash Betel is
a plant, and not just Cash Buttel, but but others.
Pam BONDI, uh, you know, I don't believe Tulsi Gabbert is.
I think Tulsi Gabert's actually in there trying to make
a difference.

Speaker 6 (12:26):
What about Dan Bongino, Do you think he's a plant
or not?

Speaker 4 (12:28):
I think I think Dan Bongino is someone they took
out of the influencer space on purpose. Yeah, it could
be because Dan Bongino is a huge influence and they said, look,
if we need to take him out of the influencer space.
Let's control him by taking him and putting him as
an FBI deputy director. Now that might sound crazy and
conspiratorial to you, but you know what Dan Bongino says now,

(12:52):
and the way he acts now and the way he
talks to people now and on on camera.

Speaker 5 (12:57):
Far different, far far different than what weird.

Speaker 6 (13:01):
Sorry, it's so weird that how he had said that
he wanted truth and transparency during his podcast, and now
when he goes on and he talks, you can look
in his face and you can tell he's lying.

Speaker 5 (13:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (13:15):
Absolutely, So that leads us to our first story on
tonight's show. You have Alexis Wilkins, which is Cash Betel's
girlfriend that some are saying allegedly maybe definitely not a
honeypot to a foreign intelligence operation. And what I will
say about Alexis Wilkins is that, for sure, she is

(13:37):
a sensational country singer. According to cash MATEL and his
ex tweet two months ago from the FBI director's account
on x.

Speaker 5 (13:44):
I just want to make sure that everybody knows, and he.

Speaker 6 (13:47):
Went on the official account right the FBI.

Speaker 4 (13:49):
Absolutely, I'm pretty sure, yeah, And I think maybe he
later may have deleted the official FBI account tweet on that,
but yeah, he definitely did this. So there were some
people criticizing already Alexis Wilkins a couple of months ago.
And so Cash Battel and Alexis Wilkins have been in
a relationships since twenty twenty three.

Speaker 5 (14:09):
So I go back a little bit.

Speaker 4 (14:12):
If you guys have been following the show for even
six months, I go back a little bit to say this.
I had talked about when Cash Battel. This was right
after Donald Trump became president, and I remember when on
X there was this mass movement. And I say mass movement,

(14:34):
I'm talking about specific influencers on X that made these
hashtags go viral on X. And these hashtags were things
like nobody but Cash that was one of them, right,
And so a lot of these hashtags started going viral
because you had people that were mega influencers on X,

(14:54):
probably and most likely paid by the Republican Party or
some pack. And the reason I say most likely is
because we have witnessed this on almost every single issue,
whether it be Charlie Kirk, whether it be against Candies
and Tucker Carlson, Thomas Massey Marjorie Taylor Green. All these
same people are also in unison trying to destroy their reputations.

(15:15):
They're trying to do everything they can to create a
narrative and make things trend against these people right now,
because whether they're critical of Israel, whether they're critical of
the Charlie Kirk assassination investigation, whether they are critical of
the Epstein file release and the response by the Trump
administration on how they are responding to the Epstein files.

(15:36):
But these same people, we're also the same people. They
got these viral movements on X going leading up to
Cash Bettel's appointment as FBI director. So when I say
that back then, when if you went on social media,
you would think that it was every person on the
planet that wanted Cash Betel as FBI director. You would
think that, right, because you go on X this and

(15:59):
not just that, but I think it was also on
some other social media's, but mostly on X.

Speaker 5 (16:03):
You saw everybody talking about it.

Speaker 4 (16:04):
You saw it in your news feed, you saw it
on the trending tab, you saw it everywhere, and everyone
felt like, this is the movement, this is the thing
that we all have to do because we can't allow
anybody but Cash Betel in so the reason I'm saying
all this so Alexis Wilkins becomes Cash Betel's girlfriend in
twenty twenty three, which is prior to the twenty twenty

(16:25):
four election.

Speaker 5 (16:26):
I also have.

Speaker 4 (16:27):
Wondered, as I just kind of went through with you guys,
whether or not Cash Betel already knew that he was
going to become the FBI director prior to anyone ever
even talking about on social media. Obviously we didn't one
hundred percent know whether Trump was going to actually be
elected in twenty twenty four, although he won in a landslide,

(16:48):
But it begs the question about like maybe he was
already Maybe the system, the deep state, whoever knew that, Hey,
this is the we're picking to run the FBI. Pam
Bondi is the person we're picking also to run the DOJ,
which also just oddly has something to do. She was

(17:10):
the Attorney General in Florida. Now not necessarily during the
time that they were given Epstein the sweetheart deal, but
I think she proceeded the AG after that.

Speaker 5 (17:20):
How much did you know about all that? And maybe even.

Speaker 4 (17:23):
I have no idea, but it is coincidental, right, do
we have panm BONDI there you have cash Fortel. I
do think these people were appointed. Obviously they were appointed,
but what I'm saying is like, were they pre appointed,
pre predicted and re controlled by the deep state. Because
what I will say, and this is what I said
in the beginning, I think all of us want MAGA,

(17:44):
we want make America great again. Unfortunately, right now the
MAGA movement is not just fractured, it's not just cracked.
I think it is broken, and I think it is devastated.
I think that within the MAGA movement you have people
that are one hundred percent of America first, anti corruption, transparency,
all of that. And then you also have people that
are just pro party lines. They are followers, they are

(18:08):
Trump or nobody. They are you know, they are we
can only vote Trump, we can only love Trump, we
can only be loyal to Trump. Are King, you know,
That's the only person. And some of these people, by
the way, that make you think that are likely paid
by whatever packet is to make influence on you.

Speaker 5 (18:27):
Right.

Speaker 4 (18:28):
It's the same thing with a couple of podcasts ago
when Marjorie Taylor Green said just like that, other nations
need to register us through fara to make sure that
we know who is INFLUENCD in US politics. Whether it
be Israel or whoever, Ukraine, UK doesn't matter. We need
to start looking into influencers and who they're paid and

(18:51):
influenced by, including by the way. I think it should
be a parent that if an influencer is talking and
has a huge following, I think you should know whether
they're being paid by the Democrat Party.

Speaker 6 (19:01):
I think that should be happening, yeah, for.

Speaker 4 (19:03):
Sure, or the Republican Party or whoever. We should know
all of that, but we don't, unfortunately, And so right
now there's this massive war on information and they want
you all to believe that the people that you have
followed for a very long time are still the exact
same people that you have always followed. And I have
noticed a huge difference in some of these people, you know,

(19:26):
And I think if you're smart, if you're just kind
of have some street smarts, you can kind of get
some of this.

Speaker 5 (19:32):
Now.

Speaker 4 (19:32):
The reason why they went after the people that you've
always followed. I always go back to the Jojo Siwa thing.
Jojo Siwa build up this huge following. They pushed her
to the atmosphere, right and then she came out at
s LGBTQ, even though now she's dating a guy, which
is also very strange. But they pushed her in this
LGBTQ thing to where it was like when she turned

(19:54):
seventeen eighteen years old, all these girls, all these girls
that were following her, that looked up to her and
thought that JoJo's it was like God, now all of
a sudden, she's promoting LGBTQ.

Speaker 5 (20:04):
The weird thing about Jojo Sewan now is like she's
dating a guy.

Speaker 4 (20:08):
So like, how LGBTQ was she or was this some
type of psyop intelligence?

Speaker 6 (20:13):
It is sure a b label in there, like I
don't know bisexual, well there is, but I mean, and
that's possible, but it's just weird and now she's dating
a guy.

Speaker 5 (20:21):
Anyways, I'm saying all that to say this.

Speaker 4 (20:23):
Elijah Schaeffern He is a conservative podcaster and CEO of
Riff TV. He is being sued by Alexis Wilkins for
five million dollars in defamation lawsuit filed on.

Speaker 5 (20:34):
October twenty eight, twenty twenty five.

Speaker 4 (20:36):
In the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
So Wilkins a country singer and girlfriend of FBI director
Cash Bettel, claims Schaeffer's wordless retweet on September fourteenth, twenty
twenty five, on a post about the massage use of
female agents, falsely implied she was an Israeli spy in
a honeypot operation targeting PTEL. She alleges this caused harassment

(21:00):
and reputational harm and that Shaeffer acted with actual malice
for engagement and profit. Shaeffer has called the suit delusional
and paranoid, arguing it aims to silence critics of Israel's
influence in US policy. Okay, now, before we get to
Shaeffer's video response to this actual lawsuit, I want to

(21:20):
point out something that the lawsuit actually says. There's something
in here that says that he acted with actual malice.
Let me tell you why that matters in a lawsuit.
When they say that you were acting in malice, which
means you are intentional with what you're trying to do.
The entire reason that they put that in a lawsuit
from the beginning is not necessarily to win more money

(21:42):
in the lawsuit. Really, it's actually it goes beyond that.
So if they think that they're going to win the lawsuit,
whether it's a jury trial or a judge, the actual
malice clause in the lawsuit. If they win and then
say that you you are worth five million dollars, which
Elijah Shaeffer is, which we'll get into in a minute,

(22:05):
then you have to go and file bankruptcy. So if
you go and file bankruptcy, you're like, well, shit, I
don't have I can't give you five million dollars. And
if I won and they issue a judgment and they say, well,
here's what you got to pay, five million dollars. Sorry,
this is the way it is, and then you're like, well,
I'm filing bankruptcy right chapter eleven. Chapter eleven is the
best bankruptcy to file, especially in a situation like that,

(22:27):
if you lost the lawsuit with that big of a number.
I mean, we know numbers way bigger in our losses,
but anyway, but five million dollars is still a lot
of money that a lot of.

Speaker 5 (22:37):
People just don't have readily available.

Speaker 4 (22:40):
And so the reason why they put malice in the
clause is because you do if you do go and
file bankruptcy, well, bankruptcy can actually deny you from filing
bankruptcy if they have found that you did whatever you
did in that lawsuit with malice, meaning with intention, so
you may not be afforded bankruptcy. You know protections right

(23:01):
under malice and so then you know, you'll take it
from a state court, which is where this is being held,
Florida State Court. And then if they win and then
it was found with malice with intention, then you go
to a federal bankruptcy court because obviously that's what you're
going to do. And then all and then their lawyers,
the same people that sued you in state court, are
going to show up at the bankruptcy federal court and

(23:23):
they're going to argue that, look, here we found him
with malice and intention, which means that he cannot claim
bankruptcy on this cause, which means that your life will
be destroyed unless you have some type of intervention. I mean,
they will come to your house. They will they will
take everything from you. You won't be able to sit
on a freaking couch in your house.

Speaker 6 (23:41):
Any because you have to take inventory of everything you own,
including your couches, your chairs, everything, your TVs, your bicycles.

Speaker 7 (23:48):
Everything.

Speaker 4 (23:49):
Yes, yeah, if you have anything of any value at all,
Like it's gone and it's not going to be protected
as long as they find it with malice. So the
reason I wanted to mention that, and Elijah Shaeffer, I
don't even one hundred percent note realizes that particular message
or I guess intent in that lawsuit. But that's what
it means, and that's why they say that. But before
you play that, tell me again. Okay, So he posted

(24:12):
on x there was a he reposted something else. But
on his repost he just simply posted a picture of her.
Now well he no, he so he posted a someone
else's tweet, right, it was someone else's tweet, and he said, look,
you know he didn't say anything. He said, here's the tweet.
Someone else was saying something. And it was not even

(24:34):
Elijah Shaver that said anything. Elijah Shaver literally it was
a never orless tweet. Yes, never said anything about Alexis
Wilkins being a honeypot.

Speaker 5 (24:42):
For those that do not know what a honeypot is.

Speaker 4 (24:44):
A honeypot is when an intelligence agency or a country
sends over some beautiful woman. And like let's just take
for example, Eric Swawell, he's dating some Chinese girl or
was and she was obviously a spy, but you know,
they said her over started dating a congressman and you know,

(25:05):
who knows what secrets that she was obtaining for the
Chinese Communist Party on behalf of this girl that was
dating Eric Swawall. And I don't even know if he
still will with her or not, but nonetheless it's very
important that we should. You know, it is of intrigue
for us to kind of wonder who someone is dating,
especially if you're FBI director. And so this whole conspiracy

(25:29):
theory online has said that this Alexis Wilkins country singer
is a honeypot for Israel. That's essentially what the conspiracy
theory has been about. Now is that true or not?
We'll get into that in just a little bit, But
I do want to go ahead and get into Ian
Schaeffer's response to the lawsuit. This was his video he released,

(25:50):
and we will break down this video because guys, whether
you know it or not, we do know a little
thing or two about almost exactly what he's going through.
But bigger, actually, I mean it's our situation was a
bigger situation. We were against bigger people, bigger money. YEP,
I can say this. I mean, we kind of had
people within the US government help us out in the
very end, or else we would have been screwed because

(26:11):
of certain wording and money and influence and the power
that these people had that we were kind of backed up.

Speaker 5 (26:18):
Against a wall.

Speaker 4 (26:19):
We went through two or three years of hell for
this over something that we were absolutely not guilty of.
It was complete bullshit and we kind of got left
out to dry by certain fashion.

Speaker 6 (26:29):
I just want to mention too, I think that when
somebody files a lawsuit or suing somebody, it's not about
what's in the lawsuit, it's what's backing the lawsuit.

Speaker 5 (26:40):
Absolutely, yeah, it doesn't matter.

Speaker 6 (26:41):
What's in the money that's backing it. And it's also
who's backing it as far as the judges.

Speaker 4 (26:47):
Yeah, So in our situation, there was there was foreign
there was foreign things involved in our in our stuff,
and they had all the money in the world, they
had all the they even had we're talking about foreign
influence in the people that went after us that also
had judges on their payroll in Florida, keep in mind.

Speaker 7 (27:09):
And that's where we were being sued out at them.

Speaker 4 (27:11):
Yes, yeah, we want to want to we don't want
to go too deep in all of that, but either way,
let's get into Elijah Schaeffer's video response to the lawsuit
and we'll break it down in detail because this is
very important, guys. This is very important, especially for US
citizens and in particular journalists that want to criticize someone.

Speaker 5 (27:29):
In their government or even maybe their girlfriend. Here you go.

Speaker 9 (27:34):
Over the weekend I received concerning news that I was
being sued for five million dollars by Cash Bettel's girlfriend,
Alexis Wilkins. And the reason why I might actually shock you.
About a couple months ago, I posted this photo on
the public social media platform x. I posted it with
no caption, no suggestions of any mal intent or any slander,

(27:58):
defonation or criticis of character. I did so attached to
an ex post shared by another account that I'm not
connected to that talked about.

Speaker 7 (28:07):
Government agents being compromised.

Speaker 9 (28:09):
Now, Alexis Wilkins is saying that I owe her five
million dollars for damages the exact evaluation of my company,
and if I cannot come up with that money, that
I'm going to have to shut down my business, give
up all of my digital assets, and my entire voice
online in order to pay her back. So why does
cash Pttel's girlfriend want to silence me? Well, it comes

(28:31):
down to the lawsuit itself.

Speaker 4 (28:32):
I want to pause for a second. Alexis Wilkins is
suing Elijah Shaeffer and his company for five million dollars.
Why is that important? Well, that's the exact evaluation of
his company. Okay, So then you go to ask yourself, well,
could attorneys know like it, Like, say that you were

(28:53):
being sued and the other party had their attorneys, right,
say a couple attorneys whoever.

Speaker 7 (28:57):
Was well through discovery?

Speaker 4 (28:58):
No?

Speaker 5 (28:59):
Yeah, but they've not even got there. They literally just suit.

Speaker 4 (29:01):
So but would they be able to find out your
evaluation of your company just his attorneys. No, they can't
unless it's somewhere publicly known, which is likely not the
case because we're talking about assets, We're talking about all
this stuff. They're not going to know this. The only
way they do know this, like you said, is through discovery.
That's why they do discovery. They want to know everything

(29:22):
you have, every amount of money that they can possibly
take from you, that is through discovery. And so to me,
this sounds like although Cash Buttel supposedly isn't involved in this,
which we'll get into. Somebody knows exactly how much Elijah
Schaeffer's assets are worth, and they are going after his

(29:42):
five million dollar asset evaluation as a message to say,
we know, bro, exactly how much money you're worth.

Speaker 5 (29:50):
But he goes on, here you go.

Speaker 9 (29:53):
Before anyone jumps a conclusion that says, well, don't say
that she's a honeypot. I'd like to say I never did.
I never would felt like suggesting that, never even suggested
that in my own head. So why am I being
sued for something I never did? To give proof of that.
In section fourteen of the lawsuit, it states while the
defendant may not have included any caption to spell out

(30:13):
the meaning of his post, he didn't have to. Ever,
since cash Ptel was appointed as Director of the FBI
in February of twenty twenty five, the conspiratorial corners of
the Internet and social media have been spreading false narratives
about miss Wilkins as an Israeli Masaud agent, spy or
quote honeypot who is only in the relationship with Cash
Ptel to spy on and manipulate the United States government.

Speaker 7 (30:36):
Defendant's wordless reply.

Speaker 9 (30:38):
It goes on to say, so to clarify before we
go any further, if you post a public photo of
a government official and his romantic partner who he's not
married to, a very important.

Speaker 7 (30:50):
Fact we'll talk about.

Speaker 9 (30:51):
You, as a private citizen or a member of the press,
can be bankrupted, have your entire company shut down, or
completely mock slandered and dragged through law there because of
what because of your First Amendment protected rights. Now, I
believe that this lawsuit is not only attack on our
First Amendment and our constitutional rights given to us by God,
but I believe this is also a violation of slap ordinances.

(31:14):
This seems to be a proxy lawsuit if anything from
Cash Patel himself and I have the evidence to prove it.
We'll start here by talking about what is this lawsuit
about and why is it so concerning? As I just
read in the previous section, Alexis Wilkins states that I
never said anything about her being a massad agent. So

(31:34):
how am I being sued for saying anything about that?
Considering I'm being sued for things I didn't say. Yeah,
you heard that right, They're suing me for the implications
based upon previous posts I had made on my ex account,
not about Alexis, not about cash, but about the state

(31:55):
of Israel.

Speaker 5 (31:56):
All right, I want to stop for a second. We
got to make some very clear.

Speaker 4 (32:00):
Elijah Shaeffer shared a post that someone else said. He
did not say anything on it. It was a just
a retweet or a requote or whatever. He didn't say anything.
And so all the evidence, though in lawsuit which he's
about to go over, has nothing to do with him
actually saying anything about Alexis Wilkins being a honeypot.

Speaker 5 (32:19):
But he doesn't even necessarily believe that she is a honeypot.

Speaker 6 (32:22):
But let's just say in this post, he posts the
retweet and it says these are the honeypots of you know,
Israel or whatever. And then that's like the underlying post,
the message, the message or whatever. And then he reposts
with just a simple picture of her. I get where
that could be implied. And then he talks about a

(32:45):
slap lawsuit. What a slap lawsuit is filed not to
win on facts, but to intimidate or silence or financially
drain someone who is speaking out on a public issue.
And so these are often used by powerful people or
entities to shut down critics, journalists, podcasters, or act stivist
and slap ordinance or anti slap law a rule law
that protects people from being sued just for speaking out.

(33:07):
It allows the person being sued to quickly ask the
court to throw the case out and sometimes even forces
the person who filed the slap to pay legal fees.
So a slap ordinance essentially protects free speech and stops
lawsuits meant to scare people into shutting them up. And
that is what Elijah Shaeffer is claimant is happening with
him right now because he does not believe that this

(33:30):
lawsuit even is about Alexis Wilkins. He believes it's about
something deeper, which he's about to go into the evidentiary
part of the lawsuit and what it actually says. It
might blow your mind.

Speaker 4 (33:41):
Maybe it doesn't, but it does blow my mind of
what their evidence is against him with Alexis Wilkins.

Speaker 7 (33:46):
Listen, I take you to section seventeen of evidence.

Speaker 9 (33:51):
Defendant frequently posts anti Israel rhetoric accusing Israel of controlling
the United States and its politicians, in which they share
a post that I said Trump doesn't want to admit
that Netanyahu doesn't fear him. Israel has more control over
the USA than we do over them. Our politicians, our
hook line and sinker sold out to the Jewish state
of regime. It's genuinely disheartening, and we must remove these

(34:14):
parasites from a pack.

Speaker 7 (34:16):
They also posted more evidence in the lawsuit.

Speaker 9 (34:19):
Nothing to do with Alexis Wilkins, nothing to do with
cash Ptel, and nothing to do with me saying anything
about her being a Massaud agent. I never said it,
so they don't have evidence. So why is it that
they've made the entire lawsuit about my thoughts on the
Israeli government. That's highly suspicious. They also posted more evidence
where I said my entire feet is just about people

(34:40):
glazing Israel and defending the occupation of our nation. It's
incredible it all happened after the forced TikTok sale. In
behalf of the ADL, I also said, you either get
Israel control, politicians who hate you, or foreigners who hate you.

Speaker 7 (34:52):
Welcome to America.

Speaker 9 (34:53):
I hate it here and one of the last posts
they put there's many many more that I'll read is
it breaks my heart that Trump. What could he could
have been if he wasn't a slave to Israel.

Speaker 7 (35:03):
Tragic.

Speaker 9 (35:05):
Now, if you're like me and you're wondering, what did
I possibly do to receive a lawsuit for five million
dollars which they suspiciously got the exact valuation of my
intellectual property, that would force me to shut down and
apologize and turn over all my assets to the district court.
That would require me to turn over communications in discovery,

(35:27):
which I'll talk about what we're planning on doing and
how we're going to be responding to this. I'm going
to tell you this is a very dangerous precedent for
the American people because the entire evidentiary case they have
against me is that I do not support Israel, that
I do not believe that Americans are free, that we
are occupied by Israel, and that my criticisms of Cash

(35:50):
are why this is filed. Now, let's talk about this.
I want to clarify these things. I never said anything
about Alexis Wilkins period. She said that I had a
wordless reply. Sounds dystopian, doesn't it. She also said I
didn't imply anything about her being a Massaud agent. In fact,
it says that I just posted a picture of our

(36:11):
unmarried head of intelligence in our country, one of the
single most important positions in the world.

Speaker 7 (36:18):
That is dating a girl who we know nothing about.

Speaker 9 (36:21):
He is not married and committed relationship by law, that's important,
and he's on the dating market. Do you want your
FBI director to be on the dating market? I just
think it's interesting whether he's with her or anybody else.
It's like, yeah, people, can you know, be susceptible towards
whatever is going on? And that's not even why I
posted the photo, but well people could be. So what
would be wrong if somebody even did imply that? I

(36:43):
didn't imply it. But it's like, even if they're accusing
me of doing what they say I did, is there
a crime in just wondering if your intelligence agencies are
being led by uncompromised individuals. No, obviously not. Look at
James O'Keefe's entire investigative portal. He literally finds unmarried government officials,
intelligence operatives from the CIA, and he sets them up

(37:04):
on fake dates, uses them to get sensitive information, and
then compromises entire departments.

Speaker 7 (37:10):
It happens all the time.

Speaker 9 (37:12):
Americans have the right to question if that's happening to
anyone in our government, doesn't matter if they're a private
citizen or a public figure like miss Wilkins, who, by
the way, Casha said, is a public figure.

Speaker 7 (37:23):
He boasts all the time.

Speaker 9 (37:24):
She's one of the most popular country singers of all time.
She's also a pregger You commentator, another organization tied to
the IDF and Israeli government, allegedly.

Speaker 4 (37:35):
Yeah, so, and I want to make something very clear
about pregger You. I'm sure that many of you, especially
if you're conservative, I have seen stuff about preger U.

Speaker 5 (37:43):
It's all over Fox News. They have commercials, they have everything.

Speaker 4 (37:46):
Is kind of like a movement similar to Turning Point USA,
but it's like to push conservative values and whatever. Dennis
Prager is I believe the founder but also the CEO
of preger You was a high up in the Israeli
Defense Force IDF. She and so I believe that she
had worked up under potentially the IDF. I don't know

(38:07):
exactly how that went, but she worked for peger You.
She had close connections. Now, does this mean that she's
a honeypot? No, it doesn't. But is it sue worthy?
I guess for five million dollars to question whether or
not your FBI director in your government could potentially have
a girlfriend that may be a honeypot. That is what

(38:29):
people have questioned. That is their questions they have asked,
and it just seems eerily suspicious that yes, he did
share a photo, right, and then then he retweeted a
post about the potential of foreign intelligence to use honeypots
to get closer to sources like FBI directors or Department

(38:50):
of Justice heads or whoever.

Speaker 5 (38:52):
This is what intelligence agencies do.

Speaker 4 (38:54):
Like if you get hired by the CIA, if you
go to the farm and you do all this stuff
looking for people like teachers, they're looking for regular people,
but they're also looking for hot women. They're looking for
attractive guys. They're looking for people that are just on
the line of sociopath but not quite that far. They

(39:14):
want them like to have the sociopath tendencies, but also
they want them to have the other characteristics that really
benefit their mission, whatever that mission is. Right, So, if
you are hired or employed by the CIA to go
over and try to get close to, say, the head
of the Iranian regime, number one, you probably want to

(39:34):
find someone that's non American. You want to find someone
that has foreign descent or at least maybe even Iranian descent,
so you'll likely usually bring over someone from Iran, the
hottest girl you can possibly find, if there is a
position in that government right that has a single man
and that you could potentially introduce this person in a

(39:54):
whatever situation to where you can get them close enough.
And this girl, by the way, whoever you're going to
send over, they're going to be through intense psychological training
for maybe years, maybe a year or two to where
they know how to manipulate, get in there, understand how
to get close to this person. Everything is completely coordinated

(40:18):
by the CIA. If a CIA operation Masad does the
exact same things, they do the exact same things. I mean,
we go back to we go back to any CIA
guy that has ever dealt with Masad, and they'll all
tell you, like even when they go in CI headquarters,
they bug the they bug the building. If you go
to Israel as an operative or even a military asset

(40:41):
or anybody in the United States, like they check every
single thing about you. They will even show up in
your hotel room while you're not there and go through
all your shit. And although you'll never know that they
were there unless you see something a little out of
place and they look for that stuff.

Speaker 7 (40:56):
Now.

Speaker 5 (40:56):
But intelligence agencies are smart.

Speaker 4 (40:58):
I mean, you know, think about a angry they.

Speaker 7 (41:01):
Are very smart.

Speaker 4 (41:02):
Think about a well, think about an angry wife that
thinks that their husband's cheating, and think about all of
the very clever ways that she can figure that out,
whether it's tracking devices, getting on phones late at night,
just whatever, like figuring out things. This is a woman scorned,
This is a woman pissed off. Imagine what an entire
intelligence agency can do with their training, with their expertise,

(41:25):
with their manipulation and their years of this stuff.

Speaker 6 (41:29):
And guess what they're doing. They're manipulating men with hot
sexy girls.

Speaker 4 (41:33):
Absolutely well, that's I mean, that's the best way you
can possibly do it. I mean, like, if you want
the best movie of an intelligence operative, some of the
best intelligence operatives in the universe are the hottest chicks ever.
I mean, they're the hottest women because they have you know,
just think about it, Chad.

Speaker 6 (41:51):
I forgot to mention that I am a Masad agent.

Speaker 5 (41:55):
Yeah, I'm sure you are.

Speaker 8 (41:56):
I know.

Speaker 6 (41:58):
I was going to tell you now for your birthday
massage massage.

Speaker 5 (42:03):
Yeah, maybe you are a massage agent. Now I believe
the massage agent. But that's even worse.

Speaker 4 (42:11):
I think, I guess does that mean happy ending, because
that's worse than massage.

Speaker 6 (42:17):
Yeah, I did not tell you that either.

Speaker 4 (42:21):
Yeah, in the basement that we don't have, I was
wondering why you wanted to dig that basement down there.

Speaker 5 (42:27):
With a red light door.

Speaker 4 (42:29):
And yeah, anyways, so Sherry is a massage agent, he says,
which is horrible.

Speaker 5 (42:36):
I think that's way worse than massage. Dude, I don't know.

Speaker 4 (42:39):
I'm an anti massage just now, not anyways, But my
point to this is is that they utilize very beautiful women.
Intelligence agencies do that all the time. And look at
Eric Swawell with his Chinese uh girlfriend. I don't even
know if he's married to or what happened with that,
but you know that went away pretty fast. But now,

(43:00):
like if anyone's even potentially implicating this girl to have
any ties with Israel, which keep in mind, I have
no idea. I'm not saying she's a honeypot. I don't know.
I mean, I literally don't know would I say that
she is. I mean, if you look it up on
chat GBT, she has technically no ties to Israel besides
a brief stint with pegor U. But the better and

(43:21):
bigger question about this lawsuit is that why is all
their evidence geared towards Israel and what Ian Shaefer has
said in the past about Israel and not about what
he said about cash Matel's girlfriend.

Speaker 5 (43:34):
It just doesn't make sense anyways.

Speaker 7 (43:36):
Well'll tell you this. I have to ask yourself the
question here.

Speaker 9 (43:41):
If the head of the FBI girlfriend is suing a
private citizen and a journalist for posting a picture without
any inference, based only on the evidence that he criticized
a foreign government, we have to ask ourselves. Not only
is Alexis Wilson foolish stupid? That's my question? How dumb

(44:02):
are you that you would file this lawsuit. You're making
a mockery of yourself, your own intelligence, you make embarrassing
your boyfriend. Most importantly, you're embarrassing the FBI, the United
States government, and overall the Trump administration with your foolish
attempt to try to intimidate and bully someone from being

(44:23):
able to use their First Amendment right.

Speaker 7 (44:26):
So I asked myself these two questions. Does cash Battel
know about this.

Speaker 9 (44:31):
Well, if he doesn't, and he doesn't know that his
girlfriend is waging million dollar lawsuits using according to Max
Blumenthal in the gray zone, she's using cash Btel's legal resources,
his own law firm. She's using the FBI director's law firm.
Now that's Max Blumenthal's reporting. We'll see if that turns
out to be true. Well, if he doesn't, what kind

(44:51):
of FBI director doesn't know that his girlfriend is filing
frivolous lawsuits against the press for an ungogly amount of money,
using his attorneys and his name to weaponize the legal
system against the journalists and a media company.

Speaker 4 (45:04):
Yeah, and there's no way, by the way, that cash
Hotel does not know about this lawsuit.

Speaker 7 (45:08):
Oh for sure not.

Speaker 4 (45:09):
Keep in mind this video we're playing right now. It
was released to see was it today? I think it
was today. She got eight point nine million views already.

Speaker 6 (45:20):
Yeah, So that would cash Hotel not know this.

Speaker 7 (45:22):
Is going on?

Speaker 4 (45:23):
No, I mean, it's like the number one trending thing
on x so's I mean, and allegedly that Alexis Wilkins
is using cash Betel's law firm as the law firm.

Speaker 6 (45:35):
Yeah, and that's pretty crazy. But have you ever heard
of her as far as a country star.

Speaker 5 (45:40):
No, absolutely not.

Speaker 6 (45:41):
I haven't either. No, I'm gonna have to look up
her videos.

Speaker 4 (45:43):
No, if you look it up on like mainstream media
or any of the posts, they'll talk about. She has
this massive following of ninety thousand followers on Instagram.

Speaker 5 (45:52):
Oh boy, ninety.

Speaker 7 (45:54):
She's really big.

Speaker 5 (45:55):
She is really big.

Speaker 6 (45:57):
She's really small, but she's really big.

Speaker 5 (45:59):
I gues yea, he's very big. She's very big, huge,
greatest you've ever seen. Anyways.

Speaker 9 (46:07):
Now if he does know, this is a proxy lawsuit
now by Cash Patel, the FBI Director of the USA.
And now this is problematic because now you have the
most powerful law enforcement agency in the entire country trying
to stop private citizens from posting public pictures. I guess
they don't like, are we allowing ourselves to do that?

Speaker 7 (46:25):
Are they allowed to do that? I don't think so.

Speaker 9 (46:27):
So now of course we're on the fence here if
we allow Cash and his girlfriend, who are now obviously
this lawsuit wasn't about her, entirely deviated from anything about her.
It was all about my criticisms of Cash. The way
Cash has been under stress and again paints me as
an anti Semite. Now why would they do that, Well,
there's only two reasons. Either A they're trying to make

(46:48):
the court think I'm a bad person so that the
rule in her favor by smearing me and slandering me
with unrelated facts. Or B that's what this lawsuit is about.
And I believe the ladder. They're both true. With the ladder,
this lawsuit is about isolencing critics of Israel.

Speaker 7 (47:02):
Now, this kind of stuff.

Speaker 9 (47:03):
Happens in Australia where they don't have God given rights,
it happens.

Speaker 7 (47:06):
In the UK.

Speaker 9 (47:07):
But the fact is, well, she might argue, you know, hey,
she's a public figure, she's not a government official. But
if she's using the director's law firm, this is very serious.
This is a proxy lawsuit to bully me, the American people,
a small independent media company, into not being able to
comment on our elected and appointed government officials, their affairs,
and their public life.

Speaker 7 (47:28):
We are taking this on full force.

Speaker 9 (47:30):
My company will not be intimidated by government officials. Their
proxies are Trump's inner circle. We did not take money
from Mary Madelson. And here at the RIFTTV going to
riftv dot com, we are asking you guys to support
us in this legal fight, because again we have been
implicated on nothing.

Speaker 7 (47:46):
We have been accused of nothing. We have been told
that we said nothing wrong. We have never been accused
of lying. And by any fact, there's.

Speaker 9 (47:54):
Nothing in this lawsuit that states that we did anything criminal, libel,
or defamatory. All at states and you can see the
documents there at the grey Zone article linked here. All
it states is that we are critical of Israel and
therefore we are endangering her reputation and her husband's or
her boyfriend, whatever they are.

Speaker 7 (48:11):
We don't know what they are, and that is enough
to ruin your life.

Speaker 4 (48:15):
Do you I want to say something too. I was
just thinking about this. You know, he talks about Miriam
Miriam Adelson here, which is she is a US co
citizen with Israel, and she is a billionaire. I believe
she's heavily funding the opposition against Thomas Massey right now
because Thomas Massey has questioned things and you know, he's
actually got this vote about to come out that I

(48:38):
think he has the votes for now Congress to be
able to vote on it. I think in December, which
by the way, they're having a a all hands on
all people at the table meeting, I believe tonight or
tomorrow about that.

Speaker 5 (48:51):
The files, Yes, yeah, I mean Cash.

Speaker 4 (48:53):
Mattel, Pam Bondi, all of them are coming to the table.
I think it's tonight. They're having an emergency meeting about
the potential vote coming up in December.

Speaker 5 (49:02):
This is weird. This is weird.

Speaker 4 (49:04):
But either way, one of the thing I was thinking
with Miriam Adelson when he talks about her, which obviously
she heavily funded Trump too in his campaign. She's heavily
tied to Israel. But regardless of that, here's what I
think that it should be. If you are running for
either a political office or so if you're going to
go Congress, Senate, president, whatever, I think that you should

(49:27):
take taxpayer dollars to fund every person's campaign, like if
the people are voting for politicians, whether it be president
or Congress or Senate. Right, instead of allowing these outside
factions to fund your campaign, you should separate and set
aside a certain amount of money from your taxpayer dollars. Because,

(49:50):
I mean, think about all the bullshit that we send
our taxpayer dollars to. Think about Ukraine, think about Israel,
think about all this stuff. Take all that money instead
of funding these foreign nations. Let's take all of those
billions and billions of dollars and let's put in a
fund and anyone that wants to run for office. You then,
once to get past a certain point, right, you then

(50:11):
fund their campaigns equally to where then there is no
outside influence. It is all funded by US taxpayer dollars
and it is strictly based on message. It should be
illegal that there are outside funders or packs that the
influencer fund government politicians.

Speaker 6 (50:29):
They should at least say, you know, I received these
funds from this foreign industry or foreign country or whatever,
and I'm using this money for my campaign. I think
that that should be like a.

Speaker 4 (50:43):
Well, I mean it kind of already is though. I
mean you can usually look up like how people are funded,
who they're funded by. It doesn't matter because once they're
funded by those factions of people, they have to do
what those people want them to do.

Speaker 7 (50:54):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (50:54):
But the problem with APAC is it's not registered as
a foreign entity.

Speaker 4 (51:00):
Yeah, I mean, it's not registered as a foreign entity.
And that's what JFK was trying to do back in
the day. But even not just APAC I mean, think
about all the big tech influence, think about all of
the pharmaceutical influence and funders. You know, that's how you
know when you have drugs that kill people, when you
have the opioid crisis, when you have all this stuff.
The reason why that was allowed to happen is because

(51:22):
of these pharmaceutical companies that would fund the presidents and
the administrations at the time, that would let them get
away with murder essentially. And that's the problem. It's the
same thing with Israel, It's the same thing with Ukraine,
it's the same thing.

Speaker 5 (51:33):
With anybody else.

Speaker 4 (51:35):
We do not need outside influence of our politicians based
on either a CEO of a company or based on
a mega corporation or a foreign nation.

Speaker 5 (51:44):
We should not have any of that.

Speaker 4 (51:45):
And we have the funds to be able to fund
our politicians that are running and get to a certain
level where we can fund their campaigns equally. It's distributed
one hundred percent equally, and then we go through kind
of a voting system to it's kind of almost like
a Survivor or something, right, or a American idol, where
you get through this system based all on the taxpayer

(52:05):
dollars and then eventually you have your top candidates, and
that is the top candidates. It should be illegal, just
like insider trading should be illegal, which is a guess.
There's a vote about to happen finally about that. But
it should be illegal that anybody funds politicians at all, like,
because then you do not then whoever the politician is

(52:26):
will never have the best interest of their constituents at heart.
They're going to have the best interest of whoever is
making them to the point they are.

Speaker 5 (52:36):
At in this run, right, Yeah, and that's that.

Speaker 4 (52:39):
I mean, you have to be loyal to the people
that got you to where you're at exactly, and they're
they are completely I guess you can say, tied up
with their influence and their money. So I just wanted
to point that out. I know that's random, but I
did want to make that point. Here's a little more
because we got to get into some else I.

Speaker 7 (52:58):
Live in a country like that. Well, we're stiking back legally.

Speaker 9 (53:00):
We've attained one of the biggest legal teams in the
state of Florida in the Circuit Court, who has graciously
taken us on.

Speaker 7 (53:06):
We will be taking legal donations.

Speaker 9 (53:08):
There is a legal fund below to take on the
federal government, which we believe is doing this by proxy.
We are filing to dismiss this and pursue further legal discovery.
We'd like to obtain communications between Cash Pattel and his girlfriend,
to find out if he knew about these lawsuits, to
find out if she ever informed him, and to go
under discovery and under deposition to find out exactly what

(53:28):
went on.

Speaker 7 (53:29):
Now, she's not just asking for a legal lawsuit. She's
asking me.

Speaker 9 (53:32):
To go before a jury that's very important in a
district that's very unfriendly with people who think like me. Calculated,
of course it is. Now what does this mean for
the American people? If you can be sued by Trump's
inner circle into financial bankruptcy for protected speech. I would

(53:55):
like to say that this lawsuit, if at all even
entertained and not dismissed, is an all out retaliation over
free speech in this country, based solely in the predication
that I am critical of Israeli influence in our country.

Speaker 7 (54:07):
I believe these people have.

Speaker 9 (54:08):
Overstepped their boundaries as citizens of this country. They've overstepped
their legal boundaries as plaintiffs in a lawsuit. And I
also believe They've overstepped their boundaries as American representatives and
those in such high positions as being romantic partners and
directors of the FBI. This is a full on assault
on our First Amendment. And now you might be asking

(54:29):
why me, why Elijah Schaeffer. Well, I'm big enough that
they can send a message. You will see this video.
But I don't have the bank account of Tucker Carlson,
Nick Fuente's or Candice Owens. I'm just a little guy
like you guys, trying to make a little bit of
a difference what I can for my two beautiful sons,
my lovely wife, and the rest of my supporters who
care about the truth. Now, all the mentions about my

(54:53):
criticisms of the Israeli government in the lawsuit, it's completely
irrelevant here, and we still want to know and discovery
why they decide to include that as the entirety of
the document. It's all about Israel, and they're mentally probably
trying to silence anyone who's critical of their regime. Not
only would I like to say I will not be
retracting any of my criticisms of Israeli occupation of the

(55:14):
United States government, but I will continue to criticize our politicians,
Cash Battel and all others who are seeking to undermine
our ability to speak freely in this country.

Speaker 4 (55:25):
Look, all right, so there's Elijah Shaeffer in Look. I mean,
I do encourage you guys actually to go and support
Elijah Shaeffer. I do, And I'll tell you why. Elijah
Shaffer is kind of like us. I mean, he is
known as a conservative influencer, and I feel like there
are a lot of those people that literally helped Trump

(55:47):
and MAGA movement so heavily get into the position that
they are in, which is inside of the White House
on a second term, that because of the actions of
the administration. I think you guys should be looking at
people like Elijah Shaeffer and Thomas Massey or Candice Owens
or whoever. You guys should be looking at these people

(56:07):
and commend them on stepping out of the lines, even
when they were part of the reason why these people
are in office right now. You should not look at
these people as demonic or evil, even though that's what
mainstream and that's what the movement and that's what the
algorithms and the mass formation psychosis is telling you. You
guys should not be looking at them like that. You
guys should know better than that by now. You guys

(56:29):
should know better that if there's this mass movement to
criticize and kill and destroy someone based on their opinion
or based on their beliefs, or based on something they say,
or especially if it's maybe just a little bit outside
of what the official narrative is, those are the people
you need to follow.

Speaker 5 (56:45):
Because I'm telling you.

Speaker 4 (56:47):
I'm telling you just like we know, Elijah Shaeffer knows
as well, I can promise you when he criticizes things
like he has, whether it's Israel, and he's not just
Elijah Shaeffer is not just anti Israel. That's not his thing.
He's not even anti Israel. He Criticizesesro. He he doesn't
believe Israel should have an influence in our government, just
like we do, and just like a lot of people.

(57:09):
But he's so much deeper than that. As far as
the things that he's covered, the stuff he's talked about,
he was pivotal in the investigations into you know, especially
Hunter Biden, his involvement in Barisma, Ukraine, Russia Gate, all
these things that was very very important and monumental for

(57:32):
the Trump administration leading up to the election. Elijah Shaffer
and people like him were very important, same reason that
Candice Owens was very important in the reason why that
Trump is in office, the same reason that even you know,
for example, Nick Fuint does in a lot of ways,
although towards the end, you know, he was kind of
getting to where I even questioned Nick Fuinn does, like

(57:53):
are you an agent?

Speaker 5 (57:53):
Are you someone who's just trying to get people against Trump?

Speaker 6 (57:55):
Well, even Tucker Carlson thought he was.

Speaker 5 (57:58):
Yeah, Tucker Carlson giveness.

Speaker 6 (58:00):
As thought he was an agent. There's a lot of
people that thought he was.

Speaker 5 (58:04):
Also.

Speaker 4 (58:04):
What I'm saying is like Ian Carroll, you know, he
was this kind of RFK bro. He was going to
vote for RFK, and then RFK went to the Trump
administration to then Ian Carroll was like, hey, let's vote
for Trump because I think it's gonna be a good thing.
There's a lot of people that helped Trump get to
where he is that are influencers that are now the
administration is turning against And I think that this is

(58:25):
the first big movement with a lawsuit to where they're saying,
all right, you talked about Israel or you said something
that we didn't like. We're going to use this, you know,
this example, Yeah, this Wilkins girl, you know, Cash Matell's girlfriend.
We're going to use that as our reason to sue
you and silence you and shut you to hell up.

Speaker 6 (58:45):
But it's just crazy that they have a lawsuit based
on implying something.

Speaker 4 (58:51):
Yeah, it's bullshit. It's complete horseshit is. It's completely against
freedom of speech. It's against our First Amendment right. And
that's what's happening, you know. And so the reason why
I say, like, if you guys can support Ian Schaeffer,
I encourage you guys to do so. We are out
here trying to make a difference. That's what we are doing.
I think that's what Elijah's doing. I think that's what

(59:11):
Candice is doing. I think that's what a lot of
people out they are doing, don't. I don't see a
lot of the people that are kind of stepping a
little bit outside the boundaries as the ones that are grifters.
I'm actually seeing it completely differently. I think honestly, the
people now that are grifters, the people that are going
with the narrative or the grifters, because I think that
if you could go through their bank records, you're going

(59:32):
to see some funding coming from factions or packs of
groups that are funding these people to make sure that
their coordinated message is heard and understood. And I know
that you guys know based on our past podcast, we
had a close person that has been on this podcast
I believe is paid and influence now and unfortunately it's
fractured our relationship. We don't talk anymore, but I just

(59:57):
one hundred percent believe that he is paid an influence.

Speaker 6 (59:59):
So well, we get paid on ads and a lot
of times ads and a lot of time ads could
be like Gavin Newsomee, yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:00:07):
Exactly, Yeah, but we're not paid by any faction of people.
We're not paid by a political party. We're not paid
by anybody now. And you'll never, by the way, ever
hear us, no matter how big we could ever possibly get,
you would never hear us take a stance on something
because look the moment that you heard us start being
pro this or pro that one, when you guys are

(01:00:28):
looking at something the way that like I think our
audience looks at things like if you guys are like me,
which I think a lot of you are, because like
in our telegram, for example, you guys are welcome to
join our telegram. We have lives over there all the time.
We're a bunch of I don't know what the hell
you would call it crazy, Yeah, crazy people over there.
But when we have our lives, we talk about everything

(01:00:50):
and just talking to you guys that join our lives,
that join our telegram investigative conspiracy podcast telegram, when we
go on lives and we do audio chats and we
just talk with everybody. You know, one thing I know
about you guys, and I think there's there's a faction
of people that have come over to our telegram that
kind of represents not all of you, but some of you.
I think that most of you are smarter than what

(01:01:11):
the official narrative is on almost anything, right, And and
so I think that when we start seeing things completely
shift or people completely shift, I think that we're all
smarter than that.

Speaker 5 (01:01:23):
I really do.

Speaker 4 (01:01:24):
And it's interesting to see it happenfold and unfold, and
especially with people that maybe you've been close to it
for or or friends that you thought were friends and
maybe they still want to be your friend, but you
know they have this thing that they have to do
and have to accomplish right now. It's kind of like
a quest in a video game. It's like, no, I
got to do this, bro, I gotta do this quest.

Speaker 5 (01:01:43):
I mean I would I.

Speaker 6 (01:01:44):
Would want to turn this mushroom into something else.

Speaker 5 (01:01:47):
Yes, I would love.

Speaker 4 (01:01:48):
I would love to be your friends still, But like,
I have this quest and I got to do it
because I'm getting.

Speaker 5 (01:01:52):
Paid for it, right So that's the thing.

Speaker 4 (01:01:55):
I also want to play this last clip until we
get into the Donald Trump Epstein thing, which is not
going to be a very long segment because we got
to have some more stuff, but it is also very important.

Speaker 5 (01:02:05):
We got to talk about it.

Speaker 4 (01:02:06):
Here's what Candie Owens has to say about the Elijah
Shaeffer lawsuit.

Speaker 10 (01:02:10):
Listen, Sticking on a topic of liars and losers, Cash Battel,
he has to step down.

Speaker 11 (01:02:18):
There's no other option here.

Speaker 10 (01:02:20):
In case you missed it, Cash Betel the director of
the FBI who represents America on the world stage. Right,
we are already not being taken very seriously. But Cash
Mattel is catalyzing that descent. Okay, he is catalyzing that
descent into absolute mockery.

Speaker 11 (01:02:38):
He tweeted, I told you about that a couple of
weeks ago.

Speaker 10 (01:02:41):
Leave my girlfriend alone, and then we see you guys,
and like she's my life partner, Like you left your wife.

Speaker 11 (01:02:47):
You've been with this girl for like a year and
a half.

Speaker 10 (01:02:49):
Calm down, okay, just calm down like a teenager in love.

Speaker 11 (01:02:53):
It's ridiculous. Well, now his.

Speaker 10 (01:02:56):
Girlfriend turns out is suing Eliza Shaeffer and other content
creators for five million dollars. For five million dollars for
her hurt feelings. Okay, because she was called a honeypot,
an Israeli honeypot, and in some circumstances. I want to
be very clear, they didn't even explicitly call her a honeypot.

(01:03:17):
They just posted a picture that was a circumstance. In
terms of Elijah Shaeffer, I should actually read some parts
of this lawsuit so that you understand that we are
not a serious nation anymore. Right, we are not a
serious nation, and it's important that you come to that
conclusion quite quickly.

Speaker 11 (01:03:30):
Okay, where are we?

Speaker 10 (01:03:34):
So they this is directly from a lawsuit says that
on September fourteenth, twenty twenty five, an ex user that
goes by. Hen Mazig published a lengthy and detailed post
about the prominent role of female masade agents have played
in Israel's sophisticated intelligence efforts against Iran, including by seducing

(01:03:56):
top officials, and that some of them reportedly used high
ranking enemy officials now. In response to the comments, on
that same day, Elijah Shaeffer posted a photo of Alexis Wilkins.
That is her name and Patel right, So this is
the action. This is what they're suing over right here

(01:04:17):
on the internet.

Speaker 11 (01:04:19):
Lol.

Speaker 10 (01:04:19):
Elijah Shaeffer posts a photo and the lawsuit goes on
and says. Ever since Cash Patel was appointed as director
of the FBI in February of twenty twenty five, the
conspiratorial corners of the Internet and social media have been
spreading a false narrative that Ms. Wilkins is an Israeli
massad agent, a spy, or a quote unquote honeypot.

Speaker 11 (01:04:44):
So here's the thing.

Speaker 10 (01:04:47):
I've been around. I've been around, and there are.

Speaker 11 (01:04:52):
Some rules to lawsuits.

Speaker 10 (01:04:53):
If you have to sue someone to prove, as an example,
that you are a woman, a lepergite macrone, it's because
you're not one if you have to sue someone to
prove that your relationship is really authentic and real and
like love from the heavens, it probably isn't. What I'm

(01:05:14):
just saying. I've been around, That's all I'm saying. And
I have been the subject of so many conspiracies because
of how me and my husband met right people online
people have done threads, put in names that were not
even true. I've read one threat or they sound like
a donor put me and my husband couldn't be further
from the truth. I've never cared. I just laugh at

(01:05:34):
them because it's just not true. None of it's true,
So I don't care. The fact that she filed this lawsuit,
of course, means that she did this with the blessing
of her quote unquote life partner, Cash Bettel. He knew
this was happening. He did not stop her from doing this.
Are they trying to convince us or is she trying
to convince him? Or is he trying to convince himself? Okay,

(01:05:55):
And of course, inevitably, what happens when you fabs lost
whit just people then get interested in you, and there
is something called the Strysan effect. Now, before this Strysan
effect happened. I was already interested because he's acting weird.
He's just acting really weird right now, Cash Betel, And
she might not be a Masad honeypot.

Speaker 11 (01:06:12):
I don't know. I've never made that claim.

Speaker 10 (01:06:14):
No, there's literally no evidence of that people other than
people saying she works for Marissa Strait Prager you who
you know, she's formerly of the IDF Intelligence Unit.

Speaker 11 (01:06:24):
I worked for Prager.

Speaker 8 (01:06:25):
You.

Speaker 11 (01:06:25):
I'm not a Masad honeypop person. So that's not evidence.

Speaker 10 (01:06:28):
But there is evidence that she comes from a free
Mason family in California, Like dad was in the Freemay
California Freemasons and Grandpa was pretty high up in the
California Freemasons. And you know, Cash Betel's dropping thirty three hours,
like like it means something that's actually more interesting than
the Masad honeypot thing. Mom works in aerospace, so we're

(01:06:51):
not like, she's not just like some cutees country singer
that has no connections. Like, let's make that clear. She
doesn't have no connections. You guys know that. And I
am so sick of the idea that you're going to
file and bankrupt people because you don't like what's on
the internet. That's why this needs to be exposed. He
should be flamed. The punishment for these sorts of things.

(01:07:14):
These people should be shamed. They should be absolutely shamed
out of public life forever. If your solution to somebody
saying something on the Internet is I'm going to bankrupt you,
especially something who cares. You're a country singer, even if
you were a Masade honeypot, why do you care? Who cares? Like,
if you do not know how to deal with the Internet,
get off of it. Just get off of it. It

(01:07:36):
is optional. You are not required to be on X
to make videos for Prigger you. You are not required
to be on X to seeing the national anthem for
Turning Point USA. Get off of the Internet if you
do not have it within you the courage to withstand
Elijah Shaeffer making a joke. Okay, all of these people

(01:07:56):
have said things about me. I have been mocked for
everything from the color of my skin to what I
who I work for, to you name it. There's a
joke out there that said about me. Okay, or not
even a joke. People just being insulting.

Speaker 11 (01:08:09):
I wake up. I'm called the N word, big deal.

Speaker 10 (01:08:12):
The Internet is optional, Alexis Wilkins, it's optional, cash Betel,
this lawsuit is pathetic. You should be four step aside.
But you know it's probably not going to happen, because.

Speaker 5 (01:08:22):
No, it's not gonna happen.

Speaker 6 (01:08:23):
Yeah, and Candace just called me out. My brother is
a part of the Freemason community.

Speaker 7 (01:08:28):
I think, Wow.

Speaker 6 (01:08:29):
And you know what he put you up to going
on to plenty of.

Speaker 7 (01:08:33):
Fish to meet me.

Speaker 5 (01:08:36):
He put me up. What are you talking about?

Speaker 6 (01:08:38):
He put me up to meet you like my Masade agent.

Speaker 4 (01:08:41):
Oh yeah, maybe yeah, maybe that's the case. Who knows,
that was many years ago. But either way, Yeah, you guys,
let me know what you think, right, I mean, as
Canda says, and I agree, there's not technically evidence that
she is a honeypot. But the strange thing about it
is like, why would you why would you ever sue
Elijah Shaeffer any podcast or that has influence to where

(01:09:04):
now Elijah Shaeffer's video.

Speaker 5 (01:09:06):
Has nine million views, Like why are you going to
do that?

Speaker 4 (01:09:11):
And especially with the amount of kind of backlash that
the Trump administration and cash matel and Pamboni and all
of them have already had, it just doesn't make sense
why you would do that. Now to also get to
the last part of this, and this is not going
to be very long, not at all, but I want
to I want to read what Donald Trump's truth social

(01:09:33):
post said today and before we actually get into what
he's talking about. So Donald Trump posted and he said,
the Democrats are trying to bring up the Jeffrey Epstein
hoax again. Yeah, because they'll do anything at all to
deflect on how badly they've done on the shutdown and

(01:09:53):
so many other subjects. Only a very bad or stupid
Republican would fall into that trap. The Democrats cost their
country one point five trillion dollars with their recent antics
of viciously closing our country while at the same time
putting many at risk, and they should pay a fair price.

(01:10:14):
There should be no deflections to Epstein or anything else,
and any Republicans involved should be focused only on opening
up our country and fixing the massive damage caused by
the Democrats. I agree, Okay, So I want to say
a couple of things. Number One, the first sentence of
his post is bullshit. The Epstein thing is not a hoax.

(01:10:34):
It is one hundred percent real. There are thousands of victims,
including Speaker Mike Johnson, has said this, although Republicans and
Trump has tried to make it out like the in Pambondi,
also with that roundtable meeting where she tried to convince
the mainstream media and you that the only thing that
they found was child porn and all this stuff and
it was nothing that had any implications that there was

(01:10:56):
any blackmail ring or any of this. And he didn't
have sex noways sex with me with any kids. Although
there are one thousands of victims, including you know, Virginia
drew Free that had said this and many others that
spoke out.

Speaker 6 (01:11:11):
They only she is back in the highlights again, she
is with this this actual email, with this email. It
is because the press secretary came out and said the
redacted name was her.

Speaker 4 (01:11:24):
Yeah, and a lot of people were like, why would
you weredact the name? Everyone everyone knew that she was
a victim. But you know there's something to say about that. Well,
we'll get into that a second. But as he talks
about also in this true social post, it says only
a very bad or stupid Republican would fall into that trap.
Are you talking about the Epstein thing? Because I mean

(01:11:44):
if I remember, correctly, Trump, that we've been talking about
the Epstein thing forever. I remember that your followers, some
of your biggest influencers cat turn and uh just I
mean name all the rest of them, but all the
rest of them. All they could ever say is that
Democrats are hiding the Epstein files. They're they're they're doing
everything to try to, you know, take your attention away

(01:12:05):
from Epstein. And then Trump comes in and it's like, oh,
this is a hoax. Sorry guys, this has nothing to
see here. Shut the hell up. So now people see
the Trump administration just like they see Democrats. Now they
cannot trust them. What I'm saying is that the the
Epstein hoax is bullshit. Like when he's calling an Epstein hoax,
that is a lie. That is a one lie. And

(01:12:27):
Donald Trump himself as president knows that. And for you
to call Republicans stupid that want to fall in that
trap of the Epstein files because people want accountability for
elites and politicians that went and literally had sex with
children on a freaking island, regardless of why they did that,
that you should never call those people stupid.

Speaker 5 (01:12:49):
You should call those people that.

Speaker 4 (01:12:50):
My greatest supporters the people that we want to make
sure that has a voice because we don't want people
having sex with children or sex trafficking children like Epstein did.

Speaker 6 (01:13:00):
Yeah, But instead the problem is this new email that
came out. It said he was with a victim for
hours at Epstein's residence.

Speaker 5 (01:13:10):
Yes, I get it, and we're going to get into
that email in just a second.

Speaker 4 (01:13:12):
But then he also says that Democrats cost our country
one point five trillion dollars with their resa antics of
viciously closed in our country while at the same time
putting many at risk. I agree with that they should
pay a fair price. I agree with that there should
be no deflection to Epstein. I don't agree with that
because it's not a deflection. We've been talking about this
for years. This is not just since Trump's been in office.

(01:13:32):
Literally a large part of the reason why people voted
for Trump and this administration and especially Cashptel and supposedly
white people wanted Cash Fortael so bad on X is
because they felt like we were finally going to have
transparency and we don't. And so when he goes on
to say that we should be focused on opening our
country and fixing massive damage caused by the Democrats. Look,

(01:13:53):
I understand that there was massive damage caused by Democrats.
I one hundred percent get that, and I also want
one hundred percent get that. Like instead of trying to
claim that the Epstein thing is a hoax and trying
to tell people that are still interested in this for
obvious reasons that they're stupid, you shouldn't do that, just
like the same reason you should not have done it

(01:14:14):
months ago when you told people that if you are
going to be one of those Republicans, they're going to
continue to ask questions about Epstein. We don't need you anyway.
This is very weird, and the way they're handling it
is very bad.

Speaker 5 (01:14:26):
Now.

Speaker 4 (01:14:27):
Of course, Tim Burchet came out today. He's a Tennessee congressman.
I've always liked Tim Burchet. He said, I tried to
release to Epstein files immediately, and a Democrats blocked it. Now,
what I will say about the actual community note on
this says inaccurate claim. The chairman of the House Rules Committee,
Tom Cole, blocked the immediate vote on release in the
Epstein files, not the Democrat. So this was a Republican

(01:14:49):
from Oklahoma that blocked the immediate release of the Epstein files.

Speaker 5 (01:14:55):
And so Tim Burchett here in this.

Speaker 4 (01:14:56):
Video is trying to say and try to make everybody
believe that, hey, I'm the one and Republicans are one.
They're really trying to get these Epstein files out. It's
not true. So let's listen to what briefly, it's a
very short clip. Let's listen to what timber Chut says
about the Epstein files and what he's tried to do
and Republicans.

Speaker 12 (01:15:16):
Hey, everybody, tim Burchett just left the house floor and
I tried to do a UC unanimous consent of a
tried to get the Epstein files.

Speaker 5 (01:15:25):
Get it straight to the floor, just to cut.

Speaker 12 (01:15:27):
Out all this nonsense, and you know, and the Democrats
blocked it. Oddly enough, now here they've had it for
four years and they obviously if there's something there about Trump,
they would have released it.

Speaker 7 (01:15:40):
And now they're all, let's get it out, let's get out. Well,
I just made a motion.

Speaker 5 (01:15:45):
And bring it straight to the deadgum floor.

Speaker 12 (01:15:47):
And they blocked it.

Speaker 7 (01:15:48):
They blocked it.

Speaker 12 (01:15:49):
So this is politics that has nothing to do without
what's doing or doing what's right.

Speaker 4 (01:15:56):
All right, So there's timber Chuck. But listen, the reality
is is that Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, is the
one that actually blocked it. So why is Tim Burchett
coming on here saying the Democrats blocked it.

Speaker 5 (01:16:06):
They didn't. And actually the last.

Speaker 7 (01:16:09):
They are all liars.

Speaker 4 (01:16:10):
I know, but the last go around it was completely opposite. Now,
Thomas Massey also said three hours ago, in spite of
a last ditch effort by President to foil the motion
and Speaker Johnson's propaganda, the discharge petition I have been
leading just succeeded. In December, the entire House of Representatives
will vote on release in the Epstein files.

Speaker 5 (01:16:31):
So this in the career and post. You also have
this CNN, which I do not ever believe, but.

Speaker 4 (01:16:40):
This is an actual fact that they say, because I've
seen it from a million other sources, so it's not
just CNN.

Speaker 5 (01:16:47):
But this is the latest video. This is kind.

Speaker 4 (01:16:51):
Of their emergency meeting about the Epstein files potential release,
and this is what CNN had to say about that.

Speaker 5 (01:16:57):
Listen news.

Speaker 13 (01:17:00):
CNN has learned there will be a meeting today inside
the White House as age try to manage a potential
House vote on the release of the Epstein files. This comes,
of course, just hours after Democrats on the Oversight Committee
released emails from Jeffrey Epstein himself mentioning Donald Trump by
name multiple times. I want to get straight to CN
It's Kitland, Poland's Caitlin.

Speaker 5 (01:17:20):
What are you learning?

Speaker 14 (01:17:21):
Well, the House is releasing these files, but it's not
everything that the federal government has, Dana. There's additional files
still held by the Justice Department that some Republicans on
Capitol Hill are in support of releasing, and so that
is causing a political response inside the White House right now,

(01:17:42):
where there is a meeting planned or was a meeting
planned today about the House effort to try and force
a vote to get the Justice Department the Trump administration
to release the rest of the FBI files. The Justice
Department files everything from years of the investigation into Jeffrey
Epstein and others, things that have not seen the light

(01:18:02):
of day yet. What one source tells me, we have
multiple sources confirming that this meeting is happening, But what
one source tells me is that this meeting was planning
to include some key figures from the Justice Department, the
FBI Director Cash Ptel, the Attorney General Pam BONDI, the
Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, and then one of those

(01:18:22):
Republicans in support of transparency, Republican Representative Lauren Bobert of Colorado.
So what might happen at this meeting if Bobert could
be swayed in a different direction on wanting transparency here.
That is all something that is going to be at issue,
and that the White House is clearly concerned about having

(01:18:42):
discussions about it.

Speaker 11 (01:18:44):
On top of that, Dana, another.

Speaker 14 (01:18:46):
Thing to remember here is that the Justice Department has
tried many different ways to distract from releasing the full
Justice Department files. They tried to get grand jury records
out there. Blanche talked to Glen Maxwell, co conspirator in Florida.
When Gallane spoke to Todd Blanche, she told him that
Trump himself and never actually inappropriately and she never saw
anything untoward in any way toward underage girls.

Speaker 5 (01:19:09):
All right, So there you go. They're seeing inn and listen.
I want to say this.

Speaker 4 (01:19:13):
I understand that the media that has been against us
as a truth population, I guess you can say, are
going to utilize this against Trump. I get it, because
they're doing a horrible job with this shit, very very
horrible job.

Speaker 5 (01:19:28):
Now.

Speaker 4 (01:19:29):
Bobert, Okay, Congresswoman Bobert, she is I guess, a very
important vote on this because she is one of the
Republicans that want to go with the Democrats to release
I want to make this very clear what this really means.
So they called Lauren Bobert in to this meeting because
she is one of the Republicans they have not got

(01:19:49):
on board with not releasing this, you know, because they're like, no,
we can't do this. I mean, besides, like Margie Taylor Green,
but I guess Bobert is a very important person that
they feel like they could sway right now. So Thomas Massey,
obviously they're not gonna sway, Marjorie Tyler Green, There's a
couple others, but Lauren Bobert.

Speaker 5 (01:20:07):
They feel like that they can get to her.

Speaker 4 (01:20:09):
And so they called this meeting with all the big
people and they brought Lauren Bobert in because of what
they wanted to do is they wanted to sit down
with Lauren Bobert, and they wanted to try to convince her,
do not vote for this.

Speaker 5 (01:20:19):
Do not do this, Lauren Bobert, because this is bad.

Speaker 4 (01:20:22):
This is this is national intelligence. You know, we've got
to protect intelligence exactly.

Speaker 6 (01:20:29):
I think what's so bad is presidents from both sides
are on this list.

Speaker 5 (01:20:34):
Well, so bad.

Speaker 4 (01:20:35):
Now, what's so bad is that obviously that that what
we have to understand about the Epstein files, guys, is
that both parties are protecting somebody.

Speaker 15 (01:20:44):
Yeah, and it's not just Republicans, and it's not just
Democrats as both of them, it's both yes, right, And
so who are they protecting is a question. And I
think we've done many podcasts in the past where I
think I might know who they're protecting, but doesn't matter.

Speaker 5 (01:20:58):
What I'm trying to say is.

Speaker 6 (01:20:59):
Well, who are they protecting cham because they have not
protected a lot of people like princes of UK, they
have not protected very famous lawyers, they have not protected
a lot of people that their name hads came out.

Speaker 5 (01:21:13):
Yeah, I know, I know. Maybe you guys can figure
it out. I'm not even going to go there.

Speaker 4 (01:21:18):
I'll let people figure it out. So here's the emails
g Max g max one at lmax dot com. And
this is essentially these emails are between Jeffrey Epstein, all
right and Ghislaine Maxwell, and it says I've been thinking
about that that that was the first thing. And it says,
I want you to realize that the dog that hasn't

(01:21:40):
barked is Trump.

Speaker 5 (01:21:41):
Right, this is what the first part of the scene.

Speaker 7 (01:21:43):
Has And what does that mean? The dog that hasn't.

Speaker 5 (01:21:46):
Meaning talked or said something? Right?

Speaker 4 (01:21:49):
And so this is from Jeffrey Epstein to Leainne Maxwell,
and he says, I want you to realize that the
dog that hasn't barked is Trump. That means he hasn't
said anything yet. He's something you guys can kind of
interpret that. And then it says victim and it's blacked out,
spent hours at my house with him, meaning Trump? Right,

(01:22:12):
he has never once been mentioned, police chief, etc. I'm
seventy five percent there, So obviously this is tying, I
guess according to this email Trump And what they're saying.

Speaker 7 (01:22:26):
Is Virginia Jeffrey, Yeah, at least.

Speaker 5 (01:22:29):
From what we know. But she's dead now, so who
knows if that's actually who she's taking.

Speaker 6 (01:22:32):
Oh that's what they came out today with.

Speaker 4 (01:22:33):
Well that's what they're saying. Yeah, but we don't know
because she's dead, So is that true or not? What
was those and and Virginia Jeffrey, I guess has said
that like Trump never did anything. So if it is
about Virginia, okay, fine, but then it goes Victim mar
Lago and then blacked out reactions. Trump said, he asked
me to resign, never a member ever. Of course he

(01:22:57):
knew about the girls as he asked. Gives Lane to stop.

Speaker 5 (01:23:01):
Okay. This is the other.

Speaker 4 (01:23:02):
Email, and this is from j Evrication at gmail dot
com to Michael Wolf.

Speaker 6 (01:23:10):
Is there a date on these?

Speaker 5 (01:23:12):
Uh, there's no date. I don't believe. No, there's no date.

Speaker 7 (01:23:16):
Well that's so curious too.

Speaker 4 (01:23:18):
So that basically was trying to say that in that email,
Trump knew and he asked, is slaying to stop?

Speaker 6 (01:23:24):
But why is there not a date on the email?

Speaker 5 (01:23:26):
I have no idea. Well, so this was December.

Speaker 4 (01:23:29):
So this email, for example, was December fifteen, twenty fifteen.
This this one Michael Wolf to Epstein and it says,
I think you should let him hang himself. If he
says he hasn't been on the on the plane or
to the house, then that gives you a valuable pr
and political currency. You can hang him in a way
that potentially generates a positive benefit for you.

Speaker 7 (01:23:53):
Or and this is Maxwell.

Speaker 5 (01:23:55):
No, no, this is Michael Wolf.

Speaker 7 (01:23:57):
Oh okay, I don't know who this is.

Speaker 4 (01:23:58):
But anyways, or if it really looks like he could win,
you could save him generating a debt, right, so generate
a debt.

Speaker 7 (01:24:05):
So this is now Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:24:06):
This is all black mail. Yeah, these are the terms
they talk in.

Speaker 4 (01:24:11):
Of course, if it is possible that when asked, he'll say,
Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw
dill and is a victim of political correctness, which is
to be outlawed in a Trump regime. So yeah, this
was a December fifteenth, twenty fifteen. This is a black
mal thing. This is what they were doing. This is
this is what they you know, I don't know what

(01:24:32):
they might have or had on Trump.

Speaker 5 (01:24:34):
I have no idea, but this is what they were saying.

Speaker 4 (01:24:37):
And then also it says, if we were able to
craft an answer, Graham, what do you think it should be?
I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his
relationship with you, either on air or in scrum afterwards.
So this Trump thing is obviously there was a lot
of connections there. Whoever Michael Wolf is, I'm assuming attorney
or somebody was trying to figure out how Epstein could

(01:24:59):
utilize and block mel Trump with whatever whatever it is
that we don't know yet or seen that Trump may
have either.

Speaker 5 (01:25:08):
Known about or been involved with.

Speaker 4 (01:25:09):
Not do I, like I said, do I still think
that Trump was like having sexual uh encounters with young girls?

Speaker 13 (01:25:15):
No?

Speaker 4 (01:25:16):
But I don't know. Also right uh? And the other
thing is, it is like the way that this administration
is acting is very suspect. It is and it's bad.
It looks very bad. Like even the Democrats did better
about the FS scene by just shutting the hell up
and not even saying anything, just pretending like it wasn't
even a thing.

Speaker 5 (01:25:34):
And now the Trump administration.

Speaker 6 (01:25:35):
Is just saying as a hoax and it really is
so bad.

Speaker 5 (01:25:40):
It is so bad. So we don't know.

Speaker 4 (01:25:42):
Hold on, We don't know what the outcome of these
files will be, if they will ever be released, if
there are even files there, they've the Trump administration is alister,
there are no files. It's all hoax, right, So if
Trump is saying it's a hoax, and yet Thomas Massey
has to vote on the table to release the files,

(01:26:02):
then then what are.

Speaker 5 (01:26:03):
We going to see here?

Speaker 4 (01:26:05):
I don't know, or are we not going to see
anything because obviously they're going to be able to get
rid of anything they want to. Now you have another
administration you had the previous administration. Personally, I don't even
think that anyone has the files because I think someone
else has the files that is blackmailing both parties.

Speaker 6 (01:26:19):
Yeah, and you think that someone else is a foreign entity.

Speaker 5 (01:26:24):
Yeah, probably, I think so.

Speaker 6 (01:26:26):
But what we know about Trump and what has come
out that is public so far is that he did
Trump wished Jeffrey Epstein a happy birthday in his card
or whatever that was that came out. And now we
have these new emails coming out about Trump.

Speaker 5 (01:26:44):
Yeah, yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 6 (01:26:46):
That's the two things that we have public so far.

Speaker 5 (01:26:48):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (01:26:49):
But either way, I feel like even during I guess
the Democrats reign of Terror, I guess you can say,
you know, they just I guess didn't really talk about it.
And unfortunately this administration is talking about it, and the
way they're talking about it, no one believes and so
this is a problem. This is a problem for people.

(01:27:09):
This is a problem to kind of get wrap your
head around. Guys, I'm gonna let you decide what you
think and obviously, we're gonna wait to see if this
vote actually happens in December. We're gonna wait to see
if there are any more emails leaked. I think that
someone out there is, in my opinion, I don't know
if it's someone in the Trump administration is starting to

(01:27:31):
kind of go against a narrative, or maybe there's someone
in the Trump camp that is pushing back a little
bit about something or or some agency or some country
or something because they know that. Let's just take, for example,
if you think that your entire party is being fractured
or destroyed right now by an argument, and so then

(01:27:54):
you have some people in the camp that starts to say,
we got to start doing something about this, we got
to do something right because we're about to lose our party.

Speaker 5 (01:28:01):
And then there are some.

Speaker 4 (01:28:02):
Elaked emails that come out and say, oh, do you
really want to go there?

Speaker 5 (01:28:06):
Do you really want to go that route?

Speaker 7 (01:28:07):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (01:28:08):
Okay, fa fo, yeah fafo. Do you really want to
go that route?

Speaker 4 (01:28:13):
That's fine, go ahead, go ahead, go against us, go
against me, go against whoever. Because these are just three emails, bro,
And look how much shit has already costing you. But
imagine if we release the rest of the actual files
that you guys don't even have freaking access to. But
imagine that we release them. Imagine we do it to
destroy you. Imagine we just do it to destroy it,

(01:28:35):
because we can just release a faction of them. We
don't even have to release it against Democrats, even though
I'm sure shit tons of them. And we don't even
know that Trump is implicated, but maybe Trump's friends are
implicating who we don't know. But this is the whole
intelligence operation, I believe, on the black mail scheme, and
they're going to use it to control both parties when
they need to. And this is the entire reason of

(01:28:57):
Epstein and why he exists.

Speaker 6 (01:28:59):
And that's why the files have not come out and
they never will not been transparent. They're gonna it's implicating
both parties.

Speaker 4 (01:29:06):
Yeah, and they're gonna they're gonna do little drops yeap,
just to control every single narrative they want. So if
you may wonder why the Trump administration is acting weird,
saying something of hoax, and and cash Bettel's saying this
and all this crazy shit and lawsuits are happening, and
all this is because they don't want any more emails
to come out. They cannot have any more emails to
implicate or destroy the MAGA movement anymore than it possibly

(01:29:29):
could be right now.

Speaker 6 (01:29:30):
Yeah, and then if Gavid Newsom is our new president,
it's gonna that's not gonna happen.

Speaker 5 (01:29:37):
Dude, that that will never happen.

Speaker 4 (01:29:39):
But guys, that's gonna be it for us. Uh, tomorrow's
my birthday. We'll be back in a couple of days.
But we love each and ever when you let us
know what your thoughts are on this show and until
next time, we love you.

Speaker 1 (01:29:48):
Piece out clue.

Speaker 3 (01:29:52):
Enough where that sits on nothing?

Speaker 1 (01:29:58):
But where does it's all nothing? But get Danny Lord
to say it. It's my ber the morning you sleep?
Where that ss on nothing? I guess any Lord?

Speaker 3 (01:30:18):
Where that s its nothing? I guess Danny lorgo saying.

Speaker 1 (01:30:24):
Money you sleep.

Speaker 16 (01:30:32):
M I had to convince one fast this time that
your talkic to your mind.

Speaker 1 (01:30:46):
But I know they don't know what you're all about
to be your whole on body side. So you're gonna
talking through the night and they just don't.

Speaker 3 (01:30:58):
Where does it's all nothing? I guess any more? You
whether that's it son?

Speaker 7 (01:31:07):
Nothing?

Speaker 1 (01:31:07):
I guess any more?

Speaker 16 (01:31:09):
You.

Speaker 1 (01:31:10):
You say you doing number in the morning.

Speaker 8 (01:31:12):
You see.

Speaker 1 (01:31:22):
Why that says sounding nothing?

Speaker 8 (01:31:26):
I guess sounding more you, why don't you stay?

Speaker 1 (01:31:50):
Why don't we talk about this? Why don't you stay?

Speaker 8 (01:31:56):
Stay?

Speaker 1 (01:31:58):
Why don't we talk?

Speaker 9 (01:32:00):
Bro?

Speaker 1 (01:32:02):
Where that's it's on nothing? I guess that anymore. You
where that's it's not nothing?

Speaker 8 (01:32:12):
I guess any more.

Speaker 1 (01:32:13):
You say you dude, but the money you see where
that's it's not nothing? Where that's it's not nothing, I

(01:32:38):
guess I'm more you where that's it's not nothing.

Speaker 8 (01:32:44):
I guess I'm say mine.

Speaker 1 (01:32:48):
You see where that's it's on nothing,

All Episodes

Kash Patel, Epstein’s Emails & The Honeypot Lawsuit | What You’re Not Told | Conspiracy Podcast

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Ruthie's Table 4

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Kash Patel, Epstein’s Emails & The Honeypot Lawsuit | What You’re Not Told | Conspiracy Podcast