LLP Ep128: Will We Ever See the Epstein List?

Ask us a question. We will answer it on the podcast.

Show sponsors:
AllegianceGold
844-790-9191
AllegianceGold.com/Veterans
Get Up To $5000 In FREE Silver

Video Reference Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo&feature=youtu.be

The veil surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein files has created one of the most fascinating political reversals of our time. What began as a rallying cry from Trump supporters has morphed into a complex web of shifting alliances, with approximately 250 Republicans voting against transparency when Thomas Massie called for a public vote on releasing the Epstein list.

We dive deep into this political about-face, examining how those who once demanded "justice for the children" now seem reluctant to follow through. The edited CCTV footage from Epstein's cell raises serious questions – forensic analysis of the metadata reveals multiple edits during crucial moments. When evidence of this magnitude shows signs of tampering, how can anyone maintain faith in the investigation?

At the heart of this controversy lies a fundamental question about institutional accountability: who watches the watchers? As Matt observes, "Can we trust a machine to deliver justice when the grease of those wheels are the very people that are accused?" This crisis of trust transcends party lines, emerging as a genuine concern for Americans across the political spectrum.

Throughout our conversation, we explore the power of public pressure in shaping political decisions. Politicians respond most effectively to constituent demands when they still have elections to win – "sometimes pressure makes diamonds." We also discuss the growing influence of AI in shaping public discourse, the dangers of relying on technology without verification, and what these developments mean for our collective ability to discern truth.

Justice must be applied equally and transparently, regardless of who stands accused. The American people deserve nothing less than full disclosure – "release the information, release the data, release the videos, release everything and let the cards fall where they may." Join us for this thought-provoking exploration of accountability, transparency, and the future of institutional trust in America.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back everybody.
This is Eric and Matt, and thisis Life, liberty and the
Pursuit, your beacon of freedomand the American way of life.
Tune in every Monday for a newepisode as we dive into the
world of liberty and what makesour country great.
All right, folks, welcome backto today's show.
This is LLP with Matt and Eric.
We've got a great show for youthis week and I apologize for

(00:22):
our absence last week.
Somebody had to go on afreaking cruise and get sick.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Yes, man, that was diabolical.
What happened there at the end,man?
It was like everything wasgoing perfect until day number
seven on the eight-day cruiseCreeping death.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
Huh, yeah, man, we'll talk about it.
Yeah, otherwise, though, thingsgoing well.
Yeah man, everything's beengreat, you know, and?

Speaker 2 (00:44):
death.
Huh, yeah, man, we'll talkabout it.
Yeah, yeah, otherwise, though,things going well.
Yeah, man, everything's beengreat.
You know, obviously weapologize guys.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
We were out, we had a little bit of leave of absence
there, um, but we're backhopefully yes well, today's show
is going to revolve primarilyaround the jeffrey epstein list
debacle and I know it seems likethis subject matter is getting,
you know, really tossed aroundby a lot of people and people
say, well, why are you going tobeat a dead horse?

(01:09):
You know, everyone is trying torun cover for the Trump
administration, trying to runcover for whatever they're told
to run cover for, apparently.
Yeah, you know people were sohot and heavy to have this
Epstein list released, ok, andto bring all of these
perpetrators to justice and toget justice for the children.

(01:32):
It was just such a trope thatseemed to be such a popular idea
.
And I hate to say the right, butlet's just say, those that were
hardcore supporters of Trumpand continue to be hardcore
supporters of Trump, you know,they really wanted that Epstein
list to get out there and youknow and that was a huge part of
Trump's campaign when he wasrunning was, hey, we're going to

(01:55):
release the list, we're goingto go after the Epstein types,
and I mean, of course, we'regoing to, we're going to dive
into some sort of deeper, deepernuance, ben, and deeper
minutiae to this whole equation.
However, you know there's a lotof people on Trump's camp that
you know are not overly happywith the way that this whole

(02:15):
situation has been handled.
They seem to have shifted gearsand then they shift back and
they shift gears and they apply,you know, public pressure.
It gets applied to them andthey shift gears and they apply.
You know public pressure getsapplied to them.
Then they respond to pressureand, if anything, I think what
maybe this debacle really sortof teaches us, matt, is that you
know politicians respond topressure.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
Yes, they respond to public scrutiny.

Speaker 1 (02:39):
They respond to public pressure, and sometimes
pressure makes diamonds respondto public pressure, and
sometimes pressure makesdiamonds, and I'm not going to
say that that's alwaysnecessarily been.
You know, what ends uphappening is we apply the
pressure and things go the waywe want.
Sometimes it doesn't always gothat way, but it would seem that
, you know, perhaps in thissituation the administration has

(03:00):
responded to a lot of pressurefrom their own, their very own
base.
And what are your thoughts onthat?

Speaker 2 (03:07):
You know, I think this would be kind of the
double-edged sword on termlimits.
So you'll see, you know I'm infavor of term limits, but this
is this particular situation canbe shown that, you know,
sometimes not having term limitsor catching somebody when
they're not a lame duck, whenthey still have one more term

(03:28):
left, or whatever it may be, canwork out in your favor, because
their constituents are applyingso much pressure to them and,
like you said, that pressurecreates diamonds.
They are in office, they wantto continue to be in office, so
that pressure that's beingapplied is working in the
public's favor versus, let'sjust say, they're a lame duck or

(03:52):
they're on the last term oftheir term limits.
There's absolutely no reasonfor them to switch gears or to
cave to any type of pressurefrom the constituents because
they won't be their constituentsnext term.
So they could theoretically towthe party line and just
lockstep.
In this particular case, Ithink that we saw the opposite.

(04:17):
We saw that, hey, there's stillelections to be won and they
need to almost cave to thepolitical pressure from the
constituents in order to win thenext election.

Speaker 1 (04:29):
You know, matt, it seems that that, what the
scenario that's playing out, itwould seem to me, that is that,
you know, people are much morebetter informed now and without
all this censorship going on, Imean right now, not not to
necessarily pump x, but look, Ilove twitter, slash x.

(04:50):
I'm very active on x and rightnow I believe I saw some stats
the other day that saying likewhat is it?
Some 70, some odd percent ofpeople now get all of their news
from X.
Now, some have accused X ofcontinued censorship.
However, overall, the platformhas done a pretty good job of

(05:13):
being relatively transparent.
They just released Grok 4.0 and4.0 seems to be, you know,
running pretty well and they'veadded some other.
You know functionalities inthere.
And look, many have accusedGrok of being biased or of
applying, you know, let's justsay, a bias towards a given

(05:36):
opinion rather than just simplystating the facts.
However, overall it's beenpretty consistent.
But there's a danger in AI thatI think that maybe enough
people aren't really talkingabout or thinking about, and the
last thing you want to do isdeny the human soul its

(05:57):
creativity and to deny the humanconscious its ability and duty
to scrutinize and thinkcritically.
And the problem is, if there'sjust some magic eight ball that
you can just spin the wheel andalways get the answer you want,
you don't think anymore, youdon't think critically, you
don't really become your ownpersonal.

(06:19):
You know your own person.
You lose what it means to be anindividual and to be.
You know to have your ownidentity.
And you know what AIessentially is.
Matt is a collectiveconsciousness, right?
Ai knows what people want toknow because they know what

(06:41):
people ask.
It knows the answers, matt,because it has all the answers.
It knows what people's opinionsare.
It knows what's popular, what'snot and, quite frankly,
everything in between.
So AI essentially just likesome crooked politician.
Ai can become a crookedpolitician in a way, because it

(07:02):
can tell you what you want tohear.
It can tell you what they wantyou to hear and anything in
between, and it can even decide,really, if it wants you to know
the truth, quite frankly, atall man.
So it's a scary environment.

Speaker 2 (07:18):
Well, that has already started to happen.
So people are becoming sodependent on AI for answers that
they're not following their duediligence to follow up, to make
sure that what they're beingfed is correct.
They're asking but they're notverifying.
So you'll see it all the time,even on X.

(07:39):
I like X.
I think that what you said istrue.
Most of my news content comesfrom X.
You'll see the little snippets,the little pop-ups, because
it's so quick.
You can get that on the groundnews almost immediately.
You'll see it on X before yousee it in any other format,
whether it's through traditionalmedia, social media.

(08:02):
X has almost become exclusivelynews, uh, news content.
But you'll see people all thetime in the comment section grok
, is this true?
And, like you know, grok willpop up.
Hey, it is, but here's the,here's the, the caveats to it.
Um, there was a case where alawyer was using ai to help him

(08:23):
with his cases and he was askingAI hey, can you provide me with
previous judgments so I canbring this to the judge and use
it to win my case, because hehas to have precedence?
And AI was just making stuff up.
He was like hey, in thisparticular case in 1983, this

(08:47):
was like so-and so and so andthis guy lost his law license,
his, his bar license, everythingbecause he was using ai and
they gave him completely wrong,like just made up completely
fictitious stuff.
So wow and yeah if you're kidsin college using ai to write
papers, yes, and but, mostimportantly, there's people that

(09:08):
are on x or social media, usingai to verify sources, quote,
but they're not actually goingand seeing the ai could very
well just be throwing stuff outthere if it doesn't think about,
like, talking to a human.
Like if, if you're like asmooth talker, there's an art to
talking to somebody.
Like if you don like a smoothtalker, there's an art to
talking to somebody.
Like if you don't knowsomething, you still have to

(09:28):
have that confidence to givethem an answer.
It might not be entirely true,or it might not be 100% correct,
or it could have a bias towardswhat you want them to believe
and not give someone the fullstory to make their own opinion.
I think of AI as a very smoothtalker.
You ask a question, it's goingto give you the answer you want

(09:49):
to hear and it knows the bias,the algorithms, like all right,
this guy is so-and-so, he leansright or left.
We're going to give him this.

Speaker 1 (09:56):
Correct.
So before we get too muchfurther in the show, I do want
to give a quick shout out totoday's sponsor, and that's
Allegiance Gold.
You ever notice how golddoesn't get much airtime until
the system starts to shake.
Well, here's what nobody'stalking about.
Starting July 1st, basel IIIglobal banking rules classify
gold as a tier one asset, thesame level as cash or US

(10:20):
treasuries.
This is huge.
It means that central banks nowtreat gold as the highest
quality form of capital.
They're not doing this just forfun.
They're preparing for something.
If gold is good enough for theworld's most powerful banks and
governments, why shouldn't it begood enough to protect your
retirement?
This may be the best momentthat we've all been waiting for.
Gold could reach levels we'venever seen in the past.

(10:42):
Whether you've got five grandor five million to safeguard,
now is the time to act.
I've seen plenty of goldcompanies advertise and come and
go, but I chose to partner withAllegiance Gold because they
actually care.
They care about their pricing,about integrity, about doing the
right thing by their clients.
They make it simple to movepart of your 401k, your IRA or

(11:02):
savings into real, physical goldand silver.
As a veteran, you may evenqualify for up to $5,000 in free
silver.
Call 844-790-9191 or visitallegiancegoldcom.
Forward slash veterans.
It's smart, secure and simple.
Call 844-790-9191.

(11:24):
Tell them Eric and Matt sentyou.
Get on down there and get somegold, get some gold.
I like gold, gold finger, Ilove it, I love it.
So, getting back to the Epsteindebacle, I know we kind of
talked a little bit about AI,about Brock 4.0, specifically

(11:45):
because AI is a tool that canshape the public opinion, and
has AI played a pivotal role inchanging what people think about
the whole Epstein debacle?
I think the answer is yes, butlet's take a step back and sort
of look from a broader view.
Okay, what would be somereasons?

(12:07):
Right, like so if you look atthe Epstein list and everything
contained within it as just rawintelligence, okay, look at it
from an intelligence operation.
Okay, if you're performing anintelligence operation, or let's
say that you are engaging in alaw enforcement investigation,

(12:28):
you don't want the perpetratorto know what you know.
You don't want anyone to knowwhat you know, and maybe you
want to put out falseinformation about what you know
because you want them to thinkthat what you, what you know,
that you're not on the trail, sowhereby, yes, it is frustrating
to see things within, let'sjust say the political sphere

(12:51):
that seem to clash with thingsthat you just know in your heart
are true, based on what manypeople have come out and
released.
You know leaks and things, andall the information that's come
out let's just say photographsand media and, god forbid, what
they're saying is depicted insome of these content that they

(13:12):
have in their possessionincriminates a lot of people.
But you have to also kind ofthink that maybe there is a
double edged sword to the wholesituation.
Maybe they're trying to bepurposely misleading about what
they really know so that theycan nail the sons of bitches,
all right.
Or, and this is, I think, wherea lot of people in Trump's base

(13:33):
and people on the left, bothsides of the political coin,
where they're coming from, iswell, well, well, dang.
If you don't, if you know whothey are, why aren't you nailing
them?
So people's perception,people's opinions on the matter,
is that you know dang well whothe hell they are.
You probably have their phonenumbers.
They're probably down the hallfrom you in the Pentagon.
I mean, some of these peopleare well known, allegedly Right,

(13:58):
and I think where people tendto have this separation of OK,
well, this is a law enforcementinvestigation, this is an
intelligence operation.
Some okay, well, this is a lawenforcement investigation, this
is an intelligence operation.
Some people say, oh, this is ablackmail campaign.
Oh so, wow, now you're talkingto me.
You hear rumblings of a Mossadblackmail campaign.
You know, now, that's when itgets into, let's say, conspiracy

(14:21):
theory territory, gets into,let's say, conspiracy theory
territory.
However, given how these peoplehave conducted themselves in
the past and given the type of,let's just say, the type of work
they do, that's what they're inthe business of.
Right Is intelligence control,manipulation and ultimately, you

(14:43):
know, having you tie your owndamn noose.
And so that I think, when youconsider all those factors in
totality of the way that theEpstein-List debacle is being
handled, you know, I think it'spurposely set up, matt, to where
it can be anybody's ballgame.

(15:04):
It can be in the court of therighteous that are actually
going to do the right thing withthe play, or it could be in the
hands of the manipulators andthe people who are going to do
everything they can to hide thetruth from people and they're
going to make you deny what yourown eyes see and what your own
heart feels and what your ownmind tells you to believe.

(15:25):
And that's what I think istroublesome about the current
state of this Epstein debacle.
Because first you had all ofthe, the, the, the pro-Trump
people saying, all right, well,I'm voting for Trump because he
says he's going to release theEpstein list.
You know, we got Pam Bondi in,we got Kash Patel in.

(15:49):
Dan Bongino came on board asdeputy director of the FBI,
which the first time we've everhad, to my knowledge, a deputy
director of the FBI.
Why?
Why now, after all these years?
Why now?
And why Dan?
All right, was Dan beinggroomed to be a fall guy for
some information?
Was there so much intelligenceon the board that, you know,

(16:13):
maybe Cash was overwhelmed andneeded someone to kind of help
him.
Or maybe is it because, you know, they just wanted one more
person to point the finger atand blame, to take the blame off
Bondi, to take the blame offPatel and ultimately take the
blame off Trump, who his ownconstituents are rather mad at

(16:34):
how this is all being handled.
Let's just say the first batchof the Epstein list to a select
group of you know social mediatalking heads, which I know a
few of them.
They're not bad people, but youhave to wonder what the what
the play is when Bondi spendsmore time on Fox news than she

(16:57):
does, you know, prosecutingcrimes or going after people,
arresting people, like it's likewhat, what?
What is the play here?
You know, if bondy were toresign, she wind up with a
position at fox news next week,you know, and you, you begin to
see a pattern of events thatthat you can't really deny after

(17:18):
a while right like okay, uh,jen jen sake, whatever that the
lady that was the Presssecretary the press secretary
under the Biden administration,the redhead lady the first press
secretary Peppermint Patty.
Yeah, the first one, the littlePeppermint Patty lady right, she
left the White House and what'dshe get?
She went and got a job in themedia.
First thing.

Speaker 2 (17:39):
Boom.

Speaker 1 (17:40):
Now one would say okay, a press secretary, you're
taking questions from the media,you're responding to the media,
so yeah, that would give you auniquely posed position to have
contacts within the media rightPeople that might want to bring
you on as some sort ofconsultant or to run a show or

(18:01):
something, and I'm not sayingthat that's not the case.
However, it just does seem thata lot of our politicians have,
incredibly, too healthy of arelationship with the media and
they wield the media like aweapon.
And they wield social medialike a weapon because they know

(18:22):
the court of public opinion isnot on their side and they have
to purposely manipulate the dataand the facts in ways that get
their base sort of back on theirside and to try to keep people
always guessing.

Speaker 2 (18:40):
I'll say just in general, there's not very much
job opportunities, very many jobopportunities for that
particular skill set other thangoing into media.
Because I know that the Trumppress secretaries also ended up
doing the same thing, mostnotably Kayleigh McEnany.

(19:02):
She was like a littlefirecracker man, like she was
very good.
She was on it, probably one ofthe best, in my opinion, one of
the best press secretaries thatI ever saw handle Very combative
journalist and she handled itvery well.
She didn't have to like flipthrough a book for every answer.

(19:22):
It was like, hey, you have aquestion, I have an answer.
Not only do answer.
It was like, hey, you have aquestion, I have an answer, not
only do I have an answer, I havea rebuttal and then I have
statistics on why my answer iscorrect and why your fake news.
It was just like I think thatwas really the the beginning of
seeing the whole like fake newstype of organizations get

(19:43):
dismantled because they'regetting picked apart with asking
the same questions, gettingcalled out and then the answer
being given.
But back to the Epstein debacle.
It there's only one answer,which is everybody was
compromised and everybody stillis compromised, whether it's,

(20:06):
you know, through heinous meanswhen they all go to this island,
but that is the only way thatthis whole thing gets swept
under the rug.
Um, it's very similar to likewhat happened, like you'll see
the memes, the diddy memes.
Same thing, man, like thosetypes of crimes involving

(20:28):
heinous acts uh, unspeakable,unspeakable, heinous acts,
sometimes involving children.
Get anytime you have like ahigh level official compromised
with that, like you have them.
And you know sean combs I'mgonna it's weird calling him
diddy sean combs um, that washis, that was.

(20:50):
He did the same thing epsteindid.
He would have his white partiesthat are very famous, very well
known in the hamptons.
He would have all white parties.
Everybody, that was everybodywould attend these parties.
If you were, if you were wellknown, if you wanted to be well
known, you were invited.
You went to the party.
Yeah, unspeakable thingshappened at that party that
people will not say and, likethe people who are leaving the

(21:13):
party, they're like I'm gettingout of here before any of this
stuff gets any crazier yeah,things started to get crazy.

Speaker 1 (21:20):
The night goes on, and as the night goes on, things
get darker.

Speaker 2 (21:22):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (21:23):
So just to say that, matt, if somebody was at a diddy
party, does it automaticallymean that there's some you know,
mean that there's some you knowterrible person?
Well, maybe early on all theywere doing is kicking back some
cristal and eating horsd'oeuvres, you know, and hanging
out and having fun by the pool.
And then, you know, all of asudden some debauchery starts
going on.
They go all right, I'm out ofhere you know, and do I?

(21:46):
am I the kind of person, matt,that believes that?
Okay, if trump was on theepstein list and there's
pictures of him and Epsteintogether and the saying he's on
the flight log allegedly right,we don't know?
I'm just saying what I've beentold, and what I hear Is that to
say that maybe Trump was in asimilar situation, that things

(22:06):
might've started to get a littlehairy and he went whoa, I
didn't sign up for this.
Out of here, right.
How many people continuouslywent to the island over and over
and over and over and overagain?
That's what you have toconsider.
So if you went to EpsteinIsland and you saw some straight
up debauchery and you said,okay, look, I don't know what

(22:29):
kind of crazy shit you're into,but I'm out of here.
I'm not, I won't, I won't raton you because whatever, but I
don't want no part of this,which that's probably just as
bad.
To have knowledge and not tellanyone is bad too, but what
about the people who kept goingknowing what they were going
back for?

Speaker 2 (22:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (22:44):
All right, the first time you have the benefit of the
doubt, of not knowing whatmight happen on that island.
Maybe you don't know whatthey're doing there.
But then you find out and youcontinue to come back Highly sus
.

Speaker 2 (22:55):
Yep, highly sus.
So let's look at what's beenreleased.
All right, so they released thevideo of the security, the CCTV
footage of Epstein's cell, andit was professionally edited.
All right, why, why?
Why would you do that?

(23:15):
Why not just release theunedited video?
Still no answers.
No one's asking like so here'sthe weird thing, eric.
Nobody's asking why, like it's.
For some reason it's like hey,here's the stuff and everybody
just accepts it.
Like why, why is this videoedited?
What?
What other world?
Is CCTV footage edited?

Speaker 1 (23:32):
Let's say that the CCTV video file started and
stopped in a certain spot andmaybe you had to go into editing
software and just splice themback together to create one
continuous track for the courtto see.
One could understand that, butwhen you're talking a section
that's missing, especially apivotal, important section that

(23:52):
is highly pertinent, yeah, likeif there's hours of watching
this and I sleep.

Speaker 2 (23:57):
There's like three minutes missing and there's
three minutes of incrediblypertinent, important information
to account for and it's gone.

Speaker 1 (24:06):
That is highly suspect.
Now I don't remember the user,who it was, but there was
somebody on Twitter that got ahold of that file and of course
you can look through themetadata of the file.
I think there's a command thatyou have to put on the computer
but it'll pull sort of aforensic snapshot of the file's

(24:29):
history If it's ever been edited, what editing suite was used to
edit it Like.
You can find all that out byrunning certain protocol.
You can look at sort of theforensic you know history of the
file, right, and someone withaccess to the actual file that
was given to the court.
They're like, look, I mean,right here it shows where it was

(24:50):
saved multiple times.
Obviously someone didn't wantto lose their work.
I mean, think about it, itmakes sense.
How many times in an editingsession are you going to control
S, control S, control S,because you don't want to lose
your progress?
Let's face it, if you'rerunning Windows, you know
sometimes programs crash.
And the last thing you want todo is lose your progress.

(25:10):
And what do you do?
Just, you know you movesomething around.
Ctrl s, ctrl s, ctrl s locks,the saving right.
We all do it, every editor doesit.
But you can't sit there andtell me that, oh, the, it wasn't
edited.
When there's forensic proofwithin that file, the actual
file is given to the court.
That shows all the ctrl s'swhere they saved it, where they

(25:32):
changed the name, where theediting suite they dropped it
into what they cut.
I mean you can't get around that.
It's quite clear that the clipwas edited for content.
And the question is was thatcontent destroyed?
We'll probably never know whatthe content was.
At this point, the ball is intheir court to say, well, it was

(25:53):
a corrupt file, or the filenever existed, or it's not
edited.
See, it's just a lapse andwhatever.
Oh, the DVR heated up andoverheated and quit working.
They're going to come up withwhatever excuse they think they
can sell you, except telling youthe truth that, oh, someone

(26:14):
from our team edited that outbecause they don't want you to
see it.

Speaker 2 (26:17):
Yeah, they don't want you to see us.
You know, murder him, hell noright.

Speaker 1 (26:21):
So now, if the guy did commit suicide, well then,
by god, show us improve it.
Yeah, but no one believes thatthe guy killed himself, and I
would even venture as far to saythat I don't think the guy's
dead at all.
I think they did a body swap orsomething.
I think there's some greaterprotection or something that is

(26:42):
in play, that I think he's worthway more to them alive than
dead, and that's why GhislaineMaxwell is still with the living
.

Speaker 2 (26:51):
Well, she just had a meeting and she walked out with
a little special box and she hada box of goodies going back to
prison and now she's requestinga full pardon, a presidential
pardon, and it's just crazy howthat happened.
But here's what I don't get Allright.
For the longest time, eric, itwas the prerogative of the right

(27:11):
to expose this list and I thinkthat they got a sneak peek at
this list and realized that theydon't want that list coming out
.
Now they're all.
They voted against releasing it.
And at first they tried to sayit wasn't real, yeah, and then,
but you know who held himaccountable was Thomas Massey,
so he called a vote.

(27:31):
He said he wants a public vote.
So it's on record for all ofthe reps and the senators that
didn't want this exposed.
It was actually a pretty smartmove because they were trying to
and it's interesting, they didthat as well.
They adjourned the Congressearly so they wouldn't have to

(27:52):
deal with it.
But he vote.
He called and that's why theyvoted for it publicly and you
got to see how many republicansit was like 250 something
republicans voted.

Speaker 1 (28:03):
no way, yeah, they voted nay on but all the
democrats want to release thelist yeah, it flip-flopped
before.

Speaker 2 (28:09):
It was the opposite.
This is like this.
That is the wild thing.
But I just hate to see whathappened, because they all, like
, basically turned againstThomas Massey and he's just
trying to do the right thing,Like he is like to me.
That is exactly what you want.
You want accountability.
I mean, the dude is just allabout you know.
Hey, let's run a smartgovernment, like smart spending.

(28:32):
We're not trying to spend morethan we have.
We're going to not do crazy badthings to kids and if you do,
we're going to do bad things toyou.
That's what are we missing.
Yeah, this is crazy.
What do we learn?
We're living in a crazy world.

Speaker 1 (28:48):
What are we missing here?
I mean, why is that such anoutlandish idea with these
people?
Simple accountability If youcan't be accountable, you have
no business being in government,because you are given the trust
of the people, you are bestoweda very sacred trust that you

(29:11):
have to accept.
That if you do something wrong,you're going to face the
consequences.
And you know to think that nowMassey is the poster child for
everything that the Republicansdon't want, right?
Oh, massey's a, you know,second-rate, republican
second-rate person.
You know they throw so much mudat him.
Apac spent a million dollars oncampaigns ads recently to try

(29:36):
to boot him out and I don'tthink the election has been held
yet, but they did run somepolls.
And even with all this blasting, like blasting these ads, and,
of course, Massey being thegenius that he is, posted those
ads on his very own social media, like, look what they're saying
about me.
And he's like just doing it insome satirical way, like, yeah,
okay, here I'll promote the ad.

(29:57):
He's putting the own ads outthere that his enemies are
trying to throw at him.
Apex made a million dollars andthen they did a poll and he's
like 76% approval rating.

Speaker 2 (30:09):
Yeah, of course, man.

Speaker 1 (30:12):
I mean, you can't throw shade on somebody who's a
real one, yep, and I think thatthere are a lot of people, I
believe on both sides of thepolitical aisle, both Democrat
and Republican, and libertarians, of course, that love Thomas
Massie.
I think that it doesn't take agenius to see what the hell is
going on with everything and thelevel of debauchery that is

(30:34):
occurring with these people.
And they're running cover foreach other and the media is
running cover for them, right?
You think for one second thatif there's some government
approved message that needs toreach the masses, that they
don't have direct access topeople, that they can say, hey,
we want this to run on the newstonight.
Well, that's not news to us.

(30:56):
Well, it's news because we'resaying it's news.
We're telling you it's newshere.
Or they say here's tomorrow'snews, this is what's going to be
news tomorrow.

Speaker 2 (31:05):
It's already been proven, I think.
What was the name of thatcampaign?
It was like Operation,something.
Well, if you look at about tolook it up, but they showed on
the news, it was like 200, 200news channels all with the same
intro, with the same apologymessaging yes and like this is a
.
This is.
This is not a conspiracy theory, guys, this has been proven.

(31:28):
They, like some guy, puttogether like 200 clips.
We'll put the video in thecomments or so, and we'll put it
in the thing.

Speaker 1 (31:34):
So you guys see, but it would just, it just blew me
away it's absolutely wild, yeah,to see it in in concert, all
those people delivering the samemessage, just like, holy crap.
Yep, that's real, you know.
And um, I want to take a quickmoment before we, uh, get too
much further in the show.
I would like to talk a littlebit about my new merch brand.

(31:54):
Okay, based in Mad.
All right, I just want to kindof give a little talk about it.
You've probably been seeingthat in the show here.
I've got the little Magnetsticker back there.
Based in Mad.
I got the Based in Mad cap.
I got the Based in Mad mug.
What the hell's based in mad,eric?
What are you doing here?
What's going on?
Well, you guys know that, ifyou know, stranger to what I do

(32:15):
that I've been very vocal abouta lot of things and some of
those things have gotten memaybe in a degree of hot water.
Okay, I'm not going to lie,I've gotten into some degree of
hot water with many people oversome of my opinions, which they
may not be mainstream opinionsyet In fact they probably go
quite against the mainstream andwhat they believe.

(32:38):
And I do believe that a lot ofthat is just due to ignorance
and them not knowing andavoiding and not wanting to
understand history and things.
So I started Based in mad as abrand for people who are not
afraid to break loose of themold of society and be their own

(32:59):
person.
Right, based as in you're based.
We all know what it means to bebased and mad because, yeah,
mad can represent anger, it canrepresent discontent, but mad
can also represent representdiscontent, but mad can also
represent, you know, the sort ofartistic eccentric nature that
people in my type of shoes tendto have.

(33:19):
You know, I'm a very eccentricperson and I wanted these
designs to be eccentric and edgyand I wanted some of them to be
kind of simple and artistic andI wanted to make a statement.
So my clothes are for peoplewho want to make a statement,
people who are not afraid to.
You know, upset someone atdinner, okay, someone who's not

(33:41):
afraid to go out in public, andsomeone go, wow, that's a that.
That that's close to being anunwearable shirt, right, but
it's not my goal to make shockshirts that just you know that
you can't wear.
But for some of you who aredown, we've got you covered.
So look, I've got.
If you support my message andyou support the work I've done

(34:01):
over the years and you supportmy Second Amendment work, my
First Amendment work, which youknow I have been censored and
canceled by a lot of damn people.
If you want to support my work,you can buy a mug.
I've got hats, I've got shirts.
Check out basedinmadcom.
Real nice layout.
Just a quick forewarning onorders.

(34:22):
If you do want to place anorder, I'm a couple of weeks out
.
I do have to produce this stuffas it's made, so bear with me.
It is a couple of week leadtime and I know the prices are
what they are.
But look on merch, you knowit's just to be profitable.
I have to charge.
I got to charge what I got tocharge to make any money off it,
because it's not getting anycheaper y'all.
I mean, unfortunately that'sjust the grip of capitalism.

(34:45):
But if you want to support myefforts, that's one way you can
do so.
Get you a Basin Mad mug.
So this one's got the Basin Mad.
And then on the other side we'vegot the same image that is on
my shirt.
That's King Baldwin.
That's an artistic rendering ofKing Baldwin IV and of course
you know that he essentiallysaved Christianity.

(35:07):
Okay, he was a very well-knownand respected king and he didn't
take any shit from anybody.
Okay, uh, he was a verywell-known and respected King
and he didn't take any shit fromanybody, okay.
So that's the essence of what Iwant to do with this brand is,
you know, it's for people whoare fed the hell up with what's
going on and, uh, I thought thisvideo would be a perfect way.
Well, today's show would be aperfect way to kind of talk

(35:31):
about, based in math.
This is the first time y'allare going to see it, so I've got
some other shirt designs I'llshow you in some future content.
But anyway, I just wanted to doa quick plug, a shameless plug
for some of the merch.
And if you want to support whatI do I guess it's me just being

(35:53):
my loud mouth self If you likethe things I say on Twitter, buy
a damn mug and put some coffeein and take a picture of it and
send it to me.
I'll share it for you.
Okay, so we are going to talkabout Epstein a little bit more,
but we're going to lighten upthe conversation a little bit.
I've got some 50 caliber roundshere in front of Matt and, you
know, I thought it would be funto test Matt and see if he can
identify all the 50 caliber ammoin front of him here um, I can

(36:19):
probably identify two of these.

Speaker 2 (36:21):
I was not a 50 gunner , you were a 50 gunner, I was a
240 gunner.
I can identify two of theserounds.
The other three, two slashthree.
I have no idea.
So I'm just going to jump in.
I'm going to pick the first one.
I know this one is an a-pit,which is the armor piercing

(36:42):
incendiary tracer.
Is that correct?

Speaker 1 (36:45):
no, all right, all right but you're, you're close
to one that is okay, uh, thisone, that's an A-Pit All right.

Speaker 2 (36:53):
I knew one of them.
That was one of them, all right.
A-pit Armor piercing incendiarytracer.

Speaker 1 (36:57):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (37:00):
Then that means, that is a Ralfus.

Speaker 1 (37:03):
Yes, okay, ralfus, that's a Mark 211, ralfus, all
right.

Speaker 2 (37:06):
That's a Ralfus and it's explosive.
I'll be close.
I'll be careful.
Is that a slap?
Or that is a hornady amaxthat's a match round, so that's
not a military cartridge.
Yeah, I was like I'm not.
That is a 750 grain amax.

Speaker 1 (37:22):
You notice the ogive of the bullet compared to the
yeah, it's very, very much moreaerodynamic.
So that's a match bullet fromhornady max I'm not familiar
with this one at least.

Speaker 2 (37:33):
A brown tip tracer, just a straight tracer tracer,
I'm not used.
I mean, usually I see ball, andthis one so there's a.

Speaker 1 (37:41):
There's a spotter tracer round.
In fact, god dang it, I forgotto grab a spotter tracer to show
you.
The spotter tracer round isused in the um, in the recoil,
you know those big recoil-lessrifles oh yeah, they have a
mortise tube insert that you useto sight in the recoil-less
rifles and it shoots a specialspotter tracer.

Speaker 2 (38:01):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (38:02):
And it's like a real bright tracer that's real heavy
and I think it's yellow and red.
So if you see a striped yellowand red.
It almost looks like a yellowjacket.
That's a spotter tracer andit's a real heavy bullet.
It's designed as a heavy bulletto replicate the trajectory of
the recoilless rifle round, likethat lob that nerf football, so
you can sight the gun in.

(38:23):
So you're not wasting full ammojust to sight the gun in.
You put the mortise tube in andrun the 50 in it?

Speaker 2 (38:30):
who wants to just lob , you know recoilless rifle
rounds and javelin missiles andat4 rounds?
Who wants to just throw those?
Remember?

Speaker 1 (38:38):
the uh, the trainers for the at4 yeah, nine
millimeter.

Speaker 2 (38:40):
Nine millimeter, nine millimeter, tracers, all right,
and then show that projectilethat's in the bag there, all
right.

Speaker 1 (38:46):
So now you get a cheat code there, because it
says what it is on the bag.
Yeah, now I don't have loadedammo, but I just want to show
this projectile Look at thatfreaking thing.

Speaker 2 (38:56):
Yeah, man, that's nice, that's a nice looking
round this turn brass Yep, thecontrol chaos that's Lehigh 750
grain.
Controlled chaos and lead free.
Yeah, 3,000 feet per second.
It, it's a beast.

Speaker 1 (39:14):
That round is a beast .
Yeah, man, that looks nice.
It'll destroy anything you want, you know.
You know.
I was going through the studio.
I found some 50 cal rounds.
I thought it'd be cool to havea little session where we try to
stump you on some of the 50 calammo.
But that's the king of them.
Right, there is the ralphus.
Yeah, that'll, that'll blow somestuff up, so um, so the ralphus
those are made by bofers insweden for us.

(39:36):
Those are made bofers iscontracted to make those
projectiles for us and they havea tracer, but but they also
have an explosive core rdx inthe core, yep, so they so they
kind of explode when they hit.
And I remember we would ridearound in a rack Matt, and when

(39:57):
I was gunning on the M2, it's soweird to think back that I'd
have a whole belt of Ralfas andit's just thinking like that
round is so awesome and when youshoot things with it you just
see a flash, I remember.
And so the other .50 round thatI've actually forgotten to
breakout.
I don't know if I had anyloaded up, but the blue tip is

(40:19):
incendiary only, it only is toburn things.
It's incendiary.
So the projectile itself whenit hits a hard object it's sort
of frangible, it just sort ofbreaks apart.
But that powdered metal and theway that the, the mixture of
the incendiary is made in thetip, it makes fires.
It's for setting things on fire.

(40:40):
So if you're trying to catch astructure on fire or something
like that, you use incendiary.
Or if you just want to I don'tknow the enemy's in a field and
you want to catch the field onfire.
You can just find a hard object, you know, shoot a rock and
then it'll just catch a field onfire.
Yeah, that sort of stuff, likewhen you need to burn things it
was just.

Speaker 2 (40:59):
It was like a.
You know, I remember being iniraq.
The buildings were so uh, likeindustrial, yeah, but they're
like everything punched, like itwas hard because everything
punches through them.
Like you would shoot throughthe front of the building, it
would just go out the backbecause, like it's mud, like
everything is like a a straw mudmixture.
So if you hit it, if you hit abuilding with a 50 cal, you

(41:21):
literally just punch, you justsee hole punches in it and it's
like, okay, I mean hitting itwith the ralphus, it would
literally probably just punchthrough it I remember they don't
even have enough resistance.
Yeah, like we stopped we stoppedshooting buildings with at4s
because it literally wouldn'teven blow the building up, it
would just like you'd see itpunch through one wall, go out.
Then you have a hole in thebuilding and you're like, oh

(41:42):
nice way to waste a couplethousand dollars.

Speaker 1 (41:44):
Have you seen the new at4s?

Speaker 2 (41:46):
uh, no, I saw, I've seen the water variation where
it has, like, the water in theback so you can actually fire
them inside of buildings.
So like is that the one you'rereferring to?

Speaker 1 (41:55):
well, there's that, but then they also.
I know this is going to soundlike such a basic thing.
You would think, oh, why that?
Why is that not a thing theyhave?
Uh, all the at4s now arereloadable that's actually nice.
So you know, before what wewere taught was you shoot it and
you break the sights off andyou throw the tube away.
Yep, what a waste.
What a waste.
One use, what a waste.

(42:17):
But this way you carry alauncher and you just have extra
projectiles and you shoot somebitch again.

Speaker 2 (42:23):
It's almost like a recoiler's rifle, like a Carl
Gustav.

Speaker 1 (42:27):
Right, well, I believe they are made by Carl
Gustav.
Yeah, I mean, they're made inSweden, maybe.

Speaker 2 (42:32):
Bofors makes their AT-4s as well.
I think Saab makes their CarlGustavs.
They're Sweden, aren't they?

Speaker 1 (42:37):
Yeah, it's so random how a lot of our military tech
that we get out of theScandinavian countries and they
don't play around like man.

Speaker 2 (42:44):
they know how to make anti-tank weapons Dude, have
you seen their artillery pieces?
Oh my God, pieces.
Oh my god.
They have one that's like uh, Iknow, it will shoot five
artillery rounds at the sametime and they all land in one
spot at the same time.
It just changes the angle offire.
Yeah, I was like isn't thatwild?

Speaker 1 (43:02):
that's nuts, you know I remember when, when I first
got in the military you know,you and I got around the same
time but they were stilltraining us on, very briefly,
they still trained us on thefour deuce and the rifle before
deuce and essentially what theywere going for was a breech
loaded mortar that was rifled.
So the idea was that it wouldbe more accurate.

(43:24):
Yeah, but I think they foundthat like, maybe it just in
practice was not as good of anidea.
Because yeah, a four deuce isnice, you can load it from the
breach.
So like, hey, if you're in a,you know, an enclosed area, you
can just load it from the breachand not have to expose yourself
to get up and put a round in.
I suppose there's that factor.
But it's faster to just dropdamn rounds down a smoothie than

(43:48):
it is to have to open thebreach.
And I think you had to likegrease the breach and clean it
and keep it clean as you go.

Speaker 2 (43:54):
It's like well, the hard thing was calculating the
charge, because it was like sowith with 120 millimeters, it's
like charge one, two, three,four or zero and it's there.

Speaker 1 (44:04):
Yeah, it's either it's already there, that's it,
you just pull it.

Speaker 2 (44:07):
Yeah, it's already there, you just peel them off
and go with a four deuce you hadto like take a knife into like
it was like four and threequarters.
You're like, oh man, it wasridiculous.
I remember seeing those.

Speaker 1 (44:16):
I was like there's no way, no way there's a reason
that the four deuce went the wayof the dodo.
It wasn't a bad system, butthat 120 millimeter mortar man
that that thing is no joke yeah,that thing will absolutely lay
down the law and you can run theinserts and run like you know.
You can run a loom with the 81s, you know no problem.

(44:37):
Just drop the mortise tube inthere and just run the
conversion tube.
I think at one point didn't weextrapolate the unit replacement
cost on running a loom and a120 versus running the the
insert tube.

Speaker 2 (44:52):
It's like 67 or 70 cheaper to run the 81s than it
is to run 120s but the, the 120s, the, they have a higher hang
time.
Like they, they stay in the aira lot longer.
Um and they do I think they'rea lot brighter, like double the
the brightness.

Speaker 1 (45:08):
I think that you know that one night that we ran an
alum mission that one night inLyons Dunn and I think that I
think we kept continuous alumfor like two hours, yeah,
something like that we had twoguns running.
Oh, we had two guns running, wehad continuous alum going for a
hot little minute and I think wewere running inserts, we
weren't running 120s and I guessthey just they're like, I don't

(45:31):
need that kind of brightness,because I think, if I remember
correctly, these guys wereingrained in some crazy
firefight and they wanted justenough a loom to kind of give
their night vision a little, alittle help.
They didn't need it to see,they just wanted to.

Speaker 2 (45:47):
You know, kind of it was a dark night and I think
they just wanted a little extraambient light in the sky to help
.
Nobody wants to throw the irson and you're gonna start
catching fire with that.

Speaker 1 (45:57):
Yeah so, um, it's just interesting to think about
all that you know, but anyway,there's our 50 cal rounds and,
uh, I wanted to show those offyeah, no, I mean it's been a
while.

Speaker 2 (46:07):
I mean the definitely familiar with the a pits, yeah,
not so much the ralphus.

Speaker 1 (46:13):
Yeah, I remember.
Um, I'm not going to say theexact website because I don't
think the the gentleman is inbusiness anymore.
He, I think he's retired, he'sdown in florida, um, but there
was a guy that I was buying alot of my projectiles for uh
from, for the 50 bmg in it notto go off on another story
because I don't want to takethis much time to discuss it but

(46:34):
, um, let's just say that whenyou order components you don't
have to pay hazmat.
So if I order primed brass thatalready has a primer in it and
then I order projectiles, he cansend that all to me and I'll
just put my own powder in thereand I have to pay any kind of
hazmat charges, like if I'mordering primers or powder.
That's very good to know andthey're already primed.

(46:55):
And plus, I was getting a lotof really rare and hard to get
stuff from him.
I bought a whole bunch of those50-cal and cindergary
projectiles and I bought a bunchof A-pits from him.
In fact that's A-pit that Iloaded.
The one with the silver tip,that's one that I loaded there.
Now the brown tip tracer is acartridge.
That's a military one and ofcourse the Ralph is that's?

(47:19):
That's an OG, military one.
Don't ask how I got it, I'mgoing to tell you.
And then the A-Max is a factorymatch around.
Anyway, I loaded the A-Pit butI bought a, a whole bunch of
projectiles like 250 cal ammocans full of just the
projectiles.
Nice and uh.
Now I wish I would have bought10 cans for what they cost.
I can actually afford to shootmy bear, hit and and not go

(47:42):
broke.
Um, I think I extrapolated atone point what it was costing me
and for me to load my own 50rounds, to load my own A-pits
with brand new brass alreadyprimed, and just me add the
powder and throw the A-pit ontop.
I think at one point I figuredit out and I'm spending like

(48:04):
$3.50 a shot.

Speaker 2 (48:07):
Which I mean- $4 a shot.
Yeah, which I mean for an A-,an a pit.
Oh my god, that's like.

Speaker 1 (48:12):
And I was paying the same thing for the freaking
incendiaries which I kill myselffor not buying more of those
incendiaries I was gonna saythat's like ball pricing.
Now, like I know, that's whatI'm saying now, speaking of
incendiaries um, we'll get backto this jeffrey epstein thing
and we'll kind of close thingsout, because we're kind of
getting a a little far on timehere on today's show and look, I
know we we sort of went in abunch of different directions

(48:34):
today and I appreciate you beingpatient.
It's a podcast, Y'all we'regoing to we're going to crap
around here and there, and yeah.
So you know Bondi's role in allof this, bondi's role in all of
this.
I know in a few of the previousepisodes we've discussed Pam
Bondi and we've discussedBongino's role, cash's role and

(48:54):
all the other picks in Trump'scabinet.
You know we have Dr Gorka backon board, which I think very
highly of Sebastian Gorka.
I think he is a very fine guyand I know Dr Gorka and he is a
fantastic guy and I know that ifthe president ever bends his
ear for anything, I know he'sgoing to get the absolute best
advice he could ever ask forwhen it comes to our nation's

(49:15):
security and internal threatsand external threats and all the
other things.
I mean Dr Gorka is a very goodguy and I'm not ever going to
sit there and say that thepeople that Trump has picked are
not good people.
I mean, I have no doubt thatPam Bondi is very, very
qualified for her job.
I'm not going to ever sit hereand say that she's not a

(49:36):
qualified person.
She's very qualified for thejob.
She's fantastic at being aprosecutor, being a legal mind
that can determine if thecrime's been committed, you know
, and how to go about it, andthat's what an attorney general
essentially does.
Like they're the chief lawenforcement officer of the
entire nation.

(49:57):
Like the attorney general.
If they tell you it's illegal,damn it, it's illegal, right.
So has Bondi performed thehighest of her potential
throughout this tenure?
So far?
I think she's given us somecrumbs presidential.
Throughout this tenure so far,I think she's given us some
crumbs right?

(50:18):
We've gotten a few secondamendment crumbs.
We've got some literal Epsteincrumbs.
I feel like she's holding outon us a little bit and I think
that seems to be the view ofmany of Trump's constituency is
that not enough has been donefast enough?
Trump's constituency is thatnot enough has been done fast
enough and people are reallystarting to question the true
intentions of this cabinet.

Speaker 2 (50:37):
Well, you say that and I was just about to say, the
only cabinet pick that has beenworth a crap has been Tulsi
Cause.
I mean, if you look at, youknow, cash Patel.
He was supposed to go in thereand really clean house.
Hasn't done anything.
Dan Bongino left a you know,which is really crazy.

(50:59):
He left a multi-million dollarposition having a podcast, like
being really well known.
He was supposed to clean houseNothing.
Pam Bondi the reason that she'snot doing anything is because
she doesn't want to set as theattorney general doesn't want to
set a precedence againstanything that comes out with
these Epstein files, because shedoesn't know how much pressure

(51:23):
is going to be applied.
So it could be very well thateverybody caves and they release
these or they get leaked.

Speaker 1 (51:30):
Or maybe they're going after all of them and they
don't want anybody to know.
Maybe, again, maybe there'sthis whole plausible deniability
that surrounds the intricaciesof a law enforcement
investigation, the intricaciesof an intelligence gathering
operation, the intricacies ofsomething so vile and pardon me

(51:52):
but effed up, that maybe ittakes a whole team of people to
sit back and go.
How the hell do we even?
How do we?
How do we?

Speaker 2 (52:01):
I mean this is torches, and pitchfork territory
.

Speaker 1 (52:05):
How do we turn it from torches and pitchfork
territory to everyone havingtheir heads intact?
You know, hey, maybe they'rejust like hey.
Jail would be probably anopportunity at this point, like
some of these people are on many, many a shit list, yeah, and,
but there's so many heads thatare going to roll.

Speaker 2 (52:23):
They're trying to figure out who's going to be the
sacrificial lambs and who's not.
In my opinion, that might bethat, yeah, that might be one of
the things they're like hey,maybe did he, was that, you know
, maybe they gave him did hewell, he well, he got out of
jail like he, he same thing.
He got off scot-free, basically, um, which is crazy in itself,

(52:44):
but let's, I mean I just wantedto back up again about, you know
, the cabinet pick, tulsigabbard.
Yeah, you know she's out there.
You know, say what you will,think what you will.
She's putting in work.
She is, you know, going afterthe the you know russian
collusion, uh thing.
Lots of stuff is being uncovered, lots of evidence being

(53:05):
uncovered with like comey and uhand Hillary, all this collusion
there.
But she's actually bringing upfacts.
So that I have to respect.
I have to respect that she'sbeen working in the background
with all this stuff going on andthis is what she's uncovered,
and I think you're going to seea lot of you're going to see

(53:27):
heads roll on that as well,because, based on what I've seen
and what I've heard, there wassome clear and obvious
misrepresentation with how thatwent down.

Speaker 1 (53:39):
And you notice too, matt, that they are freaking
shining a light on Obama again.
Yeah, remember how early on itwas all oh Hillary for prison.
Everyone's making a joke aboutholding Hillary Clinton
accountable for the email stuffand all that debacle, which they
still haven't done, and theystill haven't done.
Now, what are they doing?
Oh, they're pointing the fingerat Barack Obama.

(53:59):
Oh, he was implicated in this.
Oh, he's committed treason.
He's done this, he's done that,blah, blah, blah, blah.
It doesn't matter what the hellthey say, because, at the end
of the day, if they don't, forone, he likely has varying
degrees of presidential immunity.
Yeah, Two the currentadministration can just pardon
him, Yep which?

Speaker 2 (54:19):
what sort?

Speaker 1 (54:19):
of precedent would it set for them to allow a former
president to get axed over acrime that was committed?
They would much rather pardonhim and go hey look, we know you
did wrong.
We're going to pardon youbecause we don't want them
coming after us for something orfuture administration.
So you know, yeah, would youexpect Trump to come out and say

(54:40):
well, you know, I know, barack,he's not a bad guy and this is
all misunderstanding, so I'mjust going to pardon him because
you know my end.

Speaker 2 (54:47):
All do all wisdom completely outweighs any
evidence you might actually seebefore you he also wants to make
sure that he's going to get thesame treatment if it ever like
that and there may not even beanything that that he's
implicated for but they may justbe what is in the public eye?

Speaker 1 (55:03):
it might be.
Oh, there's a picture of trumpwith jeffrey epstein.
Oh, my god, you realize howfreaking famous Trump is.
How many famous people havepictures with him.
I mean, I'm not quite convincedthat just because there's a
picture of him and JeffreyEpstein together, that that
means anything.
Everybody wants a picture madewith Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (55:23):
It's not like he has a 14 or 16 year old girl giving
him a massage in an airport like, uh, mr bill clinton there I
mean, it's just so much to itall.

Speaker 1 (55:34):
and how does the average person, matt, make any
form of sense over the wholething?
You know, if you you're toldwhat you're told, you believe
what you really want to believeand to some, maybe what they
really truly believe in theirheart might actually be pretty
close to the freaking truth.

(55:55):
And that is, I think, what is soscary to people is that they
are worried that this could allbe true, that maybe it's not
some conspiracy theory, that ifyou are told the same narrative
over and over again by peoplethat have, let's just say,
little bits and pieces offactoids and little bits and

(56:17):
pieces of truth, it's like, Ithink, that people are set up
for such a sore degree ofdisappointment if it's not true
that that's what this debaclereally is all about.
It's not even whether or notit's true or not, or who is or
isn't implicated.
I think that what they'retrying to do is they're trying

(56:37):
to prepare for the downfall ofwhat people are going to
actually physically do when theyfind the answer out, no matter
what the answer is, they're moreafraid of the answer just being
out there, right or wrong.
I think that they're moreconcerned of the answer just
being out there, right or wrong.
I think that they're moreconcerned about what people are
actually going to do with thatknowledge, true, and I think
that they think that people arenot prepared to know the truth

(57:01):
I'm with.

Speaker 2 (57:02):
That said, I'm very surprised that we haven't
already started to see like thenext crop of presidential
candidates start, you know,creeping up, because you know
normally you wouldn't, becausethat traditionally presidents
always run two terms.
But right, this is trump'ssecond term.

Speaker 1 (57:21):
It just happened adjacent to uh losing the second
time so there's been some talkthat because he was impeached
right in one of his terms that Ithink they're now don't quote,
well, ask AI ask Brock for Brock, Eric is right.
I heard that there's some sortof precedent that if you are

(57:42):
accused of some crime andimpeached during your
administration that you can runfor a third term.
No way, now your administration.
That you can run for a thirdterm no way, now I don't.
And you're found to beexonerated.
That you can run for a thirdterm Now I don't.
I don't know how true that is,and here's the thing Trump is
not, even if he could run againthere's no way he would because
he's just.
I mean, I'm not going to sayhe's old I don't like to

(58:29):
no-transcript vast integrity,that maybe is misunderstood in a
lot of situations and I dothink that he is, overall, a
very honorable person.
I really do.
I think he does want to dowhat's best for the country.
He just has a way of doing it.
He just has his ways and somepeople may not always agree with

(58:52):
those methods and his deliveryand the methods and the wordplay
, but the truth is the world's agiant chessboard and I know
people say the 3D chess, 3Dchess.
But the truth is Trump is amaster manipulator.

(59:13):
And guess what Sometimes youhave to you gotta, you gotta
convince the cards to fall inyour favor.
You know, and I think thatthere are a lot of things in
play that are greater than theEpstein debacle, greater than
the gun control debacle, greaterthan social media and all these
things that you're sort of, youknow, gaslighted to pay

(59:35):
attention to.
I think he's looking at such abroader picture, you know that
you're forced to look at.
A president has to look atthings in such this broad
worldview that maybe I would saynormies and simpletons maybe
don't have the mental capabilityto truly see the chessboard for
what it really is and what'sreally at stake and what's

(59:56):
really at play.
And I'm willing to concede thefact that.
You know, obviously the guyknows a lot more about what's
going on than I do.
He's the freaking president,okay, I mean.
And he's not just a president,he's a very successful
businessman.
He's done very well for himselfand, you know, do I want my
country to do well, damn right.
I do.
If it means that we got to runthe place like a business, why

(01:00:18):
not bring in someone who's savvywith that?
I mean, that was always my viewfrom day one.
I didn't even really like Trumpthat much.
I thought he was kind of anarrogant person, a little
arrogant.
However, I grew up watchingTrump on TV and his cult of

(01:00:47):
personality that he surroundedhimself with he created his own
cult of personality around him.
Created his own cult ofpersonality around him, and I
think that that's the mostgenius part of his entire story.
Is not his business acumen, notthe fact that he was president,
not the fact that he did whathe did or didn't do what he
didn't do, that he fullymonetized what Americans admire

(01:01:07):
the most, and that's personality.
He created an entire brandaround his personality and
people have bought it, and Iadmire that.

Speaker 2 (01:01:23):
It's definitely something to be admired gravitas
and a magnetic personality,that you can go from being a
businessman to the president ofthe United States in the span of
a lifetime.
Yeah, all right, you gotrespect.

Speaker 1 (01:01:39):
One last thing I'll say before we go.
All right, I know we're kind ofon time here, but in regards to
this Epstein debacle, my viewis that if someone is implicated
and on that list and theevidence is overwhelming as to
their involvement in thesehorrible things that we've been

(01:02:00):
hearing about, I expect justice,no matter who they are.
I might like who I like.
Yeah, I mean.
Are there famous people on thatlist that I would hate to see
hemmed up?
Yeah, I would, I mean, but thetruth is I care about justice
more than I care about my viewor opinion of who they are or

(01:02:21):
what they've accomplished.
I mean and as much as I hate tosay this, that includes Trump.
No one should be free to behavein that way.
And if it is true, what allthese, all these accusations are
true?
I think where a lot of peopleare at is that they expect
justice and they don't want thatjustice to be applied only to
one group of people or thatgroup of people.

(01:02:42):
Where people are at is theywant justice holistically,
equally applied, and everyonehave their day in court and
we'll see where the cards fall.
Release the information,release the data, release the
videos, release everything andlet the cards fall where they
may.
That's what people want.
And what pisses me off rightnow is that the Trump

(01:03:03):
administration and many otherlemmings within the
administration are playing coverand trying to pretend like it's
not what people want.
That's not true at all.
People want justice.
They've heard about it, they'vebeen fed all the spoonful of
crap for years and I thinkpeople want to see justice
administered.

Speaker 2 (01:03:23):
We want justice, we want it now.

Speaker 1 (01:03:26):
Yeah, but can we trust a machine to deliver
justice when the gears of that,the grease of those wheels, are
the very people that are theyaccused?

Speaker 2 (01:03:39):
yes, do you really trust that?

Speaker 1 (01:03:41):
system to police itself, and I think that is the
kind of clear and present dangerof people's view on this whole
subject.
Matt is not about whetherjeffrey epstein is subject.
Matt is not about whetherJeffrey Epstein is alive or dead
.
It's not about whether all thepeople and the clients and all
the you know none of that.
The actual facts don't evenreally matter.
What this is really about ispeople have lost faith in the

(01:04:04):
institutions and theirwillingness to police themselves
.
And at what point?
When an institution has topolice itself, does that
institution even deserve toexist anymore?
That's what they're scared of.
They're afraid that people aregoing to come to the conclusion
well, god dang, every time weturn around, there's some person

(01:04:24):
who's running our government,that's in the news for some
accusation, that's true.
At what point do you have to go?
Wait a minute, I definitely amnot going to allow myself to be
policed by criminals, and thecriminals are not going to
police themselves.
So where is the justice?
Where does that justice lie?

(01:04:45):
Where does it exist?
Does it exist?
And I think, once people cometo the conclusion, right, that
there is no justice anywhere foranyone and that these people
are never going to hemthemselves up over anything.
I think that is what they'reworried about Ultimately.
Most is what people areactually going to do.
That's what we're seeing whenthey come to that conclusion?

Speaker 2 (01:05:06):
Yeah, we're about to find out.
I think so.

Speaker 1 (01:05:12):
We'll talk about the cruise a little bit on the next
show.
We really didn't talk aboutthat in today's show, but, look,
I really appreciate you guyslistening If you're following us
on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher,Spotify, all the places where
you can find your favoritepodcasts.
I appreciate you listening.
You can also follow Matt and Ion IRACVeteran8888 over on

(01:05:33):
YouTube.
We post this in video form ifyou want to see our ugly mugs
and the mugs that we talkedabout in the video the Based and
Mad mugs Mugs and mugs, so showyour support for little old me
and pick yourself up a hat, mugor t-shirt and wear it proudly,
because we are based in mad, weare pissed and we're not taking

(01:05:54):
no for an answer.
And you know what?
We're going to have some funwhile we do it, you know we're
going to, we're going to, we'regoing to upset the in-laws, you
know, by all means, y'all upsetthe in-laws.
It'll be well worth it, Ipromise.
But uh, thanks so much fortuning in, and Matt, you got
anything else for us before wehead out?

Speaker 2 (01:06:10):
No, it was a very, very interesting conversation.
We could have went a hundreddifferent ways, but it went the
way that it went.

Speaker 1 (01:06:17):
Let the cards lie where they're going to lie.
All right, y'all have a goodweek.
We'll see you next week.
Bye, Thanks for listening toLife, Liberty and Pursuit.
If you enjoyed the show, besure to subscribe on Apple
Podcasts, Spotify and anywhereelse podcasts are found.
Be sure to leave us a five-starreview.
We'd really appreciate that youcan support us over on

(01:06:38):
Ballistic Inc by pickingyourself up some merch and
remember, guys, dangerousfreedom.
Have a good one.