Episode Two Hundred Sixty Eight: The Dumbest Conspiracy

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcomed episode two hundred and sixty eight of the Death
of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm your
host on today's show. As the Epstein stupidity continues to
dominate the news cycle, I debate cable news legend in
liberal commentator David Schuster on what is really going on,
how we are now living in two totally different worlds
when it comes to climate change. Sixty minutes tries to

(00:23):
calm nerves a little bit on Ai Trump makes maybe
his most insane White House statement ever. We'll do a
football update, and is the family of Ronald Goldman really
finally gonna get oj Simpson's estate? We are still mired
in maybe one of the dumbest major stories in modern

(00:46):
American history. I'm referring to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal slash saga.
It appears as if we are finally reaching the crescendo
of this story, which I don't believe is going to
provide much of a bad because I think this has
been grossly overblown. To be clear, as I have said

(01:06):
from day one, Jeffrey Epstein was guilty of the charges
against him, which is why he killed himself despite having
lots of money and political connections, but the level of
insanity and stupidity that has surrounded this story. Every time
I think it can't get any worse, it does, And

(01:26):
in the last couple of days, we've now seen the
House of Representatives in the US Senate finally vote to
release whatever the hell is in the so called Epstein files.
And frankly, there's so much insanity and stupidity surrounding the
story that if I wanted to, I could probably spend
a full three hour podcast on just that. I'm not

(01:47):
going to, but we have a lot to get to,
so let me get right into it. I think the
first thing I want to talk about is Megan Kelly.
And the reason why I want to talk about Megan
Kelly is not because I think what she said most
recently about Epstein, which created an awful lot of controversies
all that significant in and of itself, but because it

(02:08):
really goes to the much larger issue of who Megan
Kelly really is and what the right wing media now
has become in the era of Trump. As you probably know,
I've been very critical of Megan Kelly for many years
because I believe her to be a shape shifter. I
believe her to be inauthentic. I believe that she changes

(02:30):
her positions based upon what her self interest is at
the time. I've noticed this for many, many years, most
specifically when it came to her completely baseless and false
attacks against my friend Matt Louer, the former Today Show
host at NBC, which she engaged in simply as a
rationalization for why it is that she got fired from

(02:52):
NBC after doing a completely failed show there. And it's
really the issue of sex abuse allegations. Megan Kelly has
exposed herself most dramatically, and she did so in an
almost comical way a few days ago. And what's so
amazing about this story that I'm going to tell you
about is I think that Megan Kelly actually essentially told

(03:16):
the truth. But the problem is she told it in
a way that was very contradictory to her past statements
on the entire issue of sexual abuse. And she did
so way too late, because this Epstein narrative has so
exploded beyond all recognition of reality that no one can

(03:38):
understand the context of what she was trying to say. So,
when you tell the truth about a story that you
have helped and the right way media has helped grow
exponentially beyond whatever should have all because it's all of
a sudden in your self interest to do so, because
the politics of this have changed to now all of

(04:00):
a sudden, Trump supporters are a little bit antsy about
this all Epstein and think this might be causing too
much harm for their cult leader. So now all of
a sudden they have to look back at the facts
on this. I mean, this is so insane making And
what I'm referring to is a statement that Megan Kelly
made on her show where all of a sudden, all

(04:21):
of a sudden, after being one of the patron saints
of sex abuse, going back to her days at Fox
News Channel where she made claims about Roger Als and
then she got played by Charlie Starron in a major movie,
and then, of course, as I said, going after completely
falsely my friend Matt Lower because it fit her agenda.

(04:41):
And then all of a sudden, when Pete Hegstad needed
help when it came to his sex abuse allegations which
were far more serious and legitimate than those against Matt Lower,
where Hestat actually had to pay a settlement, he ran
to Megan Kelly, and she held his hand and helped
him through barely getting through the confirmation process to be

(05:02):
the new Secretary of War. And I attacked her for
her hypocrisy on that. But here's she is all of
a sudden realizing that it's in her self interest because
the audience it's now changed because of the perceived politics
of this whole thing, viz A v Trump that Wait
a minute, you know I've been told, which is maybe

(05:23):
the dumbest part of what she's about to say here.
You're about to hear her say here because what she's
claiming is not inside information. She's couching this in inside information,
that she has a source that you know, what Epstein
was accused of here is different than what people perceive.
You didn't need inside source for that, You just needed
to be able to read. But no one bothered to

(05:45):
read or research the actual allegations in this entire situation.
So Megan Kelly decides, all of a sudden it's in
her self interest to say, gee, you know, maybe this
isn't nearly as bad as what we thought, But in
the course of doing so, completely exposes herself as a
hypocrite because she sounds like she's defending child sex abuse.

(06:10):
And here's what that sounded like.

Speaker 2 (06:12):
As for Epstein, I've said this before, which is a reminder.
I do know somebody very very close to this case
who was in a position to know virtually everything, not everything,
but virtually everything. And this person has told me from
the start, years and years ago that Jeffrey Epstein, in
this person's view.

Speaker 1 (06:30):
Was not a pedophile.

Speaker 2 (06:31):
This is this person's view who was there for a
lot of this, but that he was into the barely
legal type, like he liked fifteen year old girls. And
I realized this is discussing. I'm definitely not trying to
make an excuse for this. I'm just giving you facts
that he wasn't into like eight year olds, but he
liked the very young teen types that could pass for

(06:53):
even younger than they were, but would look legal to
a passer by. And that is what I believed, and
that was what I reliably was told for many years.
And it wasn't until we heard from Pam Bondi that
they had tens of thousands of videos of alleged forgive me.
They used to call it kiddie porn, now they call

(07:14):
it child's sexual abuse material. On his computer that for
the first time, I thought, oh, no, he was an
actual pedophile, I mean, only a pedophile. It gets off
on young children abuse videos. She's never clarified it. I
don't know whether it's true. I have to be honest,
I don't really trust Pambondi's word on the Epstein anymore. Yeah, so,

(07:37):
I don't know what's true about him. But we have
yet to see anybody come forward and say I was
a like a I was under ten, I was under
fourteen when I first came within his purview. Look, it's
you can say that's a distinction without a difference.

Speaker 1 (07:55):
No, it's not. I think there is a difference.

Speaker 2 (07:57):
There's a difference between a fifteen year old and a
five year old. You know, it's just whatever now, of.

Speaker 1 (08:03):
Course, it is so typical of this upside down world
in which we now live, where Megan Kelly decides to
start telling essentially the truth about the Epstein case. And
to be clear, I'm in no way, shape or form
defending Epstein. This is one of the biggest problems we
have when it comes to the issue of any sort
of sex abuse. You're not allowed to actually say even

(08:26):
what the allegation is if it's not as horrendous as
the public perception, because then it sounds like you're defending
the indefensible. And so that's what's happened with the Epstein thing.
But so it's just so typical of how totally broken
our entire media system is that Mega Kelly got roasted

(08:47):
for this. Now. I think she deserves to get roasted
because of the hypocrisy issue as well as this exposing
her as a shape shifter, because the only reason why
she's suddenly deciding to tell the basic truth about the
allegations against Jeffrey Epstein is that it is now perceived
that Trump is somehow in trouble on this and that

(09:08):
we need to kind of reel this back in. But
it's too late to reel this back in. I mean,
this narrative is way too big to fail at this point.
I mean that's maybe by number one conclusion about the
last week, which is not earth shattering. We've known this
for a while, but it is absolutely positively the case
that regardless of what happens when these files are finally released,

(09:31):
in whatever shape or form they are released, the narrative
will survive. Even though there's not gonna be anything earth
shattering or no, there's not gonna be any bombshells in there.
I'm convinced to that the narrative will survive because there's
too many people deeply, deeply invested in that, and if
they need to, they're just gonna claim that Trump or

(09:52):
the Trump DOJ scrubbed the files or there are too
many redactions. I mean, these conspiracy theories can never die,
right because inherently they involve the most powerful people in
the world, that they have magic powers and therefore they
can do anything you want, and they can act totally illogically,
and that no theory has to have any sense behind it.

(10:14):
It doesn't have to be consistent, it doesn't matter because
it's just what people want to believe for some very
very strange reasons, which I'll have a theory about a
little bit later on in this episode, but specifically with
regard to Kelly. Look, I enjoyed Megan Kelly getting roasted,
especially on this particular topic, because she is a hypocrite.

(10:36):
She is a shape shifter, and you know, in the
last episode of the podcast, I spent a lot of
time on this weird alliance between Megan Kelly and Candas
Owens and Tucker Carlson, specifically over issues like the Charlie
Kirk assassination and Megan Kelly backing Candace Owens against Ben Shappie.

(11:00):
He basically calling Ben Shapiro a liar for him claiming
in an interview with Megan Kelly, I believe correctly the
Candae Owens has at least implied that Erica Kirk was
somehow involved or at least turning point, USA was behind
along with somehow the help of Israel and maybe, by
the way, now I guess Egypt. I don't even understand

(11:20):
what Canda Owens do his theory is behind the assassination
of Charlie Kirk. And I actually kicked myself a couple
of days after the last episode of the podcast because
I at one point I said, you know, I don't
really understand what's motivating this alliance between Megan Kelly and

(11:41):
Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. And I theorized that maybe
Megan Kelly believes that demographically this is in her self interest,
or maybe there's something else we don't know, and I realized, Zigler,
you freaking idiot. You've basically already talked about this. In fact,
I even read first it in directly for another reason

(12:03):
in the last episode of the podcast, and that is
that Megan Kelly, Tucker Carlson, and Candas Owens all have
something very clearly in common, and that is lawyer Brian Friedman,
who I've mentioned several times in this podcast, the guy
I briefly worked with in the Michael Jackson case. He's
an extremely high profile lawyer here in Los Angeles. He

(12:25):
represents Megan Kelly, he represents Tucker Carlson, and he represents
Justin Baldoni in that whole Blake Lively lawsuit. And it's
obvious that Candas Owens has been getting leaks from the
Baldoni camp on that story. Now don't they come directly
from Brian Freeman or someone you know in between Brian

(12:48):
Freeman and Candas Owens. But there's clearly an alliance there
between the Baldoni camp, which is Brian Friedman and Candas Owens.
So now we have at least an explanation that they
all have this connection to Brian Freeman, who I believe
to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist himself. I
think he's a very smart guy. He's extremely successful. He

(13:08):
and I went sideways because he sent me off on
a wild goose chase on the Michael Jackson case that
was frankly a conspiracy theory that I came back to
him on and said, Brian, I think he got the
wrong guy. I think you have misidentified this person. And
I think he was embarrassed by the fact that he
had misidentified somebody in this conspiracy theory that he had

(13:32):
me check out in the Michael Jackson case. And I
think that's the worst thing he could do to an egomaniac,
is to make them feel bad about themselves. And that
pretty much or all deads of purposes ended the relationship.
So I don't have a really great feeling about Brian Freeman,
but there's no question in my mind that that is
at the heart of this very bizarre and telling alliance

(13:53):
between Megan Kelly, cantaz Owens and Tucker Carlson. And it
now touches on almost every issue. Touches on the Charlie
Kirk assassination, it's even touching on the assassination attempt on
Donald Trump last year in Pennsylvania. Butler, Pennsylvania. I mean,
in just the last few days, both Knadas and Tucker

(14:13):
supposedly out with these new bombshell reports on the Kirk
assassination of the attempt on Trump's life, none of which
is based on any reality. There's no theory that makes
any goddamn since and of course, the biggest absurdity of
the entire subject is Donald Trump is president of the
United States. The Trump DOJ is headed by Cashpittal, a

(14:36):
very good friend of Charlie Kirk, and obviously the Trump
administration should be trusted to properly investigate the assassination attempt
on Donald Trump. I mean, if Harris had won, I
could at least understand. Okay, well, the people in charge
the DOJ, they don't have a great self interest when

(14:59):
it comes to get into the bottom of a potential
Charlie Kirk conspiracy or a conspiracy to assassinate Donald Trump.
But that's not the case. Trump won. So therefore you're
burden of proof in trying to claim some sort of
massive conspiracy or that we're not being told. The truth
about either of these situations is extremely high right off

(15:22):
the top, And of course it's inherently contradictory because these
people are allegedly Trump facts not if this makes any
goddamn sense anyway. So, and then there's the issue of
anti Semitism and whether Tucker Carlson interviewing Nick Flentays has
outed him as an anti semi which people have suspected.

(15:45):
And then Donald Trump gets asked about the interview between
Tucker and Flents, and Trump backs Tucker and claims he
doesn't know who flin Days is, which is just another
absurdity in all this. And then we go back to
the Epstein because Trump is now in the perception of
the media, and certainly the left has completely flipped on

(16:07):
whether or not the Epstein files should be released. And
the left's version of this is, aha, he's guilty. He
won't allow the Epstein files to be released. The only
explanation for why Trump is stonewalling here is that he
is implicated. We knew it. That's the left's view. Now.

(16:30):
In my view, there's another way I look at this,
which is that Trump having been accused falsely in the
past in this realm, and also someone who knows Epstein
and knows Maxwell, Glenn Maxwell, the person's in federal prison
right now for allegedly enabling Epstein's crimes, even though I

(16:51):
believe her trial is a complete sham during COVID, But
in my view, it is certainly possible that Trump understands
that within these files there's a bunch of garbage, because
that's what grand dury investigations are. They throw everything they
possibly can against the wall they can, they try to

(17:11):
see what can stick, and oftentimes there's crap in there,
there's stuff that doesn't make any sense, that it's not
based in reality, where people, if you misinterpret it, can
be falsely accused. And that Trump might be standing on principle,
and maybe it's possible that there's stuff in him about

(17:32):
him in there that would be misperceived. They are people
close to him that would be misperceived. So from a
principal standpoint, I realized it's weird to claim that Trump
is standing on some sort of principle, But in this case,
the principle might be it is self interest. That's always
made sense to me that he would not want these
things released because he understands how the media obsession on

(17:53):
this story is insatiable. Everything is radioactive now, everything is
nuclear charged, and so therefore he understands the dangers of this. Well,
now he's flipped and the reason why Trump is perceived
as having flipped is that it's obvious that they were
going to lose the vote. I mean, I get that

(18:13):
Trump decided, Okay, I'm not going to win this vote.
So now I got to be on the right side.
So I'm going to say, screw it. You know, what,
to hell with innocent people getting destroyed and all this.
I can't take this anymore. Uncle, go ahead and release
the goddamn things. And in my opinion, this is going
to cause all sorts of problems. We've already seen this

(18:33):
with the emails that got released, not from the Epstein files,
but from the Epstein estate that we focused quite a
bit on in the last episode of the podcast. The
former president of Harvard, Larry Summers, who I've always felt
was a pretty decent guy, a smart guy for a liberal,
I mean, you know, as an economist goes. I mean,
there are not too many good liberal economists. But I've

(18:55):
always thought he was okay. And you know, he was
involved in some embarrassing emails with Epstein, clearly had a
very close relationship with him. Nothing remotely criminal, nothing remotely criminal.
But the story is already so radioactive that he has
announced that he is essentially stepping away from public life.
Elizabeth Warren is demanding that Harvard, where he used to

(19:19):
be president and he's still a professor, essentially fire him.
Fire him what we fire him for what? Which is
completely absurd when you consider the fact that we now
know from these communications that there's a Democratic member of
Congress that was texting with Epstein literally as they were

(19:41):
questioning Michael Cohen in a congressional hearing. Should they be
forced to resign from office? I mean, I mean, Summers
is just a professor at Arvard where he used to
be president. But from a media perspective, that's how radioactive
this story. Obviously, when it comes to my perception of
this story, a lot of this is clouded by my

(20:03):
PTSD from the Penn State Joe Paternal Jerry Sandusky case,
where so much of the exact same types of things happened,
where people were collateral damage that had nothing to do
with this, even though the whole story was a scam
to begin with, But it becomes so large that you
end up having people like Graham Spaniard every hand of

(20:24):
goddamn conversation with any of the key people going to
prison as a former president the Penn State. It's that's what.
That's the danger of a story getting so large and
so toxic and so radioactive injustice is gonna happen. And
you know, speaking of these emails that were released from

(20:45):
the Epstein estate kind of as an appetizer supposedly for
the Epstein files to be released. So this email between
Michael Wolf and the reporter, the author, who I've never
had any trust for it has the word redacted. And

(21:05):
the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released the email
with the word victim over top of it in capital letters.
And at the time of last week's podcast, I didn't
know who the victim was, and I questioned, Okay, how
do we even know who this person is? And without
their identity, how can we possibly understand the context of

(21:28):
these emails that were being used as Aha? See, you
know this victim supposedly spent lots of time with Donald Trump.
We've got the smoking gun, because what else would a
Epstein victim be doing spending lots of time with Donald
Trump if not being abused by Donald Trump. That's the
Democrats implication or their alleged logic here. Well, soon after

(21:53):
I taped the podcast, the Republicans on the House oversyche
Committee said, yeah, that person who will redacted their name
was redacted for no legal reason whatsoever. Was Virginia Geoffrey,
who is dead because she killed herself not long after
faking a bus accident. She's got a book out that

(22:14):
came out well after she committed suicide. And the reason
why that's incredibly significant is twofold number one. They won't
tell you this, even the Republicans in the House are
afraid to tell you this. But she's clearly not credible.
She has all sorts of problems with her credibility, which
we have outlined time and time again, including making a

(22:36):
completely totally false allegation against Alan Dershowitz that she was
forced legally to retract. And I also believe that someone
who kills themselves just before releasing a book with no
names and all sorts of dubious allegations is inherently suspect.
But that's not the most important reason why her name

(22:58):
discredits the entire purpose of the Democrats releasing the email.
Her name discredits it because in the book she's on
record praising Donald Trump. So and she's dead, so she
cannot now even though Epstein victims tend to be magic
a lot like Sandusky victims, she cannot now reverse that statement.

(23:22):
She so she and this is a woman who basically
claimed every man she ever met abused her except Donald Trump.
So if you use the name, I've always said this
is this is one of my major complaints of a
million in the Penn State paternal Sandusky case. The anonymity
of the accusers made it impossible for the public to

(23:46):
understand the story. And that's what Democrats tried to do here.
They tried to hide that this quote unquote victim. Let's
pretend she is a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. Even if
that's the case, it doesn't matter because she's on records
praising Trump and she has no hesitation of accusing everybody

(24:08):
of having sexually abused her. So those emails were complete
and total bullshit. They with regard to Trump at the
very least, and then maybe even dumber than this, the
Democrats put out an email that claimed, or at least
they claimed, was an indication that Jeffrey Epstein had spent

(24:32):
Thanksgiving with Donald Trump or vice versa in twenty seventeen
when Trump was president. And this was all based upon
a very vague email from Epstein. But this just drives
me crazy. Use your goddamn brains. He's the president of
the United States in twenty seventeen. We know where he

(24:54):
is basically at all times. And the Democrats, let's put
out this Thanksgiving email, which they eventually deleted because I
think somebody finally realized, Oops, wait a minute. We know
that there's plenty of evidence that Trump did not spend
Thanksgiving in twenty seventy with Jeffrey Epstein. But if it

(25:16):
would only take just basic probably a Google search, to understand,
not to mention basic logic, that this was ridiculous on
its face, and so to me, the Democrats are already
stepping in it on this. I think it's possible they
may step in it further depending on how what is

(25:37):
in these files gets perceived. And I fully understand, and
I've already stated that Democrats have a couple things very
much on their side, Number one of which is that
the media is as invested as everybody else is in
there being some sort of vindication of their narrative in
these so called Epstein files. But frankly, I am more

(25:58):
and more confident as I have been throughout this saga
that there's not going to be any there there. There's
not going to be any evidence of any sort of
crimes by anybody really other than Epstein. Now, maybe there'll
be some embarrassing stuff, there might be some stuff that
requires further investigation or questioning, but I don't believe that

(26:19):
anybody else is going to be proven to have committed
crimes here, because everything we've learned so far is one
hundred percent consistent with my view of this story. The
use of Geoffrey to try to create a false narrative,
Democrats jumping on this bullshit Thanksgiving story, and then we

(26:40):
get to the issue of the former Prince Andrew, who
I believe was completely railroaded in this whole thing. And
I've gone through several times in the past why I
am more and more confident, almost on a daily basis
that the former Prince Andrew, the brother of now King Charles,
who I believe had it out for his little brother

(27:03):
because he was his mom's favorite, Queen Elizabeth, and the
whole complicated series of circumstances that caused the royal family
to act a lot like Penn State did in the
Jerry Sandusky saga and plead guilty for things that never
actually happened. To me, what we've now learned in the
most recent dump of these documents from the Epstein estate

(27:26):
one thousand percent backs up my view that Prince Andrew
was railroaded. And it's absolutely astonishing, even for someone as
cynical as I am about the modern news media and
why they're so broken, and why this podcast is called
the Death of Journalism. Even I am a bit stunned

(27:47):
that we can simultaneously when we want to claim that
everything that Epstein says in this cash of emails from
his estate is credible, believable, and it is important for
the historical record what really happened here. When it fits
our agenda, Epstein is a credible narrator. But when it

(28:11):
doesn't fit what we want to believe, we just ignore it.
And there is an exchange. There's a couple of exchanges
that have been released between Epstein and then Prince Andrew
regarding the allegation from Virginia Gioffre that to me, one

(28:32):
thousand percent, as much as any email possibly could exonerates
Prince Andrew. This is how that exchange was reported in
Time magazine Epstein forwarded quote unquote, the Duke Prince Andrew
an email in March of twenty eleven about an upcoming

(28:54):
Daily Mail story about Geoffrey's allegations against Andrew. The Duke
wrote back, quote what I don't know any of this?
How are you responding? Epstein writes back, just got it
two minutes ago. I've asked lawyers to send a letter.

(29:17):
I'm not sure how to respond. The only person she
didn't have sex with was Elvis. The Duke replies, please
make sure that every statement or legal letter states clearly
that I am not capital letters involved, and that I
knew and know nothing capital letters about any of these allegations.

(29:42):
I can't take any more of this on my end.
Two days later, Epstein sends the Duke an email, you okay,
these stories are complete and utter fantasy. I don't know
and have never met Al Gore. Clinton was never on
the island. The telephone book is not mine. It was

(30:05):
stolen by my houseman that is currently in prison for
doing so. Unquote. The Duke also wrote to Glainne Maxwell,
Webstein's associate, who was convicted of sex trafficking, in an
email that she forwarded to Epstein, quote, Hey there, that's
what's all this. I don't know anything about this exclamation

(30:28):
point you must say, so please, this has nothing capital
letters to do with me. I can't take any more
of this. Unquote that's from then Prince Andrew to Glainne Maxwell. Now, folks, look,
I realize people lie all the time, and people lie
sometimes in personal emails, but this is stuff that was

(30:53):
never expected to be made public. This is the immediate
reaction to the nolage that there's this allegation two people
very very close to him, Epstein and Gleamn Maxwell. So
at the very least, you're getting a response that deserves

(31:14):
to be taken seriously, because the natural inclination, if there
was any guilt at all at all, would be, oh fuck,
what do we do about this? That would be the
reaction of a guilty person. The reaction of an innocent
person is I have no idea what the hell you're
talking about, And to be very concerned and emphatically concerned. Again,

(31:40):
these are two people he's close to and he trusts
in a private communication. This is almost like having a
wire tap and getting the authentic reaction, knee jerk reaction
to an allegation which oftentimes can tell you an awful
lot about whether or not somebody guilty. To me, these emails,

(32:02):
while they don't one thousand percent prove innocence because they
couldn't possibly do that, are one thousand percent consistent with innocent.
And when you consider that there's no evidence or logic
behind any of the allegations against Andrew, and that the
accuser of Virginia Jeoffrey has all sorts of massive credibility problems.

(32:24):
To me, this sinch is it? And yet, with the
exception of the story in Time magazine that I just
quoted from you, essentially there's been a blackout on this.
There's been a blackout on this element of this cash
of emails from the Epstein estate because it doesn't fit
with anyone's agenda. And poor Andrew is not even a

(32:46):
prince anymore, has that his nuts completely cut off. He
can't respond. It's probably part of his deal to keep
a roof over his head that he's going to keep
his mouth shut. And the Royal family, much like Penn
State in the Sandusky case, has absolutely possible, latively no
incentive whatsoever to fight back and go, hey, wait a minute,
doesn't this show our guy was innocent because they've already

(33:09):
pled guilty on his behalf. And so it's just so
unbelievably obvious what really did and did not happen here.
And the media is too broken to either understand or
report in a significant way any of this. And so
we now have a situation where I believe we're going

(33:30):
to have these Epstein files released. We're going to go
through days and days of breathless media coverage where the
emails that they don't like, like the ones I just
reference between Epstein and Andrew, are going to be ignored
that information, you know, that didn't happen. You know, we're
not going to tell the public about that because people
might get ideas on their own for what really transpired here,

(33:52):
which is not consistent with our narrative, and it'll expose
us as having railroad and an innocent person. We don't
want that. I'll emphasize whatever they can, you know, making
mountains out of molehills, out of stuff that either was
not proven or is misconstrued or it doesn't have proper context.
I mean, they're going to see a lot of that.

(34:14):
And there's gonna be people like Larry Summers that are
having their lives disrupted and may be destroyed, or were
things that never happened. It's just gonna be ugly. It's
going to be terrible, And in my frustration over this story,
I've been very, very confused. I've been confused by the
right because of their obsession with this story from the beginning,

(34:35):
because of the fact that it was always obvious that
Epstein and Trump had a very close relationship, and that
I didn't get why Maga World would be playing with
fire like this. It didn't make any sense to me.
But I've also been confused more recently by the left
buying into the idea that this is finally going to
be the thing that brings down Trump, and it has

(34:58):
a very reminiscent feel of Russia Gate two point zero.
To me. I'm not the only person that has said that,
but there have been a few others that have made
the same comparison, and so I wanted to find out
a little bit more about what the left is really
thinking here. And the person I probably trust in that
realm more than anybody else is a guy by the

(35:18):
name of David Schuster, who's in my mind, a cable
news legend because he's been a news anchor at literally
every single cable news network that there is. He's now
a liberal commentator in the Young Turks Network. He and
I have quite a history together because before we ever
actually met, we did two very high profile MSNBC. I

(35:40):
wouldn't even call them interviews. They were more like boxing
matches back in my days. Following my Newsmaking interview with
Sarah Palin after the two thousand and eight presidential election,
he went after me hard. I went after him hard.
There was no real viral nature of interviews back then,
but if there had been something that could truly go viral,

(36:03):
this would be it. And they were very memorable, and
I never would have thought that many years later David
Schuster and I would become friends, but we have because
we have a mutual respect. David, much to his credit,
has essentially acknowledged that he might not have been particularly
fair to me at the time. We've done several interviews
on this podcast and others, and I very much respect

(36:27):
his honesty and his intellect, and so I asked him
to come on to explain the left wing position on
the issue of the Epstein files, and he agreed to
do so. Now, because of scheduling. We did this a
few days ago, but I don't think there's really anything
in here that is particularly dated. We pretty much presumed

(36:49):
that the House and the Senate we're going to vote
to eventually release the Epstein files, which they have, but
that occurred a few days after this interview was conducted
to hear some of the things that have already referenced
in this episode that we talk about in this interview.
So that's the reason for the redundancy. But this is

(37:10):
my interview with David Schuster trying to understand the left's
perspective and expectations when it comes to what they hope
to accomplish with the release of the Epstein files. David Schuster,
Welcome back to the Death of Journalism podcast. John.

Speaker 3 (37:28):
It is always a pleasure to be with you. How
are you.

Speaker 1 (37:31):
I'm doing well. Always great to talk to you as well,
especially considering our remarkable history together. We seem to talk
on this podcast about once a year, and I thought
it would bring be a particularly appropriate moment because of
the Jeffrey Epstein story exploding back into the news. And
I've watched your tweets for a long time and I'm

(37:51):
just very, very confused not just by you, but by
a lot of people on the left and their view
of this story and where they think it's going. And
you know me very well, I'm basically an anti Trump conservative,
so I have no political dog in this hunt when
it comes to Trump and Epstein. But I'm honestly very

(38:11):
confused by how it is that many of you guys
on the left have come to what seems to be,
in my view, an erroneous conclusion about what this story
was really all about. So let me start by just
simply asking you, in very broad terms, what is David
Schuster's view currently And we're taping this before the Epstein

(38:31):
files whatever they are, have actually been publicly released in
their totality, But what is your current belief about what
likely transpired in the entire Epstein saga.

Speaker 4 (38:42):
Well, first of all, let me state that I am
happy to try and help you, and I'm always a
joy to be on with you to try to educate
you on positions that you're confused about, because you're not
confused about a lot of stuff. So let me start
big picture, big picture, and that is I'm one of
these people who feels like who let the ships fall?
Where they may if Bill Clinton is in the Epstein files,

(39:03):
if Bill Richardson, if there's a whole host of Democrats,
whole host report, whatever it is, I want it all out.

Speaker 3 (39:10):
And I believe.

Speaker 4 (39:11):
Whoever was messing around with Jeffrey Epstein, who was friends
with him, who was either enabling or looking the other
way at his sex trafficking, I believe that at the
very least it may not be a crime, but they
should be publicly shamed and shamed out of polite society,
and they should pay a price. And some people around
Jeffrey Epstein have paid that price, whether it's they've been
removed from boards, whatever it is. So that's where I start,

(39:34):
is that, to me, Jeffrey Epstein was engaged in sex trafficking.
He was using Glaine Maxwell's girlfriend associate whatever it is,
to procure girls from like private New York City high
schools to come to his mansions and provide him with
sexual massages and et cetera, et cetera. Where I feel
like Donald Trump is part of this is Donald Trump

(39:58):
and Jeffre Epstein. By the accounts of p people who
knew them both in the nineties and early two thousand,
they were each other's best friend for at least a decade.
They shared everything. They shared airplanes, they shared business deals,
their allegations, according to Michael Woolf, who interview Repstein, repeatedly
that they shared women and girls. And so it's always

(40:18):
sort of struck me that for years, when there was
this theory on the right in conservative circles and oh,
Jeffrey Epstein convicted pedophile, he was running a pedophilia ring
that was enabling Democrats and high profile Democrats to trafficking
young women. I always thought, well, that's you know, I think
he was enabling all sorts of people to have access

(40:39):
to young women. But it always struck me as interesting
that Maga world's, particularly in the run up to this
past election a year ago, Cash Betel Pambondi, Dan Bongino,
when we get in office, we're going to release all
the Epstein files. Donald Trump was sort of sheepish about it,
but okay, they basically said, if Donald Trump wins.

Speaker 3 (40:57):
This is all going to be released.

Speaker 4 (40:59):
And they with the lips of mega people who are thinking, oh,
we're finally gonna get this information about the democratic pedophilia ring.

Speaker 3 (41:06):
Everybody was so worked.

Speaker 4 (41:08):
Up and then nothing they don't release anything, and suddenly
it's like, well, wait a second, and then Pambody says, oh, well,
there's there's nothing there. There are no more charges, there's
no client list, And in my view, it's sort of like,
wait a second. It was the maga world that created
this uproar over Jeffrey Epstein, and so in some ways, Okay,
Donald Trump is being hoisted on his own petard because

(41:30):
of what he and his supporters had been saying for
so many years.

Speaker 1 (41:34):
All Right, this is going to be fascinating. I feel
like this is going to be a fascinating conversation because
I totally get everything that you just said. It's my opinion, David,
that you've misinterpreted some things, and so I don't know
whether I want to start attacking your theory until I
fully understand your theory.

Speaker 4 (41:55):
Well, maybe I should offer a little bit more about
my view of Donald Trump, particularly sort of spoke broadly
about Epstein and what he was doing. My view of
Donald Trump is that Donald Trump has been lying repeatedly
for the last several years about his friendship with Epstein,
about what he knew about Jeffrey Epstein. I think had
certainly come out that you know in these emails that

(42:16):
came out from the Epstein state that Donald Trump was
aware of what Jeffrey Epstein was doing. Of course he
was aware. They were best friends. What has struck me
is particularly interesting over the past year is that. And
I keep going back to Michael Wolfe, who wrote several
books about Donald Trump, and he became pretty close with
Jeffrey Epstein in terms of reporter to a source, and
he spent a lot of time talking to Jeffrey Epstein.

(42:39):
And I was struck when a year ago Michael Wolfe
said on several different platforms publicly that I think it
was in twenty sixteen, ewither right before Donald Trump was
elected or right after. He was at Jeffrey Epstein's mansion
talking to him about Trump and this book that Wolfe
was writing, and Epstein said, I've got something to show you,
and Epstein pulls a couple of thot out of his safe,

(43:02):
shows it to Michael wolf and Michael Wolfe says, I
saw at least three photographs of Donald Trump with half
naked what looked to be teenage girls sitting on his lap.
In one photo, they were pointing at a stain on
his pants. And laughing. So to me, that's more than

(43:23):
just Donald Trump was aware of what Jeffrey Epstein was doing.
Donald Trump was perhaps taking advantage of the same girls
that Jeffrey Epstein had in his sort of okay, So
to me, that was sort of you know, and I thought, okay, well,
is Michael Wolfe to be believed? You know, I had
no reason to sort of disbelieve Michael wolf and so
to me, but what's been so fascinating is Michael wolf

(43:46):
is almost like kryptonite to the mainstream media, Like nobody
will even mention Michael Wolfe except maybe criticize his role
of how he was helping, you know, Jeffrey Epstein. But
I'm thinking, why why didn't everybody jump on this a
year ago when Michael wolf was saying, Hey, I saw
all these photographs and they were in a safe and
it was the safe that the FBI got when they
came in and swept into to Epstein's mansion.

Speaker 3 (44:08):
I thought, that's a big deal.

Speaker 1 (44:10):
All right, There's about twelve things I want to address
what you've said, But why don't I start at the end,
Because you mentioned Michael Wolfe and this most recent email dump,
which began with these three emails and then exploded with
many more and from the Epstein estate. And I don't
believe that Michael Wolfe is a credible narrator, and I

(44:34):
think that he has massive problems in the history of
his journalism, especially with regard to Trump. And let me
ask you, very specifically, as a journalist yourself, did it
not bother you greatly? That a large part of your
theory appears to be based upon the word of Michael Wolfe,
a guy who we now have an email of him

(44:57):
essentially advising Jeffrey Epps on how to manipulate Donald Trump?
Did that not bother you?

Speaker 4 (45:03):
David Well his coaching advising Jeffrey Epstein to me, Yeah,
that crosses a line, and that's inappropriate, but that but
two things can be true at the same time. I
can say that, you know, I didn't, I don't like
the idea that Michael Wolfe was advising Jeffrey Epstein. But
I can also still believe that when Michael Wolfe says,
Jeffrey Epstein showed me pictures of Donald Trump with these
half naked teenage girls on his lap and those came

(45:26):
out of a safe that can also be true. And
to me, that's actually even more significant.

Speaker 3 (45:31):
I Mean, if you look at every major story.

Speaker 4 (45:35):
Of the last thirty years, you can always find somebody
who sort of claims to be a journalist, who crosses
the line, who behaves inappropriately, who who advises or takes
a side. I mean, he goes on and on and on,
and so that doesn't bother me so much. And I'm
not as concerned about what Michael Wolfe's role was in this.
I'm more concerned about Okay, you're.

Speaker 1 (45:55):
Taking his word, but David, currently you're taking his word
on what you considered to be a key piece of
evidence when it comes to connecting Donald Trump to Jeffrey
Epstein's crimes. These alleged photographs, which by the way, even
the way you describe them sound to me like Trump
is at the Miss Universe pageant, is not new information.
I mean, depending on Michael wolf is known to exaggerate, Okay,

(46:17):
so we're relying on on his testimony about photographs that
are not in evidence that would not be allowed in court.

Speaker 3 (46:27):
And what would be allowed is the photographs.

Speaker 4 (46:29):
So what, okay, what gets me is if there's really,
if there's really an innocent explanation for the photographs for
everything else. What is it that's keeping Donald Trump from
just releasing everything. He's got that power, he's got that authority.
And that's where I sort of feel like, I mean,
between the lies between SI, we're going to release it
and they're not releasing it not, I mean to me
that that's that's that's a problem.

Speaker 1 (46:50):
I have an explanation for that part. And I want
to say that because I think we're gonna get ahead
of ourselves, because I still want to get to the
nuts and bolts of the story. Because I think that
what has happened not just with you. You're just the
person that's nice enough to come on and talk with
me about this, and you know, we have a prior
relationship and understanding and respect for each other. So that's
why this interview is happening. But you do kind of

(47:12):
represent a large group of people on the left online
who have a very similar view of this story. And
what I think in general has happened, David, is that
there's a misunderstanding of the epicenter of the story and
it has created, like on steroids or exponentially bad interpretations

(47:33):
of where we are. Because let's start at the very
beginning you said you believe that Jeffrey Epstein the trafficked
young girls in sex, right, and that Glene Maxwell enabled
that help that, and that's why she's in a federal prison.
And there's no question that Jeffrey Epstein was guilty of that.
We know that for a number of reasons, number one

(47:54):
of which is he killed himself in a federal prison.
And if you're as rich and as well connected as
jeff Epstein is, you don't kill yourself before trial unless
you're guilty, right, you would acknowledge that, right, that's illogical.

Speaker 4 (48:07):
I'm not going to get in his mind of somebody
who's mentally disturbed to commit suicide. But I will say, I mean,
and never mind Jeffrey Epstein, and we have all of
these victims, and to me, you know, there are a
lot of women, and there's a lot of people who
have gone on the record and that's been corroborated. So yes,
I think he took advantage of young women, and there's
no doubt about that.

Speaker 1 (48:25):
But just to be clear, you do understand that the
core allegation here and I'm not minimizing this at all,
but it's important to point out what is actually the allegation.
The allegation against him was that he was hiring prostitutes
who were technically underage. You do understand that that's the
core allegation, right, Oh, that's.

Speaker 4 (48:45):
And that's what he that's what he pled guilty to,
and that's what I mean. That was sort of the investigation.

Speaker 1 (48:50):
But David, would you acknowledge that there are a lot
of people that would be surprised that that was the
allegation because I think there's a perception that somehow Epstein
was physically raping twelve year old girls and having his
friends over to have these twelve year old girl rape parties.

(49:11):
And again, I'm the reason why no one wants to
mention what really happened here is it sounds like you're
minimizing what did happen, right, which no one wants to do,
especially in the main street news media. It's understandable, but
it's also important to lay out what the fact pattern is.
And the fact pattern is Epstein had a thing for
young underage girls. He paid them a lot of money

(49:32):
to come to him, and by the way, most of
them came back time and time again because they were
quite happy to accept a lot of money to have
some sort of sex with Jeffrey Epstein. You acknowledge that, correct, Sure,
of course? Okay, all right, And so here's what I
think that it's funny to me and interesting to me
that you accept, which I'm very glad that you do,

(49:54):
that he killed himself in prison. Right. You do accept
that he killed himself, correct?

Speaker 4 (49:58):
Yeah. I'm not one of these people who's like buroscy
theories that he was murdered. I don't believe any of
that stuff.

Speaker 1 (50:02):
Okay. See. To me, that is the key to this
entire situation is if if Epstein was still alive today, David,
you and I are not talking about this. I don't
think anybody's talking about this. It is the perception that
millions of millions of people, ironically on mostly on the
MAGA side of this equation, have that he was killed

(50:24):
in a federal prison. Well, Donald Trump was president, which.

Speaker 3 (50:27):
Is you know, right, I both in the state.

Speaker 4 (50:29):
I think that's loony tunes and ridiculous, and I regret
that people think that. To me, I mean, that should
be just put aside and people should ignore that.

Speaker 3 (50:36):
To me, the issue is, I mean.

Speaker 4 (50:39):
Donald was Donald Trump actively either helping Epstein, enabling Epstein,
was Donald Trump taking advantage of young women, whether they've
wanted to be there or not, and was you know,
if Donald Trump was having sex with a woman that
was under eighteen years old, that's you know, that's statutory ray.
Right now, Donald Trump's already in a judah cad rapists

(51:00):
based on what this, you know, this judge said in
New York. And maybe we as a nation, we're okay
with that. But I think, you know that the truth
should come out. And I think the the other part
about this is that I feel like these this whole
sort of Epstein's story as crazy as the Mago world
has been and talking about this, you know, worldwide democratic

(51:23):
pedophilia and whatnot. I do think if we got all
of the information about Jeffrey Epstein, I think it would
reach into a lot of banks, a lot of financial institutions.

Speaker 3 (51:34):
There would be so.

Speaker 4 (51:34):
Many powerful, wealthy people that would be hurt who treated
young women as meat and they said, I'm powerful, I'm rich,
I'm famous, i'm a rockstar, or whatever it is. I'm
going to get what I want and to me, that's
you know, that's another part of the story, Okay.

Speaker 1 (51:50):
And you may end up being right about that. I
don't have a strong opinion about that, although I suspect
that you're probably not correct about that because of my
view of the scope of this thing. See, I think
that the key going back to the suicide. The suicide
and the perception that he was actually killed in the
federal prison sent this story in your media expert, like

(52:11):
I am, sent this story into a completely different level, right,
I mean, it set it into the stratosphere. It was
not that big of a story until he killed himself.
But because of the mystery, alleged mystery surrounding that, it
created an enormous amount of energy in this story became

(52:31):
nuclear powered, and because of that nuclear power, Prince Andrew,
in my view, got completely railroaded. He got run over
by a mack truck with no evidence against him Gleane Maxwell.
Because there's now this moral panic and a thirst for
someone to pay for Epstein's crimes, because he's not going

(52:52):
to pay because he killed himself. She ends up in
the middle of COVID having a trial that was a sham, David,
a sham. Her trial was a joke. She may be
guilty as hell. I don't know. I suspect that she's
not as guilty as people think. But her trial was
a joke. And so when you so, when when you
combine this progression to Prince Andrew getting run over by

(53:15):
the mack truck and Gallainne Maxwell getting a getting railroaded
in a ridiculously absurd trial, now all of a sudden,
the floodgates are open, right and and and this story
cannot be brought back to the to the realm of
where gravity has any impact on it.

Speaker 4 (53:34):
And so I suppose I agree with you on that.
But who's responsible for that? Isn't isn't magl World mostly.

Speaker 3 (53:40):
Responsible for that?

Speaker 4 (53:40):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (53:41):
Yes, okay, man, That's what's so weird. That's what's so
weird about this story is that it's Magaworld that created
the nuclear generator. And it wasn't until you guys thought,
wait a minute, maybe this is the golden ticket to
finally getting Trump you guys started to care about it.

(54:02):
And here's my main question. I have many, but I
have two basic points that in my view, torpedo the
Trump theory. Okay, okay. The first The first is, so
there's this evidence somewhere in the DOJ and the Epstein
files that Trump is implicated in a significant way. And

(54:24):
of course we seem to have forgotten that something very
significant happened in November of two thousand, which is that
Donald Trump lost the presidency and Joe Biden and his
DOJ took over for four years. They went after Donald
Trump with everything they had.

Speaker 4 (54:43):
I'm so glad you brought this up, because one of
the constant things I hear and I hear you saying
it is that if there was anything there, the Biden
Justice Department would have leaked, it would have you put
something out damaging to Donald Trump, so that he would
have been toasting.

Speaker 3 (54:58):
Twenty twenty four.

Speaker 1 (54:59):
Yes.

Speaker 4 (55:00):
The issue that I have with this, and this is
where we're going to have I think some interesting disagreement,
is that I think it's kind of a naive view
of the way the Justice that because the trump'sters and
Maga folks see the Justice Department now as a political instrument,
because Donald Trump's going after his enemies and the Justice
Department is going after call me and letician James and
all this sort of stuff, the assumption is, well, the

(55:22):
Justice Department has always been a strictly partisan institution, and
in my years of covering it, I found that most
of the people at the Justice Department actually were not partisan,
that they revered their independence from the administration.

Speaker 1 (55:37):
That was David But David Trump was indicted four times,
twice federally by special counsels. Okay, but it's still it's
still the safety o Jase wouldn't necessarily it would not
necessarily have required an indictment. You already said it. Why
not a leak if these photographs exist? Why they were

(55:59):
running against him for president?

Speaker 3 (56:02):
Why?

Speaker 4 (56:02):
Because also there were enough people at the Justice Department
who felt like, think about it. Gallaine Maxwell's case is evolving.
There are rules at the Department of Justice about grand
jury secrecy, about information that cannot be leaked or released
out in the midst of a criminal case. It used
to be I remember when we were covering special counsels.
The special council will tell you got to wait three
years until I have a report before you can finally

(56:25):
find out did Monica Lewinsky really? I mean, that's how
the Justice Department handled this, is that there were very
strong rules about grand jury secrecy and evidence not being released.

Speaker 1 (56:34):
And the David Department of David you know the way
that David hold On, Oh, David, come on, you know
the media.

Speaker 4 (56:41):
I just don't accept that that the Biden just department
was so partisan. Look when they were as partisans as
many Democrats had wanted you. You hear all the criticism,
Merrick Garland. Why did he wait so long to name
these independent councils to get these cases going against Donald Trump?
If he was a part and he should have done
it as soon as he was named Attorney general.

Speaker 1 (57:02):
David, even if I accept everything you just said as
gospel truth and a really great analysis instead of hopeful thinking,
which I think it might be, I think you would acknowledge,
as a media expert, as someone who's been in this
position many times, even if everything you just said is true,
somebody in the BIDENDOJ would, if not leaked the actual evidence,

(57:25):
would leak the existence of such evidence to the New
York Times or the Washington Post, or to any number
of liberal outlets, especially once they were no longer in
power and no longer in jeopardy of losing their jobs.
Would you not agree with that?

Speaker 3 (57:41):
What would they have leaked? Right?

Speaker 4 (57:42):
They would have leaked that Donald Trump was friends with
Jeffrey Epstein, Maybe that Donald Trump knew that Jeffrey Epstein
was engaged in, you know, trafficking young women.

Speaker 3 (57:50):
Well, there was no doubt. We didn't. Nobody had any
doubt about that.

Speaker 4 (57:54):
Until a couple of years ago when Donald Trump started
denying it. When Donald Trump started saying, I wasn't you know,
I was friends with them for a little while, but
then he stole some women from my club and I
threw him out because he was a creep. That's not
what happened. I mean, we know that Donald Trump from
from these emails. Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein got together
for Thanksgiving in twenty seventeen, after Donald Trump was already president.
That's years after Donald Trump said he cut off Epstein.

Speaker 1 (58:16):
So that's a hold on, said David. David, you're accepting
something in a vague email, and that is, in my opinion,
a very very liberal black of a better term interpretation of
that email. You you really believe that that email proves
that they had Thanksgiving together in twenty seventeen. That email

(58:37):
does not says.

Speaker 4 (58:38):
I'm going to see the Trumps. He's referring to all
the mouse. He wasn't friends with, he wasn't friends with
Don Junior, he wasn't friends with Eric, he was friends.

Speaker 3 (58:45):
With David, but Donald Trump's senior.

Speaker 1 (58:48):
I love it. I loved to Jeffrey Epstein. I love
that Jeffrey Epstein's word in emails is now considered like
gospel truth. I love that we can interpret a dead
man's intent for you a couple of lines in an
email many years later.

Speaker 4 (59:02):
Well, we can have more contacts to fall the files
that sit at the Department of Justice and FBI would
just release.

Speaker 1 (59:07):
All right, So I'm not buying. I appreciate your effort.
I'm not buying your explanation on the BIDENDOJ, but I
think I have an even stronger point in this realm,
and that is okay. So Michael Wolfe is telling the truth.
Jeffrey Epstein's emails that we already have are a true
indication of Epstein's animus towards Trump, the nature of their relationship.

(59:32):
They're very close, and clearly by things you've already said,
Epstein has a lot of dirt on Donald Trump. And
yet when he gets charged federally in a Donald Trump administration,
not only does Epstein not wait for a trial. This
is a man with enormous means, great connections. He's got

(59:56):
new York Times reporters giving him heads up on the investigation,
which we've learned in the emails. He's got Michael Wolf
giving him counsel on how to manipulate Donald Trump. He's
got all the money he could possibly need. He's got
high profile lawyers. Ken Starr is one of his lawyers,
and he's got dirt on the President of the United States.

(01:00:18):
And he chooses to brutally commit suicide in a federal
prison before ever making any effort to get Trump to
help him out, to ever make any effort to indicate
he's got dirt that he's about to spill on the
president of the United States. How does that make any

(01:00:39):
sense at all?

Speaker 4 (01:00:40):
David, Well, you're looking at people who are suicidal as
if there's some sort of rational reasons for why they
do it. And the fact of the matter of the
people who commit suicide are depressed for all sorts of
reasons and are not thinking clearly.

Speaker 1 (01:00:52):
David, he was thinking, David, David, he changed his will.
He changed his will days before he did this. He
was he had strategized this. In fact, I believe he faked.
He faked a suicide at ten days before to see
if he could get away with it. This guy was
thinking about this extremely clearly. Come on, David, maybe he.

Speaker 4 (01:01:14):
Would look maybe he felt guilty about his life. We
don't know why I did it, but but David, I
have led this life where I've been obsessed with young women,
and I've you know, taken advantage of all these people,
and I you know, blackmailed a lot of people. And
I got a lot of money because I went to
people who were wealthy and said, hey, you know, you
came over to my house and it would be a
shame if this got out. So hey, I really want
you to spend fifty million dollars in this business deal

(01:01:36):
for me so we can continue to be David. I mean,
all that blackmails that.

Speaker 1 (01:01:40):
David, that could all be That could all be theoretically true.
But guess what, that person you're describing wouldn't kill themselves
before a trial without at least hold on, let me finish,
at least playing every card they have. Epstein was a
by all accounts, a master, you know, philosophically, a card player.

(01:02:03):
This was a guy who was a manipulator. This was
a guy who became very very rich by leveraging relationships.
He was machiavelliot and if he has blackmail on the
president of the United States, well, he's in a federal
prison facing federal charges. He's gonna play every fucking card
before he kills himself. And he didn't. He didn't even

(01:02:24):
make an implication that he was gonna play a card.
That doesn't give you pause.

Speaker 4 (01:02:29):
Now, I just I can't go there in terms of
you know, people who commit suicide and why they do
it and why they don't, that's just not I mean,
maybe you know that that's a theory, and I respect you.
You you're bringing up a theory that I haven't sort
of really thought about. But I still feel like, regardless
of what Epstein's motivation was for ending his life, we

(01:02:49):
know there's certain there's certain inalienable facts. We know that
he and Donald Trump were best friends for more than
a decade. We know that Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein
shared everything. We know that Jeffrey Epstein was taking advantage
of young women galade Maxwell was paying a lot of women,
as you said, and a lot of them went back repeatedly,
but a lot of them were also underage. We knew
Donald Trump was all aware of that, and I think

(01:03:10):
it's probably safe to assume that Donald Trump participated in that.

Speaker 3 (01:03:14):
It was the nineteen.

Speaker 4 (01:03:15):
Nineties, it was New York, it was a different time.
Donald Trump was between marriages. Okay, so he was, you know,
enjoying the fact that he ownly Miss America pageant or
Miss Universe pageant, whatever it was, and bragged about being
able to walk into the locker room and changing room
and seeing these young girls naked.

Speaker 3 (01:03:30):
He liked that. Okay, but why deny it now?

Speaker 1 (01:03:35):
Well, okay, there's a lot of different issues here, and
I want to try to keep this as focused as possible.
Are you not, David? Are you? Are you not at
all concerned about the fact that in this first batch
of emails that everyone went crazy about the the Democrats
put out from the House Oversight Committee that the name

(01:03:58):
of Virginia Giaff was redacted with the word victim put
in it, and that this was the quote unquote victim
that everyone went crazy over because of the fact that
the email indicates that Trump had spent I don't know
what it was, several hours or whatever. The allegation was
that Trump had spent several hours, no allegation of any wrongdoing,

(01:04:21):
but I get that that's weird that Trump allegedly spent
several hours with this victim. Does it not bother you
that the Democrats were so insecure about who that quote
unquote victim was Virginia Geoffrey for a number of reasons
that they redacted her name for no actual legal reason,
no moral reason, and put in the word victim when

(01:04:45):
she's just put out a book after having faked the
bus accident and then killed herself several weeks later, and
then puts out this book, which in my view is
not credible at all. In the book, she actually in
the book, she actually praises Donald Trump, right, but also so.

Speaker 4 (01:05:01):
Your book is not credible at other things. To use
your logic, why should we believe when she's saying that
Donald Trump didn't do anything.

Speaker 1 (01:05:08):
Right, David, I'm not vouching for Virginia Geoffrey's credibility. You
guys went crazy over that emails. Aha, it's the smoking
gun he was spending time with with an Epstein victim.
And the reason why they didn't give the name is
because if they gave the name, the story immediately falls
apart from her own testimony.

Speaker 4 (01:05:26):
Well, I've also heard though that the Democrats who the
Democrats released their emails before the Republicans, right, and the
Democrats always had decided that for I think for moral reasons,
they were not going to name for all sorts of
democratic you know, morality reasons that you don't name the victims.
And so there's I think there's an argument that maybe
the Democrats said, we're just not gonna We're just not

(01:05:46):
gonna name any of the victims here, and then the
Republicans release this whole batch and the Republicans name it. Okay, Well,
the report that the effect is the same. We know
that by this person being Virginia Goffrey, that she said
Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong to her, that he
was nice to her. Okay, but that doesn't it still
doesn't explain, well, what what was Donald Trump doing with
her for a couple of hours. And this is the

(01:06:07):
same woman who Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein apparently, according
to you know, some of the documents in some of
the reporting, is that Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein took
it upon themselves. They described, I don't know if I'm
allowed to say this, but rhymes with woosy. They were
the woosy squad for Prince Andrew.

Speaker 1 (01:06:27):
They whatever you want on this podcast. Okay.

Speaker 4 (01:06:30):
Now, they took it upon themselves to be the pussy
squad for Prince Andrew to get Prince Andrew the young
women that he wanted. So okay, Donald Trump worked with
Jeffrey Epstein to satisfy the cardinal interests of Prince Andrew. Okay,
maybe friends do that with each other. They're boys being boys.
One man's flying wing man. I don't know whatever it is,
but okay, but that's Virginia Guffrays in the midst of that.
And so if she's being trafficked out willingly or unwillingly

(01:06:54):
to Prince Andrew, to me, it makes sense that well,
maybe Virginia Guffrey is also playing a certain role for
other wealthy people.

Speaker 1 (01:07:02):
How much how much do you know about the history
of Jeffrey.

Speaker 3 (01:07:07):
Fair amount?

Speaker 1 (01:07:08):
Okay, I mean, I'm assuming I'm not. I mean, like,
I don't want to put you on the spot. But
here's my problem with Jeffrey. Okay. By the way, if
if we're accepting everything in this batch of emails from
Epstein to be gospel, you're probably aware that he tells
Andrew in one exchange that this woman has the only
person she hasn't had sex with is Elvis in her

(01:07:31):
I mean, that's a line from Jeffrey Epstein. Because she's
she's a serial fabricator. Okay, this is a woman who
apparently lived a terrible life even before she met Epstein.
By her account, she was brutally abused by almost every
man that she's ever met. I don't believe that she
was ever abused in any way, shape or form by Andrew.

(01:07:53):
But here's here are the facts about her. She made
a complete false allegation against alanuits on multiple occasions, multiple
occasions there is and then later tried to claim that
it was a misidentification. David, you know, Damie Trill. Eventually,
I'm sorry.

Speaker 3 (01:08:11):
Didn't she retract that eventually? Maybe she was?

Speaker 1 (01:08:14):
She She eventually said it was a misidentification. There's no
way to misidentify Alan Frekindershuits. Okay, she did not misidentify.
She just picked the wrong guy because he fought back,
because he's a lawyer, all right, So she made a
false allegation against Alan Dershowitz. You may not be aware
that when Galainne Maxwell went on trial in the middle

(01:08:36):
of COVID in this moral panic in this sham trial.
You know who the prosecutors did not call. They did
not call Virginia because they had so little faith in
her credibility. They didn't want her to screw up the case.
She is never, David, never before she died, ever testified
in a criminal proceeding in this entire case against anybody.

(01:08:58):
She fakes a bus accident, and then she kills herself
a few weeks later, and then she just happens right
before she puts out a book with this cockababy story
about a prime minister that she can only name in
the United States. Not no, she can't name anywhere, but
she only references in the United States version of the
book because our libel laws are a lot more liberal

(01:09:19):
than they are in the UK. I mean, this woman
isn't just not credible, David.

Speaker 4 (01:09:25):
Here's my issue with the way the mainstream media, I
think has treated this the last couple of days. They
have treated it as blockbuster breaking news that Donald Trump
spent time through, whether it's Virginia Jeufrey or anybody else,
Donald Trump spent time with a young girl. Donald Trump
had a closer relationship with Jeffrey Epstein than he has said, Okay,

(01:09:45):
so what I mean, we've known that. To me, the
news is either Donald Trump was involved in statutory rape,
he was taking advantage of young women, or he wasn't.
It's not news to me, to anybody who's sort of
been following the Epstein story, that Donald Trump was aware
of what Jeffrey Epstein was doing, that Jeffrey Epstein was

(01:10:07):
involved in, you know, taking advantage of young women and
paying them. There's no news there. And so for the
mainstream meeting to make such a big deal. Oh, donald
Trump knew about the girls.

Speaker 1 (01:10:18):
Duh.

Speaker 4 (01:10:19):
He was Jeffrey Epstein's best friend for ten years. Of
course he knew the question that we should be asking,
which I think there are some answers to if the
FBI and DJ eventually releases all of this stuff, the videos,
the photographs, all the data. Was Donald Trump involved sexually
with underage women? That's the issue to me, And there

(01:10:40):
are a lot of people at the Department of Justice,
in part because of Pam Bondie's own incompetence and Dan
Begino's own in competence. Back in March, she has signed
like a thousand people the DJ and the FBI to
go through these three hundred thousand files, whatever they are,
and flag every single mention of Donald Trump and every
sort of reference or any time he appears in a

(01:11:00):
photograph of video A thousand. They put no security protocols
on who these thousands were. There were no arrangements in
terms of compartmentalizing, and by the time they sort of
figured out how to organize this a thousand people at
the DOJ and FBI had access to everything. So of
course there's tons of people now in Washington who have
seen large trunks of the files, who have, you know,

(01:11:23):
maybe contacts in Capitol Hill. So it's very easy for
members of Congress who have back channel contacts at the
FBI at the DJ who say, the story is not
that Donald Trump knew was good friends with Jeffrey Epstein,
or knew about the girls. The story is not that
Donald Trump spent some time with one of these girls.
The story is was Donald Trump sexually involved with an

(01:11:44):
underage girl or girls?

Speaker 1 (01:11:46):
Right?

Speaker 3 (01:11:46):
That's the story.

Speaker 1 (01:11:47):
And if that had happened, and Jeffrey Epstein is we're
talking about the files involving him, if he had any
evidence to that to that point in that direction, he
would have used it well, Trump was president and he
was facing federal charges, and instead of using it, he
killed himself. That is a very, very very difficult thing

(01:12:10):
to get around. David.

Speaker 4 (01:12:11):
Well, let's take the inverse of that. If there is
no evidence, if Donald Trump never had sex with underage girls,
there's nothing incriminating. Maybe there's, you know, stuff that's embarrassing.
Why what is it that is keeping Donald Trump from
releasing this stuff, especially when his own people said over
and over and over, as soon as we get in office,
we're going to release everything. What is keeping him from

(01:12:33):
doing that?

Speaker 1 (01:12:34):
You've asked the perfect person, David, because I have an
answer for you, one that you probably have not heard.
And the basic answer is this. Maga World, we've already
referenced this became obsessed with this case and with the
idea that Epstein had been murdered in a federal prison.

(01:12:54):
Now you and I both know that's batshit crazy on
multiple levels, especially since Trump was president and Bill B. A,
the Attorney General, was in charge of the federal prison system.
It made no sense at all for Maga World to
be obsessed with this, but they became obsessed with it,
and Cash Ptel who and Dan Bongino, who were in
the grift business in Maga World before Trump got elected

(01:13:18):
the second time, they became invested in this theory. Why
not because they believed it or had any evidence of it,
because they were trying to become popular within Maga World
and Trump World, and that was a ticket to do it.
And so therefore, release the Epstein files was code for

(01:13:38):
I'm with you on Epstein having been murdered and we're
going to get to the truth of this. Pam Bondi,
who was, as you know, was a late addition to
this whole thing because it was supposed to be Matt Gays.
She probably didn't even understand all the issues because she's
in Florida. This is not a big deal to her.
She's not a national figure at this time.

Speaker 4 (01:13:57):
Hearing you correctly, they're not releasing the FBI. They're not
releasing the files because they don't want to undermine this
narrative that's out there in some crickles that let.

Speaker 1 (01:14:07):
Let me finish, Let me finish, Okay. I'm telling you
how this story evolves and how they got invested and
making these statements of release the files, release the files,
release the files. This becomes this Mantra and Pam Bondi
makes that you know, infamous interview where she refers to
she thinks she's referring to files, and in fact she's

(01:14:31):
not really in my opinion, she's she doesn't even understand
what the difference is between files and lists, and everyone
misinterprets that she just makes a misstatement and is now
seen as Aha, she lied. She said she has seen
the list, and now they're saying there's no list. That
was all bullshit. That was just her incompetence. Okay, but
you have you have, you have, you have Cash Betel

(01:14:52):
and Dan Bongino on the record thousands of times almost
literally about release the Epstein files because that's what Maga
world wanted and that was their ticket to becoming relevant
potentially getting jobs in the FBI, which ended up working well.
Then they get into the FBI and they get into

(01:15:12):
actually see the actual information, and they realize, holy shit,
he actually killed himself and oh, by the way, there
was no massive sex trafficking ring. By the way, it's
important David, this and this is where you and I
may have a disconnect. The alleged murder is key to

(01:15:32):
the sex trafficking ring. Theory, because the whole idea is
he was killed to protect these powerful people that were
engaging in the sex trafficking ring. So if there's no murder,
there's no need for a sex trafficking ring or vice versa.

(01:15:53):
So this is where I'm talking about how this story
became way too large for people to grasp because of
the circumstances that we already talked about, this perfect storm,
this moral panic. There's Prince Andrew, the Glenn Maxwell, and
so then let me just finish David, because so now
we have a situation where Maga world is still thirsting

(01:16:15):
for these files. They can't accept that Santa Claus doesn't
really exist. They've been told Santa exists, and they're pissed
off that now bound Bongino and Patel and Bondi are
all telling them that there is no Santa. But so
now they've got to give them something. They've got to
give them something, but there's nothing actually to give them

(01:16:35):
because the only person guilty in this whole thing was
just Jeffrey Epstein. Now I will agree with you that
they look guilty as hell, but they look guilty as
hell because they're still trapped. They're trapped in this situation
where they've told their base that they were going to
get something that doesn't exist. We already saw this with

(01:16:57):
the JFK assassination files. There was nothing. There was nothing
because there's no new news. It was always absurd that
there was going to be new news. And so what
I think, David, David, I honestly believe in part of
why I wanted to talk to is I wanted to
warn you because I think you guys are heading into
Russia Gate two point zero. You're you're heading And just

(01:17:19):
because they look guilty, just because they're having meetings with
Congress people, with the with the President and the and
the Attorney General and they had the FBI, Oh my god,
they look like they're panicked. They're not panicked. They know
there's nothing in there. They guys are headed for an ambush.

Speaker 4 (01:17:36):
Well, let's listen, let's not worry about you know, the
Democrats and the ambush and the media and the ambush.
What I hear you saying is that Pam Bonnie Cash Bittel,
Dan Bongino. The reason they don't want to release this
now is because it would show that they sort of
grifted their way into the administration they don't want to
disappoint the MAGA base.

Speaker 1 (01:17:56):
David David, David. There's been one attempt this week to
release the files, and it was the Democrats that voted
against it. It wasn't the Republicans. There was a Republican
congressman that proposed in the House a vote and the
Democrats voted against it.

Speaker 4 (01:18:11):
It wasn't the Republicans that the vote, and the Democrats
want to make a big spectacle of it next week
with the with the victims. That's why it's not they
could you know, I wish they would have voted the
other night when Burshette put this forward. But the Democrats
have this whole sort of media plan about how they
want to you know, ring as much out of this
as they can before the vote. But but here's here's
the here's my concern with your with your theory. And

(01:18:31):
let's suppose I accept that Dan Bongino, Pam Bondi, cash Mattel.
They're embarrassed that they over promised MAGA, and and they're
they're worried about their own sort of read. They've already acknowledged,
they've already said that Epstein killed himself. They have already
faced the MAGA wrath from going against what they said

(01:18:52):
in the campaign. The issue that I see is a
bigger problem for for them now. It's not that Magaworld
is going to be disappointed. It's that Donald Trump is
getting killed on this story. Donald Trump is a is
digging his hole deeper. Donald Trump is adding to the
perception that there's something there, that Donald Trump was a

(01:19:13):
rapist or whatever. Laurence so Donald said the other night
by Donald Trump not releasing this, and in my view
that the loyalty that Dan Bongino and Pam Bondi and
Cash Mattel have now is not to the mag of base.
It's to get their boss, Donald Trump out of this jam.
And if it is a complete dud, if there's nothing there,
if this was Russia two point zero, they should say

(01:19:35):
to Donald Trump, get this out there, let's stop talking
about it. Here's what's peered all out there so people
can see there's nothing here. Because right now you're headed
for months and months of focus on whether you were
a rapist, because people don't have the information, and because
it looks like you're trying to hide something.

Speaker 1 (01:19:51):
And I get where you're coming from on that, David,
but there's another part of this equation which I didn't
get to, and this is going to sound odd, and
in fact, the only part of this that makes me
wonder that I might not be right is because it
doesn't really fit with Donald Trump's normalm but it would
fit with a with an actual rational human beings, and

(01:20:13):
that is David. Here's the problem as I see it
with regard to and they're gonna be released, whatever they
happen is going to be released. Republicans are going to
vote for this next week. Democrats are going to vote
for this. We're all gonna see whatever the hell is
in this.

Speaker 3 (01:20:26):
It's gonna take a while, though.

Speaker 4 (01:20:27):
It's gonna take a while, right because then it's got
to get through the Senate, and it's got to get
sixty votes in the Senate to start to bay.

Speaker 3 (01:20:32):
There's a whole process.

Speaker 4 (01:20:33):
So okay, the White House was looking at perhaps weeks,
if not months, of a focus on this.

Speaker 1 (01:20:38):
All right, here's my primary point, and this really goes
to a media story, which is I'm very curious is
to see whether or not you're gonna understand where I'm
coming from. This story has become so nuclear charged to
an absurd almost unprecedented degree. And we saw it with
the release of these emails that every little thing is

(01:20:59):
going to be misinterpreted, taken out of context. Innocent people
are going to get their reputations destroyed, maybe their business
is destroyed. There's going to be pressure for people to
get charged with crimes they didn't actually commit because this
thing has gotten totally out of control. And when this
these whatever you want to call it, the Epstein file

(01:21:21):
is finally released, it's going to create injustice. There's going
to be people who are innocent that are going to
be caught up in this maelstrom that is nuclear powered.
You don't see that, David.

Speaker 4 (01:21:35):
Look, I think people who were friends with Jeffrey Epstein,
that doesn't necessarily mean they committed crimes. That doesn't mean
that they were, you know, taking advantage of underage women,
and so okay, yeah, there's an ick factor to some people.
You know, Lauren Summers, right, he was asking supposedly Jeffrey
Epstein for dating advice. I bet you know, Lauren Summers
may never recover from the fact that he was friends

(01:21:56):
with Jeffrey Epstein.

Speaker 3 (01:21:57):
Is that fair?

Speaker 4 (01:21:59):
You know, make a judgment about that. But he's not
being charged with a crime. He's just being shamed.

Speaker 1 (01:22:04):
David, you don't so you don't think that the Laurene
Summer's example, which is a very good one that you
just referenced, proves my point that is this guy, there's
no culpability in any of these crimes. There's oh, he
didn't do anything remotely wrong in these emails or anything.
He's gonna suck. He's going to suffer because he got
exposed in a very high profile way. Is being close
to Jeffrey Epstein.

Speaker 4 (01:22:25):
He was close to Jeffrey Epstein. And sometimes we unfortunately
fair or not, that's how life is. Sometimes we get
defined by the people we hang out with and the
friends that we're with. He's not having his liberty taken away.
He's not have his freedom taken away. He's not facing
a trial all the way James callmay Ltician James might
be facing. He's getting he's you know, getting a sting
factor because who his friends, what his friend was. In

(01:22:45):
my estimation, though, let's just suppose I agree that, Ah,
it's terrible that all these people might be unjustly shamed
and they haven't done anything wrong, but they're friends with
Jeffrey Epstein is unfair that they're going to, you know,
lose their board positions and maybe their jobs and their businesses.
Do you really think that Donald Trump cares more about
those people than he cares about himself, because in my view,

(01:23:08):
Donald Trump would happily throw all of those people overboard
if he could find a way out of this mess.

Speaker 1 (01:23:14):
I understand one hundred percent what you just said there. However,
it's possible that some of these people are friends with
Donald Trump or he's friends with them. It's possible that
there is more stuff in there, much like we've already
seen in these emails that references Donald Trump, and that
people will take out of context, and he knows that
and that this will be a never ending story because

(01:23:36):
of that. I think that's you know, if you look
at it from the self interest perspective, which obviously that's
always Trump's number one thing looking out for himself, there's
it's not difficult to comprehend a scenario where Trump doesn't
want to have to deal with the bullshit that's going
to consue because of allegations that are not based in fact,
based upon straight pieces of information in an investigation. I mean, Dave,

(01:24:00):
but you know, grand jury.

Speaker 4 (01:24:01):
And I'm glad you said never ending because to me,
they gets to the to the part of this we
haven't talked about, and that is the politics.

Speaker 3 (01:24:07):
The Democrats are in the.

Speaker 4 (01:24:09):
Perfect political position because either Donald Trump in the White House,
they release everything, and you know there's whether there's something
there or not.

Speaker 3 (01:24:18):
It creates a frenzy.

Speaker 4 (01:24:20):
And maybe there's stuff that's embarrassing to Donald Trump and
embarrassing to his friends, which that helps Democrats, or Donald
Trump doesn't release something and the Democrats continue to be
able to speculate and drive everybody crazy about oh, maybe
Donald Trump's a rapists, maybe he was taking So the
Democrats win no matter what. They are in a perfect position.
They have an opportunity to take advantage of this regardless

(01:24:43):
of which way it goes. The Republicans are screwed, right
because they can you know, they don't really know what's
in the Epstein files. They just know that their base
is wanting all the stuff released, so they're going to
go along with the Democrats. They'll vote to release it,
and then they're screwed because they face the wrath of
Donald Trump and if they decide, oh, I can't handle
the wrath of Donald Trump. I'm going to vote not

(01:25:04):
to release this stuff. Then they face in debates or
primary challenges or battles with Democrats. You voted to protect
Donald Trump on the Epstein files, and in some ways politically,
it's probably better for Democrats if the stuff never gets released,
because the imagination of what might be in there they
can put out there where they're never contradicted by the
actual evidence. That's probably a better position for the Democrats,

(01:25:26):
especially if what you're saying is true that this is
all a giant dud Russia two point zero.

Speaker 1 (01:25:32):
Well, that last point we're going to agree on one
thousand percent, and I think that was very well stated
and articulated. Look, I'm not saying that there's not going
to In fact, I'm going to say the opposite. If
all this stuff is released, there are gonna be days
and days of stories that will probably involve Trump, probably
involve very prominent people, And my guess is the vast

(01:25:54):
majority of it is going to be based in bullshit.
But unfortunately, we live in a world where nuclear powered
bullshit can do a lot of damage. And I don't
and you know, I just have this inherent, you know,
thirst for justice and I hate injustice, even if it's
somebody I don't like, like Donald Trump. It bothers me
that people are going to be unfairly smeared, but with

(01:26:15):
ridiculous you know, fragments of information from a grand jury investigation, David,
You know, Dan right, Well, grand jury investigations are inherently bullshit.
That's literally what.

Speaker 4 (01:26:25):
They're dre And that's that's why I subscribe to the
theory and I respect to the people. The Justice Department said,
we're not going to release stuff from a grand jury
unless somebody is actually criminally charged. Then the evidence comes out,
but it comes out under the rules of evidence, it
comes out in a courtroom. We are throwing all that aside.
We're saying, to hell with grand jury secrecy, to hell
with the respect for investigations. Let's just put everything out there.

(01:26:47):
Let's put all the witness interviews, whether the corroborator or not.
Let's put in all the witness testimony, Let's put in
all the photographs, Let's put all the videos without even
authenticating anything, everything, all the stuff you would normally go
through in a trial to make sure that stuff is legit.
We're suggesting push all that aside. I think that's dangerous,
and I think that's a bad precedent. But the choice
that Donald Trump has to make here is he's got

(01:27:08):
to figure out. Okay, can I withstand what's what's worse
for me? Is it worse for me to pay the
political price of not releasing things and continuing to get
hammered for trying to hide things that the cover up
is worse than the crime. Or is it worse for
me to put stuff out there? Put it all out there.
I maybe embarrass my friends, I maybe, you know, burn
some people, Maybe I create days of nuclear stories.

Speaker 3 (01:27:31):
What's worse for Donald Trump?

Speaker 1 (01:27:34):
Well, we don't know one hundred percent what's in there,
but I am pretty confident for reasons I've already stated
that there's never going to be a smoking gun in
there involving Donald Trump's criminal culpability. By the way, I
am curious, David, from the liberal mindset, If you guys
really do believe that there is a smoking gun for
Trump's criminal culpability, and you believe that Trump understandably is

(01:27:56):
capable and the people around him are capable of all
sorts of corrupt why wouldn't they just get rid of
that evidence?

Speaker 4 (01:28:03):
Well, Here's why, because the evidence is kept in multiple
government agencies. And remember when Pam Bondi came to testify
to the US Senate and she was asked specifically, and
I'll be full disclosure here. Until about six weeks ago,
I thought there is no way any of this evidence
continues to exist, if the wood photographs, if there's anything incriminating,
I thought, it's all been shredded. It's all been destroyed

(01:28:24):
through the years, Pam. And then then you know, then
we've got Michael Wolfe making the allegation about the photographs
and Donald Trump with half the new teenage girls on
his lap in the state whatever.

Speaker 3 (01:28:34):
So, Senator white.

Speaker 4 (01:28:35):
House, when Senator when Pam Bondi testifies to the Senate,
he asked her specifically, did the FBI get these photographs
of Donald Trump with half naked teenage girls on his lap?

Speaker 3 (01:28:46):
Have you seen them?

Speaker 4 (01:28:48):
She doesn't say, no, Oh, Senator Whitehouse, how could you defame?
Blah blah blah, She dodges the question. And to me,
it was like, wait a second, if you know that
this stuff doesn't exist, or you know that your agency
got it to disappear, wouldn't you be the first person
as Attorney General say, how dare you that is, no,
this stuff doesn't exist. We're going to put an end

(01:29:10):
to it right now. There are no such photographs. There's
no such criminal or incriminiting information.

Speaker 3 (01:29:15):
Period. She didn't do that.

Speaker 4 (01:29:17):
She gave a non denial, and to me, that was like, well,
wait a second, why would she do that.

Speaker 3 (01:29:23):
She would do.

Speaker 4 (01:29:24):
That if A the stuff really exists and there are
such photographs and she's seen them, and B she hasn't
been able to destroy it because maybe there's multiple copies
at various government agencies or c.

Speaker 3 (01:29:36):
There are so many people who have seen.

Speaker 4 (01:29:38):
This stuff that as soon as she says it does
not exist, then the whistlebowlers come forward and pambody. The
next time there's a democratic administration, she's facing perjury charges
lying to Congress for misleading the Senate during this testimony.
So she plays it safe and doesn't answer the question
and leaves it hanging out there.

Speaker 3 (01:29:56):
And what that did is it didn't just strike me
as an ahah moment.

Speaker 4 (01:30:00):
There are people on Capitol Hill who are floored by this,
who said what she couldn't issue a denial? Maybe there
is something there, and that is one of the reasons
that so many Republicans over the last several weeks have
been freaked out because this is that there have been
plenty of opportunities in the story, particularly about Michael Woolf
and the lud Trump photographs that has been circulated over

(01:30:22):
and over and over, and Pam Body has never put
that to bed. She's never put it to rest, and
as a result, there are plenty of Republicans now who think, Okay,
now I've got to deal with if there is such
a photo and it does come out, where am I
politically with Donald Trump, who's already at thirty two percent
economic approval rating and thirty seven percent approval rating overall.
Donald Trump does not have the same political power and

(01:30:42):
strength he had a year ago. So members of Congress
are looking at their own careers, trying to safeguard their elections,
and they're going to do whatever they can to get
ahead of this to create distance from Donald Trump because
they don't have a guarantee as to how this is
going to go.

Speaker 1 (01:30:57):
I think that was an outstanding analysis of the theoretical
mindset of Pam Bondy. Normally I would say you're probably
one hundred percent then on, but I think magl World.
Sometimes it's difficult to interpret exactly.

Speaker 4 (01:31:11):
But I'm not saying Magol I mean, Magworld's gonnaterpret things
their own way. But I'm saying for members of Congress
who are sort of trying to decide.

Speaker 1 (01:31:16):
I know, I'm talking about from Bondi's perspective, David, I'm
saying that because of who Trump is, it's possible. Again,
I don't know, I'm saying it's possible that in her
brain she's thinking, what does the boss want me to
say here? And so she went down that path and
it's not necessarily based upon the thinking that you have
attributed to her, which is absolutely logical, but of course

(01:31:39):
also makes me think, how could David Schuster so clearly
understand and articulate the thinking behind Pam Bondy not responding
properly to that answer, but then also refuses to accept
that if those photographs existed, Jeffrey Epstein would have used
them against the President of the United States and never
committed suicide.

Speaker 4 (01:32:00):
Yeah, I mean, I look, that's there's all sorts of
inconsistencies here, and I look, I just I am sort
of in the camp of that. To me, the easiest
way that Donald Trump gets out of this with the
least amount of damage I think politically. And you know,
he's never going to be crime. He's never going to
be charged. Nobody else is ever going to be charged
with the crime. I mean, that's not going to happen.

(01:32:20):
The only thing that's going to happen is to your
point that a lot of people, some people might get
really embarrassed and they might have their businesses ruin, their
reputation's ruined.

Speaker 3 (01:32:28):
Unfairly. That may happen.

Speaker 4 (01:32:29):
But Donald Trump at a certain point has got to decide, Okay,
what's more important my own sort of political survival viability.
Do I become a lane duck as of the next
midterm elections because the Democrats sweep in and take control
and I get impeached again, or does Donald Trump want
to say, I'm going to prove to all of you
that there's no there there, that this is Russia two
point zero, release it all.

Speaker 1 (01:32:49):
Well, I'm really glad that we did this because I
do have a better understanding of where you guys are
coming from, and that was what I was hoping to
get and so I appreciate you providing that before we leave, David,
I do have to ask you about a much, much
more important subject, which of course is the fact that
in a couple of weeks the Ohio State Michigan game
will be happening. And you, being a huge Michigan guy,

(01:33:11):
and we've talked about this in years past, it looks
as if, as of right now that this game, despite
the twelve team playoff, which I despise, will actually have
real significance, not just because of the fact that you
guys have an unprecedented winning streak going against Ohio State,
but also because it's theoretically possible that Michigan could make

(01:33:31):
the playoff if they beat Ohio State. So where is
David Schuster's mindset as we start to head into the
big rivalry game.

Speaker 4 (01:33:39):
You know, back when Ohio State was reeling off, I
think it was what seven straight victories over Michigan in
a decade ago whatever. Every year I kept saying, Oh,
this is the your Michigan's going to win. And then
over the past five years, I've always said, well, this
is your Michigan. It's going to lose to Ohio State,
and they keep reeling getting these victories. So my heart
is that my brain is Ohio State's gonna beat me Michigan,

(01:34:00):
even though it's in ann Arbor, and even though Michigan's
finally has a quarterback and Bryce Underwood and and you know,
a great running game, and that by the end of
the season, Michigan will figure out how to again get
into Ohio State's head. And that's where my sort of
my heart is that Michigan will win My head again.
Is like on paper, I mean, it's Ohio State, and

(01:34:20):
then there's the rest of college football. I mean you
look at for example, Indiana and the struggle that they
had over you know, in the last game against was
a Michigan State. I try to remember who they just
played that Ohio State just beat the crap out of Well,
it was Penn State, right, Ohio State just beat the
crap out of Penn State. In Indiana sort of had
to survive with the final, you know, two minute drive
to win the game. So I just think there's there's

(01:34:41):
Ohio State, and then there's everybody else. The one thing
that I love, though, is that that old expression about
living rent free in somebody's head. Michigan lives rent free
in the head of everybody at Ohio State right now,
especially Ryan Day and that's a huge advantage going into
a rivalry game.

Speaker 1 (01:35:00):
Uh. I got to ask you one last question related
to that. You and I have similar views with regard
to the the nostalgia for the way college football used
to be in this new world that we live in.
Is it impacting your level of interest and passion in
the game in general and specifically with regard to Michigan
in particular.

Speaker 3 (01:35:20):
A little bit. Well, it came up a strange way.

Speaker 4 (01:35:22):
I watched the Michigan basketball game the other day and
realized that like all of Michigan's players are transfers, and
to me that was like, what so, I still love
the college game and even though it's it's it's really about,
you know, who can spend the most. And I'm again
I think it was said at last year. You know,
it used to be that the SEC, in my view,
would pay people under the table at Michigan and other

(01:35:43):
Big Ten schools would try to operate on the up
and up. Well now, okay, now it's that's you know,
it's an even playing field. And if the SEC really
thinks that they can go up against Michigan's alumni base
an amount of money that Michigan is willing to collect
and pay for the best football players in the world.

Speaker 3 (01:35:59):
I'll take that at any time.

Speaker 4 (01:36:00):
And you know, Michigan's got one of the largest alumni
bass in the world, one of the wealthiest for a
public university, and so it's no problem for Michigan to
spend forty to fifty sixty million dollars on their football team.

Speaker 3 (01:36:11):
Is that a form of cheating? Is a not honest?

Speaker 4 (01:36:13):
Well, that's We're in an arms race, and Michigan's going
to win that arms race every day.

Speaker 1 (01:36:19):
It is fascinating how when the rules that you don't
like actually favor your team, they seem to be a
little bit easier to take. It's remarkable how.

Speaker 4 (01:36:29):
That was One more thing, because I know we haven't
really talked too much about the media, but to circle
back to all the epsteam thing. If there's one thing
that we can be guaranteed of over the next several
weeks and months, it's that the media is gonna it's
going to make us lose even more faith in the
media as an institution, either whether it's taking things out
of context, whether it's getting things wrong, whether it's claiming
that certain things are news and they're missing the story

(01:36:51):
or whether it's cow tewing to Donald Trump and not
being willing to go out on a limb. I think
the media is the best thing that Donald Trump has
going for him, is that so many people hate the media,
and justifiably so when I'm talking about the mainstream corporate media.
I think there's a lot of great independent podcasts and
independent substacks and things like that that are out there.
But anybody who's relying on cable news or broadcast networks

(01:37:13):
right now, they are as much of a problem in
all of this as anybody else.

Speaker 1 (01:37:20):
Now, you may have noticed that I forgot to ask
David Schuster a question that you might have been anticipating
because it's been part of my mantra on the Epstein
case in general and specifically with regard to Donald Trump's
particular potential culpability here, And that is, where are the lawsuits?

(01:37:44):
If Donald Trump really did abuse young women, people have
sued him all over the place related to Jeffrey Epstein.
Why hasn't he been sued here? And so I decided
to text David question, and you know, David understood the question,

(01:38:04):
and he basically responded by saying, well, you know, E. G.
And Carroll, who won a defamation case against Donald Trump
for an alleged allegation of sexual abuse that I don't
believe was at all accurate, has talked about these are
David's words, has talked about how difficult that whole situation
was in her life, and that maybe there are victims

(01:38:27):
out there Donald Trump who just don't want to go
through the ordeal of being attacked by MAGA and by
him and everything that goes along with that, which is
a common response whenever you're in a sex abuse allegation
and victims or accusers aren't acting the way that you
would expect, you say, oh, well, they're terrified. We've seen

(01:38:48):
this with Epstein already, where you know people are claiming,
which I'm going to get to again, the idea of
death threats or that somehow you know your life is
in danger or this is just so difficult, which I
don't really buy. But when it comes to Egen Carroll,
I responded to David by saying, first of all, David,
I don't believe Egen Carroll was telling the truth. And

(01:39:09):
if you look at the interview that she gave to
MSNBC after she won her case, where She's basically orgasmic
and laughing and reveling in this victory and talking about
giving money to other people that are on the show
where her are going on vacations and all that sort
of thing. It's really hard to make the argument that

(01:39:31):
this was a terrible event in her life. I actually
truly believed that Egen Carroll loved this. I think that
this was the greatest thing that happened in the last
portion of her life. And that's even without the money
that she's apparently eventually going to get from Trump. I
don't even know whether not Trump's ever paid a time
of it yet. I'm sure he's fighting that as much
as he can. But I really I understood David's response,

(01:39:53):
but I didn't really buy that that's a legitimate explanation.
And it's my opinion, and David, to his credit, is
probably gonna be the first person willing to admit this
to be the case should I turn out to be correct.
Although I do believe that there's a very good chance
that the water is going to be so muddied here
by everybody having a deep self interest in having their

(01:40:19):
narrative be validated and them not looking like idiots that
anything they possibly can to justify what they already want
to believe is gonna be used in these Epstein files.
I am very very, very very much aware that almost
nobody's gonna say, you know what, we were wrong. There's

(01:40:39):
nothing in there. It was just Epstein that was guilty.
Nobody's gonna do that because there's gonna be enough where
they can create smoke, and you know, the narrative is
way too big to fail. But if anybody's gonna be
willing to do that, my money's on David. I think
he's honest enough to acknowledge that if there's really nothing

(01:41:00):
thing there, especially with regard to Donald Trump, that we
have to say that that's the truth. But I am
exceedingly confident, exceedingly confident that there's not going to be
any proof of Donald Trump's criminality in the Epstein files.
Of course, when there is no proof of that, there
will be lots of people who will just pretend, aha,

(01:41:21):
the reason is because Trump scrubbed the files, or Trump's
DOJ scrubbed the files, or everything that was important was redacted,
and that'll all be bullshit. And that's the most frustrating
thing about conspiracy theories. Because it's almost impossible to prove
them wrong, especially when in this particular case, you know,
it used to be the conspiracy theories didn't have a

(01:41:43):
media apparatus behind them, but in this case you've got
the right wing media, the left wing media, and the
legacy media all in this bizarre alliance where everybody is deeply,
deeply invested in what I think is a dark fairy
tale where there was no massive sect trafficking ring, and
that the person that was largely guilty of not entirely

(01:42:04):
guilty here was Jeffrey Epstein. Now, whether Maxwell was guilty
or not, I'm still open on I've said many times
I don't know if she was guilty. I just know
that her trial was not fair. It was essentially a
scam under a moral panic and also during the COVID panic,
so there were two panics going on at the same time.

(01:42:25):
And I don't think she got a fair trial. But
I'm just it's so obvious to me what is really
going on here, and yet no one seems to be
willing to get it. And let me give you a
really good example of this. So Chris Cuomo interviewed a
woman by the name of Lisa Phillips on News Nation. Now,

(01:42:48):
Lisa Phillips is somebody who a former guest on this podcast,
Michael Tracy, who's done a lot of investigative work on
the Epstein case. Although he and I vehemently disagree about
the issue of whether or not Epstein killed himself in prison,
David Schuster and I understand that he did for some reason,
Michael Tracy is not willing to say that, which I
think is a mortal sin when it comes to fully

(01:43:11):
understanding this story. But Michael Tracy talked about Lisa Phillips
and has done so on social media, being someone who
clearly if she was abused by Jeffrey Epstein, it was
her own damn fault. I mean, this was a woman who,
by all accounts was twenty one years old and was

(01:43:33):
probably a paid prostitute and probably very much enjoyed the
money that she was receiving, and now all these years later,
because it gives her the opportunity to get attention, she's
an Epstein victim, not to mention money. Now, I don't
know whether she's been paid or not, whether she's looking
to get paid, but here's a person who even News Nation,

(01:43:57):
when they describe her is pretty I think they described
her as someone who says that they were abused by
Jeffrey Epstein, because there's been no court determination that Lisa
Phillips was abused criminally by Jeffrey Epstein or anybody else,
and she's being interviewed by Chris Cuomo on News Nation Now.

(01:44:18):
Chris Cuomo was interesting because those of you who followed
with the Benefit of Hindsight podcast probably remember that Chris
Clomo was the only mainstream legacy reporter to ever interview
victim number one in the Jerry Sandusky case, who was
Aaron Fisher, And in my opinion, Cuomo got completely hoodwinked.
Cuomo got snowed by Aaron Fisher, who clearly lied to him,

(01:44:41):
and he went literally running after the administrators at the
high school where Aaron Fisher was attending when he made
the allegation against Jerry Sandowsky, who were not the bad guys.
They were actually the good guys. They were the ones
who tried to tell Aaron look, are you sure about this?
Because they didn't believe him. They were right not to
believe him. They knew who Jerry Zanusky was, they knew

(01:45:02):
who Aeron Fischer was. They knew he was not credible,
and Chris Cuomo completely blew it on this. I mean,
I would love to have a conversation with Chris Cuomo.
I've never asked to have a conversation, even though I
could probably facilitate that through my friend Dan Abrams, but
because I never thought the timing was right and it
may never be right. But there's a little tidy bit

(01:45:25):
all for Chris Cuomo because this clip I'm about to
play for you to be is so classic. It's so
classic because Cuomo is so close to getting it. He
clearly doesn't understand essentially, you know, effectively what I forgot
to ask David Schuster about is okay, So he doesn't

(01:45:47):
say where are the lawsuits? I don't think he says
that in this clip, but that's the implication of okay,
So who are these other people? Who are these prominent
people that are allegedly guilty in all this? And where's
the list that we were promised? And Lisa Phillips has
absolutely no good answer at all, And the lack of

(01:46:09):
a good answer here to me is extremely telling. And
Cuomo is so close to getting it, but of course
he doesn't. For I'm sure a variety of reasons, including
the fact that he has no self interest in getting it,
because if he did, their backlash at this point would
be pretty extreme. Now, is it possible, on the line

(01:46:31):
possible that if the Epstein files really are a huge bust,
that eventually someone like a Cuomo could come back and go,
wait a minute, maybe we need to take another look
at this, and maybe we completely blew this story out
of proportion. But I found this clip to be extremely
telling because Cuomo is almost getting it and Lisa Phillips

(01:46:53):
is clearly making stuff up, and philibustering has no answer
because there is no answer, because if there was legitimate
allegations to be made against very prominent and rich people,
they already would have been made because we have this
thing called civil lawsuits that is built for this exact

(01:47:15):
same situation where there's lots of money and attention to
be had, and yet nobody has gone down that path
because there aren't any legitimate allegations against anybody that could
survive in court. And here's what this very telling exchange
sounded like on News Nation television.

Speaker 5 (01:47:34):
But if you know that there are other people other
than Epstein, other than Prince or former prince, you know,
whatever his name is. Why haven't they come out and
why hasn't a list been put together already?

Speaker 6 (01:47:48):
It's so hard to answer that question because a list
has been put together for years, our attorneys, survivors, we've
named names for years. And when I said, well, we'll
release a list, it was just speaking to more survivors
to get more names on the list. The same names
keep coming up, the same names that we've given with
their attorneys to the DJ and the FBI is the

(01:48:11):
same names they've always had. So we do want to help,
but they already have had all the information they've needed
to release for years now. And so to answer a question,
I don't know why it's taken so long. I mean,
isn't that the million dollar question?

Speaker 5 (01:48:27):
Why are you guys afraid to put out the names?

Speaker 6 (01:48:30):
Death threats? A lot of us are mothers. You know,
we want the names to be out there, we want justice,
But why do we have to do it? That's a
very scary thing.

Speaker 1 (01:48:41):
And I think you know that.

Speaker 6 (01:48:43):
You know, it's just we want to help to put
the names out there, but it's not our responsibility to
do so. And I think you know, I think you
know why I mean, so many people, so many of
the survivors have received have received many death threats.

Speaker 1 (01:49:01):
You know what that reminded me of with regard to
Chris Cuomo, since I've been relating a lot of this
to the Penn State Joe Paterno Jerry Sandusky case, and
obviously Cuomo has a role in that whole saga, it
almost feels like when there was there was some questioning
of why Mike McQuary didn't beat the crap out of

(01:49:21):
Jerry Sandusky in the shower, or at the very least
get the alleged boy in the shower out of that
dangerous situation. That was the one area where even legacy
media outlets were like, boy, that is weird. But of
course they all came up with these bullshit explanations about
McQuary being shocked and panicked. A guy who had been

(01:49:43):
a quarterback for a major college team that played on
national television and in front of crowds of one hundred
thousand people not exactly a guy prone to panic, GGG
and pressure situations. I mean, there was some questioning about that,
and it was the closest anybody got They're going, wait
a minute, the mcquery story doesn't make any sense. Well,

(01:50:04):
and the very same sense that Cuomo was going down
that path and almost getting it but not quite. And
there's all sorts of reasons why someone like Chris Cuomo
should start to be getting it because this fraud being perpetrated.
And when I say fraud, and you know, Trump has
used the word hoax, and I think this is essentially

(01:50:26):
what Trump is referring to when he says this whole
Epstein issue is a hoax. The hoax is the narrative.
It's not the allegations against Epstein. It's this narrative that's
now too big to fail. The evidence that it's a
fraudulent narrative is overwhelming. So in preparation for this vote

(01:50:49):
on the release of the Epstein files, the accusers had
yet another press conference because there's nothing in these people
like more than attention. And you may recall that we
interviewed Michael Tree see after the last press conference because
he was escorted away because he tried to ask very
legitimate questions of some of the accusers and they would

(01:51:10):
have none of it. Well, this time they literally announced
This is a tweet from Michael Tracy, who was once
again there in front of the US Capitol. He tweeted,
it's been announced that journalists are not to question or
quote unquote cross examine the purported quote unquote survivors, but

(01:51:33):
instead politely listened to their quote unquote stories. Sort of
strange that the journalistic no go zone has been declared. Now,
Michael Tracy is I think a terrible interview. I think
he's but he's really good on Twitter. I don't know
what the disconnect is there. He can be when he's

(01:51:54):
forced to make it concise in a tweet or a post,
you can often be very, very good, but he gets
off on tangents when you interview him, and I think
he's totally lost when it comes to the issue of
whether or not Epstein actually killed himself. By the way,
he also has told me and said publicly that he's
not one hundred percent sure that Virginia Jeoffrey is even dead,

(01:52:17):
which is just crazy. So even the person that's speaking
the most sense of this story is out to lunch
in a lot of ways. But that to me, the
prohibition of any questions is a mass of red flag,
massive red flag because these people cannot their stories cannot
withstand any scrutiny at all, specifically when it comes to

(01:52:39):
this whole idea of the vaunted Epstein List, and two
members of Congress I think have been completely hoodwinked or
maybe they have no choice politically by this entire narrative,
and am referring to Thomas Massey and Marjorie Taylor Green. Now,
Marjorie Taylor Green has been getting an awful lot of

(01:53:02):
publicity lately because she's now no longer on the Trump train.
She's been kicked out of MAGA. Trump has disowned her
and has asked for someone to run against her in
a Republican primary for her congressional district. And Thomas Massey
is in the exact same boat. They've both been kicked
out of MAGA, and I don't think it's the coincidence.

(01:53:24):
This is where the media is so unbelievably bad because
they have no imagination, They have no ability to think
that maybe the narrative that they have is not just wrong,
but it's upside down. And I'm somebody who likes Thomas Massey,
He's the last libertarian in Congress. But I believe that
Thomas Massey, out of self interest, has fooled himself into

(01:53:47):
believing he's taking this great stand on principle and defending
the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and standing up against the
evil Donald Trump. And Marjorie Taylor Green is doing exactly
the same thing. And the key question is which came first,
the chicken or the egg. And this is where I

(01:54:10):
think the media is getting it totally wrong, because they
want to portray Massy and Taylor Green as heroes standing
up for principle because currently that fits their narrative. But
I think it's the opposite. I think that's what has
happened here is that Massey and Taylor Green got kicked

(01:54:30):
out of MAGA, and now they need both a viable
explanation for why as well as the potential narrative to
fight to save their seats in Congress. And what I
mean by that is that, look, I've seen this a
million times in the media, especially, someone gets fired, and

(01:54:53):
essentially Massy and Green have gotten fired from MAGA, and
they don't want the real reason for their firing or
whatever the employer's reason was for their firing to be
the public narrative, so they concoct and maybe there's even
some semblance of truth to it. They concoct that this
was because I stood on principle, and in reality, now

(01:55:18):
that's just the rationalization there was. At best, it was
more complicated than that, and you're just now trying to
pretend and rationalize that you're firing was really because you
made this grand stand on principle. You stood up to
do the right thing, and you got punished for it.
And I think that's a large part of what's happening

(01:55:38):
with Massy and Green. But then there's also the future
politics of this. What they're banking on, what they're invested in,
what they're desperately hoping for, is that these Epstein files
truly will be a bombshell, that it will show massive corruption,
maybe even with regard to Trump, and if it eroded

(01:56:00):
Trump's ability to defeat them in a primary, they might
be able to survive this. And if they survived the primary,
then they can appeal to Democrats in their district or
independence in the district and say, see, I stood up
the Trump and I won, and I'm independent and you

(01:56:21):
can trust me to do the right thing. So from
a political perspective as well as from a personal rationalization agenda,
what Massey and Green actually are doing makes perfect sense
to me as someone who actually understands the way these
people think and the way these things work. What they're
doing is they have now this is the only horse

(01:56:44):
they have, the only horse they have to survival after
being kicked out of MAGA, is for the Epstein Files
to be everything that they have hoped and dreamed for
and promised. And I think they have probably made a
critical error. I think that there's a very good chance
this is not gonna work for them, because I don't

(01:57:06):
think Trump's going to have his ability to dictate Republican
primaries completely destroyed by this or even badly damaged by this.
And the evidence is overwhelming that they themselves are being duped,
and they're so invested in the idea that there's this
magic within the Epstein files, that there's this all these

(01:57:29):
dark secrets are going to be exposed, that they're not
even seeing the red flags. Back to Michael Tracy, so
he's at this event, Green and Massy are standing next
to each other because you know, they've got to make
their brand now that we stood up for the Epstein victims,
We stood up to Trump, we forced him to release

(01:57:50):
the files, and we all we got vindicated, and that's
gonna save us. It's both gonna rationalize while we got
kicked out of MAGA, and it's gonna save us in
the next election. And Tracy tweeted with a photograph of
Green and Massey together. Thomas Massey told me the fact
that Epstein's survivors declined two months ago that they would

(01:58:14):
give him a list of child sex traffickers to read
from the House floor but never did, does not make
him question the veracity of the accusations, saying, quote, this
is from Massey. It's not their job to release the names.

(01:58:37):
And again, I like Thomas Massey. I'm a libertarian. He's
the last one left. And I think either because he
is naive or because he has no choice, and this
is the horse he's decided to ride. It's the only
horse he has left that he is not seeing the

(01:58:57):
red flags here. That is a massive red flag. Do
you remember at that press conference where Tracy was escorted away,
there was much ado made about the fact that, well,
we're going to provide our own list of names, and
because we can't speak sued as members of Congress, we're
going to read them on the House floor. Remember that

(01:59:20):
never happened. The reason it didn't happen is because no
list was provided, even though it was promised, And Massey
is now rationalizing by saying it's not their job to
release the names, which is the same absurd argument that
the ghostwriter for Virginia Gioffrey has made. It's the authority's
job to name names, not the accusers. That's absurd, but

(01:59:46):
it's also, in my view, a real explanation for what's
actually happening here if you use your brain. The reason
why they're not naming any names Number one is that
there aren't any other names. But the reason why they're
afraid to do it is because they're afraid of being

(02:00:07):
sued because the people that they would name would be
people who are prominent, who have reputations to defend, have
resources to defend those reputations with, and they would be
potentially libel for defamation if they name somebody with no
evidence whatsoever. So that's the reason why these And the

(02:00:30):
most amazing thing is I've even seen people on the
Epstein accusers side make this argument, oh well, we can't
name names, will be sued into oblivion. No, you won't,
not if you're telling the truth or even remotely telling
the truth, because you're obviously talking about public figures, and
public figures have an extremely high standard to prove for defamation.

(02:00:55):
The only way that a public figure can win in
this situation is if the defaming them knows what they're
saying is false. So even if you're mistaken, like Virginia
Geoffrey claimed to be with regard to Alan Dershowitz, was
as obviously absurd because you can't mistake Alan Dershowitz. There's

(02:01:15):
only one Alan Dershowitz. There's no legal liability there. But
the reason why the names aren't being used, and this
idea that somehow fear of death or fear of being
sued is just preposterous. In this case, the entire media
industrial complex is on your side. If you have a case,

(02:01:37):
you're certainly not gonna lose, You're probably gonna win, and
nobody's gonna kill you. I mean, Virginia Jeffrey would have
been dead many many years ago if this situation was
like we are being told it is. Instead, she killed herself.
Of course, they're idiots that don't believe that, which is
insane because if anyone was gonna kill her, it would

(02:01:57):
have happened well before Epstein was dead and Prince Andrew
had his balls cut off. I mean, it just it
doesn't make any goddamn sense. And this idea that Massey
is heading into this what I think could be, essentially,
you know, an ambush, which is a phrase I use

(02:02:18):
with David Schuster, is both sad to me because I
like Massy, but also very telling about how intoxicating these
types of narratives can be when everyone becomes invested and
there becomes groupthink, and everyone around you is telling you
you're doing the right thing, and all the media outlets
are saying, oh my god, this is gonna be big,

(02:02:40):
and there's got to be more to this story. And
what's in the Epstein files is, you know, because everyone's
everyone can't be wrong. Yes, everyone can be wrong. Everyone
can be wrong when they become invested in a bullshit story.
Let me give you another really quick example. This is
gonna sound really small, but I think it exposes just

(02:03:00):
how ridiculous things have gotten on the Epstein story. So
there's this documentary which I have not seen, came out
in twenty twenty about Epstein and Epstein victims, and one
of the stories in the documentary is that Gleane Maxwell
allegedly tried to recruit Paris Hilton, Paris Hilton when she

(02:03:25):
was like nineteen or twenty years old, to be I
guess sex trafficked by Epstein. I guess that was the
allegation in the film. Now Paris Hilton, who's kind of
making a comeback. You know, she was super famous, then
kind of went away for a while. Then she's becoming
famous again. And obviously she's part of the Hilton dynasty.

(02:03:47):
That's why she became famous to begin with. So she
doesn't need money, that's for darn shore. So you know,
she's never made any comment about this, apparently, and so
she eventually I guess because of all the news surrounding Epstein.
She was doing an interview and she was asked about this,
and her statement was, I don't have any memory of

(02:04:09):
ever meeting Glenn Maxwell. She doesn't even forget about the allegation.
She doesn't even remember meeting Maxwell. If Maxwell tried to
recruit her to be sex trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein, I
think she would have remembered, especially given all the publicity
that has exploded over the last several years involving Jeffrey Epstein.

(02:04:30):
But her statement is she has no memory. Now that
is effectively a denial of a significant allegation in this documentary.
In a rational world, the story is Paris Hilton denies
allegation in Epstein documentary, and then there should be all

(02:04:50):
sorts of questions about, Okay, if that was bullshit in
the Epstein documentary, what else is bullshit? Instead? The New
York Post conservative news outlet, usually somewhat reliable but definitely
prone to getting things wrong in this kind of realm,
they have a headline, Paris Hilton breaks silence on rumor

(02:05:12):
that gallainn Maxwell tried to recruit her for Jeffrey Epstein
on rumor. So you're acknowledging that this Epstein documentary was
just based on rumors. But the most important part of
that is breaks silence. That's clickbait, folks, because that's not

(02:05:34):
what happened. Yes, technically, yes, she broke her silence. She
said the story is bullshit if you use your brain.
But no, no, no, no, we've got to pretend that
somehow this narrative is maintained. Now, we can't do anything,
We can't provide any data points that might get people
to realize if they think for themselves that there's something

(02:05:54):
wrong here, wait a minute, so that you're saying there's
another false allegation with regard to the Epstein stone. But
as bad as the New York Post was, People Magazine was
probably worse. Their headline for the exact same story was
Paris Hilton acknowledge his reports. Kawain Maxwell attempted to recruit
her to date Jeffrey Epstein acknowledge his reports. Yes, she

(02:06:20):
got asked about it and said it was bullshit, And
I realized this is a very small part of this
overall monstrosity of a narrative. But this is important because
when people and we see this all the time in
stories where the narrative becomes too big to fail, the

(02:06:40):
media won't give you these little breadcrumbs, these data points
that contradict the narrative. We saw this during COVID all
the time, where if you have enough of these data points,
people might eventually go, wait a minute, hold on what's
really going on here. And if you don't give them

(02:07:01):
the data points, and you're protecting the narrative at all costs,
the vast majority of people are going to buy into
that narrative or not jump off of that narrative, especially
when that is a narrative they want to believe in
in the first place. And I really think that that's
what's driving the whole Epstein insanity. The bottom line here

(02:07:22):
for me, and I've thought so much about this, is
that at the essence of the Epstein story, Yes, the
allegations of sex abuse make people's head explode, especially in
the news media. There's an extreme bias on this topic.
We've seen it time and time and time and time again,

(02:07:43):
and it seemingly gets worse and worse. But at the
very essence, what's driving this story is that the audience
is nuclear charged. Okay, this is not about justice for
the Epstein victims. This is about the fact that there
is a nuclear charged, aue audience for every element of
the news media, right, left and center. And the reason

(02:08:08):
why this audience has become nuclear charged is. Yes, there's
the element on the left of they think that this
is how they're going to finally get Trump. I get that,
but that's actually not inconsistent with what I think is
at the essence and the foundation of what's really happening.
The essence of this whole thing is the masses were

(02:08:28):
promised a public execution of the elites in this story.
That's what they were promised. They were promised a public
execution of the elites. We're really in medieval times here, folks.
We're not very far removed from the guillotine and the
French Revolution or whatever. We have not really evolved very far.

(02:08:52):
We just do it in social media now, lot less blood,
but almost as much carnage. We just destroy lives and reputations.
And people enjoy that because their own lives are miserable,
and if the elites are being brought down, it makes
them feel good about their own miserable existence. That's what

(02:09:13):
this is about. We were promised a public execution of
the elites. That's what I think drove the interest in
this story on the right in Maga world. And let's
face it, obviously no one gets more elite at this
point than Donald Trump. So they have left thinks that
they're finally going to be able to bring Trump down.
That's what's driving interest in the story from their perspective.

(02:09:36):
And I have no doubt that because the mob and
the masses were promised the public execution of the elites,
that they're going to get some public execution of elites.
I don't know who, I don't know how many. I'm
sure it's going to happen, and I'm very confident it's
not going to be based in reality or any semblance

(02:09:58):
of justice. And there was only one House member. One
House member, you know, it used to be Thomas Massey
could be relied upon to be the lone voice speaking
out when everyone else has lost their mind. And he would,
you know, oftentimes be the one vote in an otherwise
unanimous House vote in the otherwise unanimous House vote to

(02:10:18):
release the Epstein files. One member of Congress, a god
the named of Clay Higgins from Louisiana, a Republican, had
the balls to stand up and say, no, I'm not
going to be part of this. This is effectively a
Salem witch hunt. And by the way, he's on the
House Oversight Committee, so he's had more access to the
actual documentation than anybody else. And he put out a

(02:10:39):
statement essentially saying what I did that this this is
a situation where innocent people are going to be harmed
because this is this is not information that was ever
intended to be made public. It's not ready for prime time.
It's going to be misinterpreted in this crazed, nuclear powered

(02:10:59):
media environment, and I agree with that, and so I
do not look forward to what's going to happen here.
I think it's going to be a shit show, and
it's going to be incredibly frustrating. This has already been
a story that personally has been very frustrated to me
because of the PTSD I have over Penn State, Paterno,
and Sandusky, and because I see the exact same story

(02:11:19):
almost exactly rewriting itself and nobody is willing to call
it out, and so obviously we'll continue to cover it.
I do not. I loathe. I loathe the next few
weeks or whenever these things are finally released, and having
to shift through all this bullshit. But I am very

(02:11:41):
confident of two things. There will be no proof of
criminal activity by anybody new to this story, but there
will be people who will be destroyed by this story.
And that sounds contradictory, but it's actually not, especially in
this very fucked up day and age in which we
now live. Thanks for listening to today's free drop of

(02:12:02):
the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening to the
entire show. You must become a patron. Please go to Patreon.
That's p A t R e O N dot com.
Patreon dot com slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler.
My name is j H N z I E G

(02:12:24):
L e R. That's patreon dot com slash the Death
of Journalism with John Ziggler. Good luck to you on that.
But that's how you can subscribe.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

The Joe Rogan Experience

Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics

.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;}Episode Two Hundred Sixty Eight: The Dumbest Conspiracy

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

The Joe Rogan Experience

Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics

All Episodes

Episode Two Hundred Sixty Eight: The Dumbest Conspiracy

Stuff You Should Know