John Gerardi Guest Hosts - Was Biden ‘Maybe’ Aware of the Autopen Signatures?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I told them to sign everything I told him, Jews

(00:04):
the Auto Pen for everything I did. This is the
reassurance that we, the American people, are given that maybe
possibly kind of sort of the duly elected President of
the United States was maybe signing the things ascribed to
his name. Maybe, in fact, it seems that the Biden

(00:30):
teams attempt to defend their man, have actually made the
case exceedingly worse for him. Welcome to the Trevor Carey Show.
I am not Trevor Carey. I am John Girardi. Thank
you all so much for tuning in. Let me know
if you want to join the show. Five five nine
two three zero forty two forty two. As many of
you know, I am the host of the John Girardi

(00:51):
Show Monday through Friday six to seven pm right here
on Power Talk. I'm also the director at Right to
Life of Central California. All Right, I want to get
into the auto pen story. I think it's fascinating because
basically I had sort of made up my stubborn little
radio host going against the grain mindset. It's an attitude

(01:15):
that sometimes Agent Squire's has to wag his finger at
me about a little bit. Hey, if it's the thing
that everyone's talking about. Talk about it, well, but I
don't think it's that big of a story. And for
this story, the autopen story, I had thought for months
that there just wasn't much there there. Why, Well, did

(01:36):
I really think Joe Biden was razor sharp and genuinely
understood everything that his autopen signature was getting assigned to. Well, No,
I agree like most of you that Biden was senile
and wasn't really fit for the job. And I think
it's kind of a national disgrace that we have the
mechanism of the twenty fifth Amendment, the whole point of
which is to allow the vice president and the president's

(01:58):
cabinet to remove him from office if he's genuinely incapacitated,
and Kamala Harris and Biden's cabinet, obviously, for some combo
of political reasons, refused.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
To do that.

Speaker 1 (02:13):
So No, do I think Biden knew everything that his
auto pen was getting attached to. No, I don't think
he did. I mean, Mike Johnson told this fascinating story
asking Biden about why he had I think he had
either vetoed some legislation or had issued some executive action
and Johnson was like, mister President, why is it that

(02:35):
you did that? And Biden clearly had no earthly idea
what he was talking about and thought he had taken
the exact opposite policy. So there's plenty of anecdotal stories
like that of did the President really understand what he
was talking about? And just you know, again the whole
don't believe you're a lionis thing. I mean, just looking

(02:57):
at the guy, you could tell this is not a
razor sharp person. If you read the transcript of his
deposition with Robert Herr, the special counsel who was assigned
to investigate him about his uh I think clearly unlawful
retention of classified documents at his home in Delaware. The

(03:20):
transcript with her is like embarrassing and cringeworthy. This is
an old man who's his answers are not responsive to
the questions. His answers are meandering. You know, Biden was
ranting after the transcript got released, so how dare he
bring up questions about my son Bo and then try

(03:40):
to snag me on me getting the dates wrong? When
the transcript revealed no, her didn't ever bring up anything
about Biden's son Bo. Biden who passed away from cancer.
Joe brought it up during the deposition and then proceeded
to get the date when his son died wrong. So no,

(04:03):
I am not saying Biden is razor sharp. My problem
is with the autopen story it had been up to
this point. I just didn't think it would have any legs.
I didn't think it would go anywhere because the defense
the Biden people had to give was so simple and
so easy. People would say, look at all this stuff,

(04:25):
Biden affixed his autopen signature too. And all the Biden
people would have to say is no, President Biden was
apprized of every executive action, every policy, every bill, every
order that he issued. He knew about and he directed
in every one of those cases. He was the one

(04:46):
who directed that his autopen signature be affixed to it.
That's all they'd have to say. And there's really not
much that anyone on the right could say against it.
Right if we on the right said Biden didn't really
sign this the autopen did someone else made the decision
for him, Biden would just say, well, yes I did.

(05:07):
I ordered that my signature be attached to that, and
that would be the end of it. Because we don't
have any other evidence to say otherwise. And that's kind
of my lawyer brain, it's way of thinking about all
of this is kind of well, let's cut through the
bs here, Like, if we can't find any other evidence
other than Biden acted senile and there was an autopen signature,

(05:31):
if that's all the evidence we have, then we can't
really prove anything. We can't reverse any of his pardons
on the basis of a reasonable hunch you would need
something more than that. Well, Trump has been railing on Biden,
slamming Biden for the autopen thing, just again and again

(05:52):
and again. And the brief presidential history of the autopen
George W. Bush was the first president to start signing
things with auto pen and it was a little bit
of a controversy when he started doing it. It was
a deviation from the norm in American politics. American politics
had always followed this sort of the norm of probably
lots and lots and lots of different governments over history,

(06:13):
and probably was rooted in like the Roman Empire, the
Roman Republic, rather where you had to personally do stuff.
No one's allowed to vote in Congress, like in absentia
when Dianne Feinstein was ill and sick and couldn't make
it to DC. The Democrats just didn't have that vote.
That wasn't available when John McCain was sick and dying.

(06:35):
Republicans in the Senate didn't have that vote. You have
to be there in person to do a thing. So
that had been the norm, but George W. Bush sort
of bucked it and said, well, I am directing that
my autopen signature be attached this. I'm tired of. I'm
not gonna it's a waste of my time as president
to sign every one of the gazillion regulatory changes that

(06:57):
a president makes over the course of a four or
eight year term. So I'm not gonna sit around doing that.
I'm gonna learn from my staff about we're gonna make
these changes, we propose these changes, of these changes, these
changes pursuing to your policies. Okay, I consent to that.
You can put my autopen signature on that. But and
so that was the practice established by George W.

Speaker 2 (07:18):
Bush.

Speaker 1 (07:19):
There was a brief little flutter of liberals protesting that
just to take advantage of it, But then Barack Obama
started doing it, and the liberals stopped protesting it, and
both sides basically realized, Okay, well, what are we gonna do?
Do we want to undo everything George W. Bush did,
undo everything Barack Obama did. Eventually everyone just kind of
got along with it. And this would have continued to

(07:42):
be a non story for Joe Biden if he and
his staff had just shut up, if no one had
leaked to the press anything about internal communications as has
now been leaked. So this New Times story written by
Derek Thompson where he reveals communications that were going on

(08:10):
regarding some of Biden's clemency actions at the end of
his term. So, clemency is the broader word for either
pardoning someone of a crime, completely wiping the slate clean,
or commuting the person's sentence. Okay, so you've been convicted,
your sentence to twenty years. The president can commute your sentence.
It means, you know, the conviction is still on your record,

(08:32):
but instead of serving the full twenty maybe you only
get a nickel, maybe only five years.

Speaker 2 (08:37):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (08:38):
So the president has this prerogative for people who committed
federal crimes. He can knock down their sentence or completely
absolve it altogether. One of the pardons Biden did was
this kind of ACLU inspired inside the ACLU itself, or
kind of lefty social lefty criminal justice types who wanted

(09:01):
Biden to pardon this broad classification of persons who had
committed certain kinds I think it was like drug crimes
or something. Anyway, they basically they had a category of
persons they wanted Biden to pardon people who had committed
these kinds of felonies and this circumstance that d and
it had a certain category of people with these certain parameters.

(09:23):
Now there's nothing wrong with doing that. And the Biden
team said no, Biden didn't know the names of every
single person in that category or their specific circumstances. And
that's also fine, okay. Presidents have issued blanket pardons like that.
Trump pardoned all the January sixth defendants. He probably didn't
know every single one of their names. Jimmy Carter pardoned

(09:48):
everyone who was a draft dodger during Vietnam. He didn't
know all their names, he didn't all know all their circumstances.
He did blanket pardoned, and that's okay. The problem is
if someone other than the president is determining those parameters.

Speaker 2 (10:02):
That's the problem.

Speaker 1 (10:04):
Who is giving the final Okay, it has to be
the president, because it's only the president. The president's the
only guy with this executive power. His chief of staff
doesn't have this power. His White House counsel doesn't have
that power. Hunter Biden doesn't have that power. No one
else in the White House has that power except for
the president. Okay, so the president has to actually be
the one to do it. What this story has revealed

(10:29):
is that basically Biden had a secretary who wielded the
autopen and she basically said she would only affix his
autopen if she received a written confirmation that Biden had
ordered X, Y or z to be done. Someone communicates

(10:51):
to her, this is a written authorization that Biden wants
his autopen signature given to this, and then she would
do it, but she needed something in writing. Biden apparently
was doing a lot of stuff where he was okaying
things orally and then either Jeff Zence, his chief of staff,
Ed Siskell, his White House counsel. And we're starting to

(11:14):
see has it always been theorized by people that the
country was probably run by a small committee of powerful Democrats,
And we're now sort of starting to see who jeffs
ed Ziskell. They would communicate this to his secretary, she
would have fixed the autopen. What seems to have happened
is that for this list, this sort of ACLU again,

(11:37):
kind of ACLU inspired list of criminal defendants that Biden
was gonna grant clemency to. Apparently the initial email of
this is the category of persons that Biden wants to
provide the clemency to, then gets changed after more discussions

(12:00):
between Jeff Sence Ed Ciskel. So, Biden gave an order
in a meeting orally, and it seemed that people were
trying to figure out or creating or refining the parameters
of that order after the fact, which they're not allowed

(12:25):
to do. Jeff Sence is not allowed to change whatever
the order of the President gave. Jeff Sence can't change it.
Ed Ciskell can't change it. And the story sort of
treats this in a kind of Lottie dah blah blah blah. Oh, well,
you know they were just tweaking some of the parameter

(12:48):
No tweak, No, No, he's the president, not you.

Speaker 2 (12:53):
He's allowed to tweak.

Speaker 1 (12:57):
I feel like the show's getting off the rails if
I keep talking about twet. All right, Still he's allowed
to do this, not Jeff Sens not ed Cisco, not
his secretary, only him. And that's why I'm it seems
like this story was pumped out motivated by folks in

(13:19):
biden world, including the media. Was was pumped out as
a way to try to show Oh no, no, Biden
was having meetings with people and he was okaying every
every single thing.

Speaker 2 (13:29):
That had his auto pen name on it.

Speaker 1 (13:31):
No, he was really you know, well they were, you know,
sort of adjusting some of the parameters of things afterwards.

Speaker 2 (13:36):
But no, Biden, No, no adjusting the parameters. You can't
adjust them. It's his call.

Speaker 1 (13:49):
And this is so this desire to absolve Biden of
the charge of he was signing cred or he was
having his name assigned to crud that he didn't know
what it was. This has only put more fuel on

(14:10):
the fire.

Speaker 3 (14:11):
This is the Trevor Carry Show on the Valley's Power Talk.

Speaker 1 (14:16):
We're gonna go to the phones. Don from course Gold,
You're on the Trevor Carry Show.

Speaker 2 (14:22):
What is up? My friend? Here we go, come on,
come on, there we go. What am I doing.

Speaker 1 (14:33):
All right, Don, something's not happening with me and uh
with the with the button. Okay, apparently now we got
Don get to go. Hey there you are done. What's
what's up my friend?

Speaker 4 (14:43):
Okay? Well, I really calling in to you know, speak
about you know, all this stuff's going on with the immigration.
But and I hear you're talking about that, you.

Speaker 2 (14:52):
Know, the power can Yeah, the auto pen.

Speaker 4 (14:55):
Yeah, the autopen I'm saying. And also I think I
heard you say, well you have your attorney.

Speaker 2 (15:01):
I guess, right, I guess I am, yes, I am, yes,
I am.

Speaker 4 (15:04):
Okay, So that kind of falls in this, you know,
I am one day I call it. I noticed that
with all this is going on here, especially in California, LA,
that they you know, the blaming you know this this uh,
you know, the Trump administration with this, and I'm not

(15:25):
hearing any any feedback from the Republican say you know
that actually the Democrats started this.

Speaker 2 (15:31):
What did the Democrats start?

Speaker 4 (15:33):
Well, open the door to it, you know, you know,
people come into the country.

Speaker 1 (15:38):
What are we talking about, Don, We're talking about the autopen,
We're talking about immigration.

Speaker 4 (15:41):
Well, no, I am talking about No, I'm talking about
the auto pen. And that's part of it. If there
was I say this case, Ah.

Speaker 1 (15:48):
All right, So you're saying, if Biden, if Biden was
using the auto pen and was using that to let
in all this huge wave of immigration, how does that
settle exact?

Speaker 4 (16:00):
All right?

Speaker 1 (16:01):
Okay, Don, Well, I appreciate the question. I'll take it.
I'll take it from here. So I appreciate the question there,
don all right. How would that impact things? That's a
very good question. If if we could prove, if we
could prove that Joe Biden was not actually signing stuff,
if we could prove that people other than Joe Biden

(16:23):
were the ones actually issuing the orders, what would that mean?
I think that's a very good question. What would it
mean for immigration? What would it mean for the ten
thousand and one things that Joe Biden fixed his name to.
It's kind of a fascinating case study. Well, the first

(16:45):
things first, you would need someone with a cognizable claim
able to sue over it. Okay'd The Supreme Court doesn't
just jump in and give an advisory opinion, say hey,
we noticed this thing of the news and we think
this is illegal, so we're just going to change the law.
That's not how the Supreme Court op rates. Okay, the
Supreme Court operates with actual cases and controversies. So someone

(17:07):
has to have standing to sue first, someone has to
have suffered some kind of cognizable harm.

Speaker 2 (17:14):
So how would that come about.

Speaker 1 (17:16):
Well, in the case of someone who got pardoned wrongly,
I could maybe see this, some bad dude get a
Biden pardon. Enough evidence comes out that Biden had no
idea what he was doing, and Jeff Zenz was the
one who issued the pardon and just put Biden's signature
on it. I could see the Trump Department of Justice

(17:37):
or Bureau of Prisons. Maybe they come in some combo
of them. They re arrest the guy, put him back
in jail, saying sorry, your sentence is still happening, your
pardon was illegitimate. We're going to lock you up. That
guy make a havieous corpus claim. Then they'd have to

(17:58):
have a legal proceeding to try to hash out in
court was that pardon wla awfully given? And I think
you'd have to do something kind of like that for
pretty much any individual Biden action. And I don't know
that every single one, every single one of those Biden actions.

(18:19):
I don't know if it would be what we call
ju justiciable. Would there be someone who has suffered a
wrong who would thereby have standing to file a lawsuit,
because not anyone can file a lawsuit. Okay, if my
beloved Agent Squires, if someone crashed a car into Agent
Squire's house, I can't sue the guy who crashed the car.

(18:42):
If I try to sue and I'm in the court
room and judges say, well, what the heck are you
doing here, I say, hey, judge, I was really upset
for my friend, it wouldn't work. Okay, Agent Squires can
sue the guy who crashes into his cars into his
house because he's the one who suffered the actual harm,
the actual wrong. His house has a big car sized

(19:02):
hole in it. So and that's what leads me to
like the immigration thing.

Speaker 2 (19:08):
Who could be.

Speaker 1 (19:12):
A plaintiff to say that the wrongful Biden pardon directly
harmed them his well, not his pardon, but his executive
actions parole. I think that's what it was, Biden. Let's
say Biden paroled all these people who are being held
in detention for making asylum claim. So people come to

(19:33):
the border, they say, oh, I have to flee Mexico
because I'm afraid I'm going to get murdered by the cartel.
They weren't actually going to get murdered by the cartel.
They just wanted to come to America for economic opportunities.
If you claim asylum, you can kind of cut to
the head of the line. Biden said, Okay, come on in.
Usually when people make an asylum claim, they're supposed to
be held in detention. But Biden, without any clear legal authority,

(19:54):
said okay, I'm going to parole you from your detention.
Come into the country. So how who would have standing
to claim that, you know, Biden's auto pen doing that
was illegitimate and that these people aren't entitled to a
legitimate parole. I guess again, the Trump administration could grab
those people, put him into tention, or throw them across

(20:17):
the quarderback for you know, a remain in Mexico kind
of policy. Although they're paroled. The Trump administration could just
end that on their own. So it's very I'd say
it's situation by situation specific as to what could happen
if we were to very definitively find out with enough
evidence that the Trump administration would feel confident doing this

(20:42):
if they basically it would be the Trump administration acting
as if whatever the prior Biden policy was was null
and void. I mean yours truly, would you know, given
my concern with the abortion issue. In twenty twenty one,
Biden issued new regulation, well, he signed off on FDA
regulations to loosen up restrictions on the abortion pill, which

(21:04):
led to a massive increase in the number of people
using the abortion pill, massive increase in the number of abortions.
Could Biden, you know, if Trump had enough evidence, would
he could he just order and maybe bypass some normal
administrative hoops. No, sorry, the abortion pill has to be
taken in clinic. Biden's regulations from twenty twenty one are

(21:25):
no good because he autopendit. He didn't actually know what
he was doing. If he did that, manufactures of miff
pristone the abortion pill would likely sue and they'd have
to douke it out about whether the Biden executive action
was legitimately done.

Speaker 3 (21:40):
So this is the Trevor carry Show on the Valley's Power.

Speaker 1 (21:46):
Talk, Rushing in where Angels Dare to tread. I gotta
talk about Jeffrey Epstein all right, let's let's take the
band aid off.

Speaker 2 (21:55):
Now, this is my view. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (21:59):
I think Trevor and I are a little bit I'm
not exactly sure what Trevor's take on it. This is
just my take though, and with no no ill will
towards Trevor whatsoever. Trevor's my dear friend. I love him
to death. But I always kind of try to approach
this as a lawyer, and a lot of thinking about

(22:20):
potential criminal situations. When you're trying to think about it
like a lawyer is, you're trying to think about the result.

Speaker 2 (22:30):
What can you prove?

Speaker 1 (22:32):
It's almost in some ways more important, more relevant, more
meat and potatoes, the basics. Then what did this person do?
It's what can you prove? And what can you prove
beyond a reasonable doubt? If you tell me that Bill
Gates is on the Epstein flight logs, and Bill Gates

(22:54):
is a horrible man. And Bill Gates's wife left him
because in parts she was felt icky about his association
with Jeff Epstein. And Bill Gates is a slimeball, and
Bill Gates supports all kinds of horrible left wing things,
and he's in cohoots with Epstein and just Laine Maxwell's
dad was an intelligence guy, maybe connected to Masad, and

(23:15):
maybe Epstein was connected to Massad.

Speaker 2 (23:17):
Oh, blubblah bubba.

Speaker 1 (23:18):
All right, what can you prove in court? And also
what can the Justice Department actually release? That's another thing.
All right, here's the thing the Justice Department doesn't tend
to do. The Justice Department's considering a case. Let's say

(23:38):
the Justice Department is looking at a multi state child
sex slavery racketeering enterprise and they think this one guy
might be involved, but they don't have a ton of evidence.
They build the case, they work on the case. They

(24:00):
just can't get enough evidence on this guy. You know what,
the DJ doesn't do. It doesn't announce. You know, we've
been thinking that John Smith has been a child molesting,
child trafficking monster, and we had some evidence, but we
just decided not to bring a case. They don't do that.

Speaker 3 (24:21):
Wit.

Speaker 1 (24:22):
You're gonna ruin this guy's reputation when you don't have
actually enough evidence for a conviction.

Speaker 2 (24:27):
And maybe John Smith or you.

Speaker 1 (24:29):
Know whoever this hypothetical person is in this example, maybe
he is a child molester, maybe he is a monster,
Maybe he deserves to have his name tarnish. But the
DJ doesn't do that. Prosecutors in general don't do that.
They don't announce. You know, well, we are pretty sure
that this guy is a child trafficking monster, but we're

(24:50):
not gonna try. Oh, you're gonna ruin this guy's reputation
when you don't have the facts to back it up.
This brings me to the Epstein trial. Now, people have
theorized the existence of a list. Is there any hard

(25:11):
evidence for the existence of a list? Well, there's a list,
as in an actual physical piece of paper with names
written down on it.

Speaker 2 (25:20):
And then there is.

Speaker 1 (25:22):
A catalog that is maybe known to some people of
people who Well, then this is another problem of people
who did what exactly. We have a list of people
who flew on Jeffrey Epstein's planes because we have a
flight log. Did some of those people do horrible things

(25:45):
with women? Seems like it. Prince Andrew seems to have
Prince Andrew. It seems a bit more certain that that
did happen. But then you've got people like Alan Dershowitz,
and I want to bring up this example because it
touches on all this. Okay, Alan Dershowitz was a longtime friend,

(26:09):
confidante lawyer of Jeffrey Epstein. Dershowitz was one of the
most prominent law professors in the country decades and decades
and decades, taught at Harvard Law School. He's become a
bit of a political commentary gadfly in the Trump era,
usually very reliably liberal person who's now sort of a

(26:29):
bit more of a wild card. I don't know if
he's got one hundred percent of his screws tightened, if
you will, maybe has a few screws lose. One of
the women who was being trafficked on Epstein's island accused
him of being one of the Johns and Dershowitz suitor

(26:52):
and said, hey, I can prove I never did any
of that, and this is wrong that you're accusing me
of this and ruining my reputation when I never did
anything inappropriate with anybody. And Dershowitz was winning that lawsuit
to the point that they settled it, and the woman

(27:13):
had to issue a public apology saying, it was a
very chaotic time in my life, and I may not
evacurately identified mister Dershowitz. I can see that I may
have misidentified mister Dershowitz. So here's my thought. You want
to know why the Epstein quote list hasn't been released.

(27:38):
I don't think they have very good evidence end a story.
Maybe they have some evidence. Wouldn't shock me if they
have some evidence. I mean the fact that Bill Clinton
is on the flight log, or that Donald Trump is
on the flight log, or that Bill Gates is on
the flight log. I don't know that Trump ever actually

(27:58):
went to the island. I think he flew on a plane,
but I don't think he went to the island. I
would have to look that up, but I don't think
he actually went to the island. Nonetheless, Okay, they're on
the flight logs. That's some evidence. You think you can
prove to a jury of your peers beyond a reasonable doubt,

(28:19):
which is a very high bar, right DOJ is not
talking about, you know, civil lawsuits. DJ is talking about
criminal conviction. They have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
They need more than just a preponderance of the evidence.
They need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Is
that enough? No, we've heard more about Dershowitz than any

(28:41):
of these other guys. We actually have a woman who
was trafficked, who openly accused him, and she can't sustain
a civil lawsuit in which Dershowitz is saying, no, I
never did that. Now, also, good luck relying on her

(29:02):
to ever be a witness to criminally prosecute someone. I
don't recall the woman's name, Miss so and so. You
claim that you claim that my client, mister so and so,
that you were trafficked to him, Yes I do. Didn't
you also make a similar claim against Alan Derschowitz and
then have to retract that claim, Yes I did, Thank you.

(29:25):
No further questions. You know, I think this is really
what happened. And there are all these rumblings that Cash
Patel is furious, and Dan Bongino is furious, and everyone's
furious at Pam Bondi, and Bondi had said, oh, I've
got the client list on my desk, and then there

(29:47):
isn't really a client list.

Speaker 2 (29:50):
All right, Here's what I think happened.

Speaker 1 (29:53):
Trump had this kind of band around him of trumpy
backers and boosters and supporters, people like Bongino, people like
Elon Musk, people like this, people like that who were
very animated by the whole Jeffrey Epstein story, Trump was
glad to ride their wave of enthusiasm. I don't think

(30:13):
Trump ever really cared about it all that much, but
he's all right, all these people are enthused about it.
I'll i'll, you know, it's like the horse racing metaphor,
I'll give them their head, you know, let go of
the reins, let the horse have his head, let the
horse go crazy. I think he let them go off.

(30:34):
And Bondy talked that the critical mistake was Bondie talking
too much early on Bondy over promising, saying, oh, I've
got the client list on my desk, I'm going to
be reviewing it. And it's like, well, no, you didn't
have the client list. You probably had the flight logs

(30:55):
with the list of people who were on the flights.
You maybe have some evidence of some people maybe doing something.

Speaker 2 (31:04):
Evidence that.

Speaker 1 (31:06):
Is it strong enough to bring a criminal conviction, because ultimately,
that's what the DOJ is actually interested in here is
they're not interested in a public spectacle to name and
shame bad people.

Speaker 2 (31:22):
That's not the Department of Justice's job. The Department of
Justice's job is.

Speaker 1 (31:27):
If there is a civil action to enforce that advances
the interests of the United States of America, or if
there is a criminal case to be brought where you
have sufficient evidence to get a conviction, a reasonable amount
of evidence to get a conviction, you pursue that this
is not a moral a game of making people on

(31:49):
the internet feel morally okay about themselves. That the theorized
powerful whom Epstein had wrapped around his face will be
brought to heal and brought to account. That's not the
DJ's job, and the DJ can't operate like that. Again
the DJ do I kind of think Bill Gates was

(32:12):
doing nasty, dastardly things. Frankly, I have no idea. I
don't like Bill Gates. I don't like him as far
as I can throw him. I think he's a slime ball.
Think it's pretty weird that his wife divorced him over this.
I think the fact that Epstein had all this money
all of a sudden and was associated with the second
or first richest man in the world Bill Gates at

(32:34):
the time, at various times was the richest man in
the world, I think that's something that should raise I think,
like looking into financial stuff between those two guys would
probably actually be a lot more interesting than what.

Speaker 2 (32:49):
Bill Gates was or was not doing.

Speaker 3 (32:52):
This is the Trevor Charry Show on The Valley's Power.

Speaker 1 (32:56):
Talk with to talk against myself on my view on Epstein.
The one thing that does kind of trouble me. I
can't get over the Jeff Epstein dying in prison thing,
and that's the one minute of video footage we don't have,
and it's the one thing that makes me want to

(33:16):
buy into the maximal conspiracy theory view of the evidence
isn't out because powerful people are trying to protect things,
and that's why Epstein was killed, and that's now.

Speaker 2 (33:28):
Why BONDI is protecting things.

Speaker 1 (33:30):
It's the one thing that gives me some pause, and
it would kind of explain why Max Giselainne Maxwell didn't
give up much info during her criminal trial. Now kind
of a hole got popped in that theory becausej Justleainne
Maxwell is now out here saying, oh, I'll tell every
I'll tell everyone, I'll tell everyone everything I know. Apparently

(33:52):
now Giselene Maxwell is not afraid to tell what she knows.
And this is the thing about the motivation to not
go after Epstein, who is motivated to not go after Epstein.

Speaker 2 (34:05):
Okay, theoretically, it's Bill Gates.

Speaker 1 (34:07):
With one hundred billion dollars using his influence to say,
don't go after Epstein's clients because I don't want to
go to jail and I'll kill Epstein to do it,
and all blah.

Speaker 2 (34:16):
Blah blah blah blah.

Speaker 1 (34:17):
Well, all right, and is that why federal prosecutors didn't
go after Epstein hard initially? But they did go after
Epstein hard, they did indict him. They did indict and
convict Islane Maxwell.

Speaker 2 (34:31):
So what is it?

Speaker 1 (34:32):
Are are prosecutors too afraid of the powerful to go
after Epstein in a circle or are they not? They
did go after Epstein, they did go after Maxwell.

Speaker 3 (34:41):
They assist that tremor carry show MONDE. Valley's power dog