July 9, 2025 • 31 mins
Texas flood rescue teams continue to search for scores of missing people as death toll climbs / 3 dead after floods in Ruidoso, New Mexico, Sweep Away Homes. Epstein files: Annoyance at Bondi’s handling of case grows inside and outside the White House.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Gary and Shannon and you're listening to KFI
AM six forty the Gary and Shannon Show on demand
on the iHeartRadio app. If you listen to me during
Later with Mo Kelly, my normal show from seven to
ten pm here on KFI. But I appreciate the opportunity
to talk about some different things with you.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
There's a lot that we need to discuss. We collectively.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
There are a lot of issues that impact us directly
and indirectly, and hopefully I can give you just a
little bit of a different take on this. Let me
first say good morning to Heather Brooker. It's nice to
be able to work with you.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Heather. It's not often we get to work together.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
I know this is such a treat for me.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Let's have some fun and also inform some people on
the way and on the ones and twos. Elmer, what's
happened to my friend? It's been a while since I've
worked with you as well.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
How's it going.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
It's gone real well, so let's get to it. Two
of the biggest stories right now in the United States
have to do with floods. We know about the Texas flood,
which is still in the rescue effort portion. You might
have heard some audio that we may not be in
that rescue portion much longer and may move to recovery.
(01:11):
That's the unfortunate reality where after a certain point, if
you're not finding signs of life, optimism may fade. But
the latest numbers that at least one hundred and nineteen
people are confirmed dead and more than one hundred and
sixty people remain unaccounted for. And this is according to
Texas Governor Greg Abbott, and we know is in reference
(01:34):
to the Camp Mystic tragedy the Girls Summer Camp. At
least twenty seven campers and councilors died. I want to
put a pin in that and just think about those
individuals and think about their families and think about what
they may be going through at this moment.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
I want to come right back to that. But we
also now have.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
To deal with the New Mexico floods, in which three
people were killed in southern Mexico after heavy rains fell.
A middle aged man and two children aged seven and
four died after being swept away by flood waters. In addition,
dozens of people trapped in their homes were caught in
fast moving flood waters were rescued by emergency crews. Not
(02:17):
all bad news, some good news, and I want you
to put a pin in this. Governor Michelle Grisham asked
the federal government to send response teams and resources to
help with repairs. And that's against the backdrop of the
larger discussion of what FEMA's role is not only in
these disasters, but as an agency going forward. You'll probably
(02:42):
be familiar with what the President has said about FEMA
and how he plans to eradicate the agency in the
next calendar year. But I'll get to that in the
next segment. I wanted to talk about Texas and New
Mexico and the idea of tragedy and this ongoing discussion
(03:03):
as far as what we should or shouldn't be talking about.
If you exist in an online space like I do,
you see the discussions some people are talking about, Hey,
we should only be offering thoughts and prayers for the victims.
It doesn't matter what happened, it doesn't matter why it happened,
it doesn't matter who's to blame. It should be about
(03:24):
praying for the victims and their families. That's generally one
sentiment out there, and others will say, well.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
No, no, no, no, this happened for a reason.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
This happened to someone's negligence, this happened to someone's budget cutting.
And that's another form of conversation out there, and seemingly
they're competing.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Now, I'm going to tell you about what someone told me.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
His name is Carl McNair, and you may not recognize
the name, but Carl McNair is a longtime friend of mine,
known him for more than than twenty years. Carl is
the older brother of Ronald McNair, who paished on January
of nineteen eighty six aboard the Challenger. And Carl and
(04:12):
I have discussed that period of grieving and how he's
dealt with the loss of his brother in a number
of ways, and I'm going to share some of the
things that he told me. He told me that there
is room for simultaneous conversations because as he was mourning
his brother, he was mourning, he was questioning what and
(04:37):
why it happened, and also he wanted answers as to
determining who was responsible for the events leading up to it.
In short, he was saying, though, talking to me, you
can have all these conversations at the same time. And
we were talking maybe two weeks ago, because I'm helping
him with the planning and preparation for events commemorating the
(04:58):
fortieth anniversary. Imagine that forty years since Challenger exploded, but
commemorating the forty years since Challenger and that disaster and
all the memories and the emotions which come up in
relation to it. But he was saying to me that
there's room for these simultaneous conversations about what happened, making
(05:20):
room for mourning, finding out why assessing blame simultaneously, not
one at the expense of the other. And here's something
that he told me that made it all made sense today.
What's different today as opposed to nineteen eighty six is
people by and large start start with a conclusion formed
(05:45):
by an already established worldview, and then people work backwards
from there to assess blame. In other words, you want
to blame X or y person, be at the California fires,
the Texas floods, be it the hurricane here or there,
or the tornadoes. You start with a conclusion, and then
(06:09):
you make sure that conclusion conforms to your worldview, and
then you work yourself backwards to find the right person
to blame to fit that worldview. You're not trying to
find out what and why happen. You're trying to find
a way to blame the right small r person for
the circumstances involved. If it's the fires, blame local officials
(06:33):
and the state governor. If it's the floods, blame the
president and his cuts to federal agencies, including FEMA. That
was what Carl McNair was telling me about how we
as a country have shifted in how we look at tragedy.
This is someone who lost his brother on Challenger. This
(06:56):
is someone who had to grieve publicly for the whole
world to see. This is someone who had to watch
the investigations and in his words, why I can't say
his words because there's certain things that he told me
in confidence. Let me just say he told me and
on this station back in January, that he never found
out everything which happened with Challenger. The family's never found out.
(07:20):
So oftentimes you're trying to grieve, you're trying to remain
focused and understand, and you want those who are responsible
to be held accountable. And he told me, mother, there's
always room for these conversations simultaneously. The problem is our
intentions are not pure, our desires are corrupted by our
(07:42):
own political biases. So if you get on social media,
I know we got to go to break But if
you get on social media and you say that this
is not the time to assess blame, I will just
tell you what someone told me and said, no, that's
not true.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
If you can get to the heart of the matter,
then get to the heart of the matter.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
If you say that, well, we should only focus on
the families who are grieving and offer thoughts in prayers,
I'm sure Carl would say, no, No, you can do both.
You can offer thoughts and prayers to the family, but
also be an instrument to help find out what happened
and why it happened, and then correctly assess blame, not whimsically,
(08:23):
not politically, but correctly and accurately. But that's just what
Carl McNair told me. And he had to grieve in
front of the world for years and documentaries and public
discussions and conspiracy theories while he buried his brother and
had to find out how to move forward. It's Gary
(08:45):
and Shannon show, mo Kelly and for Gary and Shannon.
We'll have more on this in just a moment. K
if I AM six forty we're live everywhere in the
iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (08:53):
You're listening to Gary and Shannon on demand from KFI
AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
And as we can tinue our conversation about the floods
and the appropriate response not only in how we talk
about it, but how we pursue making people hold, how
we make sure that people are safe in these recovery
and other efforts which are being applied right now. There
(09:20):
is an emerging discussion, I should say, a continuing discussion
about FEMA's role, about whether FEMA should even exist.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
And this is how I just happen to look at it.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
I look at FEMA and I love analogies or metaphors.
FEMA to me is like car insurance. You have it around,
you don't use it. By and large, you and other
people pay into it. You don't want to use it,
(09:50):
but in the event that you have to use it,
you're glad that it's there. And states are like the
deductible states, and that limited responsibility will pay the first portion,
and then FEMA, the federal response, will pick up the
rest of it and there is a debate largely generated
(10:11):
by our president. People weren't talking about eradicating FEMA prior
to President Donald Trump making it a central issue. My
question is can states And this is really not even
theoretical or rhetorical question.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
There's an answer which needs to be given.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Canned states actually handle all these natural disasters and also
may have made disasters on their own.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
I don't think so.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
If you want or expect Alabama or Missouri to be
responsible for the lion's share of emergency services when we
have tornadoes, I think we're putting ourselves in a very
dangerous position. And you could talk about California and its fires,
and you can say, well, California should have done this,
or California should have done that. There are things that
(11:02):
aren't California's responsibility. There were a lot of areas which
caught on fire which were not state property.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
It was federal land.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Are you saying that the federal government is not going
to be responsible for federal land in an emergency.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
A lot of these conversations require nuance.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
But just in case you don't remember what the President
had to say, let me just very quickly.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Just reassess what you're saying.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
I think that he was saying that FEMA needed to
be gone inside of a year and that all this
should be on the shoulders of governors.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
But here is the longer clip, so you have some context.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
I'lson, you want to see them eliminated, and what's your
message to the governments about how much low an expense
it's going to fullish state?
Speaker 5 (11:49):
Yeah, I'm going to do so much to states. We're
going to give out less money. We're going to give
it out directly. It'll be from the President's office. We'll
have somebody here, could be homeland Security. We're going to
give it out through a method where it's given out.
As an example, I just gave out seventy one million
dollars to a certain state. They were looking to do
about one hundred and twenty. They were very happy with
(12:12):
the seventy one million. We did a little cutting and
they were very happy with it. So we're going to
do it much North Carolina. We think after this, Christie,
I say, after the hurricane season, we'll yes aurtually set.
Speaker 6 (12:24):
Up of BEEM A council over the next couple of
months will be working on reforms and what FEMA will
look like in the future as a different agency as
under the Department of Homeland Security to the President's vision,
and it will empower governors to go out and respond
to emergency situations. And that what the president does best
is to make sure that the taxpayers are only fulfilling
(12:47):
the need to which is appropriate, and that people are
responsible to respond to their own people closest to home.
Speaker 5 (12:53):
So it's a certain state, as an example, gets hit
by a hurricane or today, that's what wins should be
able to handle it, and frankly, if they can handle
it the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn't be governor.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
I wholeheartedly disagree. I wholeheartedly disagree. You're saying that if
a hurricane hits a state or multiple states, the governor
is supposed to be able to handle it. How does
one presume that you can handle a natural disaster? Not?
Natural disasters don't come in one size. Natural disasters don't
(13:28):
only impact one particular state. Natural disasters oftentimes overwhelm the
services and resources of a given state. Let me give
you just an example. I think all of us can
relatively remember, just if you're old enough, it's hard to believe.
I have to ask this question you know, are you
old enough to remember nine to eleven. We're at that
(13:50):
point where there are a lot of people who are
probably listening who don't have an active memory of nine
to eleven. But let's just say hypothetically, you're old like me,
and you remember where you were on nine to eleven.
You remember what happened to the state of New York.
Are you saying, are you suggesting that a governor of
a state like New York, if they were overwhelmed in
(14:12):
a situation like that nine to eleven, that you would
deem the governor incompetent or shouldn't be governor.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
I'm just going off what the President said.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
If they were overwhelmed and did not have the requisite
resources available to deal with it. Now, I know what's
politically expedient to say, well, Governor Gavin Newsom, he shouldn't
be governor if he couldn't handle the fires. But a
lot of the fires, if we look over the totality
of less maybe five to ten years have been on
federal lands, you're gonna blame the governor for the federal lands.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
I understand there were mistakes made somewhere along the way.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
And that goes back to our conversation last segment about
being able to mourn, being able to assess and blame
at the same time. There's room for all of those conversations.
But if you back yourself into a corner and say,
if a state cannot handle a natural disaster, then you
(15:10):
need to blame the governor. That's a very dangerous precedent.
Given that we have earthquakes every year, given that we
have tornadoes every year, given that we have hurricanes every
single year, given that we have floods, come to think
of it, every single year. Are you saying that Governor
Greg Abbot is less of a governor because twenty seven
(15:33):
children that we know of have perished in the floodwaters.
Are you saying that if this tragedy is beyond the
resources of the governor of Texas, the Governor Abbot possibly
should be held accountable because of only just the resources
not being available. That's why you have the insurance policy.
(15:54):
To go back to that analogy, and that's why you
have the deductible. You have the states to them what
they can, where they can, how they can right where
they are, and then you have the federal government, hopefully
theoretically come in and do what states can't do for themselves,
and frankly.
Speaker 5 (16:09):
If they can handle it the aftermath, then maybe they
should be governor.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
I don't know if those dots connect, because an act
of God, obviously, usually possibly it is beyond the control
of man as in humankind, and sometimes beyond our collective
resources in a given state, and not all resources are
created equal. California more resources, Louisiana fewer resources. What happens
(16:42):
in Arkansas, what happens into a smaller and a smaller state.
That's the whole idea of federalism, where you have the
totality of the states, the federal government helping out those
states which may be in need and have fewer resources.
California the fourth largest economy in the world. It's not
the same thing in California as it might be in
Oklahoma or Iowa. Just something to think about. It's Gary
(17:05):
and Shannon. I'm o Kelly in for Gary and Shannon
kfi AM six forty. We are live everywhere in the
iHeartRadio app But we have to talk about the Jeffrey
Epstein files, which now do not exist, and there are
no John's and there's no one to prosecute, and there's
no list to share anywhere.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
We got to talk about that next.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
You're listening to Gary and Shannon on Demand from KFI
AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
Before I talk about Trump and Epstein, I'm going to
back into it by asking some questions of some folks
in the studio. Elma, who is the most famous person
that you've met and taken a photo with? Wow, I've
met some famous people, but I've never taken a photo
(17:53):
with any.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Okay, who have you met them? Just met? Ah? He
did me to come back to you. Ye, okay, I
have the same question to you.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
This is difficult for me, but for a different reason
because I have met so many hashtag bragging humble brag.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
No, that's okay, it is appropriate for this one.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
I would say Steve Carell is pretty high up there
on the list the rock right, I would say, my gosh,
any major like movie star in the last like ten
years or so.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Okay, yeah, no, that's a great starting point, and I'm
not gonna humble brag, but it's it's to highlight a point.
I've met dozens of stars and Academy Award winners over
the years. If I went through my photo album and
found all the pictures. I could find the Mariah Carey,
I could find a Janet Jackson, I could find a Beyonce,
(18:50):
a Denzel Washington, Halle Berry, Jamie Fox, the Rock. And
they're pictures of me with all of them. And there
are pictures of me with President Obama, President Clinton, President
George W.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Bush. I have some great stories to tell. But if
you were to put those.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
In a collage and say, aha, what's the common thread?
If I, unfortunately were to be indicted for something, they
would mean nothing.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Here's what I'm getting to.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
In the first segment, I talked about how people usually
want to assess blame according to their political worldview. One
way in which people do this is they use pictures.
In the discussion of Jeffrey Epstein bringing it all together,
people will show a picture of Epstein with this person,
(19:44):
show a picture of Donald Trump and that person, and
or Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump. Well, they'll show Harvey
Weinstein and Oprah Winfrey. You know what I mean, what
I mean and where I'm going with this. The pictures
don't mean anything. We just want to assess Blaine. And
I'm quite sure you could find me in pictures with
all those people. And I would have no idea about
(20:08):
their sexual history, their predilections, and vice versa. We don't
know these people, and we don't know what goes on
in their bedroom.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
And there has been.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
A haste, a rush, an obsession with Jeffrey Epstein and
trying to ascribe blame to anyone seen with him or
quote unquote linked to him. I have no idea who
the Johns are my phraseology. I don't know who was
(20:40):
on this supposed Epstein list. We've seen flight logs, Okay,
I've been on flights with Janet Jackson, for example.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
That doesn't mean I know.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Anything about her personal sex life. Sometimes we want to
connect dots which are not there.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Jeffrey Epstein is dead.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
There have been plenty of conspiracy theories surrounding him. There
have been theories that there is an exclusive client list.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
I believe, yes, there are obviously.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
People who were involved in criminal behavior with Jeffrey Epstein,
if only because Gilaine Maxwell is that how she pronounces
her name, gi Layne. Gilaine Maxwell is in prison, presumably
for the rest of her life, and Jeffrey Epstein would
have been in prison for the rest of his life
had he not killed himself. Regardless of people's conspiracy theories.
(21:37):
But the question is did we get here of.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Our own accord or were we told.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
That there was more to Jeffrey Epstein than there actually was?
In other words, were these just people of power or
is it something more that people want to hide to
protect the people power? And here's something else. I know
it might sound a little bit convoluted, but I'm going
somewhere with this. Powerful people know powerful people. That should
(22:10):
not be a surprise. The question is whether powerful people
were literally in bed with the powerful people in trying
to protect the powerful people. But we came to this administration,
not to say this administration, because the Trump administration, the
now Trump administration, told us that if and when Donald
Trump was elected, he was going to release all the
(22:31):
Jeffrey Epstein files.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
He placed that bar up there. Our level of expectation was.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
That upon election that we would learn about Jeffrey Epstein,
we would learn about JFK, we would learn about MLK.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
That is what we were told.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
So we collectively as a country had a level of
expectation that the government was holding something back and if
you don't deliver that, then it's going to feed the
idea that there is some sort of conspiracy or there
is some sort of cover up.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
I don't mind answering.
Speaker 7 (23:05):
I mean, I can't believe you're asking a question on
at Epstein at a time like this, where with having
some of the greatest success and also tragedy with what
happened in Texas.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
It just seems like a desecration. Well, you can't have
it both ways. You can't have it both ways.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
You can't tell us in one moment that if when
I'm elected, we're going to find out what actually happened,
you were going to release all the Epstein files.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
You can't have the same.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
Attorney General Pambondi tell us on one hand, I have
all the je Epstein files right here on my desk
and hold up a binder, and then three weeks later
you're saying, Department of Justice tell us that there are
no Epstein files. To a reasonable person, that makes no
damn sense. It's got to be one of the other
(23:54):
Gelay Maxwell is in jail, in prison, Jeffrey Epstein was
likely to go to prison. ELM I gotta go to
break but this is important. Got to get this off
my chest. Those people are gonna spend the rest of
their lives in prison for something that happened that was
done by someone at an island, and also in Florida,
(24:16):
and also in New York. And yes, the public doesn't
necessarily have a right to know. We can file a
Freedom of Information Act. We didn't have a right to know,
but damn it, we were told that we were going
to know. You told us that there was a list.
You told us that you were gonna release all the
information and on the files. You told us that we're
gonna find out all the names, whether it actually included
(24:37):
Bill Clinton, whether it actually included stars and other celebrities.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
You told us that.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
So it's reasonable to be upset at this point as
to why, all of a sudden.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
None of that exists.
Speaker 1 (24:48):
It'd be one thing if you didn't honor your promise,
but this is a one hundred hundred and eighty degree turn.
You went from we're gonna tell you everything too, there's
nothing to tell.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
You're listening to Gary and Shannon on demand from KFI
AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
You can hit me on social media. Some people already
have at mister Mokelly. Some people have found me on
Instagram and they're expressing themselves in you know the ways
that they think they know. How now, I have not
been disrespectful to you, So why would you be disrespectful
to me?
Speaker 2 (25:24):
I just don't get it. I don't get it anyhow.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
This comes from Jeremy Leeb at Jeremy Leeb on Instagram.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
He says, you suck, bro. I'm not your bro.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
Stop being so biased bias about politics.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
We get it.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
You love Joe Biden, but you're spilling a bunch of misinformation.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
It's sad.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Jeremy Lee, First, thank you for your note, but uh,
I have yet to talk about politics. I talked about
the floods. I talked about how the president wanted to
close FEMA, which is accurate. I talked about how people
want to rush to blame according to their worldview.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
But I.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Have yet to even express any type of like of
Joe Biden, much less love. And the word is biased,
b I a sed Stop being so biased. If you're
gonna insult me, at least use the correct conjugation of
the of the word. Okay, it's biased, not biased. It
just helps the power of your insult if you at
(26:33):
least get that portion correct.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
But you know, thank you very much for your note.
Let's talk about Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
And I was making the point, just because you see
a picture of someone, and I use the example of
Donald Trump in the fith of Donald Trump Jeremy Leeb,
just because you see a picture of someone, it does
not indict or implicate someone. Think about all the pictures
you see of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, and I
(27:02):
have to remind people pictures don't mean anything. Powerful people
know powerful people. You go to an award show, all
the famous people take pictures with all the famous people.
That's what they do. But talking about why Jeffrey Epstein
is an issue right now, I make the point the
(27:22):
level of expectation was set by only Donald Trump and
his administration. Pam Bondy was the only person talking about
we're going to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. I wish
you were someone else, but she was the only one.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
You call that misinformation, it's just a fact.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
She was holding up the binder talking about I have
all the Jeffrey Epstein files right here on my desk.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
That's setting level of expectations.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
And if you happen to be of the opinion that
that's unacceptable that now people are saying in the same administration,
Pam Bondi and also President Trump has said, basically in
so many words, to move on, that we're not going
to talk about this anymore.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
I was like, dude, bro, you're all were the only
ones talking about it.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
You told us that this was going to be released,
you said you had the files, and now you're saying
there are no files. That's just a statement of fact.
Is what you said before, and that's what you're saying now.
It's just a statement of fact that is on the
public record. Me personally, I don't care one way or
(28:40):
the other. I just believe, because you have powerful people
who will always protect powerful people, that we will never
know the full truth.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
I said this in the first statement. I was talking
about my.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
Friend Carl McNair and the whole Challenger disaster. He told
me just last month. Forty years later, he still doesn't
believe he'll ever find out the truth regarding the Challenger disaster.
Forty years later. Powerful people protect powerful people. I don't
know who's on this Jeffrey Epstein client list. I do believe,
(29:17):
as a rational person and a reasonable person that Geley
Maxwell would not be in prison right now unless there
were a client list, because she was the facilitator, she
was the go between, she was the madam if you will.
Somebody was doing something with someone which was illegal, which
(29:37):
led to Glay Maxwell being put in prison.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
So there is a list.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
I'm quite sure Geeley Maxwell had a list of her
frequent clients, people that you required her to preserve their anonymity,
preserve their privacy. It wasn't like someone could just open
the Yellow Pages with the head back in the day,
or the White Pages, or just somehow just call for
(30:03):
one and say, hey, can I come on over to
Jeffrey Epstein's and hang out for a while.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
No, it wasn't like that.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
It clearly was a small society of people who knew
and knew how to contact her and knew what to
do to do whatever criminal thing that they were trying
to do. That's known to the federal government because it
had to be part of the evidence. A reasonable person
knows that, I'm just trying to tell you, Jeremy Leeb
(30:34):
and anyone else. The expectations were set by Pam Bondi.
The expectations were set by a campaigning Donald Trump, who said,
I would release the Epstein files. I would release the
MLK files. I will release the JFK files. I didn't
say that he did. And when you set the expectations
(30:57):
that high and you not only deliver on them and
you go in the other direction, that is a problem
that you yourself have created. I personally never expected to
see any of this, and I'm not in any way
disappointed because low expectations, no disappointments. It's Gary and Shannon
(31:20):
mo Kelley. And for Gary and Shann KFIM six forty
we live everywhere the iHeartRadio app. You've been listening to
the Gary and Shannon Show, you can always hear us
live on kfi AM six forty nine am to one
pm every Monday through Friday, and anytime on demand on
the iHeartRadio app.
This is Gary and Shannon and you're listening to KFI
AM six forty the Gary and Shannon Show on demand
on the iHeartRadio app. If you listen to me during
Later with Mo Kelly, my normal show from seven to
ten pm here on KFI. But I appreciate the opportunity
to talk about some different things with you.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
There's a lot that we need to discuss. We collectively.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
There are a lot of issues that impact us directly
and indirectly, and hopefully I can give you just a
little bit of a different take on this. Let me
first say good morning to Heather Brooker. It's nice to
be able to work with you.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Heather. It's not often we get to work together.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
I know this is such a treat for me.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Let's have some fun and also inform some people on
the way and on the ones and twos. Elmer, what's
happened to my friend? It's been a while since I've
worked with you as well.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
How's it going.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
It's gone real well, so let's get to it. Two
of the biggest stories right now in the United States
have to do with floods. We know about the Texas flood,
which is still in the rescue effort portion. You might
have heard some audio that we may not be in
that rescue portion much longer and may move to recovery.
(01:11):
That's the unfortunate reality where after a certain point, if
you're not finding signs of life, optimism may fade. But
the latest numbers that at least one hundred and nineteen
people are confirmed dead and more than one hundred and
sixty people remain unaccounted for. And this is according to
Texas Governor Greg Abbott, and we know is in reference
(01:34):
to the Camp Mystic tragedy the Girls Summer Camp. At
least twenty seven campers and councilors died. I want to
put a pin in that and just think about those
individuals and think about their families and think about what
they may be going through at this moment.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
I want to come right back to that. But we
also now have.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
To deal with the New Mexico floods, in which three
people were killed in southern Mexico after heavy rains fell.
A middle aged man and two children aged seven and
four died after being swept away by flood waters. In addition,
dozens of people trapped in their homes were caught in
fast moving flood waters were rescued by emergency crews. Not
(02:17):
all bad news, some good news, and I want you
to put a pin in this. Governor Michelle Grisham asked
the federal government to send response teams and resources to
help with repairs. And that's against the backdrop of the
larger discussion of what FEMA's role is not only in
these disasters, but as an agency going forward. You'll probably
(02:42):
be familiar with what the President has said about FEMA
and how he plans to eradicate the agency in the
next calendar year. But I'll get to that in the
next segment. I wanted to talk about Texas and New
Mexico and the idea of tragedy and this ongoing discussion
(03:03):
as far as what we should or shouldn't be talking about.
If you exist in an online space like I do,
you see the discussions some people are talking about, Hey,
we should only be offering thoughts and prayers for the victims.
It doesn't matter what happened, it doesn't matter why it happened,
it doesn't matter who's to blame. It should be about
(03:24):
praying for the victims and their families. That's generally one
sentiment out there, and others will say, well.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
No, no, no, no, this happened for a reason.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
This happened to someone's negligence, this happened to someone's budget cutting.
And that's another form of conversation out there, and seemingly
they're competing.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Now, I'm going to tell you about what someone told me.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
His name is Carl McNair, and you may not recognize
the name, but Carl McNair is a longtime friend of mine,
known him for more than than twenty years. Carl is
the older brother of Ronald McNair, who paished on January
of nineteen eighty six aboard the Challenger. And Carl and
(04:12):
I have discussed that period of grieving and how he's
dealt with the loss of his brother in a number
of ways, and I'm going to share some of the
things that he told me. He told me that there
is room for simultaneous conversations because as he was mourning
his brother, he was mourning, he was questioning what and
(04:37):
why it happened, and also he wanted answers as to
determining who was responsible for the events leading up to it.
In short, he was saying, though, talking to me, you
can have all these conversations at the same time. And
we were talking maybe two weeks ago, because I'm helping
him with the planning and preparation for events commemorating the
(04:58):
fortieth anniversary. Imagine that forty years since Challenger exploded, but
commemorating the forty years since Challenger and that disaster and
all the memories and the emotions which come up in
relation to it. But he was saying to me that
there's room for these simultaneous conversations about what happened, making
(05:20):
room for mourning, finding out why assessing blame simultaneously, not
one at the expense of the other. And here's something
that he told me that made it all made sense today.
What's different today as opposed to nineteen eighty six is
people by and large start start with a conclusion formed
(05:45):
by an already established worldview, and then people work backwards
from there to assess blame. In other words, you want
to blame X or y person, be at the California fires,
the Texas floods, be it the hurricane here or there,
or the tornadoes. You start with a conclusion, and then
(06:09):
you make sure that conclusion conforms to your worldview, and
then you work yourself backwards to find the right person
to blame to fit that worldview. You're not trying to
find out what and why happen. You're trying to find
a way to blame the right small r person for
the circumstances involved. If it's the fires, blame local officials
(06:33):
and the state governor. If it's the floods, blame the
president and his cuts to federal agencies, including FEMA. That
was what Carl McNair was telling me about how we
as a country have shifted in how we look at tragedy.
This is someone who lost his brother on Challenger. This
(06:56):
is someone who had to grieve publicly for the whole
world to see. This is someone who had to watch
the investigations and in his words, why I can't say
his words because there's certain things that he told me
in confidence. Let me just say he told me and
on this station back in January, that he never found
out everything which happened with Challenger. The family's never found out.
(07:20):
So oftentimes you're trying to grieve, you're trying to remain
focused and understand, and you want those who are responsible
to be held accountable. And he told me, mother, there's
always room for these conversations simultaneously. The problem is our
intentions are not pure, our desires are corrupted by our
(07:42):
own political biases. So if you get on social media,
I know we got to go to break But if
you get on social media and you say that this
is not the time to assess blame, I will just
tell you what someone told me and said, no, that's
not true.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
If you can get to the heart of the matter,
then get to the heart of the matter.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
If you say that, well, we should only focus on
the families who are grieving and offer thoughts in prayers,
I'm sure Carl would say, no, No, you can do both.
You can offer thoughts and prayers to the family, but
also be an instrument to help find out what happened
and why it happened, and then correctly assess blame, not whimsically,
(08:23):
not politically, but correctly and accurately. But that's just what
Carl McNair told me. And he had to grieve in
front of the world for years and documentaries and public
discussions and conspiracy theories while he buried his brother and
had to find out how to move forward. It's Gary
(08:45):
and Shannon show, mo Kelly and for Gary and Shannon.
We'll have more on this in just a moment. K
if I AM six forty we're live everywhere in the
iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 4 (08:53):
You're listening to Gary and Shannon on demand from KFI
AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
And as we can tinue our conversation about the floods
and the appropriate response not only in how we talk
about it, but how we pursue making people hold, how
we make sure that people are safe in these recovery
and other efforts which are being applied right now. There
(09:20):
is an emerging discussion, I should say, a continuing discussion
about FEMA's role, about whether FEMA should even exist.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
And this is how I just happen to look at it.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
I look at FEMA and I love analogies or metaphors.
FEMA to me is like car insurance. You have it around,
you don't use it. By and large, you and other
people pay into it. You don't want to use it,
(09:50):
but in the event that you have to use it,
you're glad that it's there. And states are like the
deductible states, and that limited responsibility will pay the first portion,
and then FEMA, the federal response, will pick up the
rest of it and there is a debate largely generated
(10:11):
by our president. People weren't talking about eradicating FEMA prior
to President Donald Trump making it a central issue. My
question is can states And this is really not even
theoretical or rhetorical question.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
There's an answer which needs to be given.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Canned states actually handle all these natural disasters and also
may have made disasters on their own.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
I don't think so.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
If you want or expect Alabama or Missouri to be
responsible for the lion's share of emergency services when we
have tornadoes, I think we're putting ourselves in a very
dangerous position. And you could talk about California and its fires,
and you can say, well, California should have done this,
or California should have done that. There are things that
(11:02):
aren't California's responsibility. There were a lot of areas which
caught on fire which were not state property.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
It was federal land.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Are you saying that the federal government is not going
to be responsible for federal land in an emergency.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
A lot of these conversations require nuance.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
But just in case you don't remember what the President
had to say, let me just very quickly.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Just reassess what you're saying.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
I think that he was saying that FEMA needed to
be gone inside of a year and that all this
should be on the shoulders of governors.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
But here is the longer clip, so you have some context.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
I'lson, you want to see them eliminated, and what's your
message to the governments about how much low an expense
it's going to fullish state?
Speaker 5 (11:49):
Yeah, I'm going to do so much to states. We're
going to give out less money. We're going to give
it out directly. It'll be from the President's office. We'll
have somebody here, could be homeland Security. We're going to
give it out through a method where it's given out.
As an example, I just gave out seventy one million
dollars to a certain state. They were looking to do
about one hundred and twenty. They were very happy with
(12:12):
the seventy one million. We did a little cutting and
they were very happy with it. So we're going to
do it much North Carolina. We think after this, Christie,
I say, after the hurricane season, we'll yes aurtually set.
Speaker 6 (12:24):
Up of BEEM A council over the next couple of
months will be working on reforms and what FEMA will
look like in the future as a different agency as
under the Department of Homeland Security to the President's vision,
and it will empower governors to go out and respond
to emergency situations. And that what the president does best
is to make sure that the taxpayers are only fulfilling
(12:47):
the need to which is appropriate, and that people are
responsible to respond to their own people closest to home.
Speaker 5 (12:53):
So it's a certain state, as an example, gets hit
by a hurricane or today, that's what wins should be
able to handle it, and frankly, if they can handle
it the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn't be governor.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
I wholeheartedly disagree. I wholeheartedly disagree. You're saying that if
a hurricane hits a state or multiple states, the governor
is supposed to be able to handle it. How does
one presume that you can handle a natural disaster? Not?
Natural disasters don't come in one size. Natural disasters don't
(13:28):
only impact one particular state. Natural disasters oftentimes overwhelm the
services and resources of a given state. Let me give
you just an example. I think all of us can
relatively remember, just if you're old enough, it's hard to believe.
I have to ask this question you know, are you
old enough to remember nine to eleven. We're at that
(13:50):
point where there are a lot of people who are
probably listening who don't have an active memory of nine
to eleven. But let's just say hypothetically, you're old like me,
and you remember where you were on nine to eleven.
You remember what happened to the state of New York.
Are you saying, are you suggesting that a governor of
a state like New York, if they were overwhelmed in
(14:12):
a situation like that nine to eleven, that you would
deem the governor incompetent or shouldn't be governor.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
I'm just going off what the President said.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
If they were overwhelmed and did not have the requisite
resources available to deal with it. Now, I know what's
politically expedient to say, well, Governor Gavin Newsom, he shouldn't
be governor if he couldn't handle the fires. But a
lot of the fires, if we look over the totality
of less maybe five to ten years have been on
federal lands, you're gonna blame the governor for the federal lands.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
I understand there were mistakes made somewhere along the way.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
And that goes back to our conversation last segment about
being able to mourn, being able to assess and blame
at the same time. There's room for all of those conversations.
But if you back yourself into a corner and say,
if a state cannot handle a natural disaster, then you
(15:10):
need to blame the governor. That's a very dangerous precedent.
Given that we have earthquakes every year, given that we
have tornadoes every year, given that we have hurricanes every
single year, given that we have floods, come to think
of it, every single year. Are you saying that Governor
Greg Abbot is less of a governor because twenty seven
(15:33):
children that we know of have perished in the floodwaters.
Are you saying that if this tragedy is beyond the
resources of the governor of Texas, the Governor Abbot possibly
should be held accountable because of only just the resources
not being available. That's why you have the insurance policy.
(15:54):
To go back to that analogy, and that's why you
have the deductible. You have the states to them what
they can, where they can, how they can right where
they are, and then you have the federal government, hopefully
theoretically come in and do what states can't do for themselves,
and frankly.
Speaker 5 (16:09):
If they can handle it the aftermath, then maybe they
should be governor.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
I don't know if those dots connect, because an act
of God, obviously, usually possibly it is beyond the control
of man as in humankind, and sometimes beyond our collective
resources in a given state, and not all resources are
created equal. California more resources, Louisiana fewer resources. What happens
(16:42):
in Arkansas, what happens into a smaller and a smaller state.
That's the whole idea of federalism, where you have the
totality of the states, the federal government helping out those
states which may be in need and have fewer resources.
California the fourth largest economy in the world. It's not
the same thing in California as it might be in
Oklahoma or Iowa. Just something to think about. It's Gary
(17:05):
and Shannon. I'm o Kelly in for Gary and Shannon
kfi AM six forty. We are live everywhere in the
iHeartRadio app But we have to talk about the Jeffrey
Epstein files, which now do not exist, and there are
no John's and there's no one to prosecute, and there's
no list to share anywhere.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
We got to talk about that next.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
You're listening to Gary and Shannon on Demand from KFI
AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
Before I talk about Trump and Epstein, I'm going to
back into it by asking some questions of some folks
in the studio. Elma, who is the most famous person
that you've met and taken a photo with? Wow, I've
met some famous people, but I've never taken a photo
(17:53):
with any.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Okay, who have you met them? Just met? Ah? He
did me to come back to you. Ye, okay, I
have the same question to you.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
This is difficult for me, but for a different reason
because I have met so many hashtag bragging humble brag.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
No, that's okay, it is appropriate for this one.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
I would say Steve Carell is pretty high up there
on the list the rock right, I would say, my gosh,
any major like movie star in the last like ten
years or so.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Okay, yeah, no, that's a great starting point, and I'm
not gonna humble brag, but it's it's to highlight a point.
I've met dozens of stars and Academy Award winners over
the years. If I went through my photo album and
found all the pictures. I could find the Mariah Carey,
I could find a Janet Jackson, I could find a Beyonce,
(18:50):
a Denzel Washington, Halle Berry, Jamie Fox, the Rock. And
they're pictures of me with all of them. And there
are pictures of me with President Obama, President Clinton, President
George W.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Bush. I have some great stories to tell. But if
you were to put those.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
In a collage and say, aha, what's the common thread?
If I, unfortunately were to be indicted for something, they
would mean nothing.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Here's what I'm getting to.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
In the first segment, I talked about how people usually
want to assess blame according to their political worldview. One
way in which people do this is they use pictures.
In the discussion of Jeffrey Epstein bringing it all together,
people will show a picture of Epstein with this person,
(19:44):
show a picture of Donald Trump and that person, and
or Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump. Well, they'll show Harvey
Weinstein and Oprah Winfrey. You know what I mean, what
I mean and where I'm going with this. The pictures
don't mean anything. We just want to assess Blaine. And
I'm quite sure you could find me in pictures with
all those people. And I would have no idea about
(20:08):
their sexual history, their predilections, and vice versa. We don't
know these people, and we don't know what goes on
in their bedroom.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
And there has been.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
A haste, a rush, an obsession with Jeffrey Epstein and
trying to ascribe blame to anyone seen with him or
quote unquote linked to him. I have no idea who
the Johns are my phraseology. I don't know who was
(20:40):
on this supposed Epstein list. We've seen flight logs, Okay,
I've been on flights with Janet Jackson, for example.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
That doesn't mean I know.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Anything about her personal sex life. Sometimes we want to
connect dots which are not there.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Jeffrey Epstein is dead.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
There have been plenty of conspiracy theories surrounding him. There
have been theories that there is an exclusive client list.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
I believe, yes, there are obviously.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
People who were involved in criminal behavior with Jeffrey Epstein,
if only because Gilaine Maxwell is that how she pronounces
her name, gi Layne. Gilaine Maxwell is in prison, presumably
for the rest of her life, and Jeffrey Epstein would
have been in prison for the rest of his life
had he not killed himself. Regardless of people's conspiracy theories.
(21:37):
But the question is did we get here of.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Our own accord or were we told.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
That there was more to Jeffrey Epstein than there actually was?
In other words, were these just people of power or
is it something more that people want to hide to
protect the people power? And here's something else. I know
it might sound a little bit convoluted, but I'm going
somewhere with this. Powerful people know powerful people. That should
(22:10):
not be a surprise. The question is whether powerful people
were literally in bed with the powerful people in trying
to protect the powerful people. But we came to this administration,
not to say this administration, because the Trump administration, the
now Trump administration, told us that if and when Donald
Trump was elected, he was going to release all the
(22:31):
Jeffrey Epstein files.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
He placed that bar up there. Our level of expectation was.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
That upon election that we would learn about Jeffrey Epstein,
we would learn about JFK, we would learn about MLK.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
That is what we were told.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
So we collectively as a country had a level of
expectation that the government was holding something back and if
you don't deliver that, then it's going to feed the
idea that there is some sort of conspiracy or there
is some sort of cover up.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
I don't mind answering.
Speaker 7 (23:05):
I mean, I can't believe you're asking a question on
at Epstein at a time like this, where with having
some of the greatest success and also tragedy with what
happened in Texas.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
It just seems like a desecration. Well, you can't have
it both ways. You can't have it both ways.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
You can't tell us in one moment that if when
I'm elected, we're going to find out what actually happened,
you were going to release all the Epstein files.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
You can't have the same.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
Attorney General Pambondi tell us on one hand, I have
all the je Epstein files right here on my desk
and hold up a binder, and then three weeks later
you're saying, Department of Justice tell us that there are
no Epstein files. To a reasonable person, that makes no
damn sense. It's got to be one of the other
(23:54):
Gelay Maxwell is in jail, in prison, Jeffrey Epstein was
likely to go to prison. ELM I gotta go to
break but this is important. Got to get this off
my chest. Those people are gonna spend the rest of
their lives in prison for something that happened that was
done by someone at an island, and also in Florida,
(24:16):
and also in New York. And yes, the public doesn't
necessarily have a right to know. We can file a
Freedom of Information Act. We didn't have a right to know,
but damn it, we were told that we were going
to know. You told us that there was a list.
You told us that you were gonna release all the
information and on the files. You told us that we're
gonna find out all the names, whether it actually included
(24:37):
Bill Clinton, whether it actually included stars and other celebrities.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
You told us that.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
So it's reasonable to be upset at this point as
to why, all of a sudden.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
None of that exists.
Speaker 1 (24:48):
It'd be one thing if you didn't honor your promise,
but this is a one hundred hundred and eighty degree turn.
You went from we're gonna tell you everything too, there's
nothing to tell.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
You're listening to Gary and Shannon on demand from KFI
AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
You can hit me on social media. Some people already
have at mister Mokelly. Some people have found me on
Instagram and they're expressing themselves in you know the ways
that they think they know. How now, I have not
been disrespectful to you, So why would you be disrespectful
to me?
Speaker 2 (25:24):
I just don't get it. I don't get it anyhow.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
This comes from Jeremy Leeb at Jeremy Leeb on Instagram.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
He says, you suck, bro. I'm not your bro.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
Stop being so biased bias about politics.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
We get it.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
You love Joe Biden, but you're spilling a bunch of misinformation.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
It's sad.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Jeremy Lee, First, thank you for your note, but uh,
I have yet to talk about politics. I talked about
the floods. I talked about how the president wanted to
close FEMA, which is accurate. I talked about how people
want to rush to blame according to their worldview.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
But I.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Have yet to even express any type of like of
Joe Biden, much less love. And the word is biased,
b I a sed Stop being so biased. If you're
gonna insult me, at least use the correct conjugation of
the of the word. Okay, it's biased, not biased. It
just helps the power of your insult if you at
(26:33):
least get that portion correct.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
But you know, thank you very much for your note.
Let's talk about Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
And I was making the point, just because you see
a picture of someone, and I use the example of
Donald Trump in the fith of Donald Trump Jeremy Leeb,
just because you see a picture of someone, it does
not indict or implicate someone. Think about all the pictures
you see of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, and I
(27:02):
have to remind people pictures don't mean anything. Powerful people
know powerful people. You go to an award show, all
the famous people take pictures with all the famous people.
That's what they do. But talking about why Jeffrey Epstein
is an issue right now, I make the point the
(27:22):
level of expectation was set by only Donald Trump and
his administration. Pam Bondy was the only person talking about
we're going to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. I wish
you were someone else, but she was the only one.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
You call that misinformation, it's just a fact.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
She was holding up the binder talking about I have
all the Jeffrey Epstein files right here on my desk.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
That's setting level of expectations.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
And if you happen to be of the opinion that
that's unacceptable that now people are saying in the same administration,
Pam Bondi and also President Trump has said, basically in
so many words, to move on, that we're not going
to talk about this anymore.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
I was like, dude, bro, you're all were the only
ones talking about it.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
You told us that this was going to be released,
you said you had the files, and now you're saying
there are no files. That's just a statement of fact.
Is what you said before, and that's what you're saying now.
It's just a statement of fact that is on the
public record. Me personally, I don't care one way or
(28:40):
the other. I just believe, because you have powerful people
who will always protect powerful people, that we will never
know the full truth.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
I said this in the first statement. I was talking
about my.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
Friend Carl McNair and the whole Challenger disaster. He told
me just last month. Forty years later, he still doesn't
believe he'll ever find out the truth regarding the Challenger disaster.
Forty years later. Powerful people protect powerful people. I don't
know who's on this Jeffrey Epstein client list. I do believe,
(29:17):
as a rational person and a reasonable person that Geley
Maxwell would not be in prison right now unless there
were a client list, because she was the facilitator, she
was the go between, she was the madam if you will.
Somebody was doing something with someone which was illegal, which
(29:37):
led to Glay Maxwell being put in prison.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
So there is a list.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
I'm quite sure Geeley Maxwell had a list of her
frequent clients, people that you required her to preserve their anonymity,
preserve their privacy. It wasn't like someone could just open
the Yellow Pages with the head back in the day,
or the White Pages, or just somehow just call for
(30:03):
one and say, hey, can I come on over to
Jeffrey Epstein's and hang out for a while.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
No, it wasn't like that.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
It clearly was a small society of people who knew
and knew how to contact her and knew what to
do to do whatever criminal thing that they were trying
to do. That's known to the federal government because it
had to be part of the evidence. A reasonable person
knows that, I'm just trying to tell you, Jeremy Leeb
(30:34):
and anyone else. The expectations were set by Pam Bondi.
The expectations were set by a campaigning Donald Trump, who said,
I would release the Epstein files. I would release the
MLK files. I will release the JFK files. I didn't
say that he did. And when you set the expectations
(30:57):
that high and you not only deliver on them and
you go in the other direction, that is a problem
that you yourself have created. I personally never expected to
see any of this, and I'm not in any way
disappointed because low expectations, no disappointments. It's Gary and Shannon
(31:20):
mo Kelley. And for Gary and Shann KFIM six forty
we live everywhere the iHeartRadio app. You've been listening to
the Gary and Shannon Show, you can always hear us
live on kfi AM six forty nine am to one
pm every Monday through Friday, and anytime on demand on
the iHeartRadio app.
Gary and Shannon News
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.