Speaker 1: My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro
Speaker 1: American student organization in the country, fighting for the future
Speaker 1: of our republic. My call is to fight evil and
Speaker 1: to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you
Speaker 1: is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But
Speaker 1: if the most important thing is doing good, you'll end
Speaker 1: up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to
Speaker 1: stop sending your kids to college. You should get married
Speaker 1: as young as possible and have as many kids as possible.
Speaker 1: Go start at turning point, you would say, college chapter.
Speaker 1: Go start attning point, you say, high school chapter. Go
Speaker 1: find out how your church can get involved. Sign up
Speaker 1: and become an activist. I gave my life to the
Speaker 1: Lord in fifth grade, most important decision I ever made
Speaker 1: in my life, and I encourage you to do the same.
Speaker 1: Here I am.
Speaker 2: Lord, Use me.
Speaker 1: Buckle up, everybody, Here we go. The Charlie Kirk Show
Speaker 1: is proudly sponsored by Preserved Gold, leading gold and silver
Speaker 1: experts and the only precious metals company. I recommend to
Speaker 1: my family, friends and viewers.
Speaker 2: All right, welcome back.
Speaker 3: Our two of the Charlie Kirk Show is underway, and
Speaker 3: I am very excited about this conversation with the Great
Speaker 3: Mike Bens. Mike Ben's has been he just had a
Speaker 3: tour to fource on Joe Rogan. Three hours with the
Speaker 3: Great Joe Rogan, all about Epstein. So much to get into.
Speaker 3: We of course had Jay Beecher on the show yesterday.
Speaker 3: I loved that interview. I actually think it was a
Speaker 3: sobering kind of analysis of six years of investigative investigative journalism.
Speaker 3: But Mike Benz has different insights, He's seeing different things,
Speaker 3: and I want to make sure that we approximate the
Speaker 3: truth here by getting Mike Benz's insights in the mix. So,
Speaker 3: without further ado, Mike, welcome back to the show. It's
Speaker 3: great to have you.
Speaker 4: Thanks, thanks for having me. Guys.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well I was talking to you a bit offline.
Speaker 3: The reason I want to wanted to have you on
Speaker 3: is because there is so much to the Epstein dump.
Speaker 3: There's three million documents. It's impossible for one most recent one, Yeah,
Speaker 3: to get to get the whole scope of what's happening here.
Speaker 3: And you you've been making headlines here. We've got clips
Speaker 3: from your Rogan interview that we're going to play. You
Speaker 3: made a lot of news in general. Just let's start
Speaker 3: at the beginning. What do you think that we learned
Speaker 3: from this? Has it added contours to your understanding? The
Speaker 3: floor is yours?
Speaker 4: Oh, an unbelievable amount has been turned up in this.
Speaker 4: It's I guess, the way I describe it is it's
Speaker 4: shocking but not surprising. I don't think there's anything in
Speaker 4: here that has surprised me, but it still is very
Speaker 4: shocking to see the details laid out. And it also confirms,
Speaker 4: in my view, essentially from almost every angle, the way
Speaker 4: that I've tried to prescribe people or prescribe people to
Speaker 4: view Epstein in context, to sort of understand the Epstein
Speaker 4: cinematic universe beyond a lot of the kind of simple,
Speaker 4: easy to grasp onto things or the things that he
Speaker 4: was arrested for. In my view, understanding the character of
Speaker 4: Epstein helps understand the world around you and the role
Speaker 4: that he played, because there's a little visage of Epstein
Speaker 4: in almost every industry, every government, every intelligence service, every
Speaker 4: private investment fund, and so you know what we're getting
Speaker 4: are to know something for a fact versus two have
Speaker 4: a constellation of circumstantial evidence is a very different thing.
Speaker 4: You know, many of the allegations around Epstein until this
Speaker 4: point involved highly compelling, circumstantial evidence, but so much that
Speaker 4: has turned up in these files has just been, you
Speaker 4: know what you'd call in an evidentiary proceeding a direct evidence.
Speaker 4: That is, it's not oh, we think that he was
Speaker 4: talking to x or Y because he talked to thirteen
Speaker 4: of his associates and there's a rumor going around and
Speaker 4: someone said that he did. Now you have a direct
Speaker 4: email or you have a direct you know, a direct
Speaker 4: audio file that says x or Y. We can get
Speaker 4: in all the specifics of what all those things are,
Speaker 4: because there's frankly three million of them. But you know,
Speaker 4: I can either turn to that or you guys want
Speaker 4: to go in a different direction. I be leave it
Speaker 4: to you, so.
Speaker 2: I'll be honest.
Speaker 3: One of the things that I was challenging Jay Beecher
Speaker 3: a phenomenal interview. I encourage everybody to go watch it
Speaker 3: and listen to it. But one of the things that
Speaker 3: I just couldn't shake was this sense that I've had
Speaker 3: that he was an Intel asset, or he was working
Speaker 3: with CIA, with with Massad whatever, and he seemed to
Speaker 3: be thinking that, you know, those claims had been overblown.
Speaker 3: Yet why would he work with Massad if he could
Speaker 3: just call a hud Barack or why you know he yes,
Speaker 3: yes he was involved, but it was it was softer,
Speaker 3: it was more kind of veiled in business transactions or whatever.
Speaker 3: I just couldn't shake it. And I kept pushing him
Speaker 3: on that. And I've seen that you've kind of been
Speaker 3: going into this. You know, there's this email Robert Maxwell
Speaker 3: Gallane's Maxwell apparently threatened Massad, and you've kind of gone
Speaker 3: into some of this. But but there's so much there
Speaker 3: and I just want to let you make those connections
Speaker 3: if they're there, if that if it's true, because I
Speaker 3: just I feel that it that there's got to be
Speaker 3: a there there.
Speaker 4: Well, I was laughing because when you said I couldn't
Speaker 4: help shake shake the feeling, I thought, well, you don't say,
Speaker 4: I mean this is a this is a ad week
Speaker 4: to be a Epstein intelligence denialist. I'll give you some
Speaker 4: We'll start with the US side of it. One of
Speaker 4: the things that turned up in these documents that I
Speaker 4: again shocked but not surprised, is Epstein foyd the Central
Speaker 4: Intelligence Agency twice for records about himself, first in nineteen
Speaker 4: ninety nine and then again in twenty eleven. Now, Andrew Blake,
Speaker 4: have you, guys, have you ever if you're a foid
Speaker 4: the CIA to see any any CIA records about yourself?
Speaker 3: It has that that wouldn't even occur to me to
Speaker 3: contemplate that as an option.
Speaker 5: You know, I guess, but I'm also not a billionaire either,
Speaker 5: or a cent a millionaire cent a millionaire.
Speaker 4: Okay, Well, would you request for any quote open or
Speaker 4: acknowledged agency affiliations?
Speaker 3: So that was okay, Just so I'm understanding, Mike, he
Speaker 3: this is in nineteen ninety did you say in nineteen
Speaker 3: ninety one or two thousand and one?
Speaker 4: Nineteen ninety nineteen nineties, two years before he became a
Speaker 4: public figure, right, Okay. At that point, he was still
Speaker 4: a private citizen, not publicly known, not written about in
Speaker 4: the mainstream news. It wasn't until two thousand and one,
Speaker 4: in two thousand and two, when he began flying the
Speaker 4: most recent President of the United States, Bill Clinton, around
Speaker 4: in Africa on his private jet, that the media started
Speaker 4: to take interest in him. So he was still basically
Speaker 4: a private operative who basically two years before he became
Speaker 4: a public figure. First asked the CIA if there were
Speaker 4: any open or acknowledged links agency affiliations. What's also interesting
Speaker 4: is the CIA, we actually don't have exactly what he
Speaker 4: asked the CIA, even though I think we should and
Speaker 4: I know that we are entitled to it. And now
Speaker 4: I'm happy to report that after I made a bit
Speaker 4: of a crusade about this, multiple people have now filed
Speaker 4: foyas to the CIA to get Jeffrey Epstein's correspondence with
Speaker 4: the CIA, which is not classified because Foyer requests at
Speaker 4: the CIA are not. Now, the CI is obviously not
Speaker 4: allowed to tell you, by virtue of it being a
Speaker 4: spy agency, any classified records that it has, but for example,
Speaker 4: it can send you declassified records, or if the CIA
Speaker 4: has acknowledged any links to a particular individual, it can
Speaker 4: send you the records on those. But what's interesting about
Speaker 4: that CIA letter is it says, with respect to your
Speaker 4: request about open or acknowledged links we have conducted that
Speaker 4: we grant the request for documents. We have searched for documents.
Speaker 4: No documents are responsive to that. With respect to the
Speaker 4: portion of your Foyer request that touched on classified matters,
Speaker 4: we can neither confirm nor deny the existence or non
Speaker 4: existence of such documents, which means that Jeffrey Epstein not
Speaker 4: only asked for open and acknowledge agency links, but also
Speaker 4: asked something about himself that was classified. Now, for what
Speaker 4: it's worth, that is the same stock response you get
Speaker 4: when you ask the CIA for CIA personnel files.
Speaker 3: That is, so he's not yet a public person and
Speaker 3: he foias the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, asking for
Speaker 3: what it has on him. Basically yes, And we don't
Speaker 3: know exactly how he stated his question or what he
Speaker 3: included in that, but we do know that it touched
Speaker 3: on classified documents because the CIA's response was, you know,
Speaker 3: regarding that specific line of questioning, we can confirm no divine.
Speaker 2: That is really shocking. Actually, that's a bumper.
Speaker 4: And what's very exciting is is in less, unless the
Speaker 4: law is not followed, and the Justice Department does not
Speaker 4: come down on the agency for not following the law.
Speaker 4: If it doesn't follow it, we are legally entitled to
Speaker 4: actually see the correspondence between the seat because they left
Speaker 4: a in the Epstein files, And none of this was
Speaker 4: known until last week. That again in nineteen ninety nine,
Speaker 4: and then again in twenty eleven, sent an identical request.
Speaker 4: And now this is before again the twenty nineteen rearrest.
Speaker 4: But there's a case reference number, so we know they
Speaker 4: have the files.
Speaker 3: All right, Mike Ben's I have a co host here.
Speaker 3: Blake Blake was. I could see his mind thinking he
Speaker 3: went to Dartmouth. He's a very smart guy.
Speaker 5: So Mike, we've spawn over. Yeah, Blake over his theories
Speaker 5: on a lot of things. Yeah, Blake, Blake was not
Speaker 5: all about. Blake had an incredulous look on his face.
Speaker 5: Someone can throw it to Blake. What were you thinking, Blake? Well,
Speaker 5: I guess I'm just thinking. I just it strikes me
Speaker 5: as innately implausible that Epps like that. The reveal that
Speaker 5: Jeffrey Epstein is an intelligence asset is that he foiled
Speaker 5: himself at the CIA.
Speaker 2: I guess I would he do that? Like, why would
Speaker 2: he do that?
Speaker 5: If the CIA needed to hide anything, why would they
Speaker 5: get outed by their legalistic response to a Foyer request.
Speaker 5: I think there's like a lot of ways that could
Speaker 5: get around them. Well, I just find it unlikely.
Speaker 4: Okay, it's done through the Blake, it was done through
Speaker 4: the Privacy Act, meaning there was no public alert. We
Speaker 4: only know about this because it's in the FBI file.
Speaker 4: This was. This is a way, if you go through
Speaker 4: the Privacy Act, you can see what records there that
Speaker 4: are publicly searchable about you without it being revealed to
Speaker 4: the public, so that you can see what other people
Speaker 4: would get if they were to do that same FOI.
Speaker 4: In theory, anyone could do a FOYA about Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 4: But if you do it through the Privacy Act, you
Speaker 4: get it, and you get it alone, and it's kept
Speaker 4: us a private corresponse between you and your lawyer.
Speaker 2: That's smart mic.
Speaker 4: That's how it was.
Speaker 2: So you know, I learned this yesterday.
Speaker 3: I know this is public information, but it's one of
Speaker 3: those pieces of the Epstein saga that people forget that
Speaker 3: he was arrested either in the late eighties or early nineties,
Speaker 3: and his partner went to prison for it. Anyway, I'm
Speaker 3: just saying, like.
Speaker 4: He skated free. You're talking about the Towers financial collapse, yes,
Speaker 4: which at the time was the biggest Ponzi scheme rejectively
Speaker 4: in US history at that time. But Epstein is a
Speaker 4: Ware's Waldough figure. I make the argument that Epstein's intelligence
Speaker 4: adjacency started in nineteen seventy eight, nineteen seventy nine. There's
Speaker 4: kind of a Forest Gump story around this. When he
Speaker 4: worked at bear Stearns. Bear Stearns was one of the
Speaker 4: top three largest clearing houses of the BCCI bank that
Speaker 4: was the CIA's bank. It went down in flames in
Speaker 4: nineteen ninety when Bill Barr effectively covered it up. He
Speaker 4: wrote the pardons for the six BCCI officials as the
Speaker 4: Bank of Credit and Commerce International that was the CI's
Speaker 4: bank for laundering basically gun and drug money to the
Speaker 4: Musjahdeen in Afghanistan. And you have to understand, in nineteen
Speaker 4: seventy nine, the Iranian Revolution happened at the very moment
Speaker 4: that the CIA was at its weakest because of the
Speaker 4: Church Committee hearings in the Halloween massacre, and the CIA
Speaker 4: was setting up a complex offshore intelligence web through a
Speaker 4: network that's called the Safari Club, the Mount Kenya Safari
Speaker 4: Club that was run by Odnan Kashogi, the largest arms
Speaker 4: deal in the world, who was the Saudi middleman between
Speaker 4: the US and Israel during the Iran Kantra affair. Odnan
Speaker 4: Kashogi was Jeffrey Epstein's client when he started Intercontinental Assets
Speaker 4: Group in nineteen eighty one, after the sec investigation of
Speaker 4: him at bear Stearns for handling Edgar Bromfman's money on
Speaker 4: a deal involving Saint Joe's mineral company that Edgar Brockman
Speaker 4: was played a very senior role in policy. Was he
Speaker 4: was the head of the Oh my gosh, I don't know,
Speaker 4: I'm blank on the name, but.
Speaker 2: It's h he was.
Speaker 4: He was ahead of a of a major international Jewish
Speaker 4: advocacy group that played an effective kind of shadow state
Speaker 4: department role in many aspects of the Iran War. The
Speaker 4: Reagan administration had this Iran contra operation that involved effectively
Speaker 4: the US and Brits getting money, getting guns to Iran
Speaker 4: to fend off Iraq and doing it through Israel with
Speaker 4: Saudi Arabia as the middleman. And it's at this time
Speaker 4: while bear Stearns is laundering money effectively in a CIA
Speaker 4: gun running operation. This is you have to keep in mind.
Speaker 4: Also there was an international arms in bargo on Iran
Speaker 4: at the time, so that was illegal to do. And
Speaker 4: I find the Nicaragua side of that, the gun running
Speaker 4: to the Nicaraguins with the skin interesting because Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 4: had a very lurid history in South American affairs. For example,
Speaker 4: when Glenn Maxwell was asked by Todd Blanche in her
Speaker 4: DOJ interview last year to give an example of Jeffrey
Speaker 4: Epstein's business transactions, she could only think of one example
Speaker 4: to illustrate it, and that was, imagine, if the Sinaloa
Speaker 4: cartel was owed money by the Los Zetas cartel or
Speaker 4: a rival cartel, and they needed a way to trace
Speaker 4: the assets of the other cartel to get the money back,
Speaker 4: they would hire some they would hire Jeffrey, and Jeffrey
Speaker 4: would take a ten percent cut, a five to ten
Speaker 4: percent cut of the money. I just find that interesting
Speaker 4: because we're only thirteen years removed, fourteen years removed or
Speaker 4: so from the Fast and Furious operation when the Obama
Speaker 4: White House greenlit in operation to run guns to the
Speaker 4: Sineloa cartel so that they could win a gang war
Speaker 4: against the Los Adas who were cutting into effectively US
Speaker 4: pipeline interests in Mexico. But the fact is, you need
Speaker 4: to find you need to explain how Jeffrey Epstein, before
Speaker 4: the age of thirty, had so many high profile clients
Speaker 4: stretching from the Middle East to France, to the UK.
Speaker 4: To these high level contacts in Israel. That makes sense
Speaker 4: given the fundamental constraints on someone who's twenty nine to
Speaker 4: thirty years old from handling being competent enough to handle
Speaker 4: billionaire's money. And the fact is is the fact that
Speaker 4: he worked on those deals, the fact that he was
Speaker 4: flying back and forth cross country to visit Doug Lease
Speaker 4: at that time, who was the main British arms dealer
Speaker 4: involved in Iran contra, the fact that he was living
Speaker 4: at the time with Stanley Pottinger, who was the Sea
Speaker 4: i's mop up man, who literally also got investigated by
Speaker 4: the FBI for running those same guns to Iran. But
Speaker 4: then the case was magically dropped when the FBI said
Speaker 4: the audio recordings that they had on him malfunctioned. It's
Speaker 4: his whole career, folks.
Speaker 3: Let me tell you something straight up. I'm extremely picky
Speaker 3: about what I put in my body in what companies
Speaker 3: we support. Here, Blackout Coffee checks every single box. This
Speaker 3: is a family run American company roasting fresh coffee in
Speaker 3: the USA, built by people who believe in hard work,
Speaker 3: freedom and America. No global corporations, no fake activism, no lectures,
Speaker 3: just darn good coffee made by Americans for Americans. This
Speaker 3: is coffee that actually stands for something, and I drink
Speaker 3: it every day right here on the show. From Morning
Speaker 3: Reaper and Brutal Awakening to seventeen seventy six dark roasts
Speaker 3: in their two A medium roast. They've got something for everyone.
Speaker 3: They even have instant coffee, real blackout coffee with no machine,
Speaker 3: no mess, Just add water, stir and you're ready to roll.
Speaker 3: Go to Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie and use code
Speaker 3: Charlie for twenty percent off your first order. That's Blackoutcoffee
Speaker 3: dot com slash Charlie. Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie, and
Speaker 3: for an even better deal, sign up for Blackout Coffee subscription.
Speaker 3: Save money, get free shipping, and earn free coffee through
Speaker 3: their rewards program just for drinking what you already love.
Speaker 3: Your coffee shows up fresh on schedule and you never
Speaker 3: run out.
Speaker 1: That's Blackoutcoffee dot Com slash Charlie. Check it out promo
Speaker 1: code Charlie.
Speaker 3: All right, So Mike summing up, I mean, your mind
Speaker 3: is like as you just like have this incredible ability
Speaker 3: to capture all of these connections. It's truly truly amazing
Speaker 3: and So if I'm gonna sum up what you were
Speaker 3: getting at, and I was taking notes, I was trying
Speaker 3: to track each piece. You only fought Foya yourself off
Speaker 3: with the CIA. If you've got a lot of reason
Speaker 3: to believe that they've either got stuff on you, they've
Speaker 3: got personnel files on you, whatever. When you've got all
Speaker 3: these the smoke, there's got to be fire with all
Speaker 3: these connections. All these connections are ron Nik rouguill whatever,
Speaker 3: all these relationships, it has to mean something. This can't
Speaker 3: just be pure coincidence. It wasn't just like a good,
Speaker 3: good party boy that liked to hang out with Prince Andrew.
Speaker 2: Like, there's more going on here.
Speaker 3: So you're touching on the American side, are there connections
Speaker 3: that you would draw with Massad or Israeli intelligence?
Speaker 2: What about Russia? Russian intelligence?
Speaker 4: Well? Absolutely, and these are all linked. So, as I mentioned,
Speaker 4: Jeffrey Epstein was handling the money for the CIA's point
Speaker 4: person between the US and Israel. In nineteen eighty three,
Speaker 4: when odd non Koshogi, Epstein's client flies to Washington, d C.
Speaker 4: To meet with Robert McFarlane, the National Security Advisor, to
Speaker 4: plan this operation and that itself would be something I
Speaker 4: would think the crucial middleman who was also rumored at
Speaker 4: the time to be the world's richest person and who
Speaker 4: earned more in odd non koshogi. Yes, of course, But
Speaker 4: the point is at that point that was a coordination
Speaker 4: between American intelligence and Israeli intelligence. Who was running Israeli
Speaker 4: military intelligence at that time from nineteen eighty three to
Speaker 4: nineteen eighty five, it was a hood Barack. The hood Barack,
Speaker 4: even before this week's drop, had been documented something like
Speaker 4: forty seven times at Jeffrey Epstein's house, and we're business
Speaker 4: partners on carbine nine to one one and did business
Speaker 4: deals together in everywhere from Mongolia to Cote Devoir to
Speaker 4: a hood Barack seeking Jeffrey Epstein's council for how to
Speaker 4: evade sanctions on Russia after the twenty fourteen crimea affair.
Speaker 4: But the fact is is what these new revelations show
Speaker 4: is a much much deeper and complete overlap for many
Speaker 4: years between Epstein and Barack in a way that is
Speaker 4: really interesting. I'll give you an example one of the
Speaker 4: things that surfaced here and that I blew up. I
Speaker 4: think it's sitting at about six and a half million
Speaker 4: views right now, is Jeffrey Epstein's secretly recording hod Barock
Speaker 4: during a three hour conversation they had while Hudbarock was
Speaker 4: the sitting Minister of Defense. Now now understand Hubarock went
Speaker 4: from running Israel's most elite covert commando unit to running
Speaker 4: Israeli military intelligence to becoming the Prime Minister of Israel,
Speaker 4: who Massad reports directly to. Massad is structured to sit
Speaker 4: in the Prime Minister's office effectively answers directly to and
Speaker 4: so it's not structured quite the same way as RCIA.
Speaker 4: And then Hudbarock became effectively the equivalent of the head
Speaker 4: of our Pentagon, which means constant coordination with Masad. But
Speaker 4: it's also more he's more closely affiliated with AMAN, which
Speaker 4: is Israeli military intelligence, and the fact that he was
Speaker 4: the head of it while that this is also you
Speaker 4: see Epstein so involved in the arms trade, both in
Speaker 4: the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UK and always working
Speaker 4: with these arms dealers. But what I'm getting at is,
Speaker 4: in this conversation, Hoodbarock is one month before he leaves
Speaker 4: office as the head of Israel's military and he's looking
Speaker 4: to make it big in the private sector. So Epstein
Speaker 4: records under the Table. I guess the FBI is a
Speaker 4: three hour recording of this, a three hour coaching session
Speaker 4: where Jeffrey Epstein instructs Hudbarock on how to convert his
Speaker 4: lifetime of accumulated government power into getting on the outside
Speaker 4: within private business. And what he tells a who Barak
Speaker 4: is stop focusing on your you know, skills, your military
Speaker 4: background and the things you've accomplished. That doesn't that's not
Speaker 4: going to get you money. That's not why people are
Speaker 4: going to pay you. What you need to do is
Speaker 4: compile a list of people who owe you something. I
Speaker 4: owe yous think people who owe you favors. Now is
Speaker 4: the time to call in those favors. And what I
Speaker 4: find so fascinating about this is one, you know, on
Speaker 4: the one hand, someone who's worked in these kind of
Speaker 4: Israeli military and intelligence adjacent networks for forty years is
Speaker 4: now literally helping that person cash in on the outside.
Speaker 4: But it also shows a kind of the mercenary aspect
Speaker 4: of Epstein's operation. He was secretly recording the head of
Speaker 4: the Israeli military, not the other way, which I just
Speaker 4: think is kind of an interesting.
Speaker 2: But isn't that a point kind of against some of this?
Speaker 2: I guess it just it seems like.
Speaker 5: So much of the argument that he's running this masterful
Speaker 5: blackmail rings or is part of all this intel stuff
Speaker 5: is presumably that stuff would be well hidden, and yet
Speaker 5: so much of this is actually quite public, somewhat glaring.
Speaker 5: And then once we also start digging out stuff that
Speaker 5: was originally hidden, it doesn't seem to produce that much
Speaker 5: of a smoking gun.
Speaker 2: I mean, Ehud Baraka.
Speaker 5: He's I mean, he gets attacked by the first person
Speaker 5: to basically bring this to public lights a big deal
Speaker 5: is Benjamin nettan Yahoo.
Speaker 2: He attacks him about it. In Israeli politics.
Speaker 5: In fact, I think they're talking to him about it
Speaker 5: right now, because they say, I guess some of the
Speaker 5: conversations they say Epstein was kind of a liberal and
Speaker 5: he wanted to like make Israel more liberal and all
Speaker 5: of that.
Speaker 4: Right. But I mean, every country has got, you know,
Speaker 4: heterodox political factionalism, the US as well as, I mean,
Speaker 4: a change in leadership or a change in what faction
Speaker 4: of r CIA is dominant can determine whether or not
Speaker 4: a foreign country's government lives or dies. I mean, the
Speaker 4: fact is is what you know, when Biden's in control
Speaker 4: of the CIA, you get things like the government of
Speaker 4: Brazil turns over. You know, when when Trump becomes head
Speaker 4: of the government, suddenly the CIA USAID operations in Hungary stop.
Speaker 4: And so there is a similar thing in Israel in
Speaker 4: terms of whether or not you having a Hood Barack
Speaker 4: or a Benjamin net Yahoo government. What's interesting in these
Speaker 4: files is it describes how hard it was for them
Speaker 4: to even get a meeting with net Yahoo. And you
Speaker 4: see Hood Barack actually playing a not a significant role
Speaker 4: in the you know, Biden world.
Speaker 2: He was.
Speaker 4: Closely affiliated with the West exec faction. If you guys
Speaker 4: remember that in between period when the Hillary Clinton folks
Speaker 4: were out of power, but before they Biden got in.
Speaker 4: Basically every major person in the cabinet was a part
Speaker 4: of a private consulting group called West Executive. Avril Haynes,
Speaker 4: Anthony Blinkin, pretty much all of the people who would
Speaker 4: populate the cabinet, and they worked very closely with the
Speaker 4: Hood Barack. I believe he even funded them or hired
Speaker 4: them for private consulting type things. But what you see
Speaker 4: is is it is true that a foreign country's you know,
Speaker 4: spy apparatus or covert influence apparatus does have an effect
Speaker 4: on American politics. I don't think it's wrong in any
Speaker 4: sense to call that out. I think that is it
Speaker 4: has been silly to try to deny any links between
Speaker 4: Epstein and Israel. It's all over the place for his
Speaker 4: whole career. But the fact is is this class of
Speaker 4: person a outside financial fixer, is while they are affiliated
Speaker 4: with governments, there is also a on again, off again
Speaker 4: only if it's good for me type relationship that happens
Speaker 4: like I don't think Epstein. I would not be surprised
Speaker 4: if Epstein sent those foyas not because he worked at
Speaker 4: or for CIA, but that he occasionally worked with CIA
Speaker 4: when it was profitable for himself and his partner network,
Speaker 4: and he wanted to know if that adjacency might turn
Speaker 4: up in a public record search. Same thing with his
Speaker 4: connections with Israel. He certainly worked with high level Israeli
Speaker 4: intelligence and military figures. That doesn't mean he gets a
Speaker 4: paycheck from it necessarily. There are these affinity networks where
Speaker 4: you yourself can get rich by doing a favor for
Speaker 4: people in government. I believe that's likely the case with Epstein,
Speaker 4: both in the US and in Israel, and likely when
Speaker 4: you look at the UK and French and Saudi webs
Speaker 4: it looks like at a much less involved level. Uh,
Speaker 4: there are there's a there there too.
Speaker 3: Well, it makes it makes perfect sense to me that
Speaker 3: he was worried that it would be public information, especially
Speaker 3: as his he became more famous, and he kind of
Speaker 3: probably had an inkling that he was getting more and
Speaker 3: more high profile that he wanted to check to see
Speaker 3: what was publicly available if somebody else could find this
Speaker 3: out about him, about you know what the CIA had
Speaker 3: scooped up on him.
Speaker 5: I mean, if he's an intel operative, why would he
Speaker 5: have to make the application himself?
Speaker 2: Well, because he's probably you do it, you do it.
Speaker 4: Well, let me just correct that he did it through
Speaker 4: his lawyer using the Privacy Act, which is the way
Speaker 4: you do that if you want to effectively anonymously see
Speaker 4: what other people would see if they had filed that foil.
Speaker 5: Okay, but he's also apparently he's like an intel asked,
Speaker 5: I just I feel like this is kind of code stuff.
Speaker 4: Now, now you got you gotta you gotta be precise
Speaker 4: with your language. Okay. The there is a difference between
Speaker 4: asset and a contact. And this is very important. I've
Speaker 4: done lectures on twenty different figures in recent American history
Speaker 4: who were CIA contacts, facilitators, logistical support notes, but that
Speaker 4: do not rise to the level of asset. Asset is
Speaker 4: a technical term that requires the compilation of a two
Speaker 4: h one personality file. That is, if you are a
Speaker 4: formal asset. But Ftein could have done all of this
Speaker 4: with intelligence, appears to have done it with us and so,
Speaker 4: but only on an off and on basis not as
Speaker 4: a okay, the CI told me to do it, Therefore
Speaker 4: I have to do it. This is a really important
Speaker 4: one because a lot of people don't understand the sticky
Speaker 4: gooey layer, the mortar between the bricks. When it comes
Speaker 4: to intelligence work and non intelligence work. There is a
Speaker 4: vast web of kind of every intelligence intelligence adjacent adjacencies.
Speaker 4: That is the way in which intelligence work is done.
Speaker 4: By its very nature, anything that is a covert action
Speaker 4: cannot be actualized by a overt I admit I'm a CIA.
Speaker 4: There's the hard and fast distinction is literally impossible. What
Speaker 4: you have is a is a layer of contacts that
Speaker 4: facilitate that action, and sometimes those are formal assets. Often
Speaker 4: in their most significant form, they're actually not. And I
Speaker 4: can give you a bunch of ITAs.
Speaker 3: But Mike, you you did this with you exposed a
Speaker 3: lot of this with the censorship industrial complex, how the
Speaker 3: government basically figured out that they could outsource certain actions
Speaker 3: that were would be deemed illegal if it was done
Speaker 3: directly by the government, right, And so it follows that
Speaker 3: this is the exact same formula that they were using
Speaker 3: somebody like a Jeffrey Epstein, for I there's so much
Speaker 3: explosive stuff. Uh, you've you've said on Joe Rogan that
Speaker 3: you didn't think that he was actually his main motive
Speaker 3: was blackmailing people necessarily I wanted to do that.
Speaker 4: It's yeah, yeah, yeah, So you know this is something
Speaker 4: that you know is because people have gotten so invested
Speaker 4: in it. I think, you know, you're sort of trying
Speaker 4: to stop a runaway train when you when you say it.
Speaker 4: But but it's just a simple fact. First of all,
Speaker 4: Epstein wouldn't have enough time in the day to run
Speaker 4: some sort of you know, global you know, pedo ring
Speaker 4: in an organized and structured fashion. I mean, the guy
Speaker 4: is you know, twelve funds and all the business and
Speaker 4: meetings and influence nodes. He's in science, technology, military, gun running,
Speaker 4: you know, all these different To be a full time
Speaker 4: pimp like that, I don't even know is technically possible.
Speaker 4: The main thing is is I do think it is
Speaker 4: possible that there could be a blackmail element in the
Speaker 4: sense that if you compile certain things on, if you
Speaker 4: have something on, you could sell that to a corporate
Speaker 4: espionage client or to an intelligence client, and there could
Speaker 4: become some sort of indirect blackmail capacity that other people have.
Speaker 4: None of that has ever been proven, or there's no
Speaker 4: even open leads to follow. But the second is is
Speaker 4: your entire network would everything you've built would crash down
Speaker 4: in an instant the moment that rumor is even around.
Speaker 4: That rumor didn't arise about an Epstein blackmail until after
Speaker 4: he was already arrested and dead in a jail cell.
Speaker 4: Somehow that if you blackmail one person offensively, people tell
Speaker 4: their wives that they go through a major crisis of
Speaker 4: pr in terms of they may tell their publicist and
Speaker 4: their wife and no other soul, but wives talk to wives,
Speaker 4: and the moment one person that's from with Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 4: tells another person, Hey, don't mess around with that guy,
Speaker 4: that guy threatened with stuff. Then all the parties stop,
Speaker 4: all the access stops, all the confidant relationships stop. Now,
Speaker 4: I do think it's possible that he could defensively blackmail
Speaker 4: someone if you will, which is that if somebody says,
Speaker 4: I know that the dirt you were involved with, I'm
Speaker 4: gonna tell the I'm gonna tell NBC News this happened
Speaker 4: at your party, and he goes, ah, not so fast.
Speaker 4: You were at that party, and look what I have
Speaker 4: you on tape doing. That's very possible. I mean you
Speaker 4: saw you saw. For example, I remember seeing a clip
Speaker 4: from a long time ago and not throwing any shadeed
Speaker 4: Milo Ynopolis when I say this, but I remember him
Speaker 4: holding up like a you know, like a recording or
Speaker 4: something of just just saying, listen, when I talk to people,
Speaker 4: you know, I try to have it on tape. Now.
Speaker 4: I don't think Milo's ever offensively blackmailed someone with that,
Speaker 4: but I can see when you are a high net
Speaker 4: worth or high the influential public figure and like you know,
Speaker 4: you in case anyone comes after you, you have something on them.
Speaker 4: But that doesn't mean it's like some highly organized like
Speaker 4: I mean, he did that for example, with the head
Speaker 4: of Israeli. Yeah, the Israeli military. Do you think that,
Speaker 4: I mean he was under the table recording him for
Speaker 4: three hours.
Speaker 2: Think that he was, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: So the question is if he wasn't motivated by blackmailing
Speaker 3: or honeypots.
Speaker 2: Or whatever, what was he motivated by.
Speaker 3: We have three minutes left, Mike, I could talk to
Speaker 3: you for hours an hour, So there's a.
Speaker 4: Million reasons he could have been. He's gotten in trouble
Speaker 4: his whole life. I mean, when he was twenty seven
Speaker 4: years old, he got in trouble at bear Stearn's, you know,
Speaker 4: both on the SEC thing and another intra office thing.
Speaker 4: He may have had a bad experience where someone tried
Speaker 4: to blackmail him and he goes, I wish I had
Speaker 4: recorded you know that thing because they were doing dirty
Speaker 4: stuff too, and then made a practice of it. And
Speaker 4: then when he you know, more property he owned, he
Speaker 4: just had everything hooked up. We don't. That's a hard
Speaker 4: thing to substantiate, given that this guy who's got one
Speaker 4: hundred thousand high level people in his rolodex, not a
Speaker 4: single one after his death, after he couldn't even drop
Speaker 4: the blackmail, has even made an allegation that Epstein tried
Speaker 4: to blackmail. So there's no open leads on it, and
Speaker 4: there's an entire cinematic universe that is very useful for
Speaker 4: understanding the modern day. As you pointed out, the censorship
Speaker 4: industrial complex is structured the same way the Epstein network is,
Speaker 4: the same way intelligence work is. These the data points
Speaker 4: to mine here in terms of what we can understand
Speaker 4: about our own government, what we can understand about our
Speaker 4: relationship with foreign governments, how to understand New York hedge
Speaker 4: funds and the role that they exert, or high finance
Speaker 4: or London banks exert. There's a There's a whole world
Speaker 4: to see in the Epstein looking glass, and I think
Speaker 4: that should be that's primarily my focus. People are freedom.
Speaker 2: Right. I think you're super right.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm convinced there's just too much smoke there
Speaker 3: to not be a little bit of fire, even if
Speaker 3: it's not as sensational as some would make it. I just,
Speaker 3: I just I was pushing back with Jay because I
Speaker 3: felt like there was something.
Speaker 5: I would close out with My closing thought here would
Speaker 5: be I feel like for years, I mean, Epstein died
Speaker 5: almost seven years ago at this point, it's crazy how
Speaker 5: long it's been. But it seems like I know you've
Speaker 5: pushed back on this, but the widespread assumption is, oh,
Speaker 5: this had to all be explained as part of a
Speaker 5: big blackmail ring, and that would justify the intelligence connections.
Speaker 5: But as you point out, nobody has made a blackmail allegation,
Speaker 5: nobody talked about it being blackmail. It turns out there
Speaker 5: kind of is no blackmail because if no one's alleging
Speaker 5: it and there's no evidence of it, it seems to
Speaker 5: have not happened. And at that point, like you pull
Speaker 5: on the thread and so many there's so many interlocking assumptions.
Speaker 5: Oh well he was doing blackmail, what would you do
Speaker 5: blackmail with? Oh well it was these underage girls, so
Speaker 5: he would get compromide on people. But we don't have
Speaker 5: examples of that being used. I just feel like we
Speaker 5: can go so many interlocking assumption, we can go the
Speaker 5: questionable go ahead.
Speaker 4: People watch people latched onto that what Blake just said
Speaker 4: because they didn't understand all of this, and there was
Speaker 4: no other way for most normy civilians to even understand
Speaker 4: the Fsteine operation. And that's my concern, is that all
Speaker 4: that that momentum was all built up because nobody was
Speaker 4: saying all of this with a with a large platform,
Speaker 4: and so that became the only explanation, even though in
Speaker 4: my view there's not much of a there. There.
Speaker 3: Hi, folks, Andrew Colvett here, I'd like to tell you
Speaker 3: about my friends over at why Refi. You've probably been
Speaker 3: hearing me talk about why Refi for some time now.
Speaker 3: We are all in with these guys. If you or
Speaker 3: someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt,
Speaker 3: take my advice and give them a call.
Speaker 2: Maybe you're behind on.
Speaker 3: Your payments, maybe you're even in default. You don't have
Speaker 3: to live in this nightmare anymore. Why Refy will provide
Speaker 3: you a custom payment based on your ability to pay
Speaker 3: the taylor each loan individually. They can save you thousands
Speaker 3: of dollars and you can get your life back. We
Speaker 3: go to campuses all over America and we see student
Speaker 3: after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many
Speaker 3: of them don't even know how much they owe. Why
Speaker 3: ref I can help. Just go to y refi dot com.
Speaker 3: That's the letter why then refi dot com. And remember,
Speaker 3: y Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just
Speaker 3: go to yrefi dot com and tell them your friend
Speaker 3: Andrews sent you. I think that's a really interesting point
Speaker 3: because it you guys actually do sort of agree on this,
Speaker 3: because I've talked to you about it off off air.
Speaker 3: How because there isn't sort of a rational explanation for
Speaker 3: stuff that it creates a vacuum, and the mostationalized version
Speaker 3: of events fills that, because that's what flies on the internet, or.
Speaker 5: What a sensational versions. And also things that aren't proven
Speaker 5: become fact. A thing I mentioned if you want to
Speaker 5: comment on this, Mike, But a thing I mentioned with
Speaker 5: our guest yesterday that stood out to me was how
Speaker 5: I heard over and over it was kind of taken
Speaker 5: as an article of truth. I saw it repeated in
Speaker 5: many articles that the prosecutor in Epstein's Florida case had
Speaker 5: told the Trump administration, Oh well, Epstein belonged to it.
Speaker 5: I was totally belonged to intelligence. So I didn't pursue it.
Speaker 5: And I heard that over and over again, and then
Speaker 5: it turned out I was reminded that was a non
Speaker 5: unnamed source providing hearsay that they set someone told I
Speaker 5: think the Washington post that they'd heard this or and
Speaker 5: then he denied it, not even publicly, he denied it
Speaker 5: in a statement to the Trump administration that we then
Speaker 5: surfaced with these files. And that may just got me
Speaker 5: thinking that was such a core part of what people
Speaker 5: used to argue for this, and it was a kind
Speaker 5: of runaway hearsay statement that if anything has direct evidence
Speaker 5: against it, right right.
Speaker 4: And and I saw that that was in the OPR
Speaker 4: report that joined the Justice Department investigation. But I have
Speaker 4: my own question about that. I don't know how to
Speaker 4: feel about that allegation in I agree with you that
Speaker 4: it is not the core receipt, so to speak, to
Speaker 4: base any of this on, because it's contested. And I
Speaker 4: do think that the way the question was phrased in
Speaker 4: terms of the OPR, this is the office of professional
Speaker 4: responsibility in the Justice Department. I think the way it
Speaker 4: was phrased and the lack of any follow up questions
Speaker 4: beyond just you know, did you have knowledge that he
Speaker 4: was an asset sort of thing leaves the door open.
Speaker 4: But I think that there's so many other layers of
Speaker 4: it that that speak to it. And again, I'm very
Speaker 4: curious to see now that the foyas have been fired.
Speaker 4: What the CIA comes back and says, because they are
Speaker 4: legally required to give us that correspondence. One of the
Speaker 4: things that I pointed out earlier today on X was
Speaker 4: we have because we have the file reference numbers for
Speaker 4: the whole back and forth of the foyas. Now, while
Speaker 4: through the Privacy Act, it's not, you know, publicly searchable
Speaker 4: that you sent that there is, it is not inherently
Speaker 4: classified communication between the CIA and Epstein's lawyer for Epstein records,
Speaker 4: which means if you have the reference number, they're required
Speaker 4: to send it to you unless they classified that correspondence
Speaker 4: after the fact. And if the CIA drags its feet
Speaker 4: on this FOYA, if it obstructs, if it says you
Speaker 4: can't have it for one of two reasons, One we
Speaker 4: classified it. That says something pretty damning, or two we
Speaker 4: lost it. We are our records somehow deleted it between
Speaker 4: twenty eleven and twenty nineteen. I would demand a Justice
Speaker 4: Department investigation into that in terms of who at CIA
Speaker 4: may have deleted it or how it may have when
Speaker 4: exactly the files were no longer retained. If it turns
Speaker 4: out that you know, the CIA says we don't have it,
Speaker 4: and then an FBI investigation into the forensics of why
Speaker 4: they don't have it says, well, it got to lead
Speaker 4: in our system in the Fluke malfunction on you know,
Speaker 4: July tenth, twenty nineteen. I think that tells you something
Speaker 4: as well. But you know, the fact is is from
Speaker 4: this from the CIA's work through BCCI, while Bear Stearns
Speaker 4: was handling the clearing of those CIA transactions through the
Speaker 4: odd non Koshogi Iran Contra affair. Here's another one, the
Speaker 4: CIA's proprietary airlines Southern air Transport used in Iran Contra
Speaker 4: that Jeffrey Epstein was handling the CIA main point man's
Speaker 4: main operatives transactions for that very gun running CI proprietary
Speaker 4: air line, Southern air Transport, Epstein negotiated its move to Columbus, Ohio,
Speaker 4: where Jeffrey Epstein was running the limited out of when
Speaker 4: he got durable power of attorney. Can I mean, Blake Andrew,
Speaker 4: can you guys negotiate the move of a CI proprietary
Speaker 4: airline to serve your business? Now at that time, Southern
Speaker 4: air Transport, just two years earlier, had divested, so it
Speaker 4: was no longer owned by the CIA. And operated by
Speaker 4: the CI. It was owned to a CIA, a retired
Speaker 4: CIA agent who had been who had been part of
Speaker 4: its management team while it was CION, so it was
Speaker 4: technically a private business, but then it goes to serve
Speaker 4: Jeffrey Epstein's company. By the way, just two years after that,
Speaker 4: the State Department leased one of the largest residential buildings
Speaker 4: in New York City to Jeffrey Epstein right after it
Speaker 4: seized it from the government of Iran. So Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 4: had his the State Department as this personal landlord after season.
Speaker 4: I mean, can you go on Zilla or Airbnb or
Speaker 4: has the State Department ever been your personal landlord? And
Speaker 4: by the way, the only reason that that arrangement ended
Speaker 4: up expiring was because Jeffrey Epstein violated the terms of
Speaker 4: his agreement with the State Department by subleasing it out
Speaker 4: to two of the lawyers for both the French Connection
Speaker 4: and Pizza Connection scandals, which were both CIA drug running
Speaker 4: scandals from the prior decade. The French Connection was the
Speaker 4: CIA's role in facilitating illegal narcotics from Lebanon to France,
Speaker 4: and the Pizza Connection scandal was when there was a
Speaker 4: basically a CI protected transhipment of drugs to Italian mafia
Speaker 4: organizations in New York and New Jersey that was laundered
Speaker 4: through pizza shops. So I mean, the whole thing up
Speaker 4: and down can trace it to the kind of c
Speaker 4: I a earthquake of the Carter administration giving way to
Speaker 4: this kind of US Israel, Iran, uh, you know, Iran,
Speaker 4: Saudi Iran centric foreign policy web, and then it just
Speaker 4: metastasized from there. As as all these things require money,
Speaker 4: hedge funds and private equity funds get in on the action.
Speaker 4: Epstein makes his way from the you know, uh finance world.
Speaker 2: To the you know kind of fixer world.
Speaker 4: Financial bounty hunter world, into the high finance world, and
Speaker 4: you can trace US Israeli, British into some degree, you know,
Speaker 4: French and Saudi policy. So for decades through the figure
Speaker 4: of Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 3: Mike, I had to ask you about this, and I
Speaker 3: know we're going along here, so thank you for your time.
Speaker 3: The there was like now all of a sudden, there's
Speaker 3: like a there's like George W. Bush is in the
Speaker 3: in these emails, and so is U Macrone from France.
Speaker 2: Like yeah, go ahead, George H. W.
Speaker 4: Bush was the CIA director in nineteen seventy five, and
Speaker 4: the Safari Club grew out of his network. On the
Speaker 4: whole Koshogi family, you have to understand, I mean George H. W.
Speaker 4: Bush was the CIA Director and then played this very
Speaker 4: interesting role in the October Surprise around Iran, and then
Speaker 4: was the vice president of the Reagan administration during Iran
Speaker 4: Contra and was effectively the blocker to protect Reagan on it.
Speaker 4: A lot of people think he was kind of the
Speaker 4: main progenitor of the whole Iran Contra affair. It was
Speaker 4: when he became president. His Attorney General was Bill Barr,
Speaker 4: who not only was the cover up who started his
Speaker 4: career in the CIA for the first seven years of
Speaker 4: his career, he only became a lawyer and then the
Speaker 4: attorney Elk because he went to law school at night
Speaker 4: while he was in the CIA. The Democrat media in
Speaker 4: the early nineteen eighties blamed him for the CI blocking
Speaker 4: the congressional investigations into Iran Contra, and then while he
Speaker 4: picked Bill Barr as his ag Bill Barr wrote the
Speaker 4: partons for the six BCCI officials who were cleared of
Speaker 4: any wrongdoing in the CIA Banks disaster. There's a lot.
Speaker 4: I'm started.
Speaker 3: I know, man, there's so much smoke, there has to
Speaker 3: be fire. That's where I that's where I'm at. I listen.
Speaker 3: I think I just want to kind of synthesize this
Speaker 3: for our audience that's listened to Day one with Jay
Speaker 3: Beecher and day two with Mike Bentz. I think so
Speaker 3: much of this has been sensationalized, oh.
Speaker 2: Like especially a lot of the sex stuff.
Speaker 3: You know, you know, apparently you find out he was
Speaker 3: deformed and he had a rectile dysfunction and he wasn't
Speaker 3: even able to like perform. I hate to, you know,
Speaker 3: I'm trying to be sensitive for our eleven year olds
Speaker 3: that might be listening. But but the point is some
Speaker 3: of that stuff I think has been really sensationalized, the
Speaker 3: underage girl things. I think Jay had a lot of
Speaker 3: really interesting intel on Virginia. Guffrey was apparently recruiting them
Speaker 3: and they were presenting themselves as eighteen. Whether he knew
Speaker 3: or not, I don't know that that's a big question mark.
Speaker 3: He liked them young, there's no doubt eighteen to twenty
Speaker 3: five is it was his presumption. The point I'm making
Speaker 3: is there's been a lot of sensationalism around that, a
Speaker 3: lot of sensationalism around the blackmail. But one of the
Speaker 3: questions that I go back to is what JD. Van said,
Speaker 3: Why did was this man able to make so much
Speaker 3: money when basically everybody with a brain, a finance brain,
Speaker 3: says that he was like subpar mediocre at finance at best.
Speaker 3: Some say he was good at avoiding taxes, okay, but
Speaker 3: some of the video that we have of him talking
Speaker 3: finance people are not impressed. People that should be impressed
Speaker 3: or not impressed. So the question is how did he
Speaker 3: make all his money? What you present as a theory
Speaker 3: or connections that seem to believe make me believe that
Speaker 3: there's smoke.
Speaker 2: There could be fire. Seems like a lot of fire
Speaker 2: in this area.
Speaker 3: And so it's like kind of like both of these
Speaker 3: angles feel like they have truth in them. And then
Speaker 3: the the in the void of where there's details, the
Speaker 3: Internet runs in and sensationalizes, you know, to the max.
Speaker 2: Is that is that a fair summation?
Speaker 4: Kind of Yeah? I think so. I think I think
Speaker 4: one of the reasons that I think people's intuition about
Speaker 4: the immensity of what's hidden about the Epstein story is
Speaker 4: completely true, but the rush to fill the vacuum of
Speaker 4: that is filled with things they can understand. And the
Speaker 4: fact is, when I'm talking about all these networks, America
Speaker 4: does not yet have the language to put these things
Speaker 4: into words. Because they don't, these things are hidden from
Speaker 4: them in part because we have a national security state.
Speaker 4: We have all of our state craft is classified under
Speaker 4: you know, as a foreign policy and sensitive. And the
Speaker 4: fact is this is this is something that makes our
Speaker 4: politics coke and pepsi. The fact that these networks are
Speaker 4: not talked about on network news. The fact is they
Speaker 4: can only really be shared through social media networks and
Speaker 4: the like. Which is why I think that the collective
Speaker 4: understanding on this, particularly on the right, because the right,
Speaker 4: you know, there's kind of a universal thump goes around
Speaker 4: moment here and so far as the left was actually
Speaker 4: quite wise to this in the nineteen sixties and seventies
Speaker 4: after they were run through the mill by the national
Speaker 4: security state during the Cold War when there was a
Speaker 4: war on communism and so a lot of socialists or
Speaker 4: socialist light folks were targeted. They had to they went
Speaker 4: through this same sort of collective Wow, this is the
Speaker 4: cis relationship with private business. And this is how the
Speaker 4: military connection comes into this. And there was a very
Speaker 4: robust scholarship for about twenty years in the Democrat Party
Speaker 4: around that, and there has really never been on the
Speaker 4: Republican Party until now because the Republican Party's base of
Speaker 4: support in American politics for the past entry has come
Speaker 4: from basically three places. The military industrial complex itself, which
Speaker 4: which was largely set up by Eisenhower, the big oil
Speaker 4: industry which is tightly connected with the military industrial complex,
Speaker 4: and the Chamber of Commerce for just general big business
Speaker 4: who like low tax, free enterprise policies. And there was
Speaker 4: never like they were always on the giving end rather
Speaker 4: than on the receiving end. So Republicans by and large
Speaker 4: were kept dumb unless you were in the business that
Speaker 4: this entire cinematic universe exists. And now that Republicans or
Speaker 4: half of the Republican Party has been systematically targeted by
Speaker 4: this apparatus. I mean, this is part of my frustration
Speaker 4: for many years in trying to explain the censorship industrial complex,
Speaker 4: is that you to even know that the people saw
Speaker 4: the CIA on the board of Facebook. I'm sorry on
Speaker 4: the Trust and Safety team on Facebook and the Trust
Speaker 4: and Safety team of of Twitter and the trust and
Speaker 4: safety team of YouTube and couldn't understand how this could
Speaker 4: be possible, or USAID's role in this, or the State
Speaker 4: Department's role in this, or they're funded grantees. And so
Speaker 4: you need to explain essentially how US foreign policy works,
Speaker 4: how domestic sentiment is. They call this the driver, the
Speaker 4: domestic drivers of foreign policy is critical to our international business,
Speaker 4: our multinational business and private equity, and US foreign policy
Speaker 4: focused things depend on what people vote for here, because
Speaker 4: if you vote for the wrong president, those businesses that
Speaker 4: make money abroad go could put or the foreign policy
Speaker 4: initiatives can radically change. And so they targeted the Trump
Speaker 4: movement regardless of whether what you voted for him for.
Speaker 4: If you are a Trump supporter and Trump wanted to
Speaker 4: go a different way on Ukraine, a different way on Russia,
Speaker 4: a different way on China, a different way on Syria,
Speaker 4: different way on any rock, well then you have to
Speaker 4: target the whole movement to make sure that guy doesn't
Speaker 4: get elected, and you target it through these this Perry
Speaker 4: intelligence layer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's well said. I think that's a blake.
Speaker 3: I mean, you and me are probably just a little
Speaker 3: bit on different wave on the here. Yeah, No, I
Speaker 3: mean listen, I think, Mike, that was a really good summation.
Speaker 3: I think there's just too much smoke. There's got to
Speaker 3: be some fire there. But I think some of the
Speaker 3: sex stuff maybe has been sensationalized. Some of the blackmail stuff,
Speaker 3: I'm kind of I'm with you on that.
Speaker 2: Mike.
Speaker 3: You've you've made a lot of time for us at
Speaker 3: the drop of a hat. Thank you so much for
Speaker 3: giving us as much of these connections.
Speaker 2: You've give us a lot to think about, and I
Speaker 2: think a really important other side of this Epstein saga.
Speaker 3: Mike Ben's the executive director for the Foundation for Freedom
Speaker 3: Online and so much, so much else. Former State Department.
Speaker 3: You're crushing it out there. Congratulations on all the success.
Speaker 4: Thanks you guys too. We will all right, take care.
Speaker 4: For more on many of these stories and news you
Speaker 4: can trust, go to Charliekirk dot com.