Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. Have an amazing
Speaker 3: show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal?
Speaker 2: Indeed, we do many things to talk about this morning,
Speaker 2: including a new Wall Street Journal bombshell. Trump is officially
Speaker 2: in the Epstein files and was informed of such, so
Speaker 2: we will break all of that down. Also have a
Speaker 2: little bit of pulling to dig through on all of
Speaker 2: those matters as well. Some interesting new note Boys fallout too.
Speaker 2: We are learning God to save them that they were
Speaker 2: actually given a list of interview questions before their big
Speaker 2: Net Nyahuo interview. They're sort of still spiraling there, so
Speaker 2: interesting to dig into that. As a media story, I
Speaker 2: think a significant one. Actually some very dire news coming
Speaker 2: out of Israel. We now have a whistleblower coming forward
Speaker 2: from that so called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation talking about the
Speaker 2: unbelievable and horrifying force being used against Palestinians in the
Speaker 2: context of them trying to obtain AID. We also have
Speaker 2: another significant media story here involving Candace Owens, who is
Speaker 2: now being sued by the first family of France. Candace
Speaker 2: did a long piece alleging that Brigitte Macron, the first
Speaker 2: Lady of France, is actually a man, was born a man, etc.
Speaker 2: And so they are suing her over those and other claims.
Speaker 2: We also have significant economic news. Home prices are continuing
Speaker 2: to go up, home sales continuing to go down. In fact,
Speaker 2: a significant number of deals that were originally struck in
Speaker 2: the housing market fell apart last month, record high member
Speaker 2: of those deals falling apart, So still really dire there.
Speaker 2: This comes also as Trump has announced a new quote
Speaker 2: unquote trade deal with Japan's We'll dig into all of
Speaker 2: that and we're going to have a guest onto breakdown
Speaker 2: if there is any there there.
Speaker 4: With this big Russia Gate.
Speaker 2: Document drop obviously being used as an attempt to distract
Speaker 2: from Epstein, it's not working very well, but we did
Speaker 2: want to sift through and see if there's anything we should.
Speaker 3: Know Obamagate as an original Obama Gator myself. Yeah, it's
Speaker 3: been difficult, you know, we're having to go back and
Speaker 3: reread all the files, etc.
Speaker 1: But yes, we will allow Isaac.
Speaker 3: Isaac has done a fantastic job here from Tangle. He's
Speaker 3: actually read through everything, covered the stuff for years, and
Speaker 3: so we're going to outsource some of our knowledge over there.
Speaker 3: Thank you Eiaac for having us to go. I just
Speaker 3: shot into this all right, let's go before we get
Speaker 3: to that. Thank you everybody who has been signing up
Speaker 3: for our premium membership Breakingpoints dot Com if you would like.
Speaker 3: Obviously we have all the benefits, but we are really
Speaker 3: supporting the show and we have so many thousands and
Speaker 3: thousands of people every day who are joining us from
Speaker 3: all of these different issues in our coverage, and we're
Speaker 3: really happy to have you. If you can't sign up
Speaker 3: for a premium membership, no worries, just do us a favor,
Speaker 3: hit the subscribe button on YouTube, or if you guys
Speaker 3: are listening to this on a podcast, just go ahead
Speaker 3: and send a link to one of your friends. It's
Speaker 3: the best possible thing that you could do for us
Speaker 3: to help spread the word. So with that, let's go
Speaker 3: ahead and start here with the Epstein story. This is
Speaker 3: again a very remarkable, very interesting leak coming to the
Speaker 3: Wall Street Journal. Let's put it up there on the screen. Quote,
Speaker 3: the Justice Department told Donald Trump in May that his
Speaker 3: name is among many in the Epstein files. There's a
Speaker 3: lot here, and I'm going to go through both the
Speaker 3: exact details of the story, but also the timeline, because
Speaker 3: the timeline matters a lot.
Speaker 5: Quote.
Speaker 3: When the Justice Apartment reviewed the Attorney General Pam Bondi
Speaker 3: called a truckload of documents, they discovered that Donald Trump's
Speaker 3: name appeared multiple times. In May, her and her deputy
Speaker 3: informed the President at a meeting in White House that
Speaker 3: the name his name was in the Epstein files. Quote,
Speaker 3: many other high profile figures were also named. Trump was
Speaker 3: told being mentioned in the records is not a sign
Speaker 3: of wrongdoing. That's obviously correct. And then something that we've
Speaker 3: talked about here for quite a long time, they said.
Speaker 3: The official said it was part of a routine briefing
Speaker 3: covered a number of topics, and that Trump's appearance in
Speaker 3: the document was not even the focus.
Speaker 1: They told the.
Speaker 3: President at this meeting that the files contained what officials
Speaker 3: felt was quote unverified hearsay about many people, including Trump,
Speaker 3: who had socialized with Epstein in the past, some of
Speaker 3: the officials said. One of the officials familiar, said that
Speaker 3: they contain hundreds of other names. They also said that
Speaker 3: Trump told They also told Trump the senior Justice Department
Speaker 3: officials didn't plan to release any more documents related to
Speaker 3: the investigation of the convicted sex offender because the material
Speaker 3: contained child pornography and victim's personal information. Trump said at
Speaker 3: the meeting he would defer to the Justice Department. Now
Speaker 3: I want to sit on that for a second. So
Speaker 3: first and foremost is this Number One is that obviously
Speaker 3: they told Trump his name was in the Epstein files.
Speaker 3: But the thing is is that within the context, it
Speaker 3: makes it even more bizarre about Trump's decision not to
Speaker 3: release it, and really why this is a pr crisis
Speaker 3: of his own making. Now at the point if he
Speaker 3: had released it, where his name in hundreds of other names.
Speaker 3: There would be quite literally hundreds of stories to be
Speaker 3: able to go into this right and we could all
Speaker 3: diagnose and we could take a look at all of
Speaker 3: these different connections. By doing the cover up and also
Speaker 3: claiming that you were going to release everything, you now
Speaker 3: make it so that the singular focus is on you,
Speaker 3: the president, for the person here, and actually make it
Speaker 3: more likely in my mind, in many people's minds who
Speaker 3: are analysts here are like, I don't know, man, maybe
Speaker 3: there is some ben a hell of a lot more
Speaker 3: which is causing all these journalists. You know, the Epstein
Speaker 3: birthday book, all of these old clips were going to
Speaker 3: place some here in a little bit just to show people,
Speaker 3: like some of the past scrutiny on Epstein and Trump's
Speaker 3: own relationship, this is all because of your own actions.
Speaker 3: Second is Crystal, Remember this meeting was in May. We
Speaker 3: did not get the Epstein memo until almost a month later,
Speaker 3: ahead of the visit of the Israeli Prime Minister. So
Speaker 3: it seems that they made the decision some one month earlier,
Speaker 3: basically around the time cash Ptel and others were going
Speaker 3: around on podcasts kind of laying the groundwork for this
Speaker 3: but what happened in that one month period They said
Speaker 3: they weren't going to release anything, and then a month
Speaker 3: later they come out and.
Speaker 1: Kind of say it. So the timing of it is
Speaker 1: very suspect.
Speaker 3: Remember also in that interim month, they still were claiming
Speaker 3: that they were doing and investigation. So it basically makes
Speaker 3: the government look like a whole bunch of liars. It
Speaker 3: obviously makes Trump himself look dramatically more implicated in a
Speaker 3: cover up, probably makes him now at this point more
Speaker 3: intransigent to not release the files, which makes him look
Speaker 3: even more guilty. And so it's just a spiraling thing
Speaker 3: where again the simplest answer is one which would probably
Speaker 3: be to his own benefit and to everybody else.
Speaker 1: Just release everything that what's in there. That's all you
Speaker 1: got to do. Man, that's what you said you were
Speaker 1: going to do.
Speaker 4: It depends what But that's my point.
Speaker 1: I mean, and now they're making it sketchy.
Speaker 2: But you're yeah, but maybe it's get like you're assuming
Speaker 2: that what's in there is just oh, he was at
Speaker 2: his wedding and they sent him a birthday card or whatever.
Speaker 4: We don't know that.
Speaker 2: I mean, I wat Trump is acting would indicate that
Speaker 2: there may be some much worse things. That is Okham's
Speaker 2: razor at this point, just based on the way that
Speaker 2: he's acting. But I mean, this story is it is
Speaker 2: probably the least surprising story that we've seen thus far,
Speaker 2: because and by the way, Elon apparently totally vindicated at
Speaker 2: this point. When Elon first said that Trump is in
Speaker 2: the Epstein files, what do we say? We said, of
Speaker 2: course Trump is in the Epstein files. They were very
Speaker 2: close friends for a lot of years. There is zero
Speaker 2: doubt that Trump is in the Epstein files. Question mark
Speaker 2: of what that means and what the implications are and
Speaker 2: what you know all of that, but there's was never
Speaker 2: any doubt. We know he flew on Epstein's plane at
Speaker 2: least seven times, so it should be no surprise to
Speaker 2: anyone that he is quote unquote in the Epstein files.
Speaker 2: Whatever you know, that really means. The question is what
Speaker 2: you know? What are the specifics here? And why are
Speaker 2: you acting so incredibly bizarrely? That's really what it comes
Speaker 2: down to. And you're right, that has opened up a
Speaker 2: can of worms of people going back, because there was
Speaker 2: a lot of memory holding. There was a lot of
Speaker 2: deni on the right about just how close they were,
Speaker 2: and how much, how long the association lasted, and all
Speaker 2: of those sorts of things, and so now you know,
Speaker 2: let's go ahead and play. This was Jeffrey Epstein when
Speaker 2: he was being deposed, got asked specifically about his relationship
Speaker 2: with Donald Trump and about whether or not they had
Speaker 2: ever been together in the presence of underage girls. Let's
Speaker 2: go ahead and take a listen to how he's fun that.
Speaker 1: Have you ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump?
Speaker 3: What do you mean by personal relationships?
Speaker 1: Have you socialized with him?
Speaker 6: Yes, sir, Yes, yes, sir.
Speaker 3: Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of.
Speaker 1: Females under the age of eighteen?
Speaker 7: Though I'd like to answer that question at least today,
Speaker 7: I'm going to have to assert by fifth, sixth, and fourteenth,
Speaker 7: and then the radser.
Speaker 2: If they're to be the Midas, touch networking, all kinds
Speaker 2: of stuff.
Speaker 1: Well, listen to that. As you said, it's been out there.
Speaker 1: I don't deny it either.
Speaker 3: I mean my assumption, perhaps naively, was Yeah, Look, he's
Speaker 3: one of the most scrutinized public figures in the world
Speaker 3: at this point. Yeah, they went to each other's weddings,
Speaker 3: et cetera. I'm not saying I believe Trump in its face,
Speaker 3: but I was like, I think we kind of know. Yeah,
Speaker 3: they were obviously friends, they had all these you know,
Speaker 3: sketchy personal connections in certain ways. But at this point,
Speaker 3: considering both his rhetoric and the rhetoric of his administration,
Speaker 3: I was like, yeah, they'll probably release it. I mean, again,
Speaker 3: I could be totally wrong, and perhaps they are, but
Speaker 3: at this point, his behavior is such that is really
Speaker 3: vindicating a lot of what you're saying. And that's why
Speaker 3: I actually think at this point, you really do have
Speaker 3: no choice but to release it, in my opinion, and
Speaker 3: also just because of the way that the political wins
Speaker 3: continue to shift, both in Washington. Remember they literally had
Speaker 3: to shut down the House of Representatives to stop vote.
Speaker 3: And even with that, I mean, I got to give
Speaker 3: some of the Republicans some credit here, because you know,
Speaker 3: just yesterday was the House Oversight Committee, multiple Republicans broke
Speaker 3: with the administration. They voted eight to two to subpoena
Speaker 3: Glene Maxwell, who have some testimony before them. There are
Speaker 3: actually people who are there who are like, no, I'm
Speaker 3: not We're not stopping this is going to happen. The
Speaker 3: reason they had to shut down the House was because
Speaker 3: there were enough Republicans who were willing to join the
Speaker 3: Democrats as say no, screw it, yeah we're going forward.
Speaker 2: Well let's let's pause on Glaine for a second, because
Speaker 2: I know Ryan and Emily covered this, But the administration
Speaker 2: is talking to her. I mean, it's very very very possible,
Speaker 2: and she's obviously working to try to get a deal,
Speaker 2: try to get a pardon. Yes, And I think that's
Speaker 2: very possibly the direction that we go in where she
Speaker 2: effectively in exchange for quote unquote exonerating Trump, is let
Speaker 2: out of her, has her person sentence commuted it, or
Speaker 2: get some sort of a deal.
Speaker 4: So you know, that's possible as well.
Speaker 2: And she has an appeal up to the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: right now that right now the government is taking the
Speaker 2: position no, you know, she needs to stay in prison.
Speaker 2: And that previous sweetheart deal that was struck with Epstein
Speaker 2: that said none of your co conspirators could be charged either,
Speaker 2: that doesn't apply here for this various various technical reasons.
Speaker 2: So I think that is possible as well. I mean
Speaker 2: that's the thing is like what regards whatever's in the files,
Speaker 2: the way they have played. This is so incredibly stupid.
Speaker 2: It's like the worst possible way you could do, because
Speaker 2: these people are obviously not above line. We're about to
Speaker 2: show you Trump coming out and being like, well, of
Speaker 2: course this. You didn't tell me that I was in
Speaker 2: the Epstein files. So they could have released some subset,
Speaker 2: you know, this ploy that they're doing now with the trial, Oh,
Speaker 2: let's release the grand jury testimony, which the courts are
Speaker 2: already you know, saying no, we're not going to do
Speaker 2: that because there's no you know, we're basically not allowed to.
Speaker 2: They could have done that ploy previously to make it
Speaker 2: look like they're trying for transparency, but gosh darn at
Speaker 2: the court system is just standing their way or something,
Speaker 2: or just run out the clock, as you and I,
Speaker 2: you know, it's fully expected them to do. And instead
Speaker 2: you have made it look like you are so guilty
Speaker 2: and maybe you are, and drawn so much attention and
Speaker 2: scrutiny that now everybody is going back through every picture,
Speaker 2: every video, every deposition, everything that has ever connected you
Speaker 2: to Jeffrey Epstein and to that world and looking at
Speaker 2: it through a totally different lens.
Speaker 3: At this point, right, And that's actually another thing, which
Speaker 3: I think is important to align with the Gallaine stuff.
Speaker 3: So Gallaine is actually meeting with the Justice Department today.
Speaker 3: But the problem is, at this point you've poisoned the
Speaker 3: well right for any substance, I mean, at.
Speaker 1: The end of this is part of what does to
Speaker 1: me again point to a cover up.
Speaker 3: Gallaine Maxwell's attorneys and the government say, we never asked
Speaker 3: her if she ever had any third what you.
Speaker 1: Never asked her in ninety twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: You never asked her, and now you're asking her at
Speaker 3: a time when she's directly asking for a pardon from
Speaker 3: Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: What She's stupid.
Speaker 3: She can't look at the news and say, hey, I
Speaker 3: need to know what I said if they had released
Speaker 3: the files and then come to Gallane. Also, by the way,
Speaker 3: at this point, I mean, Ghlaine Maxwell, just on the
Speaker 3: merits of what she's been convicted of, it's heinous. She
Speaker 3: should never be allowed to parton or any of this.
Speaker 3: I'm talking about just her crimes with relation to Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 3: And so let's just leave it at that and say,
Speaker 3: all right, Gallaine, maybe we can talk sentence reduction and
Speaker 3: all of this, but you have to be able to
Speaker 3: give US prosecutable you know, verifiable evidence. I think it's
Speaker 3: called like a rule thirty five or something like that,
Speaker 3: where a judge can take into consideration your cooperation with
Speaker 3: the government but has to uh, it has to like
Speaker 3: lead to actually something, Whereas now they've poisoned the well
Speaker 3: through their cover up actions. And now if she does
Speaker 3: come out and say, oh Trump and she's never an
Speaker 3: intelligence asset or none of this, We're like, yeah, come on, man,
Speaker 3: I mean, this is just as sketchy as a non
Speaker 3: prosecution degree.
Speaker 2: Right, you really couldn't believe anything she says at this point,
Speaker 2: because who are you leaving? I mean, you know, she
Speaker 2: is not going to implicate Trump, regardless of however much
Speaker 2: they're there.
Speaker 1: Blaen's because she wants to deal with it. Glene has
Speaker 1: had a year.
Speaker 3: She even gave interviews from her jail cell, right, Like,
Speaker 3: It's not like she couldn't say something if she didn't
Speaker 3: want to. She's keeping it all in And look, she
Speaker 3: was at the Clinton wedding. She knew Donald Trump. She
Speaker 3: meant elon her father literally a Mosad asset, you know,
Speaker 3: I mean, I could go on forever in terms of
Speaker 3: this woman's background.
Speaker 1: It's nuts. All right, I mean Lourene Powell jobs like
Speaker 1: she's got all kinds.
Speaker 3: Of stuff on all kinds of people, regardless of, by
Speaker 3: the way, whether they're implicated in sex trafficking or not,
Speaker 3: just their mere association. We saw with Elon Loreen Pole
Speaker 3: job it's a problem. No, it's a problem. And here
Speaker 3: we have with Donald Trump again like it's just instinct
Speaker 3: to just, you know, basically just come out and lie
Speaker 3: about a lot of the information. Here he was asked repeatedly,
Speaker 3: did you, but Pam Bondi, ever tell you your name
Speaker 3: was in the Epstein files?
Speaker 1: And he said, no, let's take a listen on a
Speaker 1: DJ and what subject.
Speaker 4: There were a few of the files, turning Donald pamponi.
Speaker 7: Very very quick briefing.
Speaker 4: Did she tell you what did she tell you about
Speaker 4: what you specifically? Did she tell you that all that
Speaker 4: your name appeared in?
Speaker 7: No, No, she's she's given us just a very quick briefing.
Speaker 7: And in terms of the credibility of the different things
Speaker 7: that they've seen. And I would say that you know,
Speaker 7: these files were made up by Komi, they were made
Speaker 7: up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden
Speaker 7: from you know, uh, we and we went three years
Speaker 7: of that with the Russia Russia Russia hoax.
Speaker 3: So you know, he's literally said, no, she did not
Speaker 3: tell me that I was in the Epstein files. Another
Speaker 3: person who a lot of people have been looking to
Speaker 3: here is Mark Epstein, the brother, and he directly talked
Speaker 3: about some of the contradictions from the president's claim saying
Speaker 3: he'd never been in his office, and he said, no,
Speaker 3: that's just absolutely not true.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 4: And the White House their response to us Mark, they
Speaker 4: were categorical.
Speaker 8: They said, quote, the President was never in Epstein's office.
Speaker 4: Is that true?
Speaker 5: That the blatant that's just another blatant lie because he
Speaker 5: was there. The people that work for Jeffrey in his
Speaker 5: office you can find and they can testify that they
Speaker 5: saw Trump and Jeffrey's office on numerous occasions, you know,
Speaker 5: So for him to say he wasn't there, all I
Speaker 5: could say is that's just just another lie.
Speaker 1: So you can say he said that's just another lie.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, Mark Epstein, I understand he's got his
Speaker 3: own personal agenda and everybody should keep that in mind.
Speaker 3: But a lot of the stuff that Marcus said has
Speaker 3: actually turned out to be true. Remember it's Mark also
Speaker 3: who has really driven the train of my brother did
Speaker 3: not commit suicide. By the way, if everybody want so,
Speaker 3: they should go and watch the interview that Ryan and
Speaker 3: Emily did yesterday with a former inmate at the MCC.
Speaker 3: I mean, this guy, the case that he lays out
Speaker 3: about the cameras and the way that everything he works there,
Speaker 3: it's just again, it's just not credible. I mean I
Speaker 3: knew that, and I'd heard from other people, but to
Speaker 3: hear from such an intelligent and articulate person who was
Speaker 3: also literally an inmate in this facility, a deep association
Speaker 3: knowledge of a lot of these cameras and himself is
Speaker 3: a technology expert. You know, you could take it for
Speaker 3: you could take it with whatever grain and salt.
Speaker 1: I guess that you want.
Speaker 3: I don't think he has a particular agenda that he's pushing.
Speaker 3: He's just like listen, I was there.
Speaker 9: This is how it all worked.
Speaker 3: And I'm telling you the government story doesn't make any
Speaker 3: sense whatsoever at all that fits with the original OIG investigation.
Speaker 3: And now all this fake footage that's been put out
Speaker 3: by Pam Bondi so and the very least you know
Speaker 3: with Mark Epstein. A lot of what he has said
Speaker 3: has turned out at the very least to be correct. Now,
Speaker 3: don't forget, you know, he's also trying to whitewash some
Speaker 3: of his brother's crimes and his record.
Speaker 1: So let's put that out there.
Speaker 3: But broadly, I mean what the Trump administration and again,
Speaker 3: in all their actions, and this will get to the
Speaker 3: kind of the Russia Gate, Obama Gate stuff and even
Speaker 3: the MLK files is it's pretty clear they're desperate to
Speaker 3: release or to try and distract, at the very least
Speaker 3: a lot of their base from what's happening. And yet
Speaker 3: the Director of National Intelligence, Tulca Gabbard, she delivered this
Speaker 3: long presentation yesterday about Obamagate and referring Obama to criminal prosecution, etc.
Speaker 3: As we said, we'll get to that at the ladder
Speaker 3: end of the show because we have a guest on
Speaker 3: who's going to break it all down for us. But
Speaker 3: she's asked here directly about Jeffrey Epstein and intelligence connections.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 10: I haven't seen any evidence or information that reflects that.
Speaker 10: If anything comes before me that changes that in any way,
Speaker 10: support the President's statement loud and clear that any credible
Speaker 10: evidence comes forward, he wants the American people to see it.
Speaker 3: I haven't they always I haven't seen it. If anything
Speaker 3: comes forward, I'll let you know, or we'll look into it,
Speaker 3: or it's.
Speaker 1: Like come on again.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's just so preposterous, and it just shows
Speaker 3: us that either they don't want to know, or they
Speaker 3: do know and.
Speaker 1: Then alying to us. I'm not really sure which one
Speaker 1: is worse.
Speaker 3: I guess theoretically, plausible deniability a tale as old as time.
Speaker 1: Right, you're in Washington, but you know you put all
Speaker 1: this stuff together.
Speaker 3: Also with the Wall Street I should know, by the way,
Speaker 3: multiple other outlets reported it, and the White House is
Speaker 3: not even really denying the conversation took place.
Speaker 1: Let's make that clear as well. They're like, yeah, we know.
Speaker 3: And their defense is, oh, you know, they knew each
Speaker 3: other at a certain time, they had a falling out
Speaker 3: and that's the extent. Okay, fine. I mean, even according
Speaker 3: to the Journal, they're like, hey man, it's not like
Speaker 3: you're implicated in any wrongdoing here. Your name is in
Speaker 3: here along with hundreds of other people.
Speaker 1: It's like, okay, fine. Then released it.
Speaker 3: But clearly Trump is either afraid as that even those
Speaker 3: breadcrumbs as to what it will all lead to, that's
Speaker 3: very possible. The intelligence angle, by the way, I still
Speaker 3: think it's a very very very plausible one beyond his
Speaker 3: own personal motivations. And if you just put the totality
Speaker 3: of the way that all of the original statements from
Speaker 3: the Trump administration now aligned with where we are today,
Speaker 3: it just tells you nothing but cover up. I mean,
Speaker 3: Pam BONDI thousands of hours of footage, all of these files,
Speaker 3: hundreds of FBI agents, et cetera. Remember there was a
Speaker 3: statement from Dick Durbin, who the senator from Illinois, I
Speaker 3: think he's on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, and
Speaker 3: he put out a statement saying, hey, we were told
Speaker 3: by FBI agents to flag when Donald Trump's name was
Speaker 3: in the files. But now it kind of makes sense, right,
Speaker 3: because this is part of probably why they were coming
Speaker 3: to Trump just be like, hey, just don't you know,
Speaker 3: you know your name is in here, But that is
Speaker 3: all just it's such a massive conflict of interest and
Speaker 3: for people, you know, the streisand effect of this story
Speaker 3: now is unbelievable.
Speaker 1: It's one of the top stories in the country. I'm
Speaker 1: not joking.
Speaker 3: If you look at Google traffic, and if especially if
Speaker 3: you look at people who are quote a political or
Speaker 3: you know, kind of online, a lot of them probably
Speaker 3: voted for Trump and may not necessarily consider themselves maga.
Speaker 3: They're really starting to break for you know, if you
Speaker 3: want evidence, the QAnon shaman has now broken with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: It said, this beats his shit.
Speaker 3: Just saying it all right, Listen, you could say whether
Speaker 3: or not, you know, I mean, he's stormed the capital,
Speaker 3: you know, on behalf of Donald Trump. I think it's
Speaker 3: a constituency of some sort for these types of people.
Speaker 1: He was a hero, you know, if you'll recall.
Speaker 3: So I'm just saying, yeah, all these types of people,
Speaker 3: this is a very important story is not going away.
Speaker 2: Well, and I think it's it's really the first time
Speaker 2: I can think of where all of Trump's go to
Speaker 2: tactics are just really not working. Yeah, you know, he's
Speaker 2: normally so good at being able to change the conversation
Speaker 2: and get us chasing after something else than having to
Speaker 2: deal with someone.
Speaker 4: And obviously he's trying.
Speaker 2: I mean I've seen the lists of like all the
Speaker 2: attempted distractions, the cane sugar and the coke and the
Speaker 2: Rosi o'donald should be denaturalized and loser citizenship and you know,
Speaker 2: the now we've got the Obama Gates stuff, the MLK
Speaker 2: files and whatever, and it's like, Nope, people are still
Speaker 2: focused on this. And it's so obvious too what he's
Speaker 2: trying to do. That not to say that the right
Speaker 2: isn't interested in the Russia Gates stuff and whatever. We're
Speaker 2: going to cover it in the show, but it is
Speaker 2: not throwing people off of this particular case, especially as
Speaker 2: the story just continues to drip drip drip.
Speaker 4: Drip continues to develop.
Speaker 2: And then the other thing is, and you and I
Speaker 2: were talking about this a little bit before we started
Speaker 2: the show, like, I don't think Rupert Murdoch is the
Speaker 2: type of media figure who's just gonna be terrified and
Speaker 2: and you know, run away from the case because of
Speaker 2: the threat of a lawsuit. You know, Trump is already okay,
Speaker 2: he's already played that card. He said he threatened them
Speaker 2: before they publish their birthday card scoop. He threatened them,
Speaker 2: said this is absolutely fake. I will sue you, I
Speaker 2: will ruin you, et cetera. They went forward with it anyway,
Speaker 2: and so he's already played that card with them. And
Speaker 2: then that's the other thing that's significant about this coming
Speaker 2: out in the Wall Street Journal after that initial scoop
Speaker 2: is it's sort of, you know, a message to him
Speaker 2: too of like, Okay, well we're gonna keep out like
Speaker 2: you're not slowing us down. Yeah, let's play, let's go.
Speaker 2: I'm not afraid we're moving in this direction. And Murdoch, obviously,
Speaker 2: you know, has all media empire, including Fox News, including
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal, including the New York Post, all of
Speaker 2: which are incredibly important and influential. And I think he
Speaker 2: also is someone who does not see Trump as being
Speaker 2: bigger than him.
Speaker 3: Murdock always hated Trump or in a secret way like
Speaker 3: they despise him. It's it is an alliance of convenience
Speaker 3: at the very best. Trump both fears and respects of
Speaker 3: Rupert Murdoch and vice versa.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 3: But the thing is people need to understand about Murdock
Speaker 3: is and I was reading from Dylan Byers. He works
Speaker 3: at POG He's one of the best, like true inside
Speaker 3: the room media journalists, and he pointed this out. If
Speaker 3: you look at the previous settlements ABC settles with Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: why they were gonna win. There's no question that they
Speaker 3: were going to win the George Stephanopolis case. Why do
Speaker 3: they settle because ABC is owned by Disney. Bob Iger
Speaker 3: is like, look, sixteen million, and I get to keep
Speaker 3: my theme park permits which print hundreds of millions of
Speaker 3: dollars a year. Easy trade, right, even because they don't
Speaker 3: care about journalism. They care about business. CBS owned by Paramount,
Speaker 3: which needs to merge with Skydance, which needs the FTC
Speaker 3: and the FCC to approve their merger. Yeah, sixteen million
Speaker 3: is nothing for a multi billion dollar deal. Sherry Redstone
Speaker 3: has been trying to offload this shit for years. She's like,
Speaker 3: I will pay anything to get rid of this. Oh
Speaker 3: and by the way, she's super pro Israel, so at
Speaker 3: the same time she's like, I don't care whatever, let's
Speaker 3: make a deal. Murdoch, people forget this. He sold the
Speaker 3: bulk of the Fox empire, the Fox Networks and all
Speaker 3: the other stuff years ago, and he sold it to Disney.
Speaker 3: He doesn't need the regulators nearly as much. He still
Speaker 3: owns Fox, still owns News Corp.
Speaker 1: That's basically it. A lot of his personal empire has
Speaker 1: been offload.
Speaker 3: He's sitting on a shitload of cash as well as
Speaker 3: as foreign media empire. He doesn't need the same regulatory approval. Now, Listen,
Speaker 3: the FCC can make life miserable for anybody. So I'm
Speaker 3: not saying it's theoretically possible. But also what Dylan said,
Speaker 3: if you note inside the lawsuit that Trump filed, it
Speaker 3: specifically doesn't go after Fox News, It actually doesn't touch
Speaker 3: Fox News very carefully. It was crafted to make sure
Speaker 3: it only goes after Murdoch, the two journalists, and others.
Speaker 3: Another thing is is that Trump may actually have filed
Speaker 3: the lawsuit in such a way that it will require
Speaker 3: immediately dismissal. Because Florida law basically requires that you have
Speaker 3: to wait like five days or something after a story
Speaker 3: to be published to actually publish to file suit. They
Speaker 3: did it obviously before the five days was up. They
Speaker 3: may have actually crafted the lawsuit in a way where
Speaker 3: it will require dismissal and then both sides can claim victory.
Speaker 3: So it may be possible that they knew it was
Speaker 3: a fake lawsuit from the very beginning. It was all posturing.
Speaker 3: And also what I mean, let's think about the implication here.
Speaker 3: Trump would literally have to sit as President of the
Speaker 3: United States for a deposition.
Speaker 1: For hours about Jeffrey his relationship.
Speaker 3: With deposition you really want to go through with that?
Speaker 3: And then Murdoch zero, it's not happening.
Speaker 1: You're not happening.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. Like the risk for Trump is exponential, the
Speaker 3: risk for Murdoch is not that high. He's sitting on
Speaker 3: forty or fifty billion dollars and he's ninety four years old.
Speaker 1: And by the way, he loves to fight.
Speaker 3: As you can look at all of his past wreck
Speaker 3: I really recommend people go and look at some of
Speaker 3: the past legal broiling. This guy has gotten himself into
Speaker 3: here in the UK and in Australia. This is what
Speaker 3: animates them, you know. And so I put that all together.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying Murdoch may not settle. He may do
Speaker 3: it just to basically bribe Trump. Maybe Trump will say
Speaker 3: no more Trump administration officials on Fox News.
Speaker 1: I don't think so.
Speaker 3: They need each other. It's a symbiotic relationship. So anyway,
Speaker 3: I'm betting on Rupert.
Speaker 9: On this one.
Speaker 2: I really well, Like I said, I think the fact
Speaker 2: that they published this scoop so soon after the original one,
Speaker 2: it really does send a message of like, we don't care.
Speaker 4: Go ahead, we don't buy.
Speaker 2: That you and your fake threats that this is any
Speaker 2: sort of a real risk for us, and we're proceeding.
Speaker 2: There are a couple other details that are worth pulling
Speaker 2: out in this Wall Street Journal piece that were interesting
Speaker 2: as well. First of all, they had some details about
Speaker 2: Dan Bongino and Pam Bondi.
Speaker 4: Fighting, so let me read this section.
Speaker 2: They say that Bongino has told colleagues his association with
Speaker 2: the administration's decision to keep the files private has eroded
Speaker 2: his credibility among the basive support that fueled his rise
Speaker 2: as a successful podcaster and media personality on the right.
Speaker 2: So he's concerned that this is all damaging his brand
Speaker 2: as a podcaster, which is important thing for high level
Speaker 2: FBI official to be worried about. Bongino did not respond
Speaker 2: to request for comments. They also have these details of
Speaker 2: this fight. So on July ninth, they say, after ABC
Speaker 2: News reach out to the White House about Bondi's briefing
Speaker 2: to the President, Bongino and Bondi clashed in a meeting
Speaker 2: in which Bondi alleged Bongino was secretly providing information to
Speaker 2: the media to damage her reputation. Bongino in term exploded
Speaker 2: about Bondi his face read and called her a liar.
Speaker 2: A senior administration official said, they also have some details
Speaker 2: in here about FBI Director Cash Battel, who apparently is
Speaker 2: privately going around and spreading the information, gossiping about the
Speaker 2: fact that Trump's name is in the file. So this
Speaker 2: is becoming common knowledge, you know, in DC, and so
Speaker 2: no surprise that Elon.
Speaker 1: You know, I think almost certainly the source of where
Speaker 1: Elon came from.
Speaker 3: And it makes sense because FBI director was the one
Speaker 3: who gave the order to the agents to all Remember
Speaker 3: they said hundreds of agents and said, hey, guys, flag
Speaker 3: anything there that's in Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean, look, I mean, nobody can deny this.
Speaker 3: The actions of the administration are so unbelievably sketchy now
Speaker 3: at this point that you know, I don't even know
Speaker 3: how they dig themselves out of it again other than
Speaker 3: a full release.
Speaker 1: But even at that.
Speaker 3: Point, there's just going to be so much scrutiny, so
Speaker 3: much requirement for transparency to say, what the hell are
Speaker 3: you guys hiding? You have nobody to blame but yourselves.
Speaker 3: Let's go to the second part here, because this is
Speaker 3: equally important, kind of gets to the whole cover up situation.
Speaker 1: Can't say you weren't warned here on this show. Let's
Speaker 1: put it up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: The judge lo and Behold has denied Donald Trump's request
Speaker 3: to release the Epstein transcripts in Florida. This is the
Speaker 3: grand jury transcripts that are relating to the Epstein case.
Speaker 3: You'll remember previously that they had said, quote that the
Speaker 3: court said its hands were tied because she could not
Speaker 3: release the files from the grand jury convene because transcripts
Speaker 3: are quote typically kept secret except in very narrow circumstances,
Speaker 3: and that the Department was not requesting the transcript for
Speaker 3: use in a judicial proceeding, which actually would have opened
Speaker 3: the pathway to disclose the jury records. So, I mean,
Speaker 3: this is where a lot of the ways that these
Speaker 3: you know, a lot of the way in which they
Speaker 3: even like said that they were going to request the transcripts,
Speaker 3: it was obvious basically from the beginning that it was
Speaker 3: almost certainly likely to fail just moving through the court system.
Speaker 3: It just gets to this whole fakery about what the
Speaker 3: Epstein files are like. It's in the irs in the
Speaker 3: Treasury data and inside of the FBI, which you have
Speaker 3: executive purview. You don't need no judge to release any
Speaker 3: of that. You can release all of it yourself. If
Speaker 3: you want to look at the MLK files, right, you
Speaker 3: can release all of this data three to two s etc.
Speaker 1: For the public interest.
Speaker 3: There's direct you know, executive uh, there's executive purview for
Speaker 3: all of this.
Speaker 1: You have that ability today.
Speaker 3: You don't be putting this on some judge, and especially
Speaker 3: here the grand jury documents. Part of the reason why
Speaker 3: I said even that would be dramatically insufficient is that
Speaker 3: those grand jury documents and transcripts are specifically about the
Speaker 3: narrowly tailored charges against Epstein, which only involve him and
Speaker 3: the sex traffic allegations against him. It doesn't get to
Speaker 3: any of the broader implication. Senator Ron Wyden, who, by
Speaker 3: the way, you gotta give credit to the guy's been
Speaker 3: working on this story for multiple years now at this point,
Speaker 3: so you know, long before it was convenient. He literally said,
Speaker 3: I personally looked at Treasury documents which show one point
Speaker 3: five billion dollars suspicious activity reports that were filed after
Speaker 3: Epstein's death.
Speaker 1: One point five.
Speaker 3: Billion dollars in wire transfers from the richest and most
Speaker 3: powerful people in the world, also connected to sex trafficking
Speaker 3: rings all across the world, including Eastern Europe. That fits
Speaker 3: with the New York Financial Services document. The government has
Speaker 3: it in its ability to release that document, those documents
Speaker 3: today if they want to.
Speaker 1: Where is it?
Speaker 3: You know, this is what I'm getting at in terms
Speaker 3: of the they're trying to fool the public with stunts
Speaker 3: like this, and genuinely is very important for people who
Speaker 3: are interested in this to be able to parse and
Speaker 3: say and say like, oh, Trump tried, no he didn't. Okay,
Speaker 3: this was guaranteed to fail basically from day one. And
Speaker 3: you know, it's a stunt. There's no other way to
Speaker 3: put it. It's a stunt.
Speaker 2: And you know what, if they had pulled this stunt first, yeah,
Speaker 2: then fine, then yeah, not fine.
Speaker 4: But I think people would have bought it more.
Speaker 1: I think you're right, would have been like, oh, we're.
Speaker 4: Trying and the courts of standing in our way in
Speaker 4: these liberal Marxist judges blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: And by the way, there's still a question of whether
Speaker 2: the Grandeuri transcripts from Manhattan will be released but that
Speaker 2: judges also already said basically like, my hands are tied
Speaker 2: unless they provide additional submissions and rationale for why we
Speaker 2: would do that. So listen, this is very very very
Speaker 2: unlikely to happen, and even if it did happen, what
Speaker 2: it would provide would not be the quote unquote Epstein files.
Speaker 2: But you know, the Ron Widen thing is actually really important.
Speaker 2: And this is the thing that Julie K. Brown, who
Speaker 2: has been focused on this case down in Miami for
Speaker 2: years and years at this point, this is what she
Speaker 2: always says. I heard her interview with rosstauthat over at
Speaker 2: the New York Times. She said, I've always insisted that
Speaker 2: the government has tried too hard to rely on the
Speaker 2: victims to build the case instead of following the money.
Speaker 4: She's like, if you really.
Speaker 2: Want to know what was truly going on here, follow
Speaker 2: the money. And that's why the Ron Widen piece is
Speaker 2: so important.
Speaker 1: I've said it here too, and that's why it's just
Speaker 1: it's so preposterous. The money. It is the center of
Speaker 1: the Epstein store because that's where the arms.
Speaker 3: Trafficking stuff comes in, his connections with Maxwell, all of
Speaker 3: his fake wealth, the you know, the Leslie Westerner stuff.
Speaker 1: And it's because of the money. It's because of what
Speaker 1: I believe.
Speaker 3: What I believe is work with these intelligence assets is
Speaker 3: what leads to the sweetheart deal of the non prosecution.
Speaker 3: It's not that the government was running the quote blackmail
Speaker 3: ring or whatever. It's not the government was, you know,
Speaker 3: running his sex trafficking operation. It's that when he got
Speaker 3: in trouble for that, they're like, all right, guys, we're
Speaker 3: gonna help this go away. There are documented instances of
Speaker 3: this going back, you know, for decades. Multiple times CIA
Speaker 3: officers and others have been let off for sex crimes
Speaker 3: because they don't want to release sources and methods. The
Speaker 3: actual financial documents and others I believe would show a
Speaker 3: vast array of sketchy financial transactions which have basically no
Speaker 3: other explanation other than intelligence.
Speaker 4: Yeah where did where did all the money come from?
Speaker 6: Well?
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, And who did it go on to go to?
Speaker 1: And for what purposes? Why was it all offshore?
Speaker 6: You know?
Speaker 1: Why did all these banks just look the other way?
Speaker 1: This is this is the story.
Speaker 3: And yeah, you're right, I'm glad that Julie K. Brown
Speaker 3: continue used to beat that drum as well, because that
Speaker 3: is the beating heart of why you're allowed to get
Speaker 3: away with everything. And also I think that's what would
Speaker 3: implicate way more. And this is where look, I mean,
Speaker 3: no offense is Donald Trump, but he's not actually even
Speaker 3: all that wealthy compared to the people who were actually,
Speaker 3: wait now, I was gonna say it now, but at
Speaker 3: that time, that's when he's filing for bankruptcy and all
Speaker 3: of that dealing in the nineteen eighties with the Atlantic
Speaker 3: City and all that, he didn't actually have the chops
Speaker 3: to be dealing at the highest levels of global finance.
Speaker 1: The people who did, they have a lot to lose
Speaker 1: if those files.
Speaker 2: And I think it was Mark Epstein, Jeffrey's brother, who
Speaker 2: said that Trump always wanted to fly on Jeffrey's plane.
Speaker 2: They wanted to say again, yeah, So you know, I
Speaker 2: think probably the seven times on his plane is probably
Speaker 2: an understatement because remember they were basically neighbors in Palm Beach,
Speaker 2: lived like a mile away from Manchester, and then you know,
Speaker 2: obviously they were they were in Manhattan together as well,
Speaker 2: So a lot to pull back there. Trump says, though soccer,
Speaker 2: this is all coin great for him, and his approval
Speaker 2: rating has never been higher, and take a listen to that.
Speaker 7: We've achieved incredible things in a very short period of time.
Speaker 7: And then polling released just last week, it was announced
Speaker 7: that the approval for Congressional Democrats under Hakim Jefferies has
Speaker 7: reached the lowest ever recorded nineteen percent. And Republicans are
Speaker 7: doing well, and I have the best numbers I've ever had.
Speaker 7: You know, it's amazing. I watched people on television, well,
Speaker 7: what about Donald Trump's polling numbers? Hat that the best
Speaker 7: numbers I've ever had. And with this made up hoax
Speaker 7: that they're talking about, my numbers have gone up four
Speaker 7: and five points. It's they want to do anything to
Speaker 7: get us off the subject of making America great again, and.
Speaker 9: We're not going to put up with it.
Speaker 7: And remember, don't let them forget it's so important. Obama
Speaker 7: cheated on the election. Look, the camera just went off, Obama,
Speaker 7: the red lighte just went off. Can you believe these
Speaker 7: people are bad?
Speaker 2: They are so Obviously, approval rating is not going up,
Speaker 2: although it is important to have parts these things, because
Speaker 2: the polls that have come out so far do show
Speaker 2: that with his base, his numbers have stayed the same
Speaker 2: or gone up I mean all within the margin of error.
Speaker 2: But he certainly hasn't fallen off with like Trump supporting
Speaker 2: MAGA based self identifying Republican voters. His numbers haven't fallen
Speaker 2: off at all. If anything, they have actually gone up.
Speaker 2: But Harry Enton broke down the numbers of how his
Speaker 2: approval rating is actually doing at this point overall.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listit to that.
Speaker 5: Look.
Speaker 8: He started off back in January plus six points on
Speaker 8: the net approf rating, minus three in March, minus seven May,
Speaker 8: and now he's at a term too low at minus
Speaker 8: eleven points. His net approval rating has dropped nearly twenty
Speaker 8: points in the aggregate since the beginning of his presidency.
Speaker 1: Is he's underwater on all the major issues of the day?
Speaker 8: Trump's net approval rating on all the major issues minus
Speaker 8: five points. In immigration is best issue, he's underwater. How
Speaker 8: about the economy that was what he was elected for?
Speaker 8: Minus fourteen points, how about four and posse minus fourteen points,
Speaker 8: how about trade and those terrorforce minus fifteen points, and
Speaker 8: of course the Epstein case the lowest of the bunch
Speaker 8: minus thirty seven points. I do have one piece of
Speaker 8: good news for Donald Trump, and that there is one
Speaker 8: other presidency that has a lower net approval rating at
Speaker 8: this point than this one. The bad news is that
Speaker 8: it was Donald Trump's other presidency. His first presidency net
Speaker 8: approval rating six months and the worst was in twenty
Speaker 8: seventeen donald Trump was sixteen points underwater. The second worst, however,
Speaker 8: is this Donald Trump presidency eleven points underwater. The average
Speaker 8: president at this point since nineteen hundred and fifty three
Speaker 8: has a plus twenty seven net approval rating.
Speaker 9: So there you go.
Speaker 2: That's the reality of where he actually is. I mean,
Speaker 2: with regard to the base numbers. I was talking you
Speaker 2: a little bit about this before, but look, I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: The liberals were right. It is a cult.
Speaker 2: And I see this as sort of whether it's an
Speaker 2: intentional or unintentional, it's basically a test for his base,
Speaker 2: like will you stay with me even as these sort
Speaker 2: of like core central mythology of Maga and trump Ism,
Speaker 2: even as that is completely blown apart, and it does.
Speaker 2: It reminds me of the you know, grabber by the
Speaker 2: P word moment. It reminds me of these like doomsday
Speaker 2: cults that you know, the day that the world is
Speaker 2: supposed to end comes and goes and you would think
Speaker 2: that faced with this evidence that like you've been lyed
Speaker 2: to and this is all ridiculous and low and behold,
Speaker 2: you're in a cult that people go with sort of
Speaker 2: snap out of it and go about their lives.
Speaker 4: And some of them do.
Speaker 2: But many of times what happens is they actually, because
Speaker 2: they've dedicated so much of their life and their being,
Speaker 2: their identity this, they.
Speaker 4: Double down on it.
Speaker 2: And there's some rationalization of, oh, well, actually, God has
Speaker 2: given us another chance to recruit more members to are call.
Speaker 2: There's some rationalization that's spun. Why didn't happen this time?
Speaker 2: But now you have to believe even harder, and when
Speaker 2: you look at the numbers just among his base, that
Speaker 2: process is unfolding right now as we speak.
Speaker 3: I don't disagree. I mean, I just don't think it's
Speaker 3: all that unique, I guess. I mean, it's one of
Speaker 3: those where let's think about Russiagate, right, I mean, I mean,
Speaker 3: we're going to talk about Russigate later, put the actual
Speaker 3: thing and all that aside.
Speaker 1: I mean, even at the after.
Speaker 3: The release of the MULA report, the vast majority of
Speaker 3: the Democratic base still believe that Russia stole the election
Speaker 3: and directly influenced the vote count in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: Bullshit, but they still believed it.
Speaker 3: If you look at the cult around a lot of
Speaker 3: political figures, Obama is probably a good example.
Speaker 1: I mean, you have somebody who literally ran on well.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think his approval rating with the Democratic
Speaker 3: Party never suffered a significant blow up until the day
Speaker 3: that he left office, and in fact, his affinity at
Speaker 3: this point is still one of the highest within the
Speaker 3: party right. And so I mean that kind of is
Speaker 3: unfortunately a deep part of the American system. But this
Speaker 3: is why I do think that the base argument is
Speaker 3: an irrelevant one, because the base doesn't matter. Bases always
Speaker 3: stick together, they always are cultish in their support of
Speaker 3: political parties. If Obama had the Democratic base in his pocket,
Speaker 3: or the Democrats had their base in their pocket, then
Speaker 3: they would have won the election. They did not win
Speaker 3: the election. Why because there are independents. There are other
Speaker 3: people who still vote, especially in these lower or in
Speaker 3: these higher turnout elections like presidential elections. And that ultimately
Speaker 3: is how Donald Trump came to the Oval office. I mean,
Speaker 3: the MAGA base is not going to win you the
Speaker 3: state of Pennsylvania. The MAGA base is not going to
Speaker 3: win you Georgia. It's not gonna win you, Michigan, it's
Speaker 3: not gonna win you, Wisconsin. It's not gonna win you
Speaker 3: North Carolina, Nevada. I could go on Arizona. Right, it's
Speaker 3: the swing two to three percent. Go look at the
Speaker 3: margins in PA. It's not like it was a blowout.
Speaker 3: It was like one percent that he won the state.
Speaker 3: Those are the people that matter. I think this is
Speaker 3: an important moment for them, and that's part of why
Speaker 3: I get frustrated with the conbo because, yeah, political bases
Speaker 3: are buying large cults. Now Trump, I'm not going to deny. Okay,
Speaker 3: the guy is unique for sure, Like within the context
Speaker 3: of all he has.
Speaker 2: I think I think Obama is probably the closest analog.
Speaker 2: But I still think.
Speaker 3: Trump is unique, and you're in my lifetime, He's the
Speaker 3: closest analog. I'm trying to think about it. Reagan actually
Speaker 3: came pretty close in terms of his cult.
Speaker 2: With the because I was young when Reagan and you
Speaker 2: weren't even alive, So it's hard for me to like
Speaker 2: have a real sensitive Well, I've read her.
Speaker 3: People should read the Nixon Land books that kind of
Speaker 3: go into the rhyme of Reagan. That's it's important. I mean,
Speaker 3: he was the most beloved figure in the Republican Party
Speaker 3: before Donald J.
Speaker 1: Trump.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I mean I sort of feel like though
Speaker 2: his mythology was almost more after the fact, though.
Speaker 3: In some part, I mean, he's still very popular and
Speaker 3: they left. I'm trying to actually, Okay, let's put it
Speaker 3: this way.
Speaker 1: FDR.
Speaker 3: FDR is probably the most analogous example. Or JFK is
Speaker 3: another one where you know, even after he died in
Speaker 3: the nineteen eighties, he'd walk into a Boston coffee shop
Speaker 3: or something, there'd be a picture of JFK up there
Speaker 3: with the Saint Metal or.
Speaker 1: Something like that. That's that's a cult, Okay. I mean
Speaker 1: he was a market too, is fair? Yeah, JK amongst Catholic.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying that type of stuff is I wouldn't
Speaker 3: say normal, but you know, it rhymes throughout American history.
Speaker 3: But that's not enough to win elections. To win elections,
Speaker 3: you still have to appeal to a broad enough, you
Speaker 3: know base. This is probably a good segue to our
Speaker 3: Nelk Boys segment, because that is a watershed cultural moment
Speaker 3: for the future of the country and for a lot
Speaker 3: of these people who did vote for Donald Trump, putting
Speaker 3: NELK the guys out of it.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about young people.
Speaker 3: Remember young men specifically broke hard for Trump in the
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four election.
Speaker 1: Now will they come out to vote again?
Speaker 3: Nobody knows, all right, I think so, especially people, especially
Speaker 3: age that gain some you know, grasp in society. They
Speaker 3: start to and I think this NLK boy's moment is
Speaker 3: a very important one for I think both in the
Speaker 3: Israel conversation, but really politically and media wise as well.
Speaker 3: So it's been let's transition here. Now the NELK boys
Speaker 3: continue to talk both about the details of their interview
Speaker 3: with Bibing Yahoo, but more importantly the incredible amount of
Speaker 3: remorse that they show that they have never done before.
Speaker 1: Remember, these guys have had on Trump. They had Trump
Speaker 1: on in twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: I remember when their episode got taken down after he
Speaker 3: was talking about, you know, the stolen election or whatever
Speaker 3: they had on canvas. They've had, They've had on all
Speaker 3: the most controversial people. They've never apologized. And yet this
Speaker 3: time the level of freak out from their own audience
Speaker 3: and within their own cohort is such that they are
Speaker 3: doing public Maya culpas. Here we have Kyle from the
Speaker 3: Milk Boys basically not only expressing remorse, but saying he
Speaker 3: would have changed everything about the way.
Speaker 1: That he did his interview with Beebie. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 6: I wish we could go back in time and fucking
Speaker 6: grill him a thousand times harder. And we just went
Speaker 6: in there fucking unequipped to fucking interview him. We have
Speaker 6: a lot of Muslim friends. We fucking we've been to
Speaker 6: fucking Dagistan. We all know what's in our hearts. We
Speaker 6: don't hate anybody. We're not taking sides in this shit.
Speaker 6: We love everybody. I'm sleeping great because I know how
Speaker 6: I actually feel on the inside. So and I know
Speaker 6: a lot of you guys are fucking and this is
Speaker 6: not an apology.
Speaker 5: This is just.
Speaker 9: We fucking walked in.
Speaker 6: There and we weren't fucking ready for it, man, and
Speaker 6: we were just we walked in there uneducated, and I
Speaker 6: can admit that.
Speaker 9: But life goes on.
Speaker 6: There's nothing you could do.
Speaker 1: It's an apology.
Speaker 4: He's sleeping great. You can tell barely even thinking about.
Speaker 3: That, you're thinking, I mean, in some ways I'm saying,
Speaker 3: you know, I'm like, look, you got a bunch of
Speaker 3: prank frat d jen morons who were walking in there.
Speaker 1: And they didn't know what they're doing, but they haven't enough.
Speaker 4: Okay, these are thirty year old men.
Speaker 9: Yeah, okay.
Speaker 2: This is the other thing, is the like infantilizing even
Speaker 2: like that. No, maybe we're right, I know that's how
Speaker 2: that's their name or whatever, but like you're a grown
Speaker 2: ass man, yes, and people warned you. You knew going
Speaker 2: in that's fair, and you didn't do like a day
Speaker 2: of research, Like you didn't do five minutes of research
Speaker 2: into Oh here's what he's gonna say and here's actually
Speaker 2: what all the organizations say about whether or not they're
Speaker 2: starving Palestinians. Oh look, here's a picture of a dead
Speaker 2: baby who's been starved today, and it's clearly amazing.
Speaker 4: You couldn't be bothered to do that.
Speaker 2: And the part where it's oh, i've been to dagistans
Speaker 2: like I mean, and then he's well, we don't take
Speaker 2: anybody's side still just in the you know.
Speaker 4: We'll just let people speak their truth.
Speaker 2: You just it's I think it's important because this is
Speaker 2: the logical conclusion of the idea that you just platform anyone.
Speaker 2: And this is not like against platforming people, but that
Speaker 2: you just have anyone on and just let them spin
Speaker 2: some bullshit and let them use your platform for their
Speaker 2: own ends. And the heartening part about it is that
Speaker 2: their audience was not having it like that is actually heartening,
Speaker 2: but it's still displays that this approach is completely morally bankrupt.
Speaker 2: And I don't care that you're gonna have quote unquote
Speaker 2: the other side on. Like you had the biggest monster
Speaker 2: on the planet on your podcast and asked him about
Speaker 2: Burger King and McDonald.
Speaker 1: No, that was the only time that they pushed back.
Speaker 4: Crysal was on Burger King exactly. I mean, it's just
Speaker 4: like unbelievable.
Speaker 3: And you know what, You're right at the end of
Speaker 3: the day, Kyle Signe. You guys are thirty years old,
Speaker 3: you have built businesses, you're multi millionaires.
Speaker 9: You're right.
Speaker 3: I shouldn't get I shouldn't excuse their idiot because they
Speaker 3: were also self aware enough where if you remember, because
Speaker 3: you watched the whole thing in the beginning, though.
Speaker 1: We're so not glorified to do this, bro, you know,
Speaker 1: like we shouldn't even be doing this.
Speaker 3: I can't believe it, right, and you're like, well, if
Speaker 3: you have the self awareness to be saying something like that,
Speaker 3: they're like, maybe you shouldn't be saying it. And in fact,
Speaker 3: the details are coming out of this make them look
Speaker 3: so bad. Here they are admitting that they got a
Speaker 3: script from the Israeli government when they walked into the room.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 6: So we walked in and there was just like twenty
Speaker 6: people in suits there. Yeah, the setup was already there,
Speaker 6: the like both flags. We couldn't touch anything or move anything, and.
Speaker 1: They don't give you any restrictions like don't ask this.
Speaker 1: I'll be honest.
Speaker 6: They gave us a paper with questions to ask, but
Speaker 6: they also said you like they kind of you know,
Speaker 6: they gave us a script to ask, but we didn't
Speaker 6: really follow it. We tried our very best to ask
Speaker 6: some questions, but I think I liked the questions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so we tried our pet but we had this script. Now, look,
Speaker 3: I will defend them in a certain respect. I have
Speaker 3: interviewed Trump on multiple occasions where the White House will
Speaker 3: hand me it's ridiculous, literally looks like it's from Microsoft paint,
Speaker 3: and it'll be like Trump accomplishments.
Speaker 1: And it's like a single space document of all of
Speaker 1: this stuff. You're just like, oh, thank you.
Speaker 3: And you just you know, put it off or whatever
Speaker 3: to the side. But you know, I was prepared. I
Speaker 3: had a list of questions that actually wanted to ask.
Speaker 3: And it's like, brother, I don't think.
Speaker 1: You asked the questions that you wanted to ask.
Speaker 9: And that's the problem.
Speaker 4: It's not like it's not like he was like, yeah,
Speaker 4: they gave us a script in the trash.
Speaker 1: We had no He's like, well, we we didn't like yeah.
Speaker 3: And it also gets to the preconditions, right, so when
Speaker 3: you walk in there, so for example, they're like, oh,
Speaker 3: we weren't allowed to touch anything.
Speaker 1: Everything was set up. There's twenty guys in the room.
Speaker 3: It basically sounds like what happened is that the Israeli
Speaker 3: and White House set this The Israeli government and the
Speaker 3: White House set this interview up. Yeah, they were like, sure,
Speaker 3: no problem. They didn't give any conditions. They didn't ask
Speaker 3: for the ability to ask.
Speaker 1: For whatever they want.
Speaker 3: Apparently, you know, the whole set is there. By the way,
Speaker 3: why they're twenty people in the room. That's fucking crazy.
Speaker 3: I would never agree to an interview like that, it's
Speaker 3: insane to have all these people in there. They didn't
Speaker 3: exert any of like the interviewer's prerogative in my opinion. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and then you put all that together now with what
Speaker 3: we're about to show you, which is that they were
Speaker 3: basically used as useful idiots here by the White House.
Speaker 3: This was revealed when Hassan started talking with the Nelk
Speaker 3: boys about the exact circumstances.
Speaker 1: And here's what they had to say.
Speaker 9: All right, so you guys interviewed the.
Speaker 11: Incarnate Benjamin in Yahoo and now everybody's yelling at you guys.
Speaker 9: Okay, So, first and foremost, who the fuck set that up?
Speaker 12: Some communications team at the White House hit us up,
Speaker 12: connected us with communications team, and presented us the opportunity
Speaker 12: to do it, but with the full time podcast Hater
Speaker 12: to Love It right or wrong. If we ever get
Speaker 12: the opportunity to have a controversial guest on, we're never
Speaker 12: going to turn it down because, in my opinion, what
Speaker 12: we want to do with a full time podcast on
Speaker 12: is we're not afraid to have controversial people on. We're
Speaker 12: gonna ask some questions. Sure, we're probably not the best
Speaker 12: at asking questions. We're not the best journalists never claimed
Speaker 12: to be, so we might not be the best at
Speaker 12: pressing them. But in my opinion, it's it's up to
Speaker 12: the viewer to form their own educated opinion. Just because
Speaker 12: we have someone on, we're sitting beside someone, people are
Speaker 12: gonna be like, oh my god, noaks with them, Like
Speaker 12: I love this person.
Speaker 11: My question is do you feel like there is a
Speaker 11: culpability that you have because like, look, Donald Trump is
Speaker 11: a contentious figure, and obviously he's responsible for a metric
Speaker 11: ton of pain and violence as well, but so was
Speaker 11: every other American president.
Speaker 9: That's one thing.
Speaker 11: But Benjamin Nyaho is like unique in the sense that
Speaker 11: he's also a foreign leader because he's getting something out
Speaker 11: of this, right, he's getting something out of this where
Speaker 11: he gets to, I guess, like try and humanize himself.
Speaker 5: That's the thing.
Speaker 12: That's honest. We'll have anyone on, like next episode, we're
Speaker 12: going to have someone on with the complete opposite ideology.
Speaker 12: We're talking to a few different people and we want
Speaker 12: to choose the right person to kind of represent, you know,
Speaker 12: the opposite side.
Speaker 9: Okay, but is it just like a podcast, you know
Speaker 9: what I mean?
Speaker 11: Like he's literally the prime Minister that is a war
Speaker 11: criminal by the International Criminal Court.
Speaker 9: He's like literally branded as a war criminal.
Speaker 12: I think I think if you watch it though too,
Speaker 12: I think yes, I mean, I think being signing could
Speaker 12: have pressed them a little bit harder. But we did
Speaker 12: ask him, what is your response to when people say
Speaker 12: you're starving children in Gaza? Do you think October seventh
Speaker 12: could have been prevented? Are you trying to implement regime
Speaker 12: change in Iran? We definitely did ask him some questions
Speaker 12: that I think people wanted to go out.
Speaker 9: Okay, what did he What did he say? I mean,
Speaker 9: of course he said.
Speaker 12: He's for starving children in Gaza. He said that they
Speaker 12: bring the food in and Hamas steals it and then
Speaker 12: sells it.
Speaker 9: That's a lie.
Speaker 11: No human rights organization that works on the ground, from
Speaker 11: the UN to the World Food Program has ever agreed
Speaker 11: to the Israeli position that this is all Hamas stealing
Speaker 11: eight or whatever.
Speaker 3: And that that really is what gets to it is like,
Speaker 3: you know, just tossing things out without being prepared on
Speaker 3: the facts of it is actually worse because it means
Speaker 3: that you just get their response and and you know
Speaker 3: he gets It's not I actually think put it quite well.
Speaker 3: Trump again, It's one thing, but baby, in the prosecution
Speaker 3: of a war, it really is another. When the stakes
Speaker 3: are so high for millions of people, and people are dying.
Speaker 1: As a direct result.
Speaker 3: Every single minute of every hour of every day that
Speaker 3: this continues, the death toll goes exponential.
Speaker 1: That's another level, right, And I just come. I said
Speaker 1: this in our original thing.
Speaker 3: I was like, look, he doesn't sit with his own
Speaker 3: goddamn journalists in his country for a reason, because they
Speaker 3: would ask him.
Speaker 1: He only he only agrees to interview with the.
Speaker 3: Fucking Milk boys and Brett bay Or who are all
Speaker 3: going to glaze him about Iran. They don't even ask
Speaker 3: him anything sump to But you know, to the Fox
Speaker 3: point sit down with Trey Yings, my brother, go go
Speaker 3: sit down with Trey in your own damn country and
Speaker 3: see how that goes for you. It's not gonna go well,
Speaker 3: like for anybody even who has a quote, you know,
Speaker 3: neutral stance or whatever, who's prepared with information.
Speaker 1: And that's the part that just gets me so hard
Speaker 1: with this now thing.
Speaker 2: They said something, they say something else interesting there, which
Speaker 2: I think is very illustrative of their mindset. They're like,
Speaker 2: we'll have on any controversial figure, like they see him
Speaker 2: as in the same lane as like candae O Weathers
Speaker 2: or like you know, Nick Fuentes or whatever, like they
Speaker 2: see him in that same bucket. And I was watching
Speaker 2: arm Brown, who has a YouTube channels comedian, his take
Speaker 2: on this, and he was like, in their brains there
Speaker 2: were two types of people, people who get clicks and
Speaker 2: people who don't get clicks. And in their view was like, Oh,
Speaker 2: this is someone who it's like the ultimate example of
Speaker 2: content brain sure, and it's like, you know, I think
Speaker 2: I think either Adam Friedlin or Hassan Piker said this
Speaker 2: to them too. They're like, not everything is content, Like
Speaker 2: not everything is just about generating clicks and getting eyeballs
Speaker 2: and stoking some sort of controversy. So you're the center
Speaker 2: of attention, like some things actually matter. This man is
Speaker 2: doing a genocide right now, in real time, with the
Speaker 2: support of our government, and you are not equipped at all.
Speaker 2: You acknowledge you are not equipped at all to actually
Speaker 2: know what's going on and be able to ask him
Speaker 2: intelligent questions or even more importantly, ask intelligent follow ups
Speaker 2: when he lies to your face, as he did multiple times.
Speaker 2: And so I think That's what this comes down to,
Speaker 2: is like this incredibly a moral view of the world
Speaker 2: where it's just about like, who's going to get eyeballs
Speaker 2: to my channel. This will be hot, hot topic, this
Speaker 2: will get me attention, this will get eyeballs to my channel.
Speaker 2: Therefore I'm going to do it. I'll sit down with
Speaker 2: any controversial figure. That's what they say, as if this
Speaker 2: is just you know, some podcast or somebody like, you know,
Speaker 2: trying to sell some merch or sell a book or whatever.
Speaker 2: And not to say those things aren't consequential as well,
Speaker 2: but this is so different. This is on such a
Speaker 2: different scale, and so I hope that it's a cautionary
Speaker 2: tale because this did not go well for them. I mean,
Speaker 2: their own audience, their subcount has gone down somewhat, their
Speaker 2: own audience completely revolted against them. I haven't seen anyone
Speaker 2: come out and say I haven't even seen the Israeli
Speaker 2: Like they're humiliating, like, oh.
Speaker 3: This was great, and you guys they compared him to
Speaker 3: Adolf Hitler afterwards, in what world did that go well
Speaker 3: for you?
Speaker 8: Great?
Speaker 2: Like in their post in their post interview Spin, they're like, yeah,
Speaker 2: you're somebody wrote in and was like, yeah, you just
Speaker 2: interviewed modern day Adolf Hitler, and he's like, yeah, you
Speaker 2: kind of got a point there.
Speaker 4: So it's just no one is defending this.
Speaker 2: Let this be a cautionary tale of like, if you're
Speaker 2: going to play in these waters.
Speaker 4: Number one, you could bring someone in you could have
Speaker 4: as a condition for the interview.
Speaker 2: I need to have whoever it is that you trust
Speaker 2: that you think is insightful on this to ask them
Speaker 2: real questions. You know, I'm going to have this person
Speaker 2: in the room to I'll do it, but we're going
Speaker 2: to have this person.
Speaker 4: In the room too, or just don't do it.
Speaker 2: That would have been infinitely superior to this absolute mess
Speaker 2: for yourselves and for the world.
Speaker 3: I think it was a good turning point, though in
Speaker 3: the culture of I think it could be too. Let's
Speaker 3: put this final one up here. This is from Mike Sternovich.
Speaker 3: I actually thought it was very insightful. And what he
Speaker 3: says is the NLK boys, who were widely popular with Zoomers,
Speaker 3: far more than any political or MAGA influencer, had on Netsagna,
Speaker 3: who in their audience is furious nets on Ya, who
Speaker 3: is deeply hated.
Speaker 1: We are talking ninety ten hated more so than even
Speaker 1: I realized.
Speaker 3: He actually followed it up with if you spend time
Speaker 3: on Twitter, you would think it's like sixty forty and
Speaker 3: he's like, no, guys, it's ninety ten. And in fact,
Speaker 3: if you look at the like dislike ratio on the video,
Speaker 3: I mean, look to be fair, East can be brigaded.
Speaker 1: And all that, it's like somewhat you know, uh indicated.
Speaker 2: I dug deefens that comment section. I did not see
Speaker 2: a single positive comment.
Speaker 3: Here's not one thirty three thousand likes upvotes, one hundred
Speaker 3: and sixty eight thousand down. I mean that's insane, you know.
Speaker 3: Now again you can be brigaded from outside and all
Speaker 3: of that book.
Speaker 1: That's it speaks.
Speaker 3: It speaks to the point where there's not a single defense.
Speaker 3: In fact, every single person in their cohort either is
Speaker 3: ignoring it or condemning it, right, And that is really like,
Speaker 3: very very indicative to me. I also think it's a
Speaker 3: bat signal broadly to everybody on this issue, where like
Speaker 3: you said, it's not just content. It's really not even
Speaker 3: I hesitate to say ditch neutrality, but it's about confrontation,
Speaker 3: and it's really about holding facts like like holding people
Speaker 3: accountable for facts and really, if you're going to agree
Speaker 3: to it, to actually get into the nitty gritty and
Speaker 3: not allow some alighting lies.
Speaker 1: And that really was like the biggest problem with them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And this is what pisses me off to is
Speaker 2: because you and I have done many con confrontational interviews.
Speaker 2: Neither of us likes doing it. Doing it's not fun.
Speaker 2: You have to prepare a lot, it's uncomfortable. You know,
Speaker 2: there are some people out there who like enjoy the
Speaker 2: are the like debate broads, and they interest me.
Speaker 1: I use peers and all these peo by hate.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean I think.
Speaker 2: Glenn loves to get it and make it like there
Speaker 2: are people who are wired that way. Most people are
Speaker 2: not wired that way. I'm not wired that way. But
Speaker 2: when you have someone who's sitting in front of you,
Speaker 2: who aspires to power, has some position of prominence, it
Speaker 2: isn't a responsibility that you have to be prepared and
Speaker 2: to be uncomfortable if that's what the interview requires. And
Speaker 2: so this idea that it's somehow like noble and good
Speaker 2: to do none of that and just let people spout
Speaker 2: off whatever they want it actually pisses me off because
Speaker 2: it's a cowards and a lazy way out.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's not fun to have to do those things.
Speaker 2: I get it, but that is actually if you want
Speaker 2: to play in these fonds, if you want to swim
Speaker 2: in these waters.
Speaker 4: That is actually what is required. And you don't have
Speaker 4: to be an asshole about it.
Speaker 2: It doesn't have to be personal, but you need to
Speaker 2: come equipped with facts and replies and think about, Okay,
Speaker 2: here's what they're going to say, and here's how I'm
Speaker 2: going to follow up. You have to game all of
Speaker 2: that out in advance and be willing to sit in
Speaker 2: that discomfort and just do it anyway.
Speaker 3: So I agree, and that's why the Nelk guys would
Speaker 3: be better off not doing it, and they would have
Speaker 3: been off passing. And by the way, the fact that
Speaker 3: the Israelis would only agree to Nelk and not to
Speaker 3: anybody else.
Speaker 1: I mean, he tells you something, right, Yeah, it really does.
Speaker 3: Like, honestly, I'm being serious, this will sound crazy to say,
Speaker 3: even like a pro Zionist political person might have actually
Speaker 3: done a better job because they are going to be
Speaker 3: equipped with some or they're going to know what to
Speaker 3: tee him up on and they're going to actually get
Speaker 3: him on the record for various things instead of generic
Speaker 3: stuff like what's up with all these people starve it
Speaker 3: in Gaza or.
Speaker 1: What did he say?
Speaker 3: He's like, why does everybody hate you? That's a stupid
Speaker 3: fucking question.
Speaker 2: He didn't even ask, like why are people starving? He said, yeah,
Speaker 2: why if people.
Speaker 1: Say yeah, that's right, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: And then Bibe could just go, oh, well, they're lying
Speaker 2: and we were love the Palestinians and we're trying to
Speaker 2: get them made and Hamas is stealing it. It's just
Speaker 2: like