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.
Speaker 2: Joining us now for a little friendly Epstein debate in
Speaker 2: front of the show. Michael Tracy independent journalist and you
Speaker 2: can check him out over at Mtracy dot Nett. Grace Caesar.
Speaker 4: Always a pleasure.
Speaker 1: Yeah see you, Michael.
Speaker 2: Absolutely so. I said this before, but I'm even though,
Speaker 2: like everybody knows, I'm more on soccer side on this,
Speaker 2: but I'm going to try my best to play the
Speaker 2: role as neutral moderator so we can have a one
Speaker 2: on one and you're not getting just like you know,
Speaker 2: teamed up on by both of us on this whole thing.
Speaker 2: But you recently wrote an article that takes apart some
Speaker 2: of what you described as the Epstein mythology. This is
Speaker 2: for Compact mag We can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2: The headline here is the idiocy of the Epstein mythology.
Speaker 2: And you've been very vocal on Twitter now x as
Speaker 2: well in taking part what you see as some of
Speaker 2: the more tenuous theories surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. So before we
Speaker 2: dive in, I just I want to sort of level
Speaker 2: set with you, Michael of like what do you think
Speaker 2: is going on with Trump right now? Like why is
Speaker 2: he acting the way that he is around Jeffrey Epstein?
Speaker 2: And you know, ran on releasing the files and now
Speaker 2: he's not going to release the files and there are
Speaker 2: no files and now yes there are files, but they
Speaker 2: were written by Obama and screw you. And I don't
Speaker 2: even want you to be a supporter if you believe
Speaker 2: any of this nonsense. What is your assessment of what
Speaker 2: is actually happening here?
Speaker 5: Well, there's no doubt that the Trump administration hasn't roiled
Speaker 5: itself in a pr fiasco of its own making.
Speaker 4: I would argue, you.
Speaker 5: Know, I slightly tongue in say at the end of
Speaker 5: that article. But I do think that there is a
Speaker 5: genuine trafficking conspiracy for people to get upset about. And
Speaker 5: it's that so many people in the Trump orbit trafficked
Speaker 5: and nonsense for the past several years, namely Cash Battel,
Speaker 5: Dan Bongino, et cetera, when they spent their time tantalizing
Speaker 5: their followers with these teases about how there was going
Speaker 5: to be some explosive revelation once the second Trump administration
Speaker 5: got in power and vanquished the deep state, and by
Speaker 5: natural extension of that, of course, the quote unquote Epstein
Speaker 5: files would be released, because it was the satanic, demonic
Speaker 5: Democrats who were for some reason covering up all the damning,
Speaker 5: damning information to protect their donors and friends and allies.
Speaker 5: Becausecrats in this Cash Patel, Dan Bongino, you know, Rumble Universe,
Speaker 5: Imagination are perpetually covering for pedophilic sex trafficking networks. And
Speaker 5: Trump was occasionally asked about this when he would go
Speaker 5: around on these ass kissing podcasts during the twenty twenty
Speaker 5: four campaign, and if you go back and look at
Speaker 5: what he said, he would often be a little bit
Speaker 5: equivocal or non committal. He would say, yeah, sure, maybe
Speaker 5: we'll look into releasing the Epstein files. But it wasn't
Speaker 5: as if Trump went around campaigning on this issue of
Speaker 5: his own volition. It's just that part of the twenty
Speaker 5: twenty four Republican campaign strategy, which I thought was very
Speaker 5: clever and effective, was to tailor a message to audiences
Speaker 5: who consume this kind of media, meaning the Joe Rogan
Speaker 5: Network and kind of related podcast that I would argue
Speaker 5: have conspiracism as a sort of habit of mind or
Speaker 5: kind of soft ideology. Not that they're wrong, but every
Speaker 5: conspiracy theory that they might believe in, but that's just
Speaker 5: sort of how they process information. It's like the epistemology.
Speaker 5: So these Republican campaigners had the tailor a message to
Speaker 5: these people, and Trump just kind of played along with it.
Speaker 5: And it was always I think, going to blow up
Speaker 5: in their faces once the rubber hit the road and
Speaker 5: they were pressed to actually make good on these promises.
Speaker 4: But Trump themself, so let me just really evaded the issue.
Speaker 2: Let me just let me just to be really clear
Speaker 2: where what your position is. I'll get Soger to respond,
Speaker 2: do you believe there's no they're there with regard to
Speaker 2: young girls being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Glene Maxwell
Speaker 2: to other powerful people, for example, But Clinton, potentially, Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: potentially Bill Gates and others. You think there's no there
Speaker 2: there with regard to those questions. And do you also
Speaker 2: believe there's no there there with regard to potential Intel connections,
Speaker 2: whether it's CIA or Masad.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So let me try to spell this out pretty carefully.
Speaker 5: I tried to differentiate between what I've been referring to
Speaker 5: as Epstein mythology versus the actual factual record when it
Speaker 5: comes to Epstein. In the realm of mythology, there exists
Speaker 5: this belief and correct me if you guys think I'm wrong.
Speaker 5: There exists this widespread belief that a pedophilic sex trafficking
Speaker 5: ring has been systematically covered up, and that Jeffrey Eperstein
Speaker 5: orchestrated this pedophilic sex trafficking ring by trafficking minors to
Speaker 5: prominent third party individuals and then conducted a blackmail operation
Speaker 5: to coerce those individuals into silence or complicity or something.
Speaker 5: And the idea was that previously the Biden administration was
Speaker 5: maliciously covering up this information again to protect the likes
Speaker 5: of Bill Clinton or Bill Gates, et cetera.
Speaker 4: But now the idea is shockingly to.
Speaker 5: The MAGA base or the MAGA social media influencers anyway,
Speaker 5: which I'm not sure is totally synonymous with the base,
Speaker 5: but that's sort of another issue.
Speaker 4: Now, to their.
Speaker 5: Absolute shock, Donald Trump is apparently engaging in this very
Speaker 5: same cover up. I would argue that the factual predicate
Speaker 5: for that assumption, which I think you guys will agree,
Speaker 5: is extremely widespread.
Speaker 4: That's why people were so insensive about this issue.
Speaker 5: The factual predicate for that is not well established at all,
Speaker 5: or not nearly as established as you would think, given
Speaker 5: the confidence with which people assert the existence of that
Speaker 5: thing that there're so certain exists.
Speaker 4: Okay, all right, let's go on the intel thing.
Speaker 2: Let's go and get sobeign and then we'll come back
Speaker 2: and it can dig more specifically to.
Speaker 3: Michael, First of all, I would point out that part
Speaker 3: of the reason that the quote unquote factual predicate doesn't
Speaker 3: exist for what you're talking about is actually in existence.
Speaker 3: In my opinion that if you look at the open
Speaker 3: source information for how so many of these prominent individuals
Speaker 3: dealt with Epstein, and then eventually the non prosecution agreement
Speaker 3: that was eventually signed by Alex Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein,
Speaker 3: and eventually, of course the Palm Beach County PD only
Speaker 3: bringing a case against him for solicitation of prostitution actually
Speaker 3: proves that part of the reason why a lot of
Speaker 3: this stuff doesn't exist in the quote unquote factual predicate
Speaker 3: and or DOJ documents is part of the reason why
Speaker 3: so much of this does not exist in a court basis, etc.
Speaker 3: If you actually look at the information. I mean, I
Speaker 3: think Leslie Wesner is perhaps the best example for proving
Speaker 3: what you were talking about, where we have a actual
Speaker 3: high prominent individual in the year nineteen ninety one, one
Speaker 3: of the only billionaires here in the United States of America,
Speaker 3: the richest man in Ohio, who gives power of attorney
Speaker 3: over jeff too Head aftery Epstein over his entire estate,
Speaker 3: transfers hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate
Speaker 3: over to him, to which Epstein then uses those properties,
Speaker 3: as you just pointed out in the factual predicate, as
Speaker 3: exists and points out in the Elaine Maxwell trial, which yes,
Speaker 3: is only about human trafficking between a young woman and
Speaker 3: Epstein himself as and he is the sole person who
Speaker 3: is victimizing these women that was on Wexner related properties.
Speaker 3: That's a pretty direct example of where nobody, including Wesner himself,
Speaker 3: has ever been able to give an example of how
Speaker 3: exactly you had this extraordinary situation of signing over power
Speaker 3: of attorney and in fact, Vicky Ward, James Stewart, the
Speaker 3: biographers who looked into the story say that many of
Speaker 3: the people around Wexner believe that it was a result
Speaker 3: of a blackmail operation. It's not that difficult to imagine
Speaker 3: that the founder of Victoria's Secret, which entails selling lingerie
Speaker 3: to teenage girls and surrounding yourselves with beautiful models and
Speaker 3: all of this, would be involved in some pretty sketchy
Speaker 3: behavior with a known pedophile of Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: So I think that's a pretty.
Speaker 3: Clear example tracing all the way back from nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 3: showing the ability to use and coerce behavior, perhaps blackmail
Speaker 3: and others, to enrich himself. And also, I mean, we
Speaker 3: can get into the intelligence case now in the future,
Speaker 3: but exactly why so many people I think rightfully can
Speaker 3: point in an example like that and say it's very
Speaker 3: clear if you look at that pattern that there is
Speaker 3: smoke there. Now, I agree this has not yet been proven,
Speaker 3: but I would actually argue that the reason that has
Speaker 3: not been proven is specifically to cover up the very
Speaker 3: type of behavior.
Speaker 5: Well that some people around wester may have believed, as
Speaker 5: you put it, that there was some potential explanation for
Speaker 5: Epstein's inheritance of this wealth that had to do with blackmail.
Speaker 5: Is not a proven factual predicate for anything.
Speaker 3: Well, nobody's saying that, but by that point we're not
Speaker 3: supposed to take any reporting. You know, at the end
Speaker 3: of the day, you have a multi billionaire who signs
Speaker 3: over power of attorney for his entire estate and hundreds
Speaker 3: of millions of dollars in real estate, and it's because
Speaker 3: he thought he was a money genius that shore.
Speaker 4: I acknowledge.
Speaker 5: I acknowledge that there are aspects to this story that
Speaker 5: are non mythological in the sense that they really do
Speaker 5: raise questions about the mystery surrounding how he garnered his wealth.
Speaker 4: And so forth.
Speaker 5: But let me give one example that I don't think
Speaker 5: has adequately penetrated the popular consciousness nor has it been
Speaker 5: adequately covered on alternative media, maybe including this very show.
Speaker 5: Virginia Gouffrey, who I think you'll agree if you've studied
Speaker 5: this case, which I assume that you have, is the
Speaker 5: central figure who spawned the widespread belief that there had
Speaker 5: to have been this pedophilic sex trafficking network, because in
Speaker 5: late twenty fourteen, she issued a court filing in which
Speaker 5: she alleged that she had been sex trafficked to a
Speaker 5: myriad of prominent third party individuals like Prince Andrew, like
Speaker 5: the former majority leader of the United States Senate George Mitchell,
Speaker 5: like the former governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, and
Speaker 5: other people. And then she also made a categorical claim
Speaker 5: that she had been trafficked to like unnamed prime ministers
Speaker 5: and other people of prominence around the world.
Speaker 4: That's what really spawned it.
Speaker 5: And I just don't think it's disputable that Virginia Gouffrey
Speaker 5: was a serial fabulist.
Speaker 4: I know people don't want to hear that.
Speaker 5: I know whenever I've commented on this subject anywhere on
Speaker 5: the Internet, ninety five percent of the comment sections are
Speaker 5: against me, and they think that I'm covering up for
Speaker 5: pedophiles or something, as though I love pedophilia and that's
Speaker 5: why I'm making this argument.
Speaker 4: That's not the case.
Speaker 5: Virginia Goufrey, per the factual record, was a serial fabuloust.
Speaker 5: I'm sure you know, Sagar, that she accused Alan Dershowitz, Yes,
Speaker 5: I do, having been one of the third party individuals
Speaker 5: to whom she was traffick. She made this accusation adamantly
Speaker 5: under the cover of the litigation privilege for nearly a decade.
Speaker 5: Then by twenty twenty two, because Dershowitz actually had the
Speaker 5: resources and the motivation to pursue this charge against him,
Speaker 5: or to dispute it to the point of a settlement,
Speaker 5: she then had to retract and recant this signature claim
Speaker 5: that she had been making for ten years. Almost that
Speaker 5: very much animated the media coverage around this issue. She
Speaker 5: withdrew it, she totally obliterated her own credibility, and then,
Speaker 5: sure enough, in the g Islaine Maxwell trial of twenty
Speaker 5: twenty one, she was not even called as a witness
Speaker 5: by the prosecution because she would have been a nightmare
Speaker 5: under cross examination because so many of the things, the
Speaker 5: most salacious claims that she made around this story just
Speaker 5: do not stand up to basic scrutiny. You could even
Speaker 5: find examples of her signing on to like literal hoaxes
Speaker 5: in terms of these creeps who came out the woodwork
Speaker 5: claiming that they had the video footage of illicit sexual
Speaker 5: activity in Epstein's properties. And then Goufrey's own attorneys, David Boyce,
Speaker 5: who by the way, made a killing on this whole issue.
Speaker 4: That's another thing we could get into.
Speaker 5: How you know, basically the Epstein matter had has subsidized, uh,
Speaker 5: the South Florida bar and all these feeding frenzy lawyers
Speaker 5: who have made a killing.
Speaker 3: But the other way, Michael, But yeah, yeah, it goes
Speaker 3: both ways.
Speaker 5: But the defense attorneys concocted a whole strategy whereby they
Speaker 5: would extract enormous payouts for themselves.
Speaker 4: Gives the toxicity of the.
Speaker 1: Victim.
Speaker 5: Last point, last point, Virginia Goufrey made millions of dollars.
Speaker 5: She was she had a life of luxury as a
Speaker 5: result of her deciding to become this professional victim that
Speaker 5: was her full time job.
Speaker 4: She launched a scam. Ng O, I thought the right
Speaker 4: was supposed.
Speaker 1: To be doing right now, mind, do you know how
Speaker 1: it ended up?
Speaker 3: That she ceased because her life and because she was
Speaker 3: a very troubled individual. It's not deniable she's pictured there
Speaker 3: with Prince Andrew, but to paint it only as a
Speaker 3: Virginia Goufrey is one of the only people that is
Speaker 3: saying this is just not accurate.
Speaker 1: Part of the reason.
Speaker 3: Why he was absolutely integral to the coverage, and largely
Speaker 3: it is because of the photo, which you're not going
Speaker 3: to deny, I hope, of her picture with Prince Andrew,
Speaker 3: which is literally.
Speaker 1: What got him removed from his.
Speaker 3: Public duties, as from his public duties as a member
Speaker 3: of the British Royal family. Clearly they believe, at least
Speaker 3: in some part, that Prince Andrew was involved in some
Speaker 3: pretty sketchy behavior. There was his relationship with Epstein. But
Speaker 3: even let's step back.
Speaker 5: Further, the Royal family was coerced through the tsunami of
Speaker 5: horrible pr that they were subject to.
Speaker 3: Hanging out with the convicted sex offender and in this
Speaker 3: case with a seventeen year old girl with his arm
Speaker 3: around here. That's not acceptable behavior, not just.
Speaker 1: For a British role family.
Speaker 5: He wasn't a convicted sex defender at the time that
Speaker 5: photo was taken.
Speaker 3: You're right, he's just his routine to be hanging out
Speaker 3: with seventeen year old women and to take photos of that.
Speaker 5: Was he a convicted sex offender at the time, that the.
Speaker 1: Photoportunity to check the date on what it is.
Speaker 4: But he wasn't.
Speaker 5: He was taken reportedly in two thousand again he was
Speaker 5: not a convicted sex.
Speaker 3: Fer, saying that in that case that Prince Andrew, the
Speaker 3: member of the British role family, was did not have
Speaker 3: access to the global elite in which people like Donald
Speaker 3: Trump could say on the record in two thousand and
Speaker 3: two before Jeffrey Epstein is convicted as a sex offender,
Speaker 3: in which he can say, Jeffrey, he likes him young,
Speaker 3: and which is an open secret literally among the jet
Speaker 3: set class that this type of behavior is acceptable to
Speaker 3: Harvey Weinstein and to everybody else. This is this is
Speaker 3: open out from vanity fair reporting from from a quote
Speaker 3: from Donald Trump himself, that's our current president.
Speaker 1: But beyond that it is an o'.
Speaker 5: Donald Trump said that Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epson is a
Speaker 5: great guy, and he tends to.
Speaker 4: Like the company of women.
Speaker 1: He likes.
Speaker 5: It does not prove that Donald Trump is a sex offender.
Speaker 1: No, I didn't say that, it's he proves prove.
Speaker 3: What I'm saying is that it's open knowledge that Epstein
Speaker 3: routinely is seen and is pictured with young women at
Speaker 3: that time. By the way, and let's continue this, and
Speaker 3: this is why so was Donald Trump pegging this entirely
Speaker 3: on Virginia Grufrey again is not accurate, and I think
Speaker 3: it what.
Speaker 4: Is largely I mean, she's the one who is.
Speaker 1: Not because again, the photo of her with any of these.
Speaker 4: Netlix documentaries.
Speaker 5: Center they because she was, they never ever qualify any
Speaker 5: of their coverage by noting that she has a proven,
Speaker 5: demonstrable record of serial fabulousm.
Speaker 4: Okay, did you can see that she's a serial fabulous?
Speaker 3: I would concede that she was a troubled individual who
Speaker 3: clearly as serial fabulous from the way that her attorneys
Speaker 3: and others have acknowledged that she did make up some facts.
Speaker 1: And I do think I'm not relying all of this
Speaker 1: on Virginia Gufray. That's my point.
Speaker 3: I have a much broader I have a much broader
Speaker 3: amount of evidence to point and this is all where
Speaker 3: I think it kind of you.
Speaker 5: Don't think conceding that the most high profile accuser who
Speaker 5: was integral in the claim of a sex trafficking ring
Speaker 5: insofar as her claim was that she was sex trafficked
Speaker 5: to prominent third party individuals. I'm not contesting that Epstein
Speaker 5: himself was a sexual predator. I mean, he's on the
Speaker 5: record saying that he rejects that there should be any
Speaker 5: kind of taboo against you know, post pubescans women of
Speaker 5: any age or girls of any age being accessible to
Speaker 5: men for impregnation. I mean, he had bizarre and creepy
Speaker 5: and depraved beliefs around sexual relations with minors.
Speaker 4: I'm not contesting that. I'm contesting this third party sex trafficking.
Speaker 5: Ring that forms the basiness of why people are so
Speaker 5: outraged now about something purportedly being covered up and all
Speaker 5: these elites getting away with things.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you a question about this, Michael, how
Speaker 2: do you explain the deal he was able to cut
Speaker 2: down in Florida with Alexicostu goes on to be Trump's
Speaker 2: labor secretary, who was US attorney at the time, which
Speaker 2: led to him serving I believe thirteen minutes in a
Speaker 2: county jail with the jail cell was open where he
Speaker 2: was able to go to his office for twelve hours
Speaker 2: a day. Afterwards he's released. There's significant reporting that indicates
Speaker 2: after he was supposed to be on home confinement, he's
Speaker 2: flying around, He's doing what he wants to do. That
Speaker 2: deal was so sort of outlandish that actually a judge
Speaker 2: came in and said, you violated the rights of victims.
Speaker 2: This deal was actually technically illegal, And not only did
Speaker 2: it provide for very cushy deal and very low level
Speaker 2: charge ultimately for Jeffrey Epstein, it also indicated that none
Speaker 2: of his potential co conspirators could be charged whatsoever. So
Speaker 2: how do you explain this person getting such an incredibly
Speaker 2: cushy deal at that point, and a deal again that
Speaker 2: allows any even theoretical co conspirators off the hook, which
Speaker 2: is it's so extraordinary the even glean Maxwell now is
Speaker 2: appealing to the Supreme Court saying, hey, I should have
Speaker 2: been part of that deal. What am I in prison
Speaker 2: four since you the government said no co conspirators could
Speaker 2: have ever been in you know, in diet or found
Speaker 2: guilty of anything.
Speaker 5: I'm just not sure why people think it's such a
Speaker 5: profound mystery that a wealthy individual, whatever the source of
Speaker 5: his wealth, and I agree that if possible, a more
Speaker 5: forensic audit should be done of how he acquired his wealth,
Speaker 5: But obviously he had the means to hire a dream
Speaker 5: team of lawyers to come and negotiate with the government
Speaker 5: on his behalf. He brought in Alan Dershowitz, who had
Speaker 5: just participated in securing an acquittal for O. J.
Speaker 4: Simpson.
Speaker 5: He brought in Ken Starr to make a federalism argument
Speaker 5: to federal prosecutors, arguing that the offenses for which Epstein
Speaker 5: was accused were fundamentally state level crimes and did not
Speaker 5: enter the purview of federal prosecutors on that ground because
Speaker 5: as the federal prosecutors couldn't establish that there was trafficking
Speaker 5: across state lines or some other element that would place
Speaker 5: the crime in their purview. Were these technical arguments, sure,
Speaker 5: But you know, if you want to make this a
Speaker 5: scandal about wealthy people having access to powerful lawyers who
Speaker 5: can maybe get them a more lenient non prosecution agreement
Speaker 5: than the average person would have access to, I'd be
Speaker 5: all on board with that. But it seems that people
Speaker 5: just immediately launch into the explanation that he must have
Speaker 5: been some kind of intelligence asset or agent, and just
Speaker 5: to touch on that for a moment, you know, Sager,
Speaker 5: I'm not trying.
Speaker 4: I wouldn't. I'm not trying to personally attack you. I
Speaker 4: happened to see. I happened.
Speaker 5: I saw a clip going around last week of you
Speaker 5: on Tucker's Show in which you asserted that, Okay, maybe.
Speaker 4: You corrected it, but I'm just right. But a lot
Speaker 4: of people have repeated this quote.
Speaker 5: That derives from a twenty nineteen Vicky Ward article in
Speaker 5: which she's quoting or she's attributing, this quote from alex
Speaker 5: Acosta from several years before twenty nineteen, when he's in
Speaker 5: a meeting with Trump transition officials and according to Vicky Ward,
Speaker 5: a former Trump senior Trump administration official, which sounds a
Speaker 5: lot like Steve Bannon's blowing smoke. We don't know that
Speaker 5: with one hundred percent certainty. By the way, why is
Speaker 5: Steve Bannon sitting on sixteen hours of rawut okay okay?
Speaker 5: And why was he strategizing with Epstein about how he
Speaker 5: could present himself for a media interview with sixty minutes.
Speaker 4: But anyway, that will leave that aside for the moment.
Speaker 5: But that quote, with a sense, it's like the definition
Speaker 5: of hearsay, and yet it got characterized as an on
Speaker 5: record like declaratory statement from Acosta of him just asserting
Speaker 5: that he had been warned that Epstein belonged to intelligence
Speaker 5: pursue it to the two thousand and seven non prosecution
Speaker 5: agreement and therefore he should back off.
Speaker 4: That's not what that quote signified.
Speaker 5: And actually, several years later, post twenty eighteen, when the
Speaker 5: Miami Herald series brief new life into the story harnessing
Speaker 5: the power of me Too, which by the way, I
Speaker 5: thought the right was mostly skeptical of. Instead on this
Speaker 5: issue and in like select circumstances, we hear the rights
Speaker 5: saying believe women, we have to honor all survivors. We
Speaker 5: can't use any critical scrutiny of their claims. But after
Speaker 5: the me Too energy bolstered this story, the DOJ, the
Speaker 5: DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility conducted a review of the
Speaker 5: two thousand and seven two thousand and eight non prosecution
Speaker 5: agreement and alis Acosta did directly address this claim that
Speaker 5: he had once potentially asserted that Epstein belonged to intelligence
Speaker 5: and that's why a supposedly more lenient deal was given
Speaker 5: and Alex Acosta did deny it on the record. Now
Speaker 5: in terms of the leniency of that deal, listen to
Speaker 5: what Dershowitz has to say. I'm not saying I agree
Speaker 5: with Alan Dershowitz on everything. In fact, I strongly disagree
Speaker 5: with him on the issue of Israel.
Speaker 4: It's odd to me that every critic of.
Speaker 5: Israel now has to feel that they have to be
Speaker 5: wedded to this particular issue because their criticism of Israel
Speaker 5: is bolstered by the idea that the reason that Israel
Speaker 5: is so widely supported among power structures is because there's
Speaker 5: a pervasive sexual blackmail network. I think that kind of
Speaker 5: makes critics of Israel look rather stupid. But Dershowitz says
Speaker 5: that Epstein fired him and refused to pay his legal
Speaker 5: fees because Epstein felt that he did not get a
Speaker 5: lenient deal. He felt that the prostitution charges, state level
Speaker 5: prostitutions and charges in Florida that he was required to
Speaker 5: plead guilty to were actually overly onerous and he should not.
Speaker 4: Have had to be subject to any kind of.
Speaker 1: Over whether they were actually let me act, Michael.
Speaker 3: The idea that this was because of me too is
Speaker 3: complete bullshit. The reason why the energy of the US
Speaker 3: district court judge ruled that the non prosecution agreement violated
Speaker 3: the rights of the victims who were not informed of
Speaker 3: the non prosecution agreement, which you're portraying as standard operating
Speaker 3: procedure for some sort of rich person.
Speaker 1: That is just absolutely not.
Speaker 4: Jammy Harold's series came out.
Speaker 3: I agree it came out to REGATROM eighteen, but it
Speaker 3: was a twelve year period in which the victims himself
Speaker 3: were not informed of the situation sued under their rights
Speaker 3: under the I believe it's like the crime the crime.
Speaker 1: I don't exactly Brown.
Speaker 4: Tina Brown, who have covered this issue very much.
Speaker 3: I'm saying is that the district court judge is the
Speaker 3: person who who overturned the NPA, which is the reason
Speaker 3: why now perhaps some of the motivations of perhaps coming
Speaker 3: back for your rights.
Speaker 1: It is indisputable that the.
Speaker 3: Rights of the victims were violated under that non prosecution
Speaker 3: agreement number one. As you just pointed out in that
Speaker 3: OPR review, they said that a cost to himself exercised
Speaker 3: what poor judgment whenever he came to that.
Speaker 1: Now, let's addressgen Yeah, but.
Speaker 3: Let's address that intelligent. First of all, the transcript of
Speaker 3: that has never been made public. And the way that
Speaker 3: it was phrased specifically around OPR and when they asked
Speaker 3: him about intelligence was he said absolutely not. I did
Speaker 3: not have information that he was an intelligence asset. The
Speaker 3: way that that question, as you and I know, asked,
Speaker 3: is pretty damn specific.
Speaker 1: Now let's talk about Israel as we know. And no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: it was much more.
Speaker 4: It was much more. It was much more.
Speaker 1: Did you look at that out? Yes? I did.
Speaker 3: I looked at both the footnote where he said I
Speaker 3: was allowed to address it in a classified saturd he
Speaker 3: said absolutely not. When asked specifically whether he belonged to intelligence.
Speaker 5: He says, Now he was asked whether he had knowledge
Speaker 5: of Epstein being a quote, intelligence asset. Yes, Bossa stated
Speaker 5: the OPR that quote. The answer is no. I'm not
Speaker 5: sure how much the more direct he could have been.
Speaker 3: The answer is Look, I mean, I'm trying to be
Speaker 3: very specific here. I believe that the way that that
Speaker 3: question is asked in the transcript and the circumstance are very.
Speaker 4: Important front of me.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: But but that's my point though, is that even if
Speaker 3: you're quote he belonged to intelligence and I was told
Speaker 3: to leave it alone.
Speaker 1: Is not direct knowledge.
Speaker 3: These are classic non denial denials, and in his twenty
Speaker 3: nineteen press conference he did not actually address it whenever
Speaker 3: he was asked on the record publicly. It's only in
Speaker 3: this OPR review that he later on comes back to it.
Speaker 3: I don't think you're going to deny in twenty nineteen
Speaker 3: that he did not leave the door open to the
Speaker 3: fact that that report could have had some accuracy. He
Speaker 3: said something along the lines of I wouldn't believe everything
Speaker 3: you read, but it was a non denial denial. But
Speaker 3: at that time of that non prosecution agreement that you're
Speaker 3: talking about, Jeffrey Epstein, by verified report, is in Israel
Speaker 3: basically brought all of his assets over there, returns from
Speaker 3: Israel to Palm Beach in April of two thousand and eight.
Speaker 3: So that's the first, in my opinion, sketchy connection for
Speaker 3: why he is exactly granted this special status in Israel
Speaker 3: whenever he's fighting a pedophile prosecution in the United States
Speaker 3: of America.
Speaker 1: But let's just continue down that fact.
Speaker 3: And this is the part that I just don't understand
Speaker 3: for somebody who generally looks for links, why do you
Speaker 3: have the former Israeli Prime Minister ade Barack, flying on
Speaker 3: his plane multiple times, staying at his house for months
Speaker 3: on end, pictured when there were dirt women there holding
Speaker 3: a scarf in front of his face to Kaida his
Speaker 3: identity from the tabloids.
Speaker 1: Why is it that? What is it?
Speaker 3: JP Morgan in twenty eleven to rely on Epstein to
Speaker 3: broker meeting with Prime Minister net and Yahoo? Why is
Speaker 3: it that aud Olmayer and Simon Perez are both linked
Speaker 3: to Jeffrey Epstein. Aud Brock was asked, how did you
Speaker 3: meet Jeffrey Epstein? I did it via Shimon Perez. Aud
Speaker 3: Olmaher is named specifically by the US Virgin Islands as
Speaker 3: an Epstein associate. I mean, if we take that and
Speaker 3: then combine it here with Leslie Wexner, the fact that
Speaker 3: Jeffrey Epstein is on board of the Wexner Foundation and
Speaker 3: then pays aud Brock two point three million dollars to
Speaker 3: complete two reports, one of which he never finished, I
Speaker 3: can continue back further here we have Jeffrey Epstein involved
Speaker 3: in multiple sketchy arms transactions from the nineteen eighties. I mean,
Speaker 3: this is where I genuinely wonder, like if you're just
Speaker 3: trying to be a contrarian.
Speaker 1: Do you accept it as.
Speaker 3: A fact that Stephen Hoffenberg, Douglas Lease, and ad Non
Speaker 3: Koshogi Robert Maxwell, who by the way, is a known
Speaker 3: MOSAT agent, did not have connections with Jeffrey Epstein in
Speaker 3: which it looks like with a source of his wealth
Speaker 3: was used as cutouts for use by the US intelligence
Speaker 3: or the US and Israel intelligence community. The four individuals
Speaker 3: who I just named are known and linked to multiple
Speaker 3: sketchy arms deals from the nineteen eighties Kaushogi, Robert Maxwell,
Speaker 3: Douglas Lease, Stephen Hoffenberg. They've given on the record statements
Speaker 3: about their relationship with Epstein. At one point, Epstein is
Speaker 3: flying on a private jet with Douglas Lease in the
Speaker 3: nineteen eighties when he's just twenty eight years old. I mean,
Speaker 3: I don't know how you can't look at that, specifically
Speaker 3: hear about the money, even ignore the sex trafficking, and
Speaker 3: not saying that he did not have connections here to
Speaker 3: intelligence or at the very least for cutouts and use
Speaker 3: as an intelligence asset in the past. I genuinely do
Speaker 3: not know how you cannot look at that and specifically
Speaker 3: where the source of his wealth is complete bullshit. He
Speaker 3: starts a firm in nineteen eighty eight Jay Epstein in Associates,
Speaker 3: where he says, I only take on people with a
Speaker 3: billion dollars. There are only one hundred and forty one
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty people in the country or in the
Speaker 3: world at that time who have a billion dollars under management.
Speaker 3: He's never been a registered money manager, he has no
Speaker 3: proven tax record. He called himself a coot high level
Speaker 3: bounty hunter when he forms an international assets group. In
Speaker 3: what way does this not look suspicious for everything that
Speaker 3: I have just laid out there in the highest level.
Speaker 5: I totally get I don't know what we're doing around
Speaker 5: this issue.
Speaker 4: But if you come out and.
Speaker 3: Say, fact, yeah he was Mosad, That's not how it works, Michael.
Speaker 3: The CIA doesn't come out and say, yeah, we killed Kennedy.
Speaker 3: We connect all of the dots. I mean, do you
Speaker 3: believe then the official Warren What you're saying is that
Speaker 3: because the Warren Commission said that the magic bullet theory
Speaker 3: is true.
Speaker 5: So now we're going to go with you a detour
Speaker 5: into the Warren Commission. But what I mean you're saying, well,
Speaker 5: that's discuss this issue. But that's a fact like one
Speaker 5: coherent training, that's a factual.
Speaker 4: The War Commission that.
Speaker 5: The primary Epstein accuser is a serial fabri.
Speaker 3: By the way, by the way, there are two other
Speaker 3: individuals who had named her name, Prince Andrew Johanna Schobert,
Speaker 3: and I need to find her name who's.
Speaker 2: Been named here a Let me ahead and get that
Speaker 2: is the case in particular? You know it, sober lay
Speaker 2: down the connections with what four different Israeli or is
Speaker 2: really prime prime ministers? You know, how do you how
Speaker 2: do you assimilate that information?
Speaker 1: What's your response to that?
Speaker 4: Sure?
Speaker 5: First of all, I have to just address the idea
Speaker 5: that I'm just being arbitrarily contrarian. I can't tell you
Speaker 5: how many issues I've received that accusation on over the years.
Speaker 5: Whether it was the Trump Russia story which contained conspiratorial
Speaker 5: elements where I was accused of being a contrarian, whether
Speaker 5: it was the twenty twenty George Floyd riots, which I
Speaker 5: went around and critically covered the poor media coverage of
Speaker 5: I was widely denounced for being a contrarian.
Speaker 4: I'll give you all the evidence. Whether it was the war.
Speaker 5: In Ukraine, This just happens to be an issue where people,
Speaker 5: I guess more on the right now think I'm being
Speaker 5: a contrarian, and so they're particularly in range.
Speaker 1: I shouldn't, I should not have impened your motives.
Speaker 5: But god, okay, yeah, well so, I just don't believe
Speaker 5: it's not contrarianism to critically cover how media narratives can
Speaker 5: ngeal in the absence of what I think to be
Speaker 5: a reliable factual basis, and.
Speaker 2: People believe me linked up with all these I mean,
Speaker 2: you had Dave.
Speaker 5: Smith, who I think you guys have had on to
Speaker 5: discuss this, or you had on a regular guest who
Speaker 5: was at the Talking Points conference and accused Donald Trump
Speaker 5: of covering up a child sex trafficking or child rapering.
Speaker 5: I mean, soccer, do you think that that was a
Speaker 5: credible statement. I simply don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, so again, I would not.
Speaker 5: So, but let me let me address the Israelisraeli officials, okay,
Speaker 5: so yes, It's not disputed that hud Barack, for instance,
Speaker 5: was a long time associate of Epstein.
Speaker 4: They engaged in some business deals together.
Speaker 5: They even edhud Barack, amazingly enough, was actually present when
Speaker 5: Epstein was on a media strategizing session with Steve Bannon
Speaker 5: where they were planning how he could rehabilitate his image
Speaker 5: in the wake of the twenty eighteen Miami Herald series,
Speaker 5: and Bannon was having to educate Epstein about how me
Speaker 5: too had changed cultural attitudes around this stuff. So you
Speaker 5: couldn't just be as obstinate as maybe you were able
Speaker 5: to be before in the past in rejecting some of
Speaker 5: these charges.
Speaker 4: So Steve Bannon was.
Speaker 2: Actually announce smear the women basically, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4: You had to be more sensitive.
Speaker 5: So Steve Bannon conducted this fit in the sixteen hours
Speaker 5: of preparatory interviews with Epstein to kind of tell him
Speaker 5: how he would be questioned in the context of the
Speaker 5: sixty minutes interview or something on the Israel connection. Yes,
Speaker 5: edhud Barack was a longtime associate of Epstein. Epstein had
Speaker 5: longtime associations with an astonishing array of people. I'm not
Speaker 5: doubting that he was a consummate bullshitter. He had alliances with,
Speaker 5: as we know, everybody from Bill Gates to Donald Trump
Speaker 5: to Bill Clinton over the years. So it does as
Speaker 5: it surprise me that some of those people included the
Speaker 5: Israeli government, no or the Saudy arms deal stuff that
Speaker 5: he was involved in in the nineteen eighties.
Speaker 4: No, I'm not surprised about any of that.
Speaker 5: And I'm also allowing for the possibility, as I wrote
Speaker 5: in that Compact article, that over the course of his
Speaker 5: bizarre international jet setting, perhaps he did come into contact
Speaker 5: with somebody who was associated with the Israeli security services
Speaker 5: and who Barack himself would have been the head of
Speaker 5: MASAD when he was Prime minister.
Speaker 4: So is it.
Speaker 1: Inconceivable ahead of military intelligence?
Speaker 4: So is it sure?
Speaker 5: So is it inconceivable that over the course of their
Speaker 5: meetings who Barack obtained some piece of information that maybe
Speaker 5: he passed along to somebody.
Speaker 4: No, that's not inconceivable at all. I just don't see.
Speaker 5: It as dispositive or as like all encompassingly explanatory of
Speaker 5: Epstein supposedly getting away with this child sex trafficking ring,
Speaker 5: whose existence I don't regard as having been anywhere near established.
Speaker 5: You know, in the Gislaine Maxwell trial, interestingly, Maureen Coley
Speaker 5: was the prosecutor who was just fired yesterday, and she
Speaker 5: then tried to prosecute you know, p Diddy, Combs, et cetera,
Speaker 5: under like similar auspices of like you know, asserting a
Speaker 5: sex track a ring, but like weirdly narrowing the claimed
Speaker 5: contours of the sex trafficking to two people or one person.
Speaker 5: So people hear trafficking and they think they must be
Speaker 5: the sprawling, multi layered ring, when in reality, the grounds
Speaker 5: on which Maxwell was convicted was a sex trafficking que
Speaker 5: unquote conspiracy that literally consisted of two people according to
Speaker 5: the government and according to what the four purported victims
Speaker 5: in that trial even claimed. Oh and by the way,
Speaker 5: those victims in that trial just received multi million dollar
Speaker 5: payouts from the Epstein estate and from JP Morgan. And
Speaker 5: there was a similar Deutsche back settlement that came out
Speaker 5: where by they could confidentially and non adversarily have their
Speaker 5: claims adjudicated by a mediator. So if you had any
Speaker 5: tangential connection to Epstein, or if I had any tangential
Speaker 5: connection to Epstein, of course I would work with my lawyers,
Speaker 5: who are going to get cut to come up with
Speaker 5: a story.
Speaker 1: I become.
Speaker 4: Purchase focused on.
Speaker 3: I literally just told you there is another I had
Speaker 3: to I have her name here in my notes.
Speaker 1: I've got it right.
Speaker 4: The latest.
Speaker 3: Prince Andrew of inappropriate sexual contact while posing for a
Speaker 3: photo at the Epstein mansion, suggesting that she was traffick there.
Speaker 3: That's in a sworn affidavit in the very defamation case
Speaker 3: they're talking about Caroline be another anonymous individual.
Speaker 1: But listen, I mean, this is my thing. I did
Speaker 1: you read the door?
Speaker 3: Did you read the Deutsche Bank settlement with the New
Speaker 3: York Yes?
Speaker 1: And what does it say in there?
Speaker 3: Epstein had Epstein had multiple financial transactions which broke bank rules,
Speaker 3: in which he's transferring money to Eastern European women for
Speaker 3: apparent sex trafficking purposes.
Speaker 1: It's in the fucking.
Speaker 3: Report there, Michael from the New York Financial Services in
Speaker 3: which they find the bank for breaking its own policies
Speaker 3: for sending men wiring money all over the world our
Speaker 3: apparent purposes.
Speaker 1: After he's a convicted sex defender.
Speaker 3: I mean, do you think he's wiring all of these
Speaker 3: money for hulkers just for himself? Because that's not even
Speaker 3: what they say in the New York Financial Services document
Speaker 3: regarding the Deutsche banks elpment.
Speaker 4: Money at Rich.
Speaker 5: If he's trafficking, mind, if he's participating in a trafficking
Speaker 5: conspiracy to supply miners to others, how is it that,
Speaker 5: over the course of over a decade of incredibly intensive
Speaker 5: and lucrative litigation, not a single credible allegation of a
Speaker 5: third party individual having miners trafficking them to has been established.
Speaker 5: How come after every media outlet, at least post twenty
Speaker 5: eighteen became hugely invested in this story. So you have
Speaker 5: Netflix documentaries, HBO documentaries, newspaper and magazine articles, podcasts out
Speaker 5: the wazoo. How come none of them have ever established
Speaker 5: any third party individual to whom a minor was traffic
Speaker 5: Or is it because everybody is just so afraid of
Speaker 5: offending Bill Clinton?
Speaker 4: Really?
Speaker 1: Well, no, no, but that's not accurate because.
Speaker 5: That couldn't extract a lucrative settlement for Bill Clinton. The
Speaker 5: virgin I be accused of having a minor trafficy in the.
Speaker 1: US Virgin Islands.
Speaker 3: Who has the most evidence around this because so many
Speaker 3: of the heinous accusations, I won't say crime were committed
Speaker 3: on their soil. Had an Attorney General who actually was
Speaker 3: going forward with a lot of this prosecution. What happened
Speaker 3: to that Attorney General, Michael They were fired and the
Speaker 3: current Attorney General who.
Speaker 1: Is in charge of the case.
Speaker 3: What you were still work for the Epstein estate, So
Speaker 3: that seems like a little bit of a cover up
Speaker 3: and a problem there no, especially whenever that's something that
Speaker 3: happened to have been intersected in the past week, exactly
Speaker 3: the lucrative dispersion of much of the Epstein estate.
Speaker 1: They have Attorney general after this, let.
Speaker 4: Me ask you this that Soger, Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 5: Would you concede that there is a perverse incentive or
Speaker 5: or an incentive for purported self.
Speaker 4: Identified victims because by the.
Speaker 5: Terms of these settlements, all the court victims have to
Speaker 5: do is self identify as a victim. They can do
Speaker 5: so confidentially, meaning they don't have to be cross examined,
Speaker 5: they don't have to have their claims adversarially scrutinized, and
Speaker 5: then there's no downside reputational risk for them in the
Speaker 5: fact that they're not adjudicated to.
Speaker 4: The modified victims.
Speaker 1: And you know, why would you agree that there's a.
Speaker 5: Perverse incentive in terms of dramatizing claims to maximize one's
Speaker 5: chances to receive the biggest possible payout. And were you
Speaker 5: aware that the four people that the that Maureen Komi
Speaker 5: and her fellow prosecutors had to settle on to bring
Speaker 5: forward in the Maxwell trial in twenty twenty one, receiving
Speaker 5: multimillion dollar payoffs because they were counseled by their attorneys
Speaker 5: that in order to obtain the biggest possible settlement, they
Speaker 5: should prosecution.
Speaker 4: Does that create a perverse incentive structure?
Speaker 3: I agree that, or contrarians, I agree that it could
Speaker 3: create a perverse and censor structure. At the same time,
Speaker 3: many of these are legally justifiable because of their proven
Speaker 3: claim in a court where she was convicted by a
Speaker 3: jury of her peers.
Speaker 5: In which he was Did you know that full flesh adults,
Speaker 5: so not minors adults were eligible for these payouts and
Speaker 5: actually one adult testified at the Maxwell trial.
Speaker 4: Meaning she was above legal.
Speaker 3: Able to sue somebody or have legal you know, have
Speaker 3: legal justification whenever they are a victim of sec like
Speaker 3: in the case of.
Speaker 5: The fact that people who were adults could receive payouts.
Speaker 4: Because many years after the fact they could.
Speaker 3: Adults never be able to sue anybody else and be
Speaker 3: able to get any money for it for damages.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's like, what are you saying.
Speaker 3: That their entire legal civil court system is false and
Speaker 3: stuff by that standard. The ability to claim damages in
Speaker 3: itself is a perverse incentive. Now, I agree it can
Speaker 3: be weaponized, but I mean, in the Maxwell case, the
Speaker 3: basically yeah, okay, but then I don't.
Speaker 1: Know what to say, Michael, what's a financial game?
Speaker 3: And the shuld support Republicans who want tort reform or whatever?
Speaker 1: The fuck?
Speaker 5: You know that all that is, they do not support
Speaker 5: to a reform around this particular issue because it's been
Speaker 5: so insanely.
Speaker 2: Let me ask, let me ask, We'll try to close
Speaker 2: this up, Soccer. A question for you is one of
Speaker 2: the things that I've seen from people who say, look there,
Speaker 2: you know, we believe Trump and there's no there there
Speaker 2: as they say, well, look, if the Democrats had access
Speaker 2: to this material and Trump is potentially implicated, don't you
Speaker 2: think they would have released that. What is your response
Speaker 2: to that claim?
Speaker 3: Me?
Speaker 1: Mind?
Speaker 3: Yeah, you Soccer, Okay, yeah for me, I mean, look,
Speaker 3: I originally thought that it was actually a decent argument,
Speaker 3: but considering Trump's behavior now so far, and this is
Speaker 3: actually where I wonder if Michael would disagree with me. Michael,
Speaker 3: why don't we just release all of the evidence within
Speaker 3: the FBI and within whatever the case that has from
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice, the secret indictment from two thousand
Speaker 3: and seven, which has never yet been made public, that
Speaker 3: was prior to that non prosecution agreement. Release everything that's
Speaker 3: in the case file and just show it to the
Speaker 3: American public and we can all make up our minds.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's where maybe you'll be vindicated, Michael. Maybe
Speaker 3: you won't show any of.
Speaker 4: The release everything.
Speaker 1: I don't everything.
Speaker 4: I agree with Dershowitz.
Speaker 5: Okay, Dershowitz said for said for for the past ten years. Look,
Speaker 5: release everything. I waive any right to privacy. I've been
Speaker 5: falsely accused. I'm going to be vindicated, so I want
Speaker 5: maximum disclosure.
Speaker 4: I'm in favor of that.
Speaker 5: But there are there are two judges in New York
Speaker 5: who are keeping materials under seal, you know why, to
Speaker 5: protect the purported victims, mainly maybe to protect others who
Speaker 5: could be defamed by those victims. So if people want
Speaker 5: to go lobby, I mean, Breaking Points should go lobby
Speaker 5: in the Southern District of New York for disclosure the
Speaker 5: files that remain under seal. But I think the fact
Speaker 5: that Dan Bongino, I mean, talker, would you agree with
Speaker 5: me that Dan Bongino and Cash Betel and all these
Speaker 5: people obviously dangle these tantalizing little tidbits in front of
Speaker 5: the right wing social media audience on the idea that
Speaker 5: Trump was going to storm into office with his most loyal,
Speaker 5: tenacious soldiers and expose the deep state, demonic sex trafficking Democrats,
Speaker 5: and that whole narrative was obviously politically expedient, you know,
Speaker 5: bullshit that they very cleverly used to gin up excitement
Speaker 5: to vote Republican in twenty twenty four, and it wouldn't
Speaker 5: necessarily translate to any concrete revelations. Once these thought there
Speaker 5: was a consolidated Epstein list that the DOJ hasn't some
Speaker 5: vault somewhere that they could just release. Was always kind
Speaker 5: of like, I agree population to get people all exercise.
Speaker 3: I'm on the record here at Michael, I completely agree
Speaker 3: with you for the political expedience purposes, but I don't
Speaker 3: agree that it's bullshit when I have also said it's
Speaker 3: a canard to say that there's some Epstein client lists
Speaker 3: where it's like, hey, fuck the kid now supports Israel.
Speaker 3: That's not the way. Look, I'm not here to defend Cashpitel.
Speaker 3: I agree with you completely that the way that they
Speaker 3: frame Look, there's two options. They either ginned it up
Speaker 3: and exploited perhaps what they claim is the rape of
Speaker 3: thousands of children or hundreds of victims or whatever for
Speaker 3: politically expeding purposes, or they did that, which is disgusting,
Speaker 3: or they are covering upset thing, which is equally disgusting,
Speaker 3: perhaps more so actually on the line, I would love
Speaker 3: for them.
Speaker 4: I totally agree.
Speaker 5: I would love for the maximum amount of material to
Speaker 5: come out, because you know what, Virginia, who you happily
Speaker 5: conceded was a serial fabulous.
Speaker 3: No, I didn't say that. She's a old woman who, yes,
Speaker 3: has been proven to it.
Speaker 4: Now you don't agree, I didn't know.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to use your level of framing, which
Speaker 3: I actually do frankly think is disgusting because it points
Speaker 3: her as the central character, which you've self appointed. It
Speaker 3: ignores the other individuals.
Speaker 5: I want to introduce the whole sex trafficking theory fourteen
Speaker 5: with the photo.
Speaker 1: The photo exists, Virginia photo exists.
Speaker 5: Finish your point, Okay, So I mean I agree that
Speaker 5: the maximum disclosure should.
Speaker 4: Be made and that these.
Speaker 5: Concealments that are still in place to protect the supposed accusers,
Speaker 5: many of whom are serial fabulous, but yet received enormous
Speaker 5: payouts from these settlement funds that.
Speaker 4: Claims because when when when when that stremely was applied
Speaker 4: to Virginia Gouffrey.
Speaker 5: As more and more information had to be revealed, she
Speaker 5: had to concede that she just made an enormous amount
Speaker 5: of stuff. So I think that that would that would
Speaker 5: probably with Extreedian luxury. Uh, you know, it's just whatever.
Speaker 4: She didn't She did not live a life of luxury.
Speaker 5: She didn't have an ocean front mansion in Australia and
Speaker 5: a ranch, and she didn't make it.
Speaker 4: She didn't make.
Speaker 3: Fifteen suicide bro, Like, yeah, this is what I'm saying, Like,
Speaker 3: let me. It was so it was so great for
Speaker 3: her that she decided to Let mean, I don't yeah, because.
Speaker 5: She hadstic because she got accorded to her a strange husband.
Speaker 5: She became increasingly violent and attacked him the local Australian.
Speaker 5: That's a husband, and then she lost custody of her
Speaker 5: children and became distraught. I mean, could that maybe reflect
Speaker 5: on her credibility that way to what.
Speaker 4: She was not called as a witness in the Maxwell trial.
Speaker 3: Reflects to me somebody a pattern of behavior of somebody
Speaker 3: who was obviously, in my opinion, abused whenever she was
Speaker 3: young and as a child, and that's its credibility.
Speaker 2: So Michael, let me let me wrap.
Speaker 4: Up with you. Obviously, did I know it's like it's
Speaker 4: difficult to admit because.
Speaker 3: Hearing smirts somebody who killed herself and who obviously was
Speaker 3: a troubled.
Speaker 4: Prominent individual for a decade.
Speaker 1: Okay, your feelings at there so are mine? All right?
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Michael.
Speaker 2: The final question here for you, Uh, how do you
Speaker 2: explain the fact that you had the Trump administration go
Speaker 2: from the big influencer Phase one Epstein files coming out.
Speaker 2: We're reviewing Pam Bondi's I'm reviewing thousands of hours of
Speaker 2: footage to two page memo. Nothing to see here. We're
Speaker 2: moving on case closed to Trump now saying well, there
Speaker 2: are files they were creating a creator by Obama and
Speaker 2: Hillary and Comy and Brennan and it's all a hoax
Speaker 2: and you know that everyone needs to move on and
Speaker 2: there's nothing to see here. So how do you explain
Speaker 2: his specifically changing narrative of what's going on here? And
Speaker 2: you know the fact that Obviously, it seems bizarre the
Speaker 2: way he's handling this in the worst possible way just
Speaker 2: for him politically, let alone anything else.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, I think people in the right wing
Speaker 5: media universe are Charlatans, and they exploit their charlatanism to
Speaker 5: politically expediently cater to this long standing.
Speaker 2: Belief that Trump specifically no I know.
Speaker 5: I got it, but it leads into Trump meaning there's
Speaker 5: like a pervasive, ever present belief within right wing media
Speaker 5: circles whom Trump harnesses for political power, that there's a
Speaker 5: pedophilic sex trafficking ring that's perpetually waiting to be uncovered.
Speaker 5: That's why they were so into Q andons and that
Speaker 5: kind of transferred over to Epstein. Well, but it explains
Speaker 5: it in that, like why did Pam Bondi in that
Speaker 5: now notorious February twenty twenty five interview with Fox News
Speaker 5: say she had the Epstein files waiting on her decks
Speaker 5: desks because there was an incentive within this mill you
Speaker 5: to dangle the most appetizing little snippets in front of
Speaker 5: the audience. Like the beating heart of right wing social
Speaker 5: media and like comments sections always believes that there's a
Speaker 5: that the you know, the triumphant anti deep state warriors
Speaker 5: in the Trump administration are finally going to unveil the
Speaker 5: true heart of evil at the core of elite networks
Speaker 5: and expose the pedophiles. Pat cashpertellus to put on her
Speaker 5: big point pants and tell us who the pedophiles are,
Speaker 5: and so Bondi was kind of playing into that assumption,
Speaker 5: and she used, like, in precise language, is she are
Speaker 5: these people?
Speaker 4: Charlatan's You're not getting an argument for me. I was
Speaker 4: trying to.
Speaker 5: Make this argument like last year when they were pumping
Speaker 5: out this stuff for their own elector or advantage. Now,
Speaker 5: I will say, is there a possibility that there are
Speaker 5: some additional materials somewhere that could be embarrassing to Trump?
Speaker 5: Of course, we know that he was a friend of
Speaker 5: Jeffrey Epstein's for like fifteen years. Jeffrey Epstein is on
Speaker 5: tape that was released by Michael Wolfe saying I'm Donald
Speaker 5: Trump's closest friend or I was his closest friend. Now
Speaker 5: could that be puffery by Epstein who loved to exaggerate.
Speaker 1: People also him for fifteen years?
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly, So.
Speaker 5: I mean, so there could be something that is embarrassing
Speaker 5: on Trump somewhere in the archives here that wouldn't be
Speaker 5: surprising at all. Michael Wolfe claims that Epstein displayed to
Speaker 5: him like pictures or polaroid photos of Trump like sitting
Speaker 5: around with like topless young women or something. That there
Speaker 5: was no claim that those women in the photos were miners,
Speaker 5: but like Trump was also in these modeling circles.
Speaker 4: That's how you've met Milania, right, and Epstein And also.
Speaker 3: Michael, I just got to point out, man, this is
Speaker 3: the same hearsay that you're indicting the intelligence quote. You're like, oh,
Speaker 3: Michael Wolfe, But by the way, Michael wolf is a
Speaker 3: fucking serial fabulous Are we're gonna sit here and not
Speaker 3: say that he literally made ship up in his book
Speaker 3: in fury?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 3: Like, why is it that the second hand account here
Speaker 3: from Michael.
Speaker 1: Wolf I'm not saying it's worse, No, what it is.
Speaker 5: You're always that's not it's not it's not here. By
Speaker 5: the way, it's not hearsay for Michael wolf to say
Speaker 5: I was shown this photo like he could testify in
Speaker 5: court to that.
Speaker 4: He couldn't testify in court.
Speaker 5: That he was told by somebody that somebody else told him,
Speaker 5: Michael Wolf.
Speaker 4: They spoke to Alex Acosta two years prior to that.
Speaker 5: So it's a different level if you're saying, I'm not
Speaker 5: saying it's dispositive reporting.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Fine, Wolf has.
Speaker 5: Shown that he has recordings of Epstein, He has hours
Speaker 5: of tape. Vicky Ward as Quo quotes on that record.
Speaker 5: Why why is she a worst report? By the way,
Speaker 5: Vicky Ward And I'm not claiming.
Speaker 4: That that Trump is a sexual predator.
Speaker 5: I'm trying to I'm arguing against that assumption now that
Speaker 5: has overtaken these these popular assumptions, right, So I mean,
Speaker 5: I'm not I'm not trying to argue that Trump is
Speaker 5: a sexual predator.
Speaker 1: I agree with him reporting from other people.
Speaker 4: Here's the Okama's razor that I tend to use with Trump.
Speaker 5: Obviously, he'll just launder whatever bullshit he can to get
Speaker 5: through a current controversy. And the way that he's handled
Speaker 5: this issue is really amazing. I mean, now he's like
Speaker 5: voluntarily bringing it up when he calls into these right
Speaker 5: wing like Real America's Voice shows and saying Epstein oaks.
Speaker 4: He's disowning his supporters over it.
Speaker 5: So obviously I don't know, like does he have the
Speaker 5: presence of mind to know how to negotiate this story
Speaker 5: in a way that is befitting him.
Speaker 4: Maybe not.
Speaker 5: I mean he's seventy seventy eight years old now, so
Speaker 5: that could be an explanation. It is interesting to me
Speaker 5: that never once do you hear Trump express sympathy for
Speaker 5: the quote unquote victims, like a traditional politician would say,
Speaker 5: we sympathize with the victims. They've been through trauma. We're
Speaker 5: not going to re traumatize them. This uh, this horrible
Speaker 5: person Epstein was a pedophile, sprays some whatever like Trump
Speaker 5: doesn't even make any perfunctory gestures along those lines. He
Speaker 5: just like goes nuclear now on his own supporters. So
Speaker 5: is he handling this artfully?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 4: But like I think there are.
Speaker 5: Some you know, more simple explanations than oh that means
Speaker 5: he's covering up the child rape ring that people accused
Speaker 5: Democrats of covering up, and now Trump is following suits.
Speaker 4: I just don't find that to be that plausible.
Speaker 2: All right, Michael, thank you appreciate your time.
Speaker 5: Okay, and one more thing, like, Okay, I know this
Speaker 5: guy a little heated, and it's genuinely nothing personal against Sager.
Speaker 4: I mean, I'm well.
Speaker 5: I'm waiting for the avalanche of comments denouncing me, and
Speaker 5: that's fine to.
Speaker 2: Quote whoever was Dan BUNGEI and know I think we
Speaker 2: all have our big boy pants on here. So good
Speaker 2: to see you, Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for watching guys.
Speaker 3: We appreciate it. We will see you all tomorrow for
Speaker 3: the Friday show.