TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed
reSee.it AI Summary
Individuals associated with the Clintons have been plagued by unfortunate circumstances. John F Kennedy Jr died in a plane crash in 1999, C Victor Raiser II died in a plane crash in 1992, Ron Brown died in a plane crash in 1996, Joe Montano died of a heart attack in 2016, James McDougal died in prison in 1998, Suzanne Coleman died under mysterious circumstances in 1977, and Victor Thorn was found dead from a gunshot wound in 2016. Jeffrey Epstein's death is also suspicious.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
Thread alert 🚨 The Clinton curse Pt.2
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
In Part 2, we explore the unfortunate circumstances surrounding individuals associated with the Clintons. Research the names for more information. Disclaimer: This list is speculative and no wrongdoings have been proven. Kek.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
John F. Kennedy Jr. John F. Kennedy Jr. was considering running for the U.S. Senate seat in New York in 1999, which Hillary Clinton ultimately won. John F. Kennedy Jr. died in a plane crash on July 16, 1999.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
C. Victor Raiser II C. Victor Raiser II was a Democratic fundraiser who served as finance chairman for Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. He died in a plane crash in Alaska in July 1992, along with his son, Montgomery.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
Ron Brown Ron Brown was a politician and businessman who served as the United States Secretary of Commerce during the presidency of Bill Clinton. He was the first African American to hold this position. Ron Brown died in a plane crash in 1996 while he was on a trade mission.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
Joe Montano Joe Montano, a trusted associate of Tim Kaine, the running mate of Hillary Clinton, allegedly passed away at the age of 47 due to a heart attack following the release of the DNC emails by Wikileaks.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
James McDougal James McDougal, a Clinton business partner and the brains behind their Whitewater Development Corporation, reportedly died of cardiac arrest in federal prison hospital at age 58.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
Suzanne Coleman Suzanne Coleman was a woman who had an alleged affair with Bill Clinton when he was the Attorney General in Arkansas. She died under mysterious circumstances with a gunshot wound to the back of her head, in 1977.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
Victor Thorn Victor Thorn was an author with multiple books shedding light on the Clintons. He was discovered deceased from a gunshot wound atop a mountain close to his residence in Pennsylvania.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
Jeffrey Epstein Jeffrey Epstein Didn’t kill himself.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
This is a short list. Please feel free to add names in the comments. Once again, this list is JUST speculation. Hope you enjoyed. Pt. 1 is below.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
Thread alert 🚨 The Clinton curse Pt. 1
reSee.it AI Summary
Jeffrey Epstein's prison cell, shown in a photo released by the Department of Justice, raises questions. Epstein attempted suicide on July 23rd. On July 30th, an email mandated that he have a cellmate at all times. Just two days before his death, his cellmate was removed. Epstein made an unrecorded call to his deceased mother on August 10th. Hours later, he was dead. Security cameras malfunctioned, and log books were faked. The highest-profile inmate was left unmonitored, removed from suicide watch, and had a cell full of sheets and contraband. Something is amiss.
@AmiriKing - Amiri King
JEFFREY EPSTEIN—Make this make sense to me. This is a photo of Jeffrey Epstein's prison cell after his death, Aug. 10, 2019, released by the Department of Justice. A little over 2 weeks prior, on July 23rd to be exact, Epstein tried to kill himself. Afterwards, on July 30th, an email was sent to 70 staff members of the prison’s psychological unit mandating them to house Jeffrey Epstein with a cellmate AT ALL TIMES. On August 8th, just two days before Epstein ‘killed himself,’ his cell mate was removed from his cell leaving Epstein all alone until the time of ‘his death.’ On August 10th at 8pm, Jeffrey Epstein made an UNRECORDED CALL on a LAN LINE to ‘his mother’ who was already deceased. Hours later and Jeffrey Epstein was ‘dead.’ Coincidentally, security cameras conveniently ‘malfunctioned’ and staffers had also faked their log books for the night leaving Epstein completely unmonitored from 10:40pm on out. THE HIGHEST PROFILE INMATE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH: • was removed from suicide watch • was left completely alone • was able to make phone calls from a LAN line (No inmate on the planet would be given LAN line access) • had a cell FULL of sheets and contraband As someone who has spent several years in various prisons and jails, I can assure you that EVERYTHING about this alleged ‘suicide’ is BULLSHIT. Any inmate or corrections officer with half a brain will concur. SOMETHING happened and it isn’t what they are telling us. I’ll bet $100 to a bucket of shit that every CO involved was paid off. Too many wealthy people needed Epstein to stay quiet. And he did.
reSee.it AI Summary
Jeffery Epstein's fellow inmate disputes his suicide, accusing Attorney General Barr of lying about the investigation. The inmate reveals that if guards fall asleep during a count, it triggers a lockdown due to potential hostage situations. Barr's claim that no one entered Epstein's tier is impossible, as two guards are required. The inmate questions what truly happened and urges viewers to watch the video for more details.
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
Man In Jail With Jeffery Epstein Says Jeffery Epstein DID NOT KILL HIMSELF “Jeffery Epstein did not kill himself that's a hundred and ten percent okay so then what happened now what happened is our Attorney General Barr completely lied to every citizen in this country when he said that he was going to look into the investigation and I believe he was in Texas when he said somebody asked him, one of the media outlets asked him, Bar, did you look into this? And he said, yes, I did. And there was nothing there to look into, so I dropped it. And then the follow-up question was, what do you mean there was nothing there for you to look into? And he says, well, I watched the video and no one entered the tier. Stop right there. So what Attorney General Barr said is, all you people are too fucking stupid, so I can really abuse yous, abuse you all. I don't want to sound like my cousin Vinnie abused yous. I don't want, and I'm gonna insult everybody's intelligence, but he forgets that a lot of those dummies that were in jail know the system. And here's the system for the people who don't know if account is not cleared because he said two guards fell asleep and did not do the count so they did not find Epstein dead until the next morning. That's so fucking insulting and laughable because if that occurs then they would they call they hit the deuces in the jail. They try to contact the guards upstairs and it can't be one, it's gotta be two. Have to walk and do counts. So I'll walk you through that when they do account they go into each cell and if somebody's not moving they kick the door bang the door if it's a if it's a dorm like cell the iraq you you you're a bunk with this thick or the light and they make you move your foot or your hand because in the past it was dead bodies and they had to make sure while you sleep in you you're really alive not dead Locked down cells, there's cameras in a lot of the cells and there's cameras on the tier. So when Barr said that nobody went on the tier, it's impossible because you need two guards. If they fall asleep, they can't because control downstairs calls up and they cannot clear the count in the building. And if that's what occurs, they don't clear the count. They hit the deuces because they think there's a hostage situation upstairs in that tier if nobody answers or they think the guards were killed so they cannot nobody moves they lock down the whole facility whether there's any movement at all in that facility by anybody it's completely stopped they bring their what they call different depends on the jail itself what they call their unit special units and they'll call outside SWAT to come to the building with armed enforcement because they're worried about hostages, prison breaks, and murder of the guards. Okay, so. So in your best opinion, what do you think took place?” Please watch video to hear the rest. X’s text limits forces me to end the transcription here
Video Transcript AI Summary
Attorney General Barr lied about investigating Epstein's death, claiming there was nothing to look into. However, the speaker argues that the guards falling asleep and not doing the count is an insult and laughable. In the event of a count not being cleared, the whole facility would be locked down, and SWAT teams would be called due to concerns of a hostage situation or guard murder. The speaker believes that Epstein was killed by operatives brought into solitary confinement, who let themselves out at night, killed Epstein, and made it look like a suicide. The first autopsy indicated strangulation, not suicide.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Flint did not kill himself. That's a 110%.
Speaker 1: Okay. So So then what happened? Now
Speaker 0: what happened is, our attorney general, Barr, Completely lied to every citizen in this country when he said that he was gonna look into the investigation, and I believe he was in Texas, we said somebody asked him one of the media outlets asked him, Bart, did you look into this? And he said, yes, I did. And, there was nothing there to look into, so I dropped it. And then follow-up question was, What do you mean there was nothing left there for you to look into? And he says, well, I watched the video, and no one entered the tier.
Stop right there. So what attorney general Barr said is All you people are too fucking stupid, so I can really abuse you abuse you all. I want I don't wanna sound like my cousin, Vinny, if you use. I don't want and I'm gonna insult everybody's intelligence, but he forgets then a lot of those dummies that were in jail know the system. And here's the system for the people who don't know.
If a count is not cleared because he said 2 guards fell asleep And did not do the count, so they did not find Epstein dead until the next morning. That's so fucking insulting and laughable because if that occurs, Then they would they call and hit the deuces in the jail. They try to contact the guards up stairs. And it can't be 1, it's gotta be 2, have to walk and do counts. So I'll walk you through that.
When they do a count, they go into each cell. And if somebody's not moving, they kick the door or bang the door. If it's if it's a dawn like cell, they they hit your rack, your your your, bunk with their stick or their light, And they make you move your foot or your hand because in the past, there was dead bodies. And they had to make sure While you're sleeping, you you're really alive, not dead. Okay.
In these lockdown cells, There's cameras in a lot of the cells and there's cameras on the tier. So when Boris said that nobody went on the tier, it's impossible because you need 2 guards. If they fall asleep, they can't because control downstairs calls up, and they cannot clear the count in the building. And if that is if that's what occurs, they don't clear the count. They hit the deuces because they think there's a hostage situation upstairs in that tier if nobody answers, or they think the guards were killed.
So they cannot. Nobody moves. They locked down the whole facility. Whether there's any movement at all in that facility By anybody, it's completely stopped. They bring their what they call different depends on the jail itself, what they call the unit, special units, and they'll call outside SWAT to come to the building with armed, enforcement because they're worried about hostages, prison breaks, and murder of the guards.
Speaker 1: Okay. So So in your best opinion, what do you think took place? So I love how excited you get about this.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm excited because it's he got caught lately lying. So If this occurs and they claim to be sleeping, right, they would come up initially and see that they're sleeping, wake them up and do the count. Right? That didn't happen.
And they did the 911 tapes have disappeared because they only have to keep it for a year.
Speaker 1: Wait. Wasn't there also something that, Like, the 2 guards that were supposed to be doing something were asleep? Yeah. It's impossible. By coincidence, both are, like, asleep or something like that?
Speaker 0: Impossible because they wake them up and tell them to go do the count. But here's how they kill them. So for you most likely Wait.
Speaker 1: Can I tell you my picture and you tell me If you think this is right? Yeah. I feel like they they said between this time and this Time we're we're not gonna come bother you, basically. You know the details more than I do. We're not gonna come bother you.
Here is how you're gonna do it. Go do it. And then you did it? Or no. And then so so they they facilitated the act like, I I don't I think that he didn't, like, people say, like, he didn't kill himself, I think maybe he was the 1 I think that somebody are they there is a system put in place to help facilitate and look like he killed himself, but it wasn't that's not really killing yourself.
Speaker 0: You have When when an inmate tries to kill himself, let me back up, which he did supposedly prior, she's then put in with they call a toilet paper wrap. Right? They take all his clothes, they take anything he could kill himself with, any kind of, cover. So he can't take the strings out of it and hang himself. Everything's up.
He's in a cambered cell where he even showers in there. They turn the shower on at whatever time. There's a there's a mic inside the The the room, they tell him, get up and shower and they turn it on. Whatever time they feel like turning on, whether it's 2 in the morning or 4 in the morning. It's a nice shower.
He gets up. If he doesn't get up, they turn it off after 5, 10 minutes. Yeah. Now control room has the cameras. There's several place in that building besides control room if there's any kind of shortage, anything goes wrong that they also have access to the camera work through the facility.
It's not just 1 controller only. On the floor itself, it has their own cameras also. But what happened in my opinion is we get fed through a mail slot 3 times a day. If they now you have inmates, Influences of inmates that are moving in and out from solitary confinement throughout the jail daily. So in my opinion, they brought in 2 operatives into solitary confinement.
And beat the shadow? No. Put them in those cells. Whether those guards most likely were 2 guards that they took off that shift, And they probably had operatives there also. Right?
Now they're set up because the whole jail isn't in on this murder. You know, they so maybe, if anything, the ward knew what was going on Because he's gotta have access to get these other guards into the into that facility. They feed them through a mail slot. They drug him when they feed him. So his last meal is depending on when they feed us, but 4:30 say is our dinner meal.
They drug him. He's out cold. The inmates are all there. He's sleeping. They have keys to their cells.
They let themselves out. They kill them and make it look like a hanging suicide. Wait. Wait. You said that inmates the other inmates killed them?
No. Other inmates are in the cell. So later on at night, when everybody's asleep, they let themselves out. They kill Epstein. They let themselves back in their cell, and the process it was they.
Whatever operatives they placed in other, solitary.
Speaker 1: So okay. That was okay. Okay. But oh, I see. Now I see.
So so so it's basically, like like, hit net operatives. So they they put them as, like so you think that they They kind of, like, hide these guys and other sales as if they're inmates. Correct? And then but they give them the key?
Speaker 0: Because there's daily movement every day from inmates in and out of alternating out the whole jail.
Speaker 1: Right. So then so then they say, okay. So they basically reserve, let's say, like, a room or 2 to put these operatives in that are just gonna be, like, just Hanging in there for the for the day. And then they know that between 3 and 6 AM, Epstein's gonna be out cold, and they let themselves out, and they also have the key to the the other one. Mhmm.
And then they go in and then they carry how do you think they kill them? They kill
Speaker 0: they kill them. Make it look like it it's a suicide, which The 1st autopsy, he says, no. It's not consistent with suicide. It's consistent with strangulation. He was killed.
reSee.it AI Summary
Epstein's death sparks debate: suicide or murder? But there's a third possibility. Recent events, like celebrity deaths and CEO resignations, expose global sex trafficking rings. Could Epstein have become a state witness? Read this thread for intriguing insights. Questions remain.
@BrainStorm_Joe - Joe Rambo
PART 1) 💥💥Did Epstein kill himself? I think people assume there is only 2 choices. Suicide or murder... But I believe there is a third. Mysterious celebrity deaths, and CEO resignations. Global sex trafficking rings being dismantled, exposed and prosecuted. Lead me to believe he may have turned state witness. Read this thread. And tell me what you think. Because I have questions.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Jeffrey Epstein's brother, Mark, believes that the evidence suggests Jeffrey did not commit suicide. Epstein was found unconscious in his jail cell in July with marks on his neck. The attorney for Epstein's cellmate requested video footage to prove his client saved Epstein's life, but the Metropolitan Correctional Center initially claimed they couldn't find it. They later announced they had the video, but now federal prosecutors say it no longer exists. Mark Epstein questions the suicide narrative, pointing out that the noose found in the cell doesn't show any cut marks and couldn't have supported Epstein's weight. He also mentions that Jeffrey frequently changed his will and that the recent change had nothing to do with his criminal case. A hearing with live testimony is being requested to determine what happened to the video.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I also talked to Jeffrey Epstein's brother who gave me exclusive insight and tells me that he thinks the evidence shows that Jeffrey did not kill himself. In July, Jeffrey Epstein was found semi conscious with marks on his neck in his jail cell from an parents' suicide attempt. The attorney for his cellmate requested video from outside the cell to prove that his client saved Epstein's life. Last month, Metropolitan Correctional Center officials said they couldn't find it. A day later, they announced they did have it.
But now, federal prosecutors say the video no longer exists and that MCC, quote, inadvertently preserved video from the wrong tier. I spoke with the cellmate's attorney from New York.
Speaker 1: The various inconsistent accounts of what happened to the video are deeply troubling. We are gonna request that the court conduct a hearing with live testimony to determine exactly what took place.
Speaker 0: Bruce Barkett isn't the only one troubled. So was Epstein's brother, Mark. Here's why. Epstein's jail cell looked like this when the medical examiner arrived hours after his death, August 10th. Bedsheets strewn around, 2 fashioned in the nooses with complicated knots.
Epstein was dead, but doesn't add up to suicide by hanging, saying, quote, all we know is the guard said he cut him down when he found him. If you look at the noose, the long end of the noose has a hemmed edge and it wasn't cut. No creases. Mark Epstein says this noose doesn't show any cut mark so how could it have been part of a bedsheet Epstein used to hang himself? There is a piece of orange bedsheet looped through a hole on the bottom bunk not tied on, not able to hold Epstein's weight, according to his brother.
Mark says his brother was upbeat before his death because he was about to have a bond hearing, telling me, quote, at first I thought okay maybe he didn't want to go through this he decided to take himself out he was facing life in jail but then I started seeing and learning what was going on no, nobody thought he was going to kill himself. Jeffery wasn't a wimp. I knew him better than anybody. We were brothers. What about the fact that Epstein changed his will 2 days before he died?
Some say that indicates he was planning his suicide. But Mark Epstein tells me Jeffrey changed his will frequently and he knows there was one particular reason he changed it this time and that it had nothing to do with this criminal case. Terry Parker, WPBF 25
reSee.it AI Summary
The lack of records surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death raises questions about the official narrative. Mark Epstein's struggle to obtain basic documents, like the prehospital care report, adds to the mystery.
@Rickster_75 - 🗡️🛡️Sir Rickster🛡️🗡️
Tucker Carlson: The U.S. government claims Jeffrey Epstein killed himself in a federal detention facility in Manhattan four and a half years ago, just before his trial. If that’s true, why are there so few records available from that night? Here’s Mark Epstein trying to get a copy of one of the most basic documents of all, the prehospital care report, written by the EMS team that moved his brother’s body out of the cell.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker is discussing the search for a PCR report from August 10, 2019, but it cannot be found in the fire department database. They speculate that the person may have been taken directly to the morgue. The speaker mentions having photographs of the person in the hospital. They discuss the possibility of the fire department personnel taking the person somewhere else, but the computer system does not have any record of it. The speaker acknowledges that the information they received from the fire department differs from what the computer system shows. They express confusion about why the record is missing.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Lower man lower Manhattan.
Speaker 1: Okay. But as of right now, you're telling me you can't find their PCR report?
Speaker 0: Not for the 10th August 2019. No. Not in it's not in the fire department database. I don't know why. If it's supposed to be there, we'll find out.
But first, you Got to get the letters of administration before you can take them anywhere.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Is it because the date on here is the 10th or 19th. That's the day they found him, they took him, and they he's dead.
Speaker 0: Well, then they might have taken him directly to the morgue.
Speaker 1: No. He was in the I have photographs of him in the hospital too.
Speaker 0: Oh, well, I'm, you you didn't tell me that.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm
Speaker 0: just Go on, Bob.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. No. I understand. I'm just trying to explain what I know.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, I don't know what happened, but, So far, he's not in the fire department database. I don't know why.
Speaker 1: But they had a private unit at the scene.
Speaker 0: And, could they have taken them somewhere? Well, Shahina Hicks has a photograph of the fire department personnel.
Speaker 1: That doesn't that doesn't generate documentation? Yeah. This is the photograph. Yeah. But what did he say I couldn't hear?
Speaker 0: He said that because you see the fire department just because you see the fire department My personnel there, that doesn't mean they provided documentation.
Speaker 1: They told me they did. I spoke to them. Yeah. And they were the ones who suggested I get the PCR report.
Speaker 0: Well well, they're saying one thing, but The computer is saying something else.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, since I heard that with my own ears, I believe them, and I don't know why someone played with the computer and it's not there.
Speaker 0: I'm just sent telling you the situation. I'm not saying either way. I'm just saying the computer is saying one thing, and the information you got for them is different.
Speaker 1: Right. So the but the computer say what the computer is saying is that it doesn't have a record of this.
Speaker 0: That's That's what I'm trying to tell you. Yes. Yeah. And I don't know why.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨 Alan Dershowitz Admits on Video He Got A 'Massage' At Epstein's House from a Middle-Aged Woman DO YOU BELIEVE HIM? https://t.co/qoUucx2fz7
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker defends himself against allegations and claims to have nothing to hide. He offers to release all evidence to prove his innocence. The interviewer brings up the association with Jeffrey Epstein, to which the speaker explains that he and his wife had massages at Epstein's house, but denies any wrongdoing. He mentions that many prominent individuals also had massages there and that his friendship with Epstein was purely academic. The speaker argues that having a massage does not make him guilty and that the person accusing him has admitted to possible mistaken identification. He asserts his innocence and states that neither he nor his wife are guilty.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is that you actually handled the tough questions. You know, you even bring it up yourself, and you've had some of the the worst allegations.
Speaker 1: Look. I have had sex with 1 woman since the day I met my wife, so, I'm very proud of that. I'm not a flirt. I'm not anybody who hugs people. The reason they couldn't successfully go after me is I have nothing to hide.
I say, let everything be released. I waive all my right to privacy. Every deposition, every videotape, everything should be out there because they will all prove my innocence because I didn't do it. I had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 0: No. And, I I mean, like I said, I think you've, had a lot of validity in your claims, but the the problem is With the association of Jeffrey Epstein and, you know, with obviously that reputation, that you're fighting an uphill battle. But I but I wanna show we we saw this 1 clip, and I just wanna get your opinion on it. So if you can if you can show that, I wanna I wanna show Alan this this short one and just kinda get your opinion on On what this, what this clip is about.
Speaker 1: Okay. That was in my wife's calendar. My wife scheduled a massage. If you think my wife scheduled a massage With an underage, sex slave, then you'll believe anything. No.
Other other other other calendar calendar. Other calendar. Finish. Let me finish. Just clarify the other calendar brief.
Finish. Let me finish. Go ahead. I was a visiting scholar at NYU. My wife had a professional masseuse.
We have checks, canceled checks proving that the massage occurred, when it occurred, who it occurred with. And, I've had very, very few massages in in my life, one at Jeffrey Epstein's house By, a middle aged woman who gave me a shoulder and neck massage, which I hated. I called up my wife and complained about it immediately. No. I've done nothing wrong.
If you wanna put me on trial here, you have to give me an opportunity to fully explain. You will not be a label able to make just charges against me without giving out a massage at Jeff Epstein's house? Yeah. Do you know who it was who performed that? Yes.
I mean, we know approximately who it was. There were a lot of people around her her we we think we remember, and the, a person who was in charge of the Epstein House confirmed this, that it's a woman named Olga who was in her forties and was a professional, massage therapist.
Speaker 0: And, Alan, I thought you handled that pretty well, but but but there is, you know, one thing. You you admitted to a massage at Jeffrey Epstein. I mean, that sounds bad in theory. I don't know. I'm just saying as an attorney, how do we justify that?
Because even even that clip, you said you didn't get many massages, and then all of a sudden you're Jeffrey having a massage, it just raises red flags to the conspiracy theorists that are watching.
Speaker 1: Well, it's my wife had a massage, as well, and, I was having neck pains, and I was representing, Jeffrey Epstein, and he said, oh, you're having neck pains. I have this person. I've had a few massages on my neck and and my shoulder, and, there's just nothing wrong with that. I did nothing wrong, and, I I I I was the one who said I had the massage. I didn't have to say that.
It was none of anybody's business, but I have nothing to hide. I wanted it all out there. And if you want to infer from having had, a massage, for a massage therapist that we have checks, for or that my wife had a massage, in Jeffrey Epstein's house, which she did. And by the way, Nobel Prize winners have had massages in Epstein's house. The heads of various, companies and universities, it was a very common thing, to have massages.
Remember, nobody knew that Epstein was doing anything wrong. You know, the president of Harvard was it was with Epstein all the all the time, the provost of Harvard. So many prominent people, and, my friendship with them was an academic friendship. And, inevitably, when you when you, have a professional relationship with somebody, and and you spend some time with them, including over the house with your wife, years before there were any allegations against and you have a a neck pain and there's a professional mass massage therapist around, you'll get a massage. So I had a neck I just sold her massage.
I didn't like it. It was too hard and too rough, and I called my wife and I complained about it, but, that's it. And the person who now claimed that I did anything inappropriate, has now admitted that, she, may have, have a case of mistaken identification. Her lawyer has admitted her lawyer is on tape admitting that nothing was wrong. So, you know, I've been, as far as I'm concerned, completely, exculpated.
I did nothing wrong. And, you know, if you wanna find me guilty of having a massage, then you have to find hundreds of thousands of people guilty, including my wife. And, none of us is guilty. Yeah.
@WallStreetSilv - Wall Street Silver
5 years ago today, Epstein was found dead in his cell. He died before he could be called to testify at trial about his relationships with his clients. The cameras were disabled, the guards were "asleep". All backups were deleted. What do you think happened? https://t.co/QoS8kfznaC
reSee.it AI Summary
I explored Jeffrey Epstein's controversial rise, starting with his early career as a teacher at the Dalton School, hired by Donald Barr, who had intelligence connections. Despite lacking a degree, he secured a position at Bear Stearns through Alan Greenberg and later founded his own firm, gaining clients like Lex Wexner. I examined his legal troubles, noting how key figures, including prosecutors and DOJ officials, seemingly protected him. I also highlighted his ties to powerful individuals and suggested that Epstein operated as a Mossad operative, using blackmail for Israeli interests.
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
How did Jewish man ✡️ Jeffrey Epstein get his start? Who really backed him and supported him? Most importantly, who did he work for? Let’s trace some of his history…. 🕵️ 👀 🧵 1/14 https://t.co/AmsbHpmnuG
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
Despite not having a college degree, he got his first job as a teacher 👨🏫 at a prestigious private school in New York known as the Dalton School. Who was the man that hired him? A ✡️ Jewish man by the name of Donald Barr. Donald Barr was also the father of attorney general Bill Barr. Donald Barr also had connections to intelligence serving in the OSS, or the office of strategic services. This was one of the original intelligence agencies for the US before the creation of the CIA. 🧵 2/14
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
A fun fact about Donald Barr, is that he wrote a few fiction books 📚. One of those books, “Space Relations” contains intergalactic sex slavery. 🧐 Sounds like him and Epstein had similar interests. 🧵 3/14 https://t.co/neD5E22a0h
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
Shortly after being dismissed as a teacher at the Dalton School. 🏫, he somehow landed a job at a Jewish ✡️ investment bank Bear Stearns. Keep in mind he still does not have a college degree 📜, but that doesn’t stop Jewish man ✡️ Alan Greenberg from hiring him. 🧐 🧵 4/14 https://t.co/BR6KdyqoZT
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
He quickly worked his way up the ranks of Bear Stearns, becoming partner, but ultimately left and started his own consulting firm IAG. Later on he would be hired as a consultant for Towers Financial Corporation, founded and run by a Jewish man ✡️ named Steven Hoffenberg. Ultimately it was a massive Ponzi scheme, however only Hoffenberg took the fall. He was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. 🧵 5/14
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
Curiously, the District attorney, Mary Jo White, brought charges against Hoffenberg but nothing against Epstein. Also curiously, when she returned to private practice she represented ✡️ Jewish Victoria Secret CEO and associate of Jeffrey Epstein, Lex Wexner. She also represented the Jewish ✡️ Sackler family that killed thousands of people with opioids. 🧵 6/14
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
In 1998, Epstein founded his own financial management firm. Again the biggest well known client of that firm was Billionaire Lex Wexner. ✡️ We know that during the 90’s he also meets up with his partner in crime Ghislaine Maxwell ✡️, a Jewish woman, and daughter of Mossad Agent ✡️ Robert Maxwell. It should also be noted at one time, Robert Maxwell’s company merged with McGraw Hill. As in our text books are Israeli spy approved! As is our Jewish controlled media! ✡️ 🧵 7/14
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
From here I want to pivot and look deeper into some of his Criminal cases. At this point, we’ve established his weird rise as a financial mogul with basically no money or college experience…. But how did he skate some of the early charges and get a sweetheart deal in 2008? 👀 🧵 8/14
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
A couple things happened that were key to Epstein getting a crazy light sentence the first time he was caught trafficking girls…. 1. Jewish man ✡️Barry Krischer was the state prosecutor associated with sabotaging the state case. He also was the one that made sure Epstein got to sleep in his own bed every night with his sweetheart deal. 2. Epstein was liable for both state and federal charges however, what about the fed case? The DOJ didn’t prosecute him for federal crimes however. The DOJ attorney representing Florida at that time was Alexander Acosta. According to him he was told to “lay off” Epstein because he was intelligence. One can only assume Acosta got this message from above if true. Who was the Head of the DOJ at the time? ✡️ Jewish man Michael Mukasey. It should also be noted that Jeffrey Epstein was represented by famous Lawyer and Jewish ✡️ man Alan Dershowitz. 🧵 9/14
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
The only reason they were able to get Epstein later was from the persistence of the Miami Herald in 2018 bringing light to the injustice of the previous case. This of course lead to his final arrest, and ultimately his “Suicide” (murder) under DOJ supervision. Who was in charge of the DOJ? Jewish man ✡️ Bill Barr, Donald Barrs son…. The next logical question, is was Bill Barr involved in Epsteins death in order to cover up the misdeeds? And for whom…. 🧵 10/14
Video Transcript AI Summary
According to the speaker, Barr stated he personally watched a videotape and concluded a death was a suicide because nobody went in or out of the room. The speaker believes Barr is covering something up, questioning why the Attorney General would personally watch the tape instead of delegating. The speaker also argues it's illogical to assume someone could enter, kill someone, and exit undetected due to the high levels of security. Furthermore, the speaker claims that investigators would say 7 to 14 people on the other side of the door could have been responsible.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, when when I heard Barr's statement that he said he personally saw the videotape and he concluded it was a suicide because nobody went in or out, I that's when it hit me that he's covering this up because there's 2 sort of fallacies in that. 1, I thought, why is the attorney general of the United States, who I imagine to be a busy guy, why is he personally watching the videotape? Couldn't he have 2 people in his office watch the videotape and say, hey, Bill. Nobody went in or out. You know, couldn't that suffice?
And 2, to assume that somebody could get to that door, go inside, you know, kill somebody, get out completely undetected is just ridiculous because I believe there are 6 levels of security before you get to that door. So to assume that somebody could do it that way is crazy. And any 3rd grade investigator will tell you that, you know, there was anywhere from 7 to 14 people on the other side of that door, on the tier, that could have killed somebody.
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
One other Epstein connection that cannot be left out is his ties to Harvard. He was appointed as a “Visiting Fellow” in 2005. The man who recommended that appointment, was Jewish man ✡️ Stephen Kosslyn. Who was the president of Harvard at the time of his approval? Jewish man ✡️ Larry Summers. 🧵 11/14
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
Did you also know Jeffrey Epstein had numerous ties to many powerful Jewish men? He met with and was close to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak; meeting many times. 🧵 12/14 https://t.co/wXqIvlt8jF
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
And let’s not forget this beauty. Amy Roebach saying on tape she had everything on Epstein and was told not to move forward with the story. Let me present an alternative to why she didn’t present it however. Her story is they couldn’t release it because of pressure from the British crown. That does make sense, but is it also just as likely our Jewish controlled media didn’t want to run this story? 🧐 in the end the producers and executives at the company make the decisions of what the press says. 🧵 13/14
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims they had Virginia Roberts' allegations about Prince Andrew, including pictures, but the palace threatened the network, fearing they wouldn't be able to interview Kate and Will, so the story was quashed.
The speaker states Alan was implicated because of the planes. They say they convinced Roberts to come out of hiding after 12 years. The speaker says the story included Clinton and that they tried for 3 years to get it on the air.
The speaker expresses anger that the story is now coming out as new revelations, saying they "had it all." They quote Brad Edwards, the attorney, who said 3 years ago that Jeffrey Epstein would be realized as the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known. The speaker believes Epstein was killed because he made his living blackmailing people. They state there were a lot of powerful men on those planes, visiting the island, and in that apartment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you live with Virginia Roberts, we would not put it on the air. First of all, I
Speaker 1: was told, who's Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story. Then the palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a 1000000 different ways. We're so afraid we wouldn't be able to interview Kate and Will that we that also quashed the story.
And then, and then, Alan was also implicated in because of the planes. She told me everything. She had pictures. She had everything. She was in hiding for 12 years.
We convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk to us. It was unbelievable what we had Clinton. We had everything. Mhmm.
I I tried for 3 years to get it on to no avail, and now it's all coming out and it's like these new revelations that I freaking had all of it. I I I was so pissed right now, like, everyday I get more and more pissed because I'm just, like, oh my god. We it was on what what we had was unreal. Other women backing it up. Hey.
Yep. Brad Edwards, the attorney, 3 years ago saying, like, on like, we there will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known. I had it all 3 years ago. So do I think he was killed? A 100%.
Yes. I do. Because you wanna he made his whole living blackmailing people. Yeah.
Speaker 0: There were
Speaker 1: a lot of men in those planes, a lot of men who visited that island, a lot of powerful men who came into that apartment.
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
If you’ve gotten this far, I think you can draw your own conclusion. Epstein was obviously a honeypot blackmail operation. The main narrative is that he was CIA or FBI, but the reality is, he was helped along every step of the way by Jews. Epstein, was a Mossad operative. His job was to infiltrate and blackmail world leaders for Israeli interests. This is why prince Andrew and Bill Clinton were such frequent visitors, but also why his first jobs came from Jews, his slap on the wrist sentencing came from Jews, his Harvard appointment came from Jews, and his partner in crime was the daughter of a known Mossad operative and a Jew, why a Jewish man named Bill Barr covered up the evidence. Do you really think it was the CIA? Or have we just simply been infiltrated. “The Jews are born spies.” -Richard Nixon
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker mentions Telstra and asks if the listener knows someone who is in trouble. The speaker states, "they're all Jews." The speaker wants to look at sensitive areas. The speaker refers to "the guys the young guys."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm sure you have Telstra. So do you have a little bit of our our corn spots? Do you do you know somebody who are who gives a gun up to their necks? I like it. Basic BP is just that I said, who were?
I said, that they're all Jews. Alright. I wanna look at any sensitive areas around That's right. But it's, the guys the young guys that
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
If you appreciated this thread, consider donating to this page via buymeacoffee.com/Uncommonsince76 I appreciate your support!
reSee.it AI Summary
I suggested that Jeffrey Epstein might have been assassinated by a foreign government with help from the U.S. Deep State and called for Bill Barr to testify. I didn't name the country, but it's commonly believed that Epstein was connected to Mossad and the Israeli government.
@ShadowofEzra - Shadow of Ezra
Matt Gaetz floated a theory that Jeffrey Epstein may have been a*sassinated by a foreign government in collaboration with the U.S. Deep State, urging Bill Barr to testify about the incident. While Gaetz stopped short of naming the country, it's widely known that Epstein was a Mossad agent working for the Israeli government.
Video Transcript AI Summary
One speaker questions why a "foremost pederist" is protected, calling it evil and saying everyone agrees on it. Another speaker says Bill Barr needs to give sworn testimony about what happened with Epstein at the Bureau of Prisons, because the story being told isn't the real one.
The speaker believes a foreign government took Epstein out, not a domestic enterprise. They think it was a government-sponsored foreign operation in concert with people in the US government, not just a bribed guard, but at a state-to-state level. The speaker says weapon systems and global deals were at play, but admits they are just positing it as a theory. The conversation then shifts to UFOs.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Why is the world's foremost pederist protected? This makes no sense. Like, this is this is like a evil. Right? Like, everyone agrees on it.
It's like you got a 90 you got a you got a 99%
Speaker 1: On Epstein, Bill Barr is the one that needs to be called in to give to give sworn testimony on what happened there at at at Bureau of Prisons because that is that is not that there's just no way that the story you're getting is the real story there. No freaking way, and Bill Barr knows it.
Speaker 0: I think most I think most people most people believe that. Right? It's got no way that no way that that's
Speaker 1: I actually think it was a I actually think that on Epstein, it it was a foreign government took him out. I don't think it was a domestic enterprise. Really? I do. I'm not gonna say which one, but I don't think it was it was domestic inspired to take out of him.
I think that was a foreign operation. Government sponsored.
Speaker 0: So foreign operation took out Epstein inside of our prison? Yes. So they would have must have been allowed to.
Speaker 1: Oh, I I think it was it
Speaker 0: was in
Speaker 1: it was in concert with people in our government. Wow. But not at, like, some, you know, low level guard getting bribed kinda way
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: At at a at a state to state level.
Speaker 0: So so the wow. So that's probably a lot of partied interests in keeping that under wraps.
Speaker 1: You better believe it. Weapon systems at play, global deals at play.
Speaker 0: Interesting. You have date you have evidence to back that up?
Speaker 1: I I I I'm just positing it as a theory.
Speaker 0: Wow. Okay. What about UFOs?
Speaker 1: Well, we're
reSee.it AI Summary
In my latest episode, I dive deep into Alan Dershowitz's revelations about the Epstein list, discussing its contents and the reasons for its withholding. I touch on various topics, including the January 6 events, modern FBI tactics, Tiger King, Julian Assange, and Israel. Alan shares insights about the influential individuals and accusers involved, raising questions about the prosecution's tactics and whether they pressured accusers to perjure themselves to target powerful figures. Stay tuned for more updates!
@vivamusverum - Brady Knowlton
BREAKING NEWS! - EPISODE #2 - ALAN DERSHOWITZ REVEALS MORE ABOUT THE EPSTEIN LIST THAN ANYONE EVER HAS AND THE REAL REASON IT IS BEING WITHHELD! FOLLOW ME! More revelations to come soon! Quick link to chapters below: Epstein (30:50) January 6 (00:01) Entrapment by modern FBI (25:35) Tiger King (27:55) Julian Assange (39:38) Israel (40:35) Alan describes WHAT and some of WHO is on the list. Influential people and accusers. Did the prosecution get accusers to perjure themselves to leverage it against people in power?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Alan Dershowitz and his interviewer discuss themes of justice, protest, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Dershowitz recounts his own arrest during a protest as a teen, emphasizing the importance of the right to protest. He condemns the targeting of lawyers who defended Donald Trump, calling it McCarthyism.
Dershowitz advocates for common ground between genuine conservatives and liberals, particularly regarding limited government. He advises that Trump sought his advice on pardons. Dershowitz says he would have preferred individual pardons for January 6th protestors, prioritizing those who were non-violent. He argues that the Supreme Court correctly ruled against applying 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) to January 6th defendants. Dershowitz criticizes the grand jury system as a "scandal" and advocates for its abolition.
Regarding Jeffrey Epstein, Dershowitz calls for full disclosure of all evidence, stating he has nothing to hide. He believes the government is protecting accusers, even at the expense of the accused. He supports a pardon for Julian Assange. Dershowitz says that Israel is the "Jew among nations" and is subjected to antisemitism. He advocates for destroying Hamas to achieve peace. He says Palestinian education is a "farm league for terrorists." Dershowitz suggests targeting financial penalties toward groups promoting hatred in universities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alan, good to see you, my friend.
Speaker 1: Likewise. See you a free man, not presumed innocent, but declared innocent.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's, you know, with the with the case being dismissed, it's nice to get that off your shoulders. And there is no sweeter taste of freedom than from a man that has been deprived it. So and I appreciate all your help in that matter. It was it it was an ugly fight, and sometimes sometimes you win ugly, but it's still winning.
Speaker 1: It's winning, and you won not only for yourself, but for all Americans who exercise the right of assembly of free speech and protest. You know that that you and I disagree politically, about things, but I admire, your willingness to stand up for your principles, and I condemn the government for having gone after you for standing up for your principles. And so I'm glad it resolved itself in the way it did, not only for your sake, but for the sake of all Americans who will protest in the future. We are a nation of protesters. We started our country by protesting.
The people who signed the declaration of independence were subject to the death penalty as, Benjamin Franklin, said, we will either hang together or we will go hang separately. They were guilty of treason in the in the eyes of the British authorities, and, protests have been part of our history from the beginning of time. I myself have participated in them over the years starting when I was about 15 or 16 years old when I went down to Washington DC to visit just to see Washington. And, the day I was there, Ibn Saud, the king of Saudi Arabia, was being honored by the White House, and there were Saudi flags flying on the Lincoln Monument. And I couldn't bear the idea that a slaveholder's flag would be on the Lincoln Monument.
So I went up and I tore it down, and I got arrested. And that was my first the law. But, fortunately, the park policeman said that next time I should make sure if I do it, nobody is looking. He he clearly put it what I'm doing, and it didn't go on my record. But Well, that's that's the important part of American history.
Speaker 0: That's great. I there's probably a different approach to criminal justice at that time, and it's unfortunate that if you stand up, which is quite necessary for our free and open society, if you stand up that, if you stand up against tyranny or you stand up against the the the administration that you can be put in a situation where you're prosecuted to the degree that some have recently. And so we have a lot to talk about today. And
Speaker 1: One other thing. You're not the only one who is victimized for taking the position you took. The 65, a group of hard left, radical, anti American lawyers, many of them very prominent, started an organization to go after any lawyer who defended Donald Trump, and they filed bar charges against lawyers and including me. And I've had to spend Yeah. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight frivolous bar charges, which they brought against me only because I defended Donald Trump against an unconstitutional impeachment.
So we're seeing this all over. And it's wrong when it's done by the right. It's wrong when it's done by the left. It's just variations of old fashioned McCarthyism.
Speaker 0: And those are some of the topics I wanted to talk to you about. We got a lot to discuss, judicial reform, criminal justice reform. I read the new book. You came in hot on this one, Alan. I've read a lot of your books, and this one is extremely compelling, and I think it is very necessary to the public conversation that is occurring right now on the Israeli and Palestinian conflict.
I wanna talk about that, and I wanna talk about some of the headwinds that the FBI and the DOJ and the administration have in front of them. You once said let's start with the justice system. You once said that the justice system is like a blind date. Lots of promises, awkward moments and you're hoping just hoping the verdict doesn't leave you crying in the parking lot. And I think a lot of people on the conservative side have now common ground with people that have long been on the liberal side crying for criminal justice reform.
I grew up in a privileged way that I never had any encounters with the justice system. And a lot of conservatives can say the same thing. But after January 6, after what we saw with the abortion clinic protesters and the many people that were prosecuted under the Biden DOJ, We now see that the conservative side is also crying for criminal justice reform because they because they can come they can come after you, and there is so much prosecutorial misconduct. There's no there's no levers in place to properly monitor that and it looks like right now it's not being discussed. So where should they start?
Well, I
Speaker 1: think we start by acknowledging that true conservatives, real conservatives, William Buckley conservatives, Burke conservatives, genuine conservatives are have a lot in common with genuine liberals. They both want small government. They want the government out of their bedrooms, out of their deathbeds, out of their places of worship. They want the government to mind their its own business and to limit itself to John Stuart Mill's notion that the only thing that should ever be criminalized is if you are hurting other people. But it never is a proper function of government to try to make you do something that helps yourself and that makes you a better person.
You know, that's for your pastor, your rabbi, your minister, your wife, your mother, your husband, but not the government. So I think we start by trying to seek common ground between genuine conservatives and genuine liberals. I got that common ground when I had debates over and over again with William Buckley, who was a genuine and thoughtful conservative. He called me his favorite liberal. I called him my favorite conservatives.
I think that we can meet common ground and and be just as strongly opposed when the right, and when the left tried to oppress us in the name of a big government. So we have a a very hard job in front of us because most Americans want results. They don't care as much about process, but true conservatives and true liberals care deeply that the right process, the right procedures are followed. I I think it was Felix Frankfurter who once said the history of liberty is largely a history of following proper procedures. And both the extremes on the right and the extremes on the left over the years, over the generations, over the centuries, have followed, wrong procedures that's led us to extremes on both sides.
So you can be a committed liberal, committed conservative, and still share common ground and fight against a big oppressive government.
Speaker 0: Amen to that. So let's talk about the pardons. So a lot of people are upset, some on both on both sides. Some thought that the blanket pardon for the j sixers, wasn't the way to go, that it it should have been, separated into groups, whether the nonviolent or the violent should have should have received the pardons. What are your thoughts?
I I I feel obviously because I was personally affected that pardons were necessary in this case to the forefathers had intended to give the the executive power the opportunity to pardon unjust verdicts. But what do you how do you feel about the way that the pardons came down?
Speaker 1: Look. First, I agree that pardons are very important part of our system of checks and balances. I had the privilege of advising president Trump in his last term on a few of the pardons. I remember him calling me on the phone. It's it's so interesting to get a call sometimes at, 08:00 at night.
Hey. Hey, Alan. It's Donald. You're tempted to say, Donald who? No.
What can I do for you? And on a couple of occasions, he said, what do you know about, Rod Lavojevich? Is he a good guy? What do you think about his pardon? And and and a few others like that.
So I was privileged to be able to give the president my advice. He didn't always accept it, but at least he was open to to hearing it. So I think the pardon power is a very, very important power. My preference would have been for the president to literally go through all the j six cases and give pardons, to everybody who was not involved who who who were exercising their first amendment rights, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech. By the way, justice Brandeis, one of the great, great liberals of all time, said that, even the right of trespass, can be important under the first amendment.
That trespassing other people's property, although it might be a tort or maybe a minor minor infringement, if you have the right to protest, it also may mean you have the right, in some circumstances, to exercise that right by protesting, in this case, by entering the congress. In your case, of course, we have videotapes of the police welcoming you in so there was no trespass at all. What you did was perfectly lawful. But my preference would have been to first pardon the people who didn't hurt anybody, who didn't confront policemen, and then do a case by case analysis. If people hit back because they were hit, you know, that would be one thing.
But I would rather have seen a blanket pardon for everybody who engaged in nonviolent protests and then case by case determinations of the others. But all things being equal, I think I'm I prefer to see the blanket pardons over the blanket failure to pardon.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So I read all 1,500 statement of facts for for those that were prosecuted. And when I looked through a lot of those violent assault on a police officer cases, you saw some very strange things. Stuff like people making contact with the front of a police shield. You saw people that were getting beaten with batons that grabbed the baton that was beating them.
So what do you do when you're trying to communicate this to the public and you try to get them to understand that you can't just lump everyone in and all 1,500 people live with this moniker that they were considered they were part of a violent protest. And many don't understand the fault the incorrect actions of the police as well as the fact that many people were the doors were opened, and we can play that video. The doors were opened, and the police allowed them in and doors that were closed. So how do how do we communicate this to the to the public and break through this the ceiling of of the narrative that has been set by the media?
Speaker 1: I it's very, very hard. I remember once the the joke of a client, saying, well, you know, he he hit he hit my fist with his jaw. You know, it's a matter of perception and and perspective. And and there were some people who were entitled to to fight back against, improper police, conduct, and there were some who weren't, which is why I say a case by case analysis of people who were genuinely charged with really, really serious violence would have been would have been the way to to go. But if you're gonna do a blanket on either way, the blanket pardon was better than a blanket non pardon.
And, of course, we know that this follows a precedent established by the former president Biden when he pardoned and commuted sentences as well, some on a fairly blanket basis, as well as, Obama. So there have been blanket pardons, previously, as well. Of course, famous ones included, people Carter pardoned everybody who, had to go to Canada to avoid, the draft. There were Lincoln's famous speech in his second inaugural inaugural with malice toward none and charity to all. So, you know, these are hard decisions and it's hard and and what you've done a great job and those who have collected the videotapes by showing often a reluctant American public that sees things in black and white that there are gray gray areas here.
And even the people who were charged with violence, many of them were acting, at least in their view, in self defense.
Speaker 0: I wanted to ask you about the Supreme Court decision in the Fisher case under which they said that 18 US c fifteen twelve c two was improperly applied. And this this charge was, as you know, originally put into place in the fallout from the Arthur Andersen and Enron debacle in which executives destroyed evidence to prevent congressional inquiry. And the Justice Department said that people that entered into the capital to protest by virtue of entering had somehow impacted evidence. And the Supreme Court said, unless you can show a direct contact between evidence and their actions, this cannot be applied. Did they get it right?
And and if so, why did they get it right?
Speaker 1: Well, they got it right because Thomas Jefferson said back in, I think, eighteen o one, for a criminal statute to be legitimate, a reasonable person has to be able to understand it if he reads it while running. Can you imagine just the visual? Guy's holding a law book. He's running, and he's reading the statute, and he has to say to himself, oh, yeah. That statute really does cover this conduct.
Now I read the statute you're talking about while sitting. I studied it the way you did. There's no way to interpret that statute as applying to people who came and sat in the House of Representatives gallery. Nothing to do with with evidence. That was such an absurd misapplication of the law that it, you know, it doesn't take a brilliant lawyer to see that, and the Supreme Court sort of threw it in one second.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And now I wanted to get down into some some policy issues and and discussing judicial reform and criminal justice reform. None of the j six pros prosecutions allowed for a change of venue, And even Timothy McVeigh got a change of venue because everyone in the Oklahoma area was somehow affected by the bombing, and many were fact witnesses. We had judges that claimed on the stand that they had seen from their homes or the offices the activities of of, January 6, and they themselves were then fact witnesses. And then we had an unusually difficult time in an area where 92% of the DC population voted for Biden.
You and I know we did three mock trials, and out of I think we pulled over a 20 jurors, and there was only one of all those jurors that stood up and said, this looks like that they were overcharged, and no one could get a change of venue. What what's your thoughts on that, and what can be done about the fact that when the media levels an assault like they had like they did on the on the defendants that just that just precipitated and inundated the the populace with negative attitudes towards the protesters. What can be done to prevent this from happening again? Because now the media is so prevalent, it's nonstop. So you have the judges, the prosecutors, the jury, and the media all prosecuting these people in a way that did not allow for a fair trial.
Speaker 1: No. You're 100 right. And forum shopping has been a part of our legal system since the beginning of time, it's it's wrong and particularly wrong in a case like this. Look. I have friends.
I lived in District Of Columbia. I have a lot of friends who lived in the District Of Columbia. They were all just frightened out of their wits on January 6, particularly those who lived up around Capitol Hill. They were really, really afraid because the media was exaggerating everything, was painting it as an insurrection and a revolution and a revolt and a takeover of government and and all of that and, and and, you know, policemen and people who related to policemen. So, of course, there should have been a change of venue.
The case should have been tried. It could have been tried in Virginia. It could have been tried in West Virginia. It could have been tried in any of of, 15 to 20 states that are a drive or a train or even a short plane ride away from the District Of Columbia. The last place it should have been tried was the the District Of Columbia.
Not only that, but the judges in the District Of Columbia tend to be relatively one-sided. I know I was a law clerk in the District Of Columbia. I clerk for the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals, then I clerk for a justice of the Supreme Court. And, boy, I wouldn't have wanted to be tried in front of a jury of, of DC people. And it was remarkable to me that even one of the mock jurors was able to, objectively look at, the evidence.
I think the vast majority of people in the District Of Columbia, as you say, 92%, maybe even higher, voted, certainly certainly, I think less than 8% voted for Trump. But, the the the numbers are are staggering, and, and many of the jurors would start out with a very strong presumption of guilt from what they saw on television, what they read in the media. And so it was a terrible mistake. And I think it probably would have been reversed on appeal. Remember, there are a whole series of supreme court cases about changes of venue in criminal cases, more traditional cases, you know, where a murder case or a rape case or something like that.
But this is a case in which the government claimed it was an insurrection, and that is that we were all the victims of this. So, you know, the idea that you try it in the capital, in the place where the crime where there were victims, direct victims, is is preposterous and I think would have been reversed had the case gone all the way to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 0: My favorite comment from all the mock jurors was, I feel like that I would have given them not guilty if they they were not white. That that that's the kind of headwinds that we face there. So I wanted to talk about the grand jury system. So you encouraged us and we made a motion in in my case where you you requested that the government show exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. And that was not allowed, and in the grand jury system, many people don't know this, that let's say that someone committed a murder and there's a video of another person actually shooting the victim.
There is no responsibility, no statute that requires a prosecutor to show the exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. And this is something that we've we've gotta address. What are your thoughts on it?
Speaker 1: Well, no. You're absolutely right. The grand jury is a scandal. It it should be abolished. It was intended to protect defendants.
It's now the kindergarten plaything of the prosecution. They can do whatever they want. They can call whatever witnesses. They don't have to call any witnesses. They can use FBI agents who just relate what witnesses said to them.
There's no cross examination. There's no opportunity for a defense attorney to appear in front of the grand jury, and yet the American public seems to think that if a grand jury indicts that somehow changes the presumption of innocence. It doesn't at all because it's completely one-sided. My, you know, favorite story is about a case where a guy was charged with killing his wife, and and his wife showed up. And the grit he didn't even have to know that.
Now, you know, under Jenks and Brady and all of those cases, and Giglio, the government has to turn it over to the defense, but it doesn't have to present it to the grand jury. And since the defense gets no opportunity to present to the grand jury in the federal system, in some states, they do. New York, you can appear in front of the grand jury in a limited number of cases and try to present, evidence. But in the federal system, the grand jury is just completely and totally one-sided and, bears no relationship to justice. It's like the star chamber of, you know, English common law.
And so nobody should take seriously a grand jury indictment. And too many people do, oh, he was indicted by the grand jury. That must mean there's some evidence of guilt. Yeah. But it also may mean that there's evidence of innocence that the grand jury never saw.
Speaker 0: Wanted to talk to you about the suppression of evidence, in regards to the discovery process. You and I both know, a defendant named William Pope that's free state will on X and he was a pro se defendant that did an amazing job at research. And because he was pro se, he got access to some files that were deemed highly sensitive for what reason. There's no good reason for calling these. This is just like the over classification problem we have in the intelligence agents.
And so he's trying to get his PhD. He's trying to clear his name. He's received a part of his case was dismissed. And so he filed a motion to get some more discovery that he knows will help clear his name. And what the the government this is the current government.
This is the the current administration. This is not the Biden administration, but they are still not providing the information. They went one step further and they countered and said, we want to claw back. We wanna pull back all the information that you have already that falls under this highly sensitive classification. But it's information that's pertinent to his case.
He might have a civil case in the future, but this is happening now. This is not happening previous to Trump's inauguration. Why would they do that? And what do you say to the people in the DOJ that are doing this?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, we don't know who's doing it. Remember, most of the people in the DOJ are career people. They didn't switch on January, you know, when when president Trump came into office. Obviously, we have a new attorney general, deputy attorney general, assistant attorney general, and heads soon of each of the divisions. But, line prosecutors are still gonna be line prosecutors, the people who have been in office for many, many, many years.
And so you don't expect dramatic changes. So I would not attribute this failure in the the attempt to claw back evidence and the attempt to deny discovery is wrong. I wouldn't attribute that to this administration. I would attribute it to the transition, and we'll wait and see once the administration and the justice department is fully staffed and, you can then call the right people and get access to the right people and make sure the motions get to the right people, I suspect we may see some different results. So I wouldn't, I wouldn't give up on that.
You know, the the the deep state, I don't like the term, but, obviously, career people who have been in the office, lifers, who have been in the office for twenty, thirty years, many of them are my students. They don't change with administrations. They just continue to do business as usual, and denying discovery is doing business as usual, unfortunately.
Speaker 0: I I don't I don't like the term deep state. I I prefer the term the bureaucracy state, and I think it's time that we break the bureaus. I think that's all that's left to do. Many people on we've even get some of this now on the other side of the fence. Many people want to see whether or not there was any entrapment type activity on the part of the government.
So after towards the end of the prosecutions, and we learned that there was at least 26 FBI agents undercover and many people don't know this, but you and I know this because we saw the videos that Will provided us. There was undercover capital police that were pushing people up the rafters. They were undercover dressed like protesters and they were encouraging people saying go go go directing them towards the Capitol. We've had a lot of this type activity. We saw it in the Governor Whitmer kidnapping hoax where a couple defendants were found not guilty because the jury thought that they were entrapped.
And this goes all the way back to the DeLorean case. What is your thoughts on the activity of the police from what you you saw and the activity of the government and whether or not there's a claim there on behalf of the defendants?
Speaker 1: Well, I was one of DeLorean's lawyers, so I go back a long time. I had my first entrapment defense case back in the nineteen sixties. That's how far back I go. Entrapment has been a common tool, used by the government in many, many cases, drug cases, etcetera. I'm involved in the case right now where there are issues of entrapment.
I can't discuss them because it's a pending case. But entrapment is a very common tactic, and the law of entrapment favors the prosecution. It basically says you can do anything. You can entrap anybody. You can fool them into it.
You can lie to them. You can do anything as long as they had a, quote, predisposition to commit the crime anyway. So a defendant who had a so called predisposition to commit the crime can't benefit from the defensive entrapment. And the government generally uses it against people who they think had a predisposition. It's pretty easy to prove predisposition for many, many defendants.
So, the entrapment defense, is very, very rarely used successfully. I've had it used successfully in a couple of cases, but it's very, very rare.
Speaker 0: Well, there's a there's another case that's in the news a lot that there was the Tiger King case where Joseph Passage Maldonado was prosecuted for hiring a hitman to kill a woman named Carol Baskin. But a lot of people are upset because it looks like that the FBI informant in that case spent eight months encouraging the defendant to commit the crime. He and he declined for eight months. And then when he finally agreed to do it, there's some dispute over what he was giving the the informant the money for. But that evidence, some of it has been suppressed.
And what are your thoughts on a client that's had an FBI agent encouraging him to commit a crime for for eight months.
Speaker 1: Well, let me tell you what happens because I've had this case over and over and over again. The government sends in the person to entrap. The person has a wire, has a recording device, but he doesn't turn it on. He doesn't turn it on while he's entrapping him. He waits until he's entrapped, and only then does he turn it on to prove the actual crime.
So the defense has a hard time proving what led up to the commission of the crime, leading you know, because, generally, they erase or they don't record the part of it in which the FBI informant or the undercover agent or the flipped witness pleads with the defendant to do the crime. So, there's a lot of destruction of evidence there, and it's a it's a very, very difficult issue. Look, entrapment can be a very valuable tool prosecution. If you have somebody who wants to kill the president and wants to kill some somebody else and and and and you can get him to act it out in a way that allows the government to trap him before he does it, you know, that can be valuable. But I think, entrapment is overused and it's used in political cases.
It's used in, drug cases and money cases, and it's it's way overused. And it's very difficult for a defendant to succeed on an entrapment defense. But we don't want to live in a society where crimes are committed because the government commits the crimes. You know, it was John Donne who said in his poem, oh, what a tangled web we we when first we were to deceive. And, you know, once the government is in the business of deception, all bets are off and they do a lot.
They cover up their own deception. I've been involved in many, many such cases. I've written about such cases in my book, The Best Defense, and other books. So, unfortunately, I'm an expert in government deception.
Speaker 0: I wanna talk to you about another cover up. And you and I did a a previous podcast where you were discussing the the Epstein situation. And you have been completely transparent on this. And I want you to know, I got so many messages saying that he seems he he's so he's so believable. I believe him.
And I I I don't really think the public understands how transparent you've been on this. And I wanted to ask you, since the FBI is facing some serious legitimacy problems right now, and the public is demanding that these files come out, Do you think that they will come out? And if they do, what should we expect?
Speaker 1: They won't come out, and they're being deliberately withheld. I am the only person who's calling for complete and total disclosure of every piece of evidence relevant to Jeffrey Epstein. Why? Easy. I have nothing to hide.
I haven't touched a woman other than my wife since the day I met Jeffrey Epstein. This woman who accused me, I never met her, never heard of her, never knew who she was, and we were able to prove conclusively that I couldn't have been in the places where I was alleged to have been when this all happened. So it was very easy for me to be transparent. But the government is now withholding evidence. Let me tell you what they're withholding.
They're withholding evidence that shows that many of the women who made accusations made them fall falsely. They're protecting the women, what they're saying, and they're saying it openly. We're not gonna disclose any information critical of the, quote, victims, But it was the victims. In my case, I was the victim. I was the victim of a false accusation.
And so they're not protecting the victims. They're protecting accusers who may be victims or may be victimizers. And so we're never gonna see that information disclosed. How do I know? Because I have that information.
I know what's there, but they won't release it. They won't release information that raises questions about the credibility of people who claim to be oh, victims. There's also information about other people. I know. I know their names.
I'm not permitted to disclose them who have been accused. Some of their names have been disclosed. Former majority leader of the United States Senate, George Mitchell, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, they were accused of having unprotected sex. Is there any evidence of that? No.
But just on the basis of accusations, it tends to be believed. You say people now believe me because I'm credible. Why shouldn't they believe me? I've done absolutely nothing wrong, and not a single piece of evidence has ever been produced to show I did anything wrong. And yet people say, well, you know, he's been accused.
Who knows? Maybe it's a gray area. No. It is a gray area. It's black and white, false accusation, total innocence.
And, of course, I want everything revealed because if everything is released, it will prove my innocence beyond any doubt. I want every videotape, every audiotape, every document, every redacted FBI file, everything to be released, but it's not gonna be.
Speaker 0: So you believe that they're protect protecting the the accusers. Now on the sides of the the accused, do you feel like that there are people that are being granted protections that other people accused of these type of crimes are not?
Speaker 1: Yes. I know I know of such cases. I know of at least several cases where people have been accused and named, and the courts have covered it up.
Speaker 0: Did you find in a in a I don't know if you can tell me this, but did you find that obtaining the non prosecution agreement in Florida was unusually easy or the prosecutor was overly willing to cooperate?
Speaker 1: Oh, was very, very hard. We faced very, very aggressive prosecutors, but we were able to prove beyond any doubt that, Epstein never traveled in interstate commerce for purposes of having sex with an underage person. And that was a requirement that that's why the government felt they had to accept the plea bargain where he pleaded guilty to state charges that don't require traveling at the state commerce. So it was a very tough negotiation. It took, months and months and months, and we got the best deal we could.
The government thought they got the best deal they could, but, you know, it's been called a sweetheart deal. It was not a sweetheart deal. It was based on lack of evidence of some of the elements of the crimes.
Speaker 0: So the the DOJ is saying saying that the files are that they will release, I think there's supposed to be, some a a dump on April 1, but they're saying that some of it was gonna be redacted for reasons of national security.
Speaker 1: That's not there's no national security. Let me tell you, Jeffrey Epstein had nothing to do with national security. He was not a spy for the most side. I think he was in Israel once in his life, came to visit for one day. I think he flew out the same day he flew in.
There's just no truth to any of this. He was not an asset. No national security involved. He was, you know, a guy who was a hedonist and did did some awful things, to some people. And, but there's no national security.
Everything should be revealed. Everything should be released. No redactions, period. I waive all of my rights of privacy. Anything that I said, anything I did, any photograph, feel free.
Show it. Do it. It'll prove what I've been saying all along.
Speaker 0: Why do you think that he was killed in prison?
Speaker 1: Well, the question there's no question that he didn't just commit suicide. He may have had helped committing suicide. I've had my doubts about that. He was supposed to have a bail hearing a couple of days after he died, and he had a good shot at getting bail, under the circumstances of the the case and the idea that he would kill himself two or three days before he might have been freed on bail, always struck me as strange. On the other hand, I don't know who would be motivated to kill him.
You know, maybe he had some secrets that I was not aware of. I was his lawyer, so I think I knew most of his secrets. I remember asking him, do you have anything to worry about about a particular person? He said, no. I have nothing to worry about him.
I have so much on him that I have nothing to worry about.
Speaker 0: You don't feel like your life was ever in danger due to your possible knowledge of people who are on the list?
Speaker 1: No. I publicly stated everything. Every everything that I knew about the case, wrote about. I didn't keep any secrets. I wrote a book called Guilt by Accusation in which I named names.
The only names I couldn't name were ones that were sealed. I know some of those, but, most of them are not, particularly high profile or or powerful people. You know, there were other accusers too. There's a woman named Sarah Ransom who, accused, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton of having sex with underage girls. Also accused, the guy who's the head of Virgin Airlines.
Jacques Cousteau's granddaughter, was accused. It's so easy to make an accusation. And all of these people were accused, and the woman, Sarah Ransom, for example, who accused all these people later admitted she made the whole thing up. She told New Yorker magazine, I made it all up. I wanted to have something over Epstein.
But that hasn't come out. That's still being suppressed, the whole history of Sarah Ransom.
Speaker 0: Is Why? Why why why is this all being suppressed?
Speaker 1: Because she alleged she alleges that she's a victim. She was like years old.
Speaker 0: I mean, generally, not just in with respect to a single accuser or why do you think it's being suppressed in the general sense?
Speaker 1: Because if you claim to be a victim, the courts are gonna protect you. They're gonna presume you innocent and the person you accused guilty. That's what the legacy of the Me Too movement has been.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: And that's what I titled my book, you know, Guilt by Accusation. If you've been accused, you're guilty. And, I have facts. I know facts that would prove conclusively that some of the accusers are guilty of perjury and, and should be prosecuted and should be imprisoned. And yet the government is protecting them because they don't wanna be perceived as in any way of damaging, people who claim to have been victims even if they aren't victims at all, even if they're victimizers.
Speaker 0: Okay. I wanted to talk to you real quick about Julia Massange. So you you stated once if The US thinks they can lock up Assange for spilling secrets, they'd better better build a prison big enough for every journalist who's ever peaked at a government memo, starting with me. So of course, he's he's he's moved on in life, but, the question remains, should Trump pardon him?
Speaker 1: Yes. I think he should. I I think that Assange is the New York Times. He's not the one who stole the secrets. The people who stole the secrets are guilty of crimes, Chelsea Manning and some of the others.
But Assange is the New York Times, the Washington Post, simply reporting on the fact that there were stolen secrets. And so, yes, I think he should be pardoned, and I don't think that what he's done is wrong under the First Amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. Let's let's get into Israel. In the nineteen eighties, there was a time when American sentiment turned against Israel for a while, and then it seemed like in my and most of my life life that there was much better PR and much better there's much better sentiment in the country towards Israel. But it looks like that the propaganda war is one where they're it's not the kinetic war they're losing. It's that the propaganda war is just a a constant onslaught.
And there's there's there's lots of reasons for that. But I wanted to ask, how can Israel be more effective? Every government you and I are both critical of government. We're we're and and I think that's an important part of the system as people should always be critical of the government and suspicious of power, whether it's America or Israel. But a lot of the sentiment is turning against the Jewish people wherever they are.
What do you think should be done from the on the propaganda side or just on the the media influence side to change that?
Speaker 1: Well, it's very hard. Well, I'm 86 years old, so I can't pick up a gun and go and fight and defend the Jewish people in Gaza from what happened on October 7, rapes and murders and beheadings and all of that. All I can do is write books. And so my most recent small book is called The 10 Big anti Israel lies and how to refute them with truth. I printed, no profit to me, a million copies of this.
It's small enough to fit in your pocket. And, and we're distributing them to a million students on college campuses around the country, Columbia and Harvard and all over. And, and we're we've already distributed 600,000 copies on approximately a thousand campuses. And so, I I take on the lies and I try to answer them in the marketplace of ideas. I believe in the first amendment.
I don't think people should be shut down. They should be answered. This, this this thug, who is being deported, who was the leader of the pro Hamas demonstrations at Columbia. You know, he had a right to hold up a sign, accusing Israel of whatever and calling for genocide if he did against the Jewish people. He has a first amendment right to do that, and I have a first amendment right to answer him.
And I'm gonna answer him, and gonna continue to answer them. And I have another book coming out, soon called Palestinianism, which focuses on why everybody is so immersed in the Palestinian issue and focused on Israel's faults when look what's going on in Syria today. Hundreds of thousands of people are subject to possible murder and etcetera. What's happening in Darfur, the world doesn't care. It only cares if, the alleged enemies are are are are Jews.
And it's, you know, part of a long, long history of antisemitism. Israel is the Jew among nations, and so, they are now subjected to the kind of antisemitism that individual Jews were subjected to before there was a Jewish state. But but for me, all I want take this in the marketplace of ideas. Let's have all sides presented. I've offered to debate this at Harvard.
They rejected the offer. Harvard today wouldn't accept the Lincoln Douglas debates. They would say, there were too many people who'd be offended, etcetera, offended by so live in a world where there's debate and dialogue and there's just propaganda, and that's not
Speaker 0: I just finished reading War Against the Jews and it's it's a great piece and I've come to the conclusion that and people need to focus on this, there's not gonna be peace as long as Hamas is in leadership. And we can't discuss any progress till we get to a post Hamas Palestinian leadership. In your book, you pull out
Speaker 1: World War. The second World War, you couldn't have peace with Germany until you destroyed the Nazi party. And once the Nazis were destroyed, then you could have the Marshall Plan. You could have peace, and there was peace in Central Europe until Ukraine for, you know, seventy years. But you can't have peace in The Middle East with a mosque still in control of Gaza.
Speaker 0: I want I wanted to read a little excerpt, out of your book. And using the most vulnerable civilians in this way as as human shields is a mosque tact that goes back many years. As one of its leaders boasted in 02/2008, for the Palestinian people death has become an industry. The elderly excel at this and so do the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women and children.
So many people I don't think they're just aware of how that Hamas leadership profits from the death of these individuals. And this is the plan. The plan is to allow as many people to die because we win on the propaganda front. And in that, as that occurs, Hamas themselves, the leadership, gets enriched. What are your thoughts on on Hamas leadership, and what has to be done to get, to get a new leadership for the Palestinian people?
Speaker 1: Well, look, Sinwar, the guy who was the head of Hamas, who was fortunately killed by Israel, said he wanted more martyrs. He wanted more children, more Palestinian women and children that die because every time a Palestinian woman and child dies as the result of being used as human shield, that helps Hamas, it hurts Israel. So it's very important that we also know that these people at Columbia and Barnard who are protesting are protesting on behalf of Hamas. They believe that what they call Al Aqsa storm, which was October 7, the rapes, the murders, the beheadings, were all justified. And these people are justifying the the murder and rapes of of innocent people.
And then they're condemning Israel for fighting back and doing what United States did in self defense when we were bombed in Pearl Harbor. Yeah. We did bomb Tokyo, and we did bomb Hiroshima and and Nagasaki, and and and and and we did bomb Berlin. And, you know, we did kill Hitler and Goring and Goebbels and all of those people and ended Nazism. You know, people say, you can't end an ideology.
Of course, you can. When The United States, Churchill and Roosevelt destroyed Nazism, that was the end of that ideology. You know, there's sort of Nazis hanging around, you know, places, but there's no such thing as Nazism anywhere, anymore in the world, or what was ruling Japan. It's the same. You can destroy an ideology if you destroy the leaders of the ideology.
That's why Israel has to be given the green light to destroy Hamas completely.
Speaker 0: To that point, Alan with decent Palestinian people. It's important to focus on just at the at the most basic level of what's happening in Palestine. So when you look at what's called Palestinian education, it's not education, it is a farm league for terrorists. They're just teaching the we'll have this generational issue now that they are taught terror from the the moment that they can get into school. And how is it that we can we can change that?
I mean, is there something the international community can do? Because the problem is that we see all these terrible things happen to Palestinian people, which I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for. As you say in your book, the biggest enemy to the Palestinian people is Hamas and this starts all the way at education. If you would just give us a few minutes on what's the plan for it and what can be done to stop this indoctrination?
Speaker 1: Well, the indoctrination comes not only from Hamas, it comes from the United Nations. The United Nations Refugee and Relief Fund promotes a lot of this miseducation. The Palestinian Authority promotes miseducation. We have statutes on the books that prohibit payment of money to any group that promotes this kind of antisemitism. And I think president Trump is gonna enforce that those statutes in ways that they weren't enforced previously.
So I think you're absolutely right. It starts with education. But let's remember too, the Germans and the Japanese during World War two were educated to aid Americans. And once their leaders were defeated and executed and, Nazism ended, the education stopped, and you were able to reeducate quite quickly. And I think we could do that to decent people of of of Palestine, decent Palestinian people who really wanna live in peace with Israel.
So, you know, I'm an optimist. I just think that we can turn this around, but it's gonna take hard work. That's why at 86 years old, I'm still working and writing and trying to, present a different point of view from the narrative that Hamas presents, and that is true for places like Colombia.
Speaker 0: Let's bring it home and we can end on this. So Colombia recently lost $400,000,000 in federal funding for allowing Judas students to to be harassed. And so we have a similar problem here. What's your thought on how we can should should this continue? Should we start depriving universities of the federal funds that are encouraging this type of behavior, which is an an impairment of the civil rights of the students?
Speaker 1: Well, that's the hard question. The hard question is this. How do you selectively cut off funding that's being used to propagandize students and promote hatred of America and hatred of Israel without also cutting off funding for medical research and scientific research and other research. So what we have to do is figure out ways of targeting the financial penalties toward the groups that could be deterred without cutting back on the importance of the kind of research that's that's being done. I think we can do it, and, you have to start somewhere.
And starting with the cutting back of the money from Columbia sent a message. It was a shot across the bow. And I think some schools now should be given a chance to reform and and do a better job, and the government should then do a better job also of focusing specifically on where where the the the the problems are. For example, Barnard College has a women's studies department, which is completely sexist, racist, anti Semitic, and they say right in their right in their website that their goal is to end the patriarchy. Nothing to do about teaching students.
And so if you could start with places like Barnard College and other ideological places, I think that will target the the the violators more specifically than broad, deprivations of funding that could affect the medical and scientific research.
Speaker 0: Well, Alan, thank you so much for your time. It's always a pleasure. These conversations are always illuminating. Look forward to talking to
Speaker 1: you again. It was an honor to be your lawyer. I consider myself, in addition to being your lawyer, your friend. And so let's continue our friendship, but let you never again need me to be your lawyer.
Speaker 0: Amen to that, man. Thank you. Take care.
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across some startling claims about Jeffrey Epstein's death, suggesting it was an execution rather than a suicide. According to Patrick Byrne and Ann Vandersteel, guards were incapacitated with nitrous oxide, and 14 security cameras were disabled, indicating a coordinated operation rather than negligence. They allege a state actor was involved, and a corrupt officer may have facilitated the hit. This narrative challenges the official story, implying Epstein was silenced to protect powerful individuals. The truth is reportedly surfacing, and the implications are significant.
@JimFergusonUK - Jim Ferguson
BREAKING:🚨 EPSTEIN MURDER BOMBSHELL: GUARDS DRUGGED, CAMERAS DISABLED, STATE ACTOR INVOLVED 🚨 🔴 Investigative revelations discussed by Patrick Byrne and Ann Vandersteel suggest Jeffrey Epstein didn’t die by suicide — he was executed. 🗣️ According to new insider intel: 🔹 Guards were knocked unconscious with nitrous oxide gas — confirmed by blood tests taken the next morning. 🔹 A state-level actor allegedly placed the gas canister and ran a pipe to the guards’ location. 🔹 14 security cameras were simultaneously disabled. 🔹 And a dirty cop on the inside may have carried out the hit. 🔥 THIS WASN’T NEGLIGENCE. THIS WAS A COORDINATED BLACK OP. 🔥 📢 WHAT THIS MEANS: ⚠️ The “suicide” story is now in tatters. ⚠️ A professional operation silenced Epstein — before he could name names. ⚠️ This wasn’t a cover-up. It was an assassination behind prison walls. 💥 Byrne and Vandersteel's sources say the truth is leaking — and those behind it are getting nervous. 🚨 THE SYSTEM PROTECTED HIM — UNTIL HE BECAME A THREAT TO IT. 🚨 Cameras off. Guards gassed. One man silenced forever. But the names, the tapes, and the network? Still coming to light. Justice delayed isn’t justice denied. Stay awake. @PatrickByrne @annvandersteel
Video Transcript AI Summary
An individual claims they received information about Jeffrey Epstein's death from someone seeking to convey the seriousness of the people involved. This individual states that a detail from the Epstein crime scene indicates it was murder, not suicide.
Specifically, the guards who supposedly fell asleep had traces of nitrous oxide in their blood. This suggests someone smuggled laughing gas into the facility, accessed the ventilation system, and incapacitated the guards. The individual speculates that 14 cameras were disabled, and a corrupt cop was released from a nearby cell to kill Epstein before returning to his cell. The hose and laughing gas canister were then removed. The individual suggests this level of sophistication points to a state-level actor, not a typical mob hit.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Six months ago, I was sent a message. Well, I was sent somebody came to see me. And among the things that I was told eight months ago, among the things I was told so that I would understand what we are up against is I was told a detail of the crime scene. Oh, I'm getting a message from someone saying, do not reveal this. Sorry.
I actually got a message from I got a message
Speaker 1: that that
Speaker 0: do I just got a message flashed up to me from someone saying, do not reveal this. And it's a person who Okay. Knows.
Speaker 2: Okay. I don't want anybody I don't want you to reveal anything that could
Speaker 1: inform an investigation or inform you. That's okay. That's okay.
Speaker 0: No. I'll tell you. I'm gonna tell you. It was from the Epstein death scene. It was a detail that was shared with me.
Just one little detail of the scene that tells you that was conveyed to me so I would understand what we are up against. And the okay. Do you do you that and the the detail of the scene of the crime scene was one that this one detail shows that it was not a suicide. It was in fact a murder. And there's a detail that once you understand it reveals we have to be this isn't the Gambino family.
This isn't the Genovese family. This had the sophistication. Well, I've got to say it now because otherwise they will might kill me. Literally, there was just someone sending me flash message. Do not say this.
But so this is the you know how the guards
Speaker 1: Come on, Patrick. You
Speaker 0: You know how the guards we know that the guards okay. To the person who just sent me that message, send me an explanation. Should I or should I not? If you don't want me to say this, give me 10 words as to why I should not say this. In the meantime, I'm gonna give a little bit more color.
It was a detail that was meant to communicate to me. It was a murder and indicate to me the seriousness of the people behind it. Well, I guess it's too late. It was the Epstein crime scene and the guards I was told that the guards, you know, who fell asleep in the Right. Fell asleep and we all assumed were brought.
Yeah. We all thought that. Well, guess what? They did fall asleep. Their blood was tested the next morning, and they found traces of nitrous oxide.
So what's that tell you, Anne?
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 0: That could help with laughing gas. But doctors use it, laughing gas.
Speaker 1: Dentists use it. Dentists use it. Right.
Speaker 0: So that tells us that somebody snuck into a federal facility a canister of laughing gas. They got access to the ventilation system. They snaked a hose to the right room, turned it on, knocked out the guards. Then I was they they knocked out 14 cameras on that floor, probably let there's a goon cop down a dirty cop who was in a cell down the block. He was probably the guy who did it.
This was not this was not confirmed to me, but he was let in. His door was open. He went and killed Epstein. And then they and went back to your cell. And then they retrieved the hose.
Someone retrieved the hose and x x filled, took out the the canister of laughing gas. Now that tells us something. Does that sound like a Gambino hit, or does that sound like maybe a state level actor?
Speaker 1: State level for sure. Absolutely. Mossad or
reSee.it AI Summary
I support President Trump and the pursuit of truth regarding Jeffrey Epstein's death, which I believe was a murder rather than a suicide. Evidence suggests Epstein was an asset for the Mossad and CIA, blackmailing influential figures globally. Key details include multiple meetings with high-profile officials, suspicious circumstances surrounding his death, and a lack of proper investigation. Mark Epstein claims his brother was targeted, and various anomalies, such as disabled cameras and sleeping guards, raise serious questions. I urge for a thorough investigation into the cover-up and the release of the Epstein Files.
@SpartaJustice - Truth Justice ™
EPSTEIN WAS A MOSSAD AND CIA ASSET: I support President Trump and I support the truth no matter what it is. Epstein did not killed himself based on all the evidence gathered. Epstein worked for the Mossad and the CIA blackmailing presidents, prime ministers and powerful people all over the world in order to control them in favor of certain political agendas. Epstein met with CIA Director William Burns and Barack Obama's Top Lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler over 12 times. Senator John Kennedy asked FBI Director Kash Patel, did someone kill Jeffrey Epstein and Kash Patel said "I believe he hung himself" Senator John Kennedy also posted on November 2019 and stated to Congress "There are three things that don’t hang themselves: Christmas ornaments, dry wall and Jeffrey Epstein. That’s what the American people think. Today, I asked the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to get the American people some answers on the Epstein investigation." Attorney General Bill Barr covered up the Epstein murder and here is the undeniable proof, but why the coverup? Who was he protecting? The DOJ led my Attorney Bill Barr falsely labeled Epstein's death as a suicide to stop further investigation. Autopsy and Pathologist confirms it was a Homicide strangulation. Through 40 years of experience, the Pathologist confirms he has never seen a 3 bone fracture in 1000 prison suicide cases and the wounds on Epstein's neck do not match the cloth noose. They never did DNA testing on the supposed orange sheet cloth which is not normal procedure. The cameras facing Jeffrey Epstein's cell were turned off, two prison guards fell asleep at the same time which is highly improbable. A report from Patrick Byrne who worked secretly with the FBI and House Senate says he received information that came from Bill Barr that the prison guards were put to sleep with some type of sleeping gas. The 911 calls were never released and Jeffrey Epstein's body was moved to the hospital two hours after he was already dead. They were falsely giving a dead body resuscitation to prove he died in the hospital which is a lie. The original autopsy pointing to a homicide was strangely overruled by an official who did not even do the autopsy. Jeffrey Epstein's cellmate was conveniently removed prior to the murder. There were no images of Jeffrey Epstein's body being hung and supposedly he was cut down from the cloth noose, but there are no cuts in the orange cloth sheet noose. Mark Epstein confirms his brother Jeffrey Epstein never tried to commit suicide, he was beat up by his cellmate and the mainstream media lied. Also Jeffrey Epstein had a bail trial coming up in a few days and would have probably been released from prison on bail so it makes no sense that he would have committed suicide before his bail trial. Jeffrey Epstein also told his brother that he had dirt on the 2016 Presidential candidates. Mark Epstein went on to say that he received insider information that other cell doors were left unlocked deliberately, possibly allowing a planted assassin to kill Jeffrey Epstein and this is why the cameras were disabled and the prison guards were sleeping. His dead body should have never been moved, this was against Federal Prison protocols. It has been confirmed that Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence asset for the Mossad and CIA, blackmailing politicians, government officials, billionaires and entertainers. This is why he received a secret plea deal and a light prison sentence on his previous first arrest in 2008 even though there were many victims willing to testify against him. Alex Acosta confirmed that Jeffrey Epstein was intelligence. President Trump confirms that a case could be made that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered because there were no cameras and everyone was sleeping even though he personally believes Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. He also recently suggested that Bill Clinton was involved in a retweet he posted on Twitter years ago. Tucker Carlson, Mark Epstein, the Pathologist and all the evidence clearly confirms, Bill Barr, the acting U.S. Attorney General of the Department of Justice along with the other U.S. Officials covered up Jeffrey Epstein's murder. The question is why and who ordered them to do this? We cannot let this go, we must demand a new full investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's murder coverup and we must demand the Epstein Files be released and the people that are involved must go to prison.
reSee.it AI Summary
I just watched the entire Jeffy E segment where Joe Rogan challenges Kash Patel on the Epstein suicide. Rogan raises important points, like the Baden interview suggesting homicide, the deleted clips, and the delay in the video's release. Patel stands firm in his belief that it wasn't murder, emphasizing the security of the unit and stating he would be vocal if he thought otherwise. I really appreciate Rogan for asking these tough questions, as he represents many of our concerns.
@JohnMcCloy - Johnny St.Pete
🔥🔥MUST WATCH. Entire Jeffy E Segment where Joe Rogan plays devil’s advocate with Kash Patel on the Epstein Suicide. He asks him if he ever saw the Baden interview stating it was a likely homicide, asks about the supposed deleted clips, asks about AI & why it took so long for this video to emerge after all these years. Kash Patel maintains that he never believed it was a murder and discusses how secure the unit was & says he would be the first one giving press conferences daily if he believed that was the case. I have to give immense credit to Joe Rogan for asking these questions because he is speaking for most of us here.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states they are investigating Epstein's death and will release as much information as possible, including video of the cell. They believe Epstein killed himself, citing their experience with jail suicides and the difficulty of running an operation in that detention center without detection.
The speaker addresses reports of guards sleeping and cameras being down, but says footage will be released. They mention a forensic scientist, Dr. Michael Baden, who determined the death was a homicide due to a broken bone in Epstein's neck, but acknowledge the New York City medical examiner disputes this, calling it a "war of experts."
The speaker became aware of the video footage recently and addresses reports of mistakenly erased footage, suggesting people ask those in power at the time. They acknowledge AI's ability to create convincing forgeries, but claim the footage is authentic. They state that even if Epstein was murdered, the information that could damage powerful people is already out there. They insist they would pursue the case if there was any evidence of murder.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're not gonna let that go. We're gonna investigate him. Right? They charged him. They indict him, and he's awaiting trial.
And I've said it. Dan Bongino said it. We've reviewed all the information, and the American public is gonna get as much as we can release. He killed himself. Do you think let's play out the logical conclusion of this.
Do you think that myself, Bon Gino, and others would participate in hiding information about Epstein's protest activities, or do you think we would also participate in not prosecuting people we had evidence to prosecute people on? But the problem is there's been, like, fifteen years of people coming in and creating fictions about this that doesn't exist. Where's the videotape of an Epstein island of x, y, and z committing these frauds? Why haven't you given it to us? Do you really think I wouldn't give that to you if it existed?
I'm working my ass off along with the leadership at the bureau and DOJ to get you what we're allowed to give you, And you're gonna get the video of the cell, and you're gonna see for yourself. And we will never be able to convince everyone.
Speaker 1: Okay. Let's let's get into that. So what did you think before you got in office? Did you think that Epstein was murdered? No.
No suspicion at all of
Speaker 0: it? But I have a different background. Right? Right. So I was a public defender back in the day.
I used to spend a lot of time in jails and a lot of time in segregated housing units, shoes as we call them. Right? And so and I've known people that have committed suicide in these cells. And I know how you get in, how you get out, who works the system. And so the way based on public information at the time that he ended up put the pictures and him hanging himself.
I was like, man, that guy killed himself. It's there's just no way that you could have run an op and had people go into that cell and not have any video of it and not have any people come out and say, hey. Yeah. I saw that guy. He shouldn't have been there, the guard or this guy.
There's just no access points into places like this in the detention center he was in, which I've been in.
Speaker 1: So correct me if I'm wrong, but what I was told, what I'd read was that the guards were not paying attention or were sleeping.
Speaker 0: Well
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And in short order, you'll see it.
Speaker 1: Is that is that correct?
Speaker 0: Well, it's hard to surmise that from a video. Right?
Speaker 1: Like Right.
Speaker 0: Where they, like, you know and look. Do guards doze off on the night shift? Yeah. But no one can get in to the cell. And if they had gotten in to the cell, you would see it.
Speaker 1: But we were told that the cameras were down.
Speaker 0: Well, I don't know who said that.
Speaker 1: But that was that was in the news.
Speaker 0: We're giving you all the footage we have.
Speaker 1: So why wasn't that released, like, immediately? Why why did this speculation escalate?
Speaker 0: I think you'd have to ask who whoever the attorney general back then was, Bill Barr.
Speaker 1: Did you ever see do you remember that HBO autopsy show? Doctor Michael Batten? He's a famous forensic
Speaker 0: I don't think I saw that.
Speaker 1: Scientist. So he's a pathologist, and he reviewed the case, and it was his determination that it was a homicide because of the way his neck was broken. Mhmm. And what he said was it was indicative of a ligature strangulation, and it was because of the positioning on the neck where the marks were, that it wasn't indicative of someone hanging by their weight, which had been higher on the chin, and there's a specific break of the bones and the vertebrae that's consistent with someone who is just strangled to death. I
Speaker 0: I haven't seen it. I'll definitely take a look at it because that's part of my job. You haven't seen that? The report on that? No.
I haven't looked at that.
Speaker 1: Did you see any what did was there any other autopsy done other than the official one?
Speaker 0: Not to my knowledge, but if there was, you'll get it. And that's what we're doing.
Speaker 1: See if you find that doc doctor Michael Badden thing. Yeah. No. Do you remember that show? The HBO show?
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Pretty cool show. Yeah. So this guy, doctor Michael Badden, he had a long career of catching murderers, you know, exhuming bodies, finding trace amounts of poisons, different kinds of things, and it a crazy Like, all these wild ways of Well,
Speaker 0: I love watching shows, I spent a lot of time on plants.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It was an old show. It was a show, like, from the early two thousands, I believe. But this guy was, like, you know, he's very well respected forensic scientist who would analyze these bodies, and Mhmm. It was his determination that he was murdered.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And my job, going back to the core of what I've been doing since I studied Russiagate, was to get and is to get everybody the information.
Speaker 1: When did you get here. Epstein's autopsy points to homicide pathologist hired by brother claims. New York City medical examiner strongly disputed the claim that the evidence from the autopsy suggested strangulation. So let's go to by the way, this is the New York Times and they never lie. The private pathologist, doctor Michael Badden, said the morning TV show Fox and Friends, mister Epstein, experienced a number of injuries, among them a broken bone in his neck that are extremely unusual in suicidal hangings and could occur much more commonly in homicidal strangulation.
I think the evidence points to homicide rather than suicide to doctor Batten who observed the autopsy done by city officials. Doctor Batten, a Former New York City Medical Examiner and a Fox News contributor said, I have not seen in fifty years where that occurred in suicidal hanging case. Findings by doctor Badden were strongly disputed by the city's chief medical examiner, doctor Barbara Sampson, who previously ruled that mister Epstein's death on August 10 in the Metropolitan Correctional Center was a suicide. I stand firmly behind our determination of the cause and manner of death in this case. Doctor Sampson said in the interview on Wednesday, she added, in general, fractures of the hyoid bone and cartilage can be seen in suicides and homicides.
The hyoid bone is near the Adam's apple. Doctor Sampson also dismissed doctor Baden's contention that the circumstances around mister Epstein's death suggested other people may have been involved. She said her office had done a complete investigation, taking into consideration information gathered by law enforcement in the making in making the determination.
Speaker 0: So this is a perfect example of going back to my public defender and prosecutor days. Mhmm. This is what we call a war of experts. You can always find someone
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: To come in and say the opposite. Right. And I used to do it all the time. I mean, I represented some of the worst humans that you can possibly imagine on earth, literally. The guys that were trafficking children from Mexico into America.
And you could put up a professional expert to say, and this is what's gonna go on forever. And my job is not the forever. My job is to get you absolutely everything that we can give you, and that's what we're gonna do.
Speaker 1: When did you become aware of this video that showed that no one had gone in and out of the cell?
Speaker 0: Recently.
Speaker 1: So why was it recent, though? I mean, if this death was how long ago was this death? Two years?
Speaker 0: No. 2019. Couple.
Speaker 1: 2019?
Speaker 0: '20 '19.
Speaker 1: Oh, really? Mark, time flies. So six years.
Speaker 0: Well, again, that's part of what I'm gonna try to answer for you.
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein, JLCCTV erased by technical errors. Whoopsies. Yeah. But you see how anybody on the outs I mean, this is like a perfect storm
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: For some can you pull that article up so we can read what it says, Jimmy? US prosecutor said the jail mistakenly saved footage from the wrong cell. Sorry. Epstein, a convicted sex offender, first tried to kill himself in July, and hang himself in jail.
Speaker 0: Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Yep. Reread that line.
Speaker 1: That he first tried to kill himself in July of last
Speaker 0: year. Yeah. How much of the American public do you think knows that?
Speaker 1: I didn't know that. I do it right now. There
Speaker 0: you go.
Speaker 1: Maybe I heard it and forgot. Did you ever hear it, Jamie? Oh, he was on that's why he's on suicide watch, I think. Oh, okay.
Speaker 0: A guy
Speaker 1: Died himself in jail in August while serving trial on federal sex trafficking charge. He pleaded not guilty to abusing dozens of Earl, some as young as 14. Yeah. Soon after Epstein's death in August, '2 of the c c c CCTV cameras outside his cell malfunctioned and were being examined by the FBI. Found semi conscious in his prison cell with injuries on his neck on July 25 after this incident, he's placed on suicide watch.
Speaker 0: I'm not saying every single camera in the place was working. I'm saying we've got footage and you're getting it. Mhmm. And it then you can make up your own mind. And the theories can continue.
But my job
Speaker 1: So you you became aware of this footage recently?
Speaker 0: The ones that we're looking at. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah. And so but this is, like, an article from quite a while ago that was saying that the footage was mistakenly erased.
Speaker 0: Look. I mean, it goes back to the same ask the people that were in power then. I mean, I get it that you wanna hold me to account for their actions and
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 0: I'm not saying you.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that.
Speaker 0: Not you. The just the the public in general, and that's okay.
Speaker 1: What's confusing to everybody today, first of all, it's very confusing because AI can kinda make anything. You know, it's which has gotta be a bizarre position for you to be in Yeah. When you're looking at videos. I mean, I've watched Viking videos. It looked real as fuck, you know?
They just make Viking towns. I mean, it's really quite incredible what they're doing now, and it it accelerates every month. I mean, I talked to Elon about it, he said we're blown away literally every week. Every week, there's some new breakthrough. We're like, wow.
We didn't expect that.
Speaker 0: Well, I can tell you after having looked at it, this ain't gonna be AI. You don't think so? You're gonna it's it's just not great. You know? It's like if it were AI, like someone wanted to come in and make it, they'd make it better.
Speaker 1: But why would you make it better when people could, you know, you could have ambiguous footage that is, you know, totally generated by AI? I mean, AI can generate blurry images. AI can generate night vision. AI can generate essentially anything that's already existed. Like really shitty 1984 VHS tapes, they can do that.
Speaker 0: They can. But I'm telling you, I'm giving you the tape from the tape. Mhmm. You know, there's just documents from the vault, just like I'm giving you information to congress on COVID origins or what have you, what we find is what you're getting.
Speaker 1: Okay. So now let's say in 02/2019, missing jail video from the first Jeffrey Epstein suicide for the first attempt has been found. So maybe let's put it into perspective. Jails are not the most efficient, best run places. It's not like Fort Knox?
Yeah.
Speaker 0: No. It's
Speaker 1: not. It's.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You know, we're working with what we got. Right. So and listen. This guy's not the only guy to kill himself in prison.
It happens, I don't know how often.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: All the time.
Speaker 1: Even if he killed himself in prison. So if he if he was murdered in prison, crazy. Right? Yeah. You could see why very powerful people wouldn't
Speaker 0: wanna murdered in segregated housing, in isolation after being on suicide watch in a place in a detention center that I've physically been in myself, it would be fiction. It's just in in my experience, that is not doable.
Speaker 1: It's not doable even for the most powerful and wealthiest people in the world?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't you think though that, like, if if someone was in a position where a guy could release information that could potentially damage the most wealthy people on Earth, you would have a concerted effort that's unprecedented. Sure. You'd have the resources that we could even possibly comprehend all pointing towards eliminating this one person that it could be done.
Speaker 0: But I I mean, so many people have been implicated, right, already, and some of that inform what do they did to prince Andrew and everybody else is already out there. And so that's the conspiracy stuff that me and Bongino and the folks have to say, look, we will give you everything we can, and then we will have done our job. Also, if I had a shred me, Kash Patel, had a shred of evidence, the Russia Gate guy, the Jan six guy, the COVID origins guy, had a shred of evidence that this guy was murdered, I would be the first guy to bring this case hard and fast. And I would do even doing press conferences every week on it. Mhmm.
The first guy. That's what I'm asking people to play out to their logical conclusion. I'm not Comey. I'm not McCabe. I'm not the guy that was in the seat before.
I have a wildly different background. I've been putting out the truth my entire career. Why would I risk all of it on this guy?
Speaker 1: I believe can pass the letter?
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across a breaking update regarding Jeffrey Epstein's death. An internal memo from the Trump DOJ and FBI claims there is no evidence of a client list, that he was murdered, or that he blackmailed powerful figures. They plan to release a video showing that no one entered his prison cell after he was locked in for the night. This video reportedly covers the full 11 hours surrounding his death, reinforcing the conclusion that he committed suicide.
@EricLDaugh - Eric Daugherty
🚨 BREAKING: A new internal Trump DOJ/FBI memo concluded there is no evidence Jeffrey Epstein had a client list, was m*rdered instead of committing su*cide, or blackmailed power figures, Axios claims. The administration is supposedly to release a video showing nobody entered the area of the prison where Epstein died.
@EricLDaugh - Eric Daugherty
The video in question: https://t.co/leN4fWIi7j
@EricLDaugh - Eric Daugherty
🚨 BREAKING: Video on the DOJ website reportedly shows the full 11 hours around Jeffrey Epstein's death, and that nobody entered the cell after he was locked inside for the night. Axios reports the DOJ/FBI concluded he k*lled himself based on an internal memo. https://t.co/TCsQ75ZqY7
@EricLDaugh - Eric Daugherty
🚨 BREAKING: A new internal Trump DOJ/FBI memo concluded there is no evidence Jeffrey Epstein had a client list, was m*rdered instead of committing su*cide, or blackmailed power figures, Axios claims. The administration is supposedly to release a video showing nobody entered the
@gatewaypundit - The Gateway Pundit
BOMBSHELL! DOJ Caught Cutting 60 Seconds from Newly Released Epstein 10 Hour Jail Cell Tape! https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/bombshell-doj-caught-cutting-60-seconds-newly-released/
BOMBSHELL! DOJ Caught Cutting 60 Seconds from Newly Released Epstein 10 Hour Jail Cell Tape! What's Going On? | The Gateway Pundit | by Jason Sullivan
On Sunday night AXIOS reported on a new FBI, DOJ memo obtained by Axios concludes Jeffrey Epstein did not have a client list that he used for blackmail.
thegatewaypundit.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I explore various pressing issues, starting with the cover-up of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, questioning Pam Bondi's Justice Department's motives. I delve into Robert Maxwell's suspicious life and how the Kennedy assassination impacted America. I discuss the implications of identity politics on the right and reveal how corporate media operates. I also touch on the exploitation of young people through debt, the dangers of the Epstein cover-up, and the complexities of U.S. foreign policy, including the Iran conflict and support for Israel.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Why is Pam Bondi’s Justice Department covering up Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and murder? Saagar Enjeti has a theory. (0:00) Apparently Jeffrey Epstein Is Innocent Now? (9:20) The Suspicious Life of Robert Maxwell (11:00) How the Kennedy Assassination Broke America (13:34) The Dark Truth About the Epstein Cover-Up (25:18) The Real Reason Pam Bondi Won’t Release the Files (33:25) Why Doesn’t American Foreign Policy Reflect American Interests? (45:18) How Identity Politics Have Infected the Right (56:32) The Moment Saagar Realized How the Corporate Media Machine Truly Works (1:09:50) How the Deep State Turns Journalists Into Mindless Pawns (1:21:03) Elon Musk’s America Party (1:30:27) The Massive Sports Gambling Scam (1:38:48) How Politicians and Legislators Use Debt to Exploit Young People and Get Rich (1:43:45) The Epstein Cover-Up Is Insulting and Very Dangerous (1:51:06) The Future of the Iran Conflict (2:03:09) Why Is the US Responsible for Fixing Gaza? (2:09:09) Are Christians Required to Support the Israeli Government? (2:16:28) The Future of Trump’s Presidency Includes paid partnerships.
@SpartaJustice - Truth Justice ™
THE EPSTEIN COVERUP: DOJ falsely labeled Epstein's death as a suicide to stop further investigation. Autopsy and Pathologist confirms Homicide strangulation. Sources confirm Epstein was working for the Mossad, Israeli Intelligence blackmailing for Israel. https://t.co/RmT7zrKUE0
@SpartaJustice - Truth Justice ™
@TuckerCarlson The truth about Jeffrey Epstein.
reSee.it AI Summary
In today's podcast with Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper, they discuss the ongoing cover-up surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and the lack of satisfactory explanations. They mention a range of individuals and entities linked to the case, including Mark Levin, Donald Barr, Bill Barr, and various intelligence connections. The conversation highlights the complexity of the situation, involving figures from finance, politics, and intelligence, and raises questions about the motivations behind the cover-up. I'm curious to hear any theories others might have on this mystery.
@BasedSamParker - Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯
Why the Epstein Cover-up? In Tucker Carlson & Darryl Cooper's podcast today, they say that no real satisfactory answer has yet been given as to why this all is still being covered up. Let's look at the people & entities they mentioned: ✡️ Mark Levin ✡️ Jeffrey Epstein ✡️ Donald Barr ✡️ Bill Barr ✡️ Alan Greenberg (hired Epstein to Bear Stearns) ✡️ Bear Stearns ✡️ Jack Ruby ▪️CIA visits to Jack Ruby (Louis Jolyon West ✡️) ✡️ Mike Benz ✡️ Robert Maxwell ✡️ Louis Gamalek ✡️ Stern Gang ✡️ Irgun ✡️ Conde Nast (via Advance Publications owned by Newhouse family members ✡️) Israel ✡️ Yitzhak Shamir ✡️ Israeli intelligence ✡️ Mossad ✡️ Unit 8200 ✡️ IDF military intelligence ✡️ Victor Ostrovsky ✡️ Ghislaine Maxwell ✡️ Steven Hoffenberg ✡️ Towers Financial ▪️Graydon Carter (business partner Jeff Klein, gay ✡️) ✡️ Les Wexner ✡️ Max Fischer ✡️ Edgar Bronfman ✡️ Mega Group (international group of jewish billionaires) ✡️ Leon Black ▪️Marina Abramović (spirit cooking artist, honorary doctorate University of Haifa ✡️, Rothschild patronage ✡️) ▪️Biljana Djurdjevic (Podesta child abuse artist, displayed in Braverman Gallery ✡️, Kahán Art Space Vienna ✡️) ✡️ Jean-Luc Brunel ✡️ Ehud Barak ✡️ Ben Shapiro It seems to be an impenetrable mystery. Does anyone have any theories? Tell us below!
@SpartaJustice - Truth Justice ™
@TuckerCarlson Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself and here is the indisputable evidence and proof. So why the coverup? Who was Bill Barr protecting?
reSee.it AI Summary
In my exclusive interview with Patrick Bet-David, we discussed the profound implications of Charlie Kirk's assassination, which he views as a potential catalyst for political violence in America. He shared alarming experiences, including a warning from the FBI about being on a hit list and receiving death threats. PBD emphasized the unique impact of Kirk's death, likening it to historical assassinations. He urged caution regarding retaliation and highlighted the dangers of chaos benefiting adversaries like China. We also explored the need for responsible free speech on social media.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸 EXCLUSIVE w/ PATRICK BET-DAVID: “AMERICA IS ONE ASSASSINATION AWAY FROM MARTIAL LAW” Charlie Kirk’s assassination wasn’t just a tragedy – it was a turning point. @PatrickBetDavid, one of the most influential voices in U.S. media, says the next act of political violence could break the country apart. “If there’s retaliation… this isn’t America anymore.” In this exclusive interview, PBD opens up about: - Getting a warning from the FBI about being added onto a 50-name hit list - Receiving death threats after his Netanyahu interview - The false theory of Israel being behind Kirk’s assassination - How Elon can maintain free speech while fighting hate - And why Charlie Kirk may be remembered like JFK This wasn’t a hot take. This was a national warning. 01:07 – The shooter left mixed signals: antifascist slogans, 4chan memes, and confusing motivations. 02:16 – “If this guy dies in custody… it opens a can of worms like JFK, MLK, Epstein.” 05:15 – “He didn’t just kill anyone – he took out someone irreplaceable. There is no second Charlie Kirk.” 07:07 – “This wasn’t just political. This was personal. He was the soul of the movement.” 10:27 – What happens if the right retaliates? “You thought COVID was bad – this would be 100x worse.” 11:12 – FBI call: “You’re on a list of 50. Increase your security.” 13:45 – Who benefits from chaos in America? “Start with China.” 18:52 – The case for a “Free Speech Score” on 𝕏: like a FICO score, but for digital responsibility. 21:13 – @ElonMusk’s power: “Whatever he does, Facebook and YouTube follow.” 24:55 – How 𝕏 could filter noise: “Don’t ban them – just stop elevating chaos.” 40:10 – Death threats after interviewing Netanyahu. 43:45 – The Israel theory: $150M allegedly offered to Turning Point for pro-Israel PR – Charlie said no. 45:28 – “They called him a Zionist for months. Turns out, he rejected their money.” 47:11 – “Charlie Kirk was more honest than anyone gave him credit for – and it cost him.” 50:03 – Israel assassinated Kirk? “It’s lazy, dangerous, and lowers your credibility to zero.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker debates political violence, free speech, and media influence. A YouGov stat is cited: "24% of far left think it's okay to retaliate." The motive of Tyler Robinson is analyzed: casings read "oh, ciao, ciao" (an anti fascist anthem) and "bulges" (a 4chan meme); family say he wasn't political and may have mixed views, including a transgender partner. The discussion touches on "some hatred cannot be negotiated." They warn that delaying the truth could fuel further violence and note "blood in the streets" rhetoric as dangerous. Proposals include Elon Musk-style algorithmic filters and a "FICA score" to elevate reasonable voices and curb incitement, while warning against a China-like social credit system. They mention an FBI "short list of 50 names" and security, plus Ackman, Netanyahu, and theories about Charlie Kirk's assassination.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But 24% of far left think it's okay to retaliate. You see all these videos. We should kill them and see the bullets in the streets. We should put the scare of death in the conservatives so they'll never do this ever again. This is what we should be doing.
Are you kidding me?
Speaker 1: Well, it's good to speak to you under these circumstances because you've done a pretty good job and, you know, from our scene, very, very balanced in trying to understand the motive behind the assassination what it means for the American society. So I'm I'm genuinely very excited to have that discussion to get your thoughts and dig a bit deeper because there's a lot to unpack. So let's start with the motive of Tyler. Why he did what he did? Because it's a bit confusing.
So he did have casings and one of them, you know, they had writings on there, engravings on there. One of them said, oh, ciao, ciao, ciao, which is an anti fascist anthem. Another one said, hey, fascist catch, anti fascist insult. And they've got some weird ones, and the casing he used for the shooting said, notices bulges, o w o, what's this? Noticing is a is a 4chan meme.
I'm sure you've looked into it, which is something about spotting patterns like demographic changes or stereotypes and bulges hints at physical traits. So it just makes it very confusing on why he did what he did because his family said he wasn't political. Their their family's mug up, they did say he was he'd be you know, he's leaning left, more and more left, and did not like Charlie Kirk. And there's also reports of him having a transgender partner. Mhmm.
Putting all these together, why do you think he did what he did? And, obviously, we're gonna find out more things later, and I'll add one more thing, Patrick. One more thing he said when Tash Patel talked about the reasoning he gave, a message he put on Discord when asked why he did what he did. He said, quote, some hatred cannot be negotiated with. I'd love you to go into his mind and give me your thoughts on what he was thinking and why you got there.
Speaker 0: Great question. So and also the father was a Mormon trying to deal with the pastor or whoever he was working with to make sure his son doesn't go far left because he felt like he lost his son. But to me, if he stays alive, what we see is exactly what it is. K? If he stays alive.
If in the next few days, say in the next three next week, two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, next two months, he dies. A story comes out. He hung himself. He killed himself. Somebody killed him.
Something happened. Then you're opening up the can of worms that there's something else there that's trying to hide of whoever was behind it, and nobody wants to get to that point because we're gonna get to another John F. Kennedy assassination. We're gonna get to another one of these situations of what happened to Epstein, who did MLK, and that's gonna take us years to go through, find out what happened here. So that motive.
Now in regards to how we got here, a stat was shown earlier today on CNN by a an individual that was a guest on a guest on the show with Abby Phillips. And the gentleman brought up on, hey. Why are the asked the question, why are so many people on the left being targeted just because, you know, you talked about cancellation on the conservative side. Now you're doing it to us, and that's unfair. And the guy stats something, states some of the stats that just came out, which is absolutely amazing.
I'm sure you've seen this, where he breaks it down from YouGov, I believe. And on YouGov, it breaks down what percentage of Americans, liberal, conservative, very conservative, believe it's okay to retaliate with, political differences with violence. And here's what the charts came out. When you look at I'll read the question for you first. It says most Americans say it's unacceptable to be happy with public figures' debts, meaning they get killed.
But younger and more liberal Americans are more likely to call it acceptable. So so they asked the question by different ideology. Very liberal, 24% said it's okay to take somebody out for political differences. This is political ideology, maybe difference. Public figures.
10% of liberals agreed, 7% of moderates, 4% of conservatives, and 3% of very conservative. So go far right. Only 3% of far right agree that it's okay to do that, but 24% of far left think it's okay to retaliate. You see all these videos. We should kill them and see the bullets in the streets.
We should put the scare of death in the conservatives so they'll never do this ever again. This is what we should be doing. Are you kidding me? And then Elon just retweeted something saying destiny, you know, should be, doing time for a guy of that caliber to put that out there. You don't think people are watching to see what comments that are being made.
So let me bring you back to the question of Tyler Robinson. So take the conspiracy theory community. Well, I think it's the groipers. Well, I think it's, you know, Israel. Well, I think it's, you know, that was a Patsy, the George Zinn guy.
Maybe. Well, the George Zinn guy was also at the nine eleven and he's always been at these different places that he goes to the last forty years. He shows up in the most random places and he gotten arrested before for some of the things that he said. Or maybe let's just take it at face value. But if it's face value and the mainstream media and influencers and people who didn't like Trump start using words like fascist, Nazis, that continues.
A kid like him is gonna say, you know what? I'm gonna be the hero and I'm gonna take the guy out. And who does he take out? The one guy that's gonna be very difficult for conservatives to duplicate and replicate. There is no Charlie Kirk out there.
At a call yesterday with the Turning Point USA management team, one of the higher ups and Justin, we're having this conversation together. And I told him, I said, what made Charlie unique is one, he knew a lot about Christianity and the Bible. So he was well read in faith, so that was an element of Billy Graham. Number two, he knew the constitution very well because he studied Hillsdale College and he would read all the books, he knew the Federalist papers, he can debate you on politics. Those are two.
But we have a lot of people that know the Bible well. We have a lot of people that know politics well. But then very few worked as hard as him, very few were as a true believer of him, and then very few know how to deliver and communicate the way he was able to do. Tell me who exists in America right now that can do all those five things. There is no Charlie Kirk.
A lot of people are gonna say, who's gonna be the next Charlie Kirk? Who's gonna be the next Charlie Kirk? I think the better thing to say is the same way conservatives waited to say, who's the next we need a Ronald Reagan. We need a Ronald Reagan. There will never be another Ronald Reagan.
Just like there will never be another Donald Trump, and just like there will never ever be another Charlie Kirk. So this guy didn't just take anybody out. I do think the movement's gonna continue. I do think young guys are gonna rise up. But I think the motive as of right now, if it's black and white, when you when you spew as much hate that the left did, you're gonna eventually inspire a Tyler Robinson to get up there and do something about it.
Speaker 1: Me and you are believers in free speech, and that's where it gets a bit tricky. I know you've talked about this on your show. Where do you draw the line, or do you draw the line? That so does that Charlie Kirk fought for free speech, but now people on the left are using free speech to meme his death and laugh at his death and celebrate his death.
Speaker 0: Should both be your question?
Speaker 1: Is that is that how society should function in a democracy like The US?
Speaker 0: You believe in capitalism?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Do you believe in monopoly laws or should we remove monopoly laws?
Speaker 1: Somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 0: Okay. Me too. But do you think if an AT and T bought up every other long distance service provider and the government didn't get in the way and there was only one AT and T to go through and we couldn't go to other places to to get phone services, then then all of a sudden, they would have gone from 4¢ a minute to 40¢, but you don't have another competition. Guess what? Pay or don't pay.
You don't have a choice. So I think you would agree that there needs to be certain limits to monopoly laws because competition is good for who? You and I, the consumer. Is that a fair assessment? Yeah.
Would you agree with that?
Speaker 1: I do.
Speaker 0: Okay. The same way monopoly laws are needed for capitalists like us is the same way you need like, if if right now you and I yesterday, had Tommy Robinson on the podcast and the interview went live today. If all of a sudden, you're out there announcing to go and kill people and you're encouraging violence, you've crossed freedom of speech. I think the same way capitalism has monopoly laws, there needs to be certain limits to you encouraging people to commit a crime and kill somebody. When you say you want blood in the streets, I've seen blood in the streets.
When I lived in Iran and many Hezbollah and different folks in the streets were flagellating their backs, you know, screaming death upon America, mad, bad, and you see the I've seen that. That's not normal in America. So there is no place in America for people to say seek vengeance and kill the opposition. That is not if it's left, right, center, that that that crosses the line for freedom of speech for me. If we're sitting there and debating ideas, pro vaccine and think about taking a vaccine.
I think we should debate it. If it's out there sitting there saying, hey, socialism, communism, capitalism, great. You can debate communism. No problem. Even though we know communism killed God knows how many tens of millions of people, but you're not trying to incite violence.
You're just, you know, presenting your argument of communism. No problem. Let's have that conversation. Pro life, pro choice. Let's debate it.
Even though some people may take pro choice as a crime as you're killing a baby on the conservative side. No. You know what? Let's have that debate. But when you're saying the element of let's go in the streets and kill people and people take action and nobody gets ahead of it right now, here's what could happen.
Mario, let's let's go to worst case scenario. The job of a businessman, a military guy, if you're in the military, you're out there in war and you're looking at which way to go. If we go this way, what's the worst case scenario that's gonna happen? What's the best case? If we go this way, what's gonna happen?
Let's say one of the members of Turning Point USA who is mentally not there, but is fully maniacally supportive of Charlie Kirk and they're devastated right now, And they're seeking vengeance. I got a call yesterday from the FBI from couple of the people that work in the US government, and they had a call. They say, hey. We just wanted to call you and tell you we're on a short list of 50 names. What's the short list of 50 names?
You're on the list. What list? Just be careful. Increase security in the next couple months. I didn't know that.
You are. Alright. Great. Well, thank you for the warning. So guess what I've been doing since the ball conference last week.
Last week, we had 8,000 people in the room. Tony Robbins on stage. He gets off stage and I'm about to pray, and then I'm told Charlie Kirk died when he signals me and we just it was a whole different thing about went into. But who's the opposite of Charlie Kirk? I don't even wanna say names.
Take the Charlie Kirk of the left, and let's let's say it's a person that's got tens of millions of followership on the left, maybe the far left. Say somebody takes that person out. What do you think happens to America? You think that side's gonna protest the way conservatives did? Conservatives didn't go destroy businesses and get in the streets doing, you know, local they didn't do that.
What do they do? They mourned. They're praying. They're sending money. They're trying to find a way to make sure Erica Charlie's wife is gonna go through these challenges the best because no one has more pain than her, than his kids, and his parents, and then his closest friends and family.
They're the ones that are going through all the pain. But if an event like that just happens right now, what happens to America? You think maybe we are days away from martial law? You know, in in California, I live in California, we watch wildfires that would happen. You're driving down the four or five through, it's so hot, fire on both sides.
How is it that California, Southern California, Palos Verdes, fire happens. You couldn't put the fire rod for a week, for two weeks in some cases, and you're two miles away from the ocean. Once fire spreads, wildfire, nobody can stop it. In 2025, technology doesn't exist to stop wildfire. But that was still a 20 mile radius, a five mile radius, a 50 mile radius.
You know what is a 100 times worse than wildfire? If somebody on the opposing end right now gets shot and assassinated. Schools shutting down, streets shutting down, curfew limits, National Guard in every city in America. And it makes me think about who would want that, Mario. A part of me that's a little bit skeptical and I'm I'm part of the Andy Grove community of only the paranoid survive.
I believe the future looks bright, but you also gotta think about only the paranoid survive. Who would want that in America? Who's right now having a hard time with negotiating tariffs? Who's right now having a hard time getting deals to get done? Who who is about to lose Mexico?
Who is who is making a challenge and for them to do business in Mexico? China? Who who would want America to be a shit show today? Who? I don't know.
I have a list of countries that I go down. Who is not happy that the president's making as many as much progress as he is? Who doesn't want that? A lot of people. So as I go through this rabbit hole and I'm thinking about everything that's going on, the main thing I pray for is for there not to be retaliation on the other end because if there is retaliation on the other end, let me tell you, it's no longer America.
It's a very different country we're living in.
Speaker 1: What what way would you put that risk if I if I ask you to give it a number out of a 100? How close are we to to The likelihood of it? Of this becoming a wildfire.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, I'm not above fifty percent, which is good, but I am at twenty percent. And twenty percent is very high, Mario. Twenty percent is not a low number. Like, you know what twenty percent is?
One out of five chance of it happening. You don't wanna be twenty percent. But that that's my opinion. Somebody may be watching this saying, you're delusional. It's less than one percent.
I hope you're right. But I'm at twenty percent. So then all I think about is if I'm the administration, what would I be doing to and by the way, you look at some people on social media. Notice everybody on social. If I watch you, what does Mario do?
Here's the facts. Here's what came out. This is what we know. Go. Then you look at people that lower the temperature on social media today.
Then you have a community of people that increase the temperature today. Okay. Those that increase the temperature today, what do you want to take away from these guys? Time. The sooner you can give definitive evidence that this guy was the shooter and he is who he did that and lower the temp, the the the sooner you hurt these guys.
Because these guys wanna come out and say, let So the right administration's there to lower the knob, lower the temperature. I hope they do because you you thought COVID was bad. This this is not gonna be COVID. This is gonna be catastrophic. This could turn into a country we've never it's a movie that will will be seen.
Again, I I I don't wanna see that happen at all. I'm a businessman. This hurts me as a businessman. And I have I'm a family man. I got four kids.
I don't wanna see this happen. I'm a man who loves freedom. I'm a man who loves America. I love freedom of speech. I wanna hear the discourse.
But leaders in moments like this who lower temperature, those are heroes that we have. I'm not saying let's not find out the truth. I wanna know exactly what happened to you. I wanna know exactly what the truth is. I still wanna know what happened to the president.
We still don't know what happened Yeah. You know, at Buckland. I mean, no. Mind boggling, we still don't know that. So for me, the more you delay getting to the bottom of things, the more you allow this community to get louder and louder and louder and louder, the more you give them credibility.
Why give them so much credibility? Your job is to take credibility away from them, the loud ones. Let's focus on Sigma. We have so much noise right now, but a part of the noise, I hate to say, the part of the noise is the the speed of how things are being resolved right now. And and the the more you take your time, the bigger they're gonna get.
Speaker 1: Just going back to the to the question earlier is where you draw the line. You talk about incitement for violence. Now that's illegal in The US if it's seen as imminent. But then do you think that people celebrating Charlie Kirk's death as disgusting as me when you find it? And I've called it out on my account from the last few days.
Should that be allowed? Should that be considered freedom of speech? Or for or for the people on the left calling the president a fascist or people on the right calling, democrat leaders pedophiles, Should those things be allowed on both sides? Should people be allowed to celebrate the death even though we find it appalling? And if not, how do you deal with it?
Speaker 0: It's it's such a slippery slope conversation. You you know, when when the when the founding fathers created the constitution and wrote the Federalist paper and, you know, as they were going through it, they knew the difference between two things they were dealing with people. Yeah. Those who knew how to reason and those who were very ambitious. Those who were thinking about what's best for the country, and those who were thinking about what's best for them.
They knew historically human nature has been the same from day one. K? What's mine? How am I gonna get credit? Am I gonna get credit properly?
How much am I gonna get paid? How does this benefit me and my family? Are the history books gonna write about me? Me, me, me, me, me. They know that.
So so, you know, when you have something like that, you you know, you can't say, well, let's create a system that people can't talk. Well, no. We don't want that. Let's create a system that people can talk. Oh, shit.
If they can't talk, they're gonna talk shit about us. Yeah. But the alternative is worse than this one. So TMZ, when the folks at TMZ, when you time it and they say, woah, they were celebrating because of a car chase in Temple City. So we timed the exact moment when that happened on our podcast.
And you see, there is nothing to celebrate. So Harvey says, our our team was celebrating the car chase. I've never met anybody that celebrates a car chase. And if we go to the second where they were watching it on the news, the car chase, it's when the guy announces that Charlie Kirk president Trump just announced that Charlie Kirk has been killed. And then you hear the screaming in the background, and you see Charles going to the back to see what's going on.
And Harvey doesn't know how to handle it because their business model is what? 200 cameras in one location. Everyone knows what's going on. When you listen to it, it's not one person. It's not two.
Sounds like it's about three to five people celebrating. Do I think everybody at TMZ is celebrating Charlie Kirk's assassination? No. I don't believe that. Do I think those three to five should get fired?
I think if I'm running an operation and I'm the guy that's running the business, if you celebrate the assassination of anybody on the left right center, I don't want you at the company because I'm concerned what you're capable of doing in the future at the company. That's my concern. You're mentally not there if you're celebrating that. But do I think, you know, insight is one because insight is before the assassination. Right?
You're inciting. Celebration celebration is after the assassination attempt, but it's it's very close to it. Because the celebration could be, oh, who's next? Now you're seeing these tweets. So now once you go from celebration to who's next, you're back to inciting violence.
So you go to incite violence, then you go to, well, no. I'm just happy he's no longer here with us. Then you tweet who's next, you just came back up again. So I think if you go to who's next, you're inciting violence. I think that there needs to be a crime there, especially nowadays, because some young man may be inspired to deliver on what you're asking for.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It it is very tricky. Like, both me and you covered what happened in Brazil. We both interviewed former president Bolsonaro. We covered what happened in Europe and The UK.
Now I was with congressman Jim Jordan last week. And now was speaking to Tommy Robinson as well last week, and he said, Mario, the last bastion of free speech is The US, and if that falls, then the rest of the world falls. But it's also you know, I asked Jim Jordan a question. I said, is that a flaw of democracy? Is that a flaw of the First Amendment?
A a genuine fundamental flaw that we might need to address that me and you, Patrick, should we question
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Our belief and Elon's belief in free speech, or should we stand firm despite what we saw in the last few days?
Speaker 0: You know, the the the the one thing that the the, you know, legislature, the guys who create the laws and they do what they do, you know, you can consider doing what you did with a driver's license. You need to be 16 years old to have a driver's license. You need to be 18 years old to smoke cigarettes. Okay? 21 to drink alcohol.
Renting cars, it used to be 25 years old. I don't know what it is today. But there's some age stuff that you can think about. But if you even did that and you said, well, what percentage? Like if Elon if there's one person that has access to this data, it's Elon.
If I were to go and I'm one of the I'm I'm a CIO at Elon's company, chief information officer, I'm getting the numbers and I hire five BIs, business analysts, I bring in business intelligence, say, guys, let's go pull up how many tweets we've gotten since Charlie Kirk's assassination celebrating of what happened and bring that data to me. You bring it to me. Okay. So it shows we have, I don't know, 3,800,000 users that celebrate. Let's pick a number whatever then.
Not I don't know if it's that that's the number, but let's say it's 3,800,000. Then I take the 3,800,000 and I say, here's what I want you to do. I want you to break it down by the accounts that we have the most information on them. Eliminate the bots. 68% is bots.
Get rid of them. Okay. Boom. Just give me the people that are paying $15 a month. Whatever the monthly payment you have to pay for x.
Is it $15, $9? Pull those because those are real. You're not going to create a lot of fake accounts. 98% accuracy, the average person is not going pay $15 a month to create a bot. So out of that 3,800,000, now we're down to 700,000 people.
Alright. Now let's take that 700,000 people hypothetically and let's see what's the age category. 52% is between 18 to 25. Okay. So alright.
You know, 28% is 25 to 30. Let's create the demos. Then states, then regions, then countries, then then background, then educate what what form the moment we do that, now we can see patterns and make suggestions and say, well, look, this is the pattern we're noticing. Well, why don't we create something? Because I do think Elon can help influence this as well in his own way because whatever Elon does, the other guys are gonna follow him.
Notice when Elon made a $15 a month payment, Facebook followed. Right? Elon came and said, hey. We're gonna do, you know, such and such Facebook, Instagram followed. So if Elon comes out and says, this is what we're gonna be doing.
If you're inciting violence, it's a thirty day suspension. Like, you know, on YouTube, you get a strike, you get two and then boom. So what if he creates your one day suspension, one week suspension? Those things exist today, but they're not that black and white. I think there is a little bit of that that can be done where you're almost put in time out room.
Right? Kid says something, you don't get iPad for a week. Okay? You you go drink and drive, cop pulls you over, you're gonna spend if it's Friday, you're gonna be in jail till Monday. Right?
Man, I don't wanna get another DUI. So I think there's some things like that for us to do. And then if we're able to give people scores, like if we have a FICA score, you got an 820. Here's a million dollar loan. You got a 720.
Here's a million dollar loan, but at an 8% interest rate. You got a 620. Here's a $200,000 loan. Right? I'm not even going to give you that and it's going be a 12% interest rate.
What if we create a FICA score on x? And again, Elon has a brilliant minds working for him. What if we create a FICO score that shows how reasonable this person's post is? Not positive, not negative, how reasonable based on facts. And then when I'm looking at someone's tweets and I see this guy's sensational, he's extremely exaggerating.
Well, guess what? Bring him lower. Wow. This guy's a voice of reason. Raise him higher.
I do think now people will calibrate I was trying to buy Mr. Olympia brand seven years ago. And what I wanted to buy by buying Mr. Olympia brand is I wanted to get away from the three hundred fifty pound bodybuilders. I wanted to go back to Frank Zane, twenty nine inch waist.
You know, you got the chest and small waist and beautiful legs and the symmetrical body like Steve Reeves, Hercules from back in the days, seventy years ago because we could have used a we could have used data to see what makes the perfect symmetrical body like Serge Nubre. We Elon can take that data to create the score of who has the most reasonable way of delivering message, and let's highlight those names. Then we know where it's coming from. But I I don't think getting away a 100% is the right way to go. I do think it's elevating the people that are the most reasonable.
Speaker 1: I in theory, that sounds great, and I agree. You use the algorithm to elevate the voices that are not inciting violence, that are trying to stick to facts. But I've seen your video talking about the Chinese the the the social score that they have. Remember that? It was, like, a very disturbing system that they had.
Do you worry that the example that you gave, like, a very small step, if it's abused like we saw in Brazil, if it's abused like we saw in The UK, that it is a step towards what China has? And maybe that's not a bad thing. Maybe China's on one extreme and remember, I'm a free speech absolutist, but maybe China's on one extreme, which we both don't wanna live in. Know, I'm in Dubai right now. Dubai is not as extreme as China, but also is not as free as The US.
I'm from Australia, a lot closer to to The US. But The US is too extreme on the free speech side. I don't think it is. I'm a big believer in the first and second amendment even though I don't live in The US. Big believer in freedom, but I also look at what happened.
I look at these celebrations. I look at some of the stats as well. I'm gonna mention some stats for you, Patrick, and get your thoughts on it. Because I dug into this to to, you know, preparing for this for this interview, and I'm chatting to Pierce tomorrow as well. So I'm like, look.
I need to know all the facts to to make sure that we go beyond what we saw a few days ago with Charlie Kirk. And I started looking into the, you know, political violence. Is that really a problem? Well, according to studies, it's up 300% since 2016. I'd love to get your thoughts on why that is.
And then I look at it and, like, is it just a problem on the left? Because it seems like you got all these people on the left celebrating. You just gave me a very interesting stat earlier in the interview that shows that, hey. It is the far left that is more prone to violence, which I wanna get your thoughts on why that is. But then I look at the assassination attempts as, you know, attempts wise, there's been more right leaning shootings than left leaning, about 75 to 25.
There's a whole list of them there. And on the assassination attempts, there's been right leaning attempts. There's one successful, which is Hortman, and then two on the left leaning side. You got Kirk successful and failed against Shapiro. So then I look at this.
I'm like, this is only one stat. I'm sure there's much more stats we could dig into to really get to the facts. But then looking at the stat you mentioned points to the left, extreme left. Sorry. And then you look at those stats that I read earlier, it points to both sides.
Is this a problem of polarization, or is it problem more on the extreme left like that meme that you posted on your account yesterday? Elon retweeted. That shows how the left is moving more and more and more to the left, and he shows someone with a sniper rifle. But is it like, a few days ago, we saw the extreme left falling falling you know, being prone to to indoctrination, but could we see this develop into both sides? And you pointed that a concern that you don't want to see the right retaliate.
Should we be worried about both sides or is it just the left? And if it is just the left, why is that?
Speaker 0: Okay. Mari, do you have kids yet? No. No kids yet. Okay.
You're a handsome guy. I'm sure you're have a lot of kids one day, but when you choose to do so. When you have kids, what you'll generally see I have four of them. You will generally see one that is not afraid of the truth, one that is gonna be emotionally, oh my god, it's not fair. You don't believe what he did, and and they'll exaggerate the crime.
Okay? And, you know, out of the four kids you have, if something happens you're not there, you'll generally go to the one with the high credibility score that's the most fair one, honest one, reasonable one to say, what do you think happened right there? And so let me tell you what happened. This time it was his fault. It wasn't her.
And they're best friends. He's like, wait. Yeah. Because she didn't do it this time. It was him.
You start what are you talking about? You started. I watched the whole thing. And you're like and he's like, you know what, whatever the and then two minutes, yeah, I started it. Okay, great.
So what patterns do you notice? When I was building my insurance company and my sales guys would come up to me with ideas, guys would come up and they would say things like this, what people say what people say what people say that they want this idea, they want the comp change comp plan to change because if it goes like this, the company's gonna take a hit. I would say, you said people say? Yeah. Give me all the people's names.
Who is who is they? Who is people say? Well, it's just a lot of people. How many people? Well, a lot of people.
Give me their names. Go ahead. I got a pen and paper ready. Who? Well, it's it's Mary.
Who else? Well, it's mainly Mary. Then why do you say people say? Just say Mary says. Don't over exaggerate how many people are not happy with the comp.
I know why Mary would say it. So guess what? No. I'm not open to the idea because I know what Mary's trying to do. Right?
So you you have to decipher between the emotional comments and thoughts that are being said. So let's let's take the side. If you have one side conservative, one side liberal, if we have to give one side that owns the flag for feelings, which side would it be? The liberal, the far left, or the far right? It's gonna be the liberal.
Right? Okay. So if we give that to the far left, what do they always say? It's not fair. It's not fair.
It's not fair. I can't believe they did this. They should've never done this to you. It's emotions, feelings, feelings, feelings, feelings, feelings. Right?
And I am where I'm at. Was on Jubilee with these 20 kids sitting around me debating me for capitalism and anti capitalism, and it's it's not I am mentally ill. One girl literally said, I am mentally ill because of capitalism. I said, who convinced you you're mentally ill, and what does that have to do with capitalism? But someone convinced her she's a victim.
So now you send your kids to schools, in colleges, we've seen this data all over the place, for every one conservative professor, you have 10 to 15 liberals. Best case is eight. Eight liberal professors to one conservative professor. Worst case is 15 to one. So is that really debate?
No. It's a true monopoly. If a company had that kind of monopoly, the government will come down and say, wait a minute. This is an FTC here. What are you here for?
You guys got a monopoly. The FTC needs to go look at the universities and say you guys got a monopoly on ideas. It's all on one side. I was at Harvard at OPM, owner president management program that Harvard has. They go for four weeks.
But I was there when Trump and Hillary were debating when he said because you'd be in jail. I'm in the Chow Hall. Chow Hall is a man named Chow that built this place where you go and eat very good food. I'm in there, 300 people are watching the debate. And I'm sitting on the sideline to ask for myself, is it really true that Harvard's a liberal school?
And keep in mind, I'm at Harvard Business Campus. Not Harvard the lawyer side, the legal side, the business side. Not one person of the 300 people got up to root for Trump. Not one person. Every time Hillary said something, yeah, woo woo, Trump would say boo boo boo.
So who's had the control of the youth? Left ideology. So what do what who do we wanna blame this to? If my kids are around liberal professors and teachers their entire lives, and then you put them in college, they're 13 to one, ten to one with professors on the left or the right, what do you think is gonna be happening? So you they're not lying here when you see the numbers that says 24% of very liberal political ideology believes it's okay to retaliate with violence.
And only 3% of very conservative says that. That's eight times. This is not Fox News. This isn't Breibart. This is YouGov.
Who's given this report? The government is. This this this is this is a nonprofit that's going out there getting this data. You're not looking this is as credible as a as a Pew Research that gives these numbers to us. So why is that happening?
I think the reasonable community needs to be highlighted. The people who have the ability to reason and lower the temperature. See, for me, and I'll turn it back over to you, is hero making machine is broken in America. Until we get this right, everyone will be confused. In America today, we don't know what a hero is.
A person could have 3,000,000 followers on Instagram and that person's a hero. No. She's just got a really nice butt and small waist and beautiful breast and great lips and nice toes. She's got 3,000,000 followers. K?
A guy could have 2,800,000 YouTube subscribers and you're like, oh my god. That guy must be a genius. No. He may be talented. He may be capable.
But he may be having some ideas that are not good for Americans. He may be somebody that doesn't want to have kids, doesn't want to get married, doesn't believe in God, believe transgenders, believes we should use all the pronouns, the he, she, the they, them, all that others. He believes the rich are horrible people, the capitalists, while YouTube is sending him AdSense money. A couple $100,000. And they're living a nice lifestyle.
They're eating sushi. They're eating Yakuda. They're eating foie gras. They're eating Wagyu beef. They're eating good food.
They're no longer eating Chipotle. They got money in the bank now. And what happened all of a sudden? We don't know who the hero is. To me, going back to when we were talking about aren't you worried that this could turn into the system that China has?
Ten years ago, there was this website that came out called Klout, k l o u t. I think they shut it down because guys weren't feeding into the algorithm, so eventually the guys couldn't do but they had the right idea. Forget about clout. Clout was about how big of a clout you got in the marketplace. I don't care about clout.
I want to know who, what they say out of their mouth, how biased they are, how reasonable they are, how fair they are, and then let's highlight these people. Right. And on x, allow me to have a filter that I don't wanna see any of the porn. I don't wanna see any of the hardcore bias. I don't wanna see any of the radical emotional people.
And I just see the people in the specific score. So for example, like we just this year we've had 16,000 resumes, the first six months that people applied to work at our company. Well, challenge is we've only interviewed 2,400 of them. How do I know if I'm hiring the best people? I don't know.
Well, we just for the last two years, we developed a SaaS software that does a five minute you upload your resume on hiremetrics.com with a c s, metrics, hiremetrics.com. You do you upload your resume. You do a five minute interview, and it spits out a score based on specialized skill, competency, and culture. Then these scores come to me 82, 81, 73, 58, 28. And I say, I don't wanna see anybody under 70.
Just give me the candidates score above 70. Great. Today, got 28 people scored above 70. Let's look at these guys. Boom.
Boom. Boom. Awesome. Schedule interview with all these guys. So I need a filtering part.
We have enough data right now to filter out the noise. And Elon, Kevin O'Leary gave him a very big compliment. Kevin said, I work with Steve Jobs, and I'm sure you've seen this clip before. Kevin said Steve Jobs was 90% signal, 10% noise. He says, I've worked with Elon.
Elon is as close to a 100% signal as possible. I think Elon can start this signal noise filter, and I think a lot of other people will follow through. Not not silencing them, not allowing them not to be there. Just highlight people that are not creating more chaos. I think those are the guys that we need to highlight.
Speaker 1: I agree. And I think the human brain already does that. Like, I'm sure you mute accounts that do that, that that, you know, kinda try to incite violence or say stupid shit or spread misinformation. So I think what you're recommending is to add in the algorithm the same thing that humans already have in our mind. We want a bullshit filter.
So then you put that in the algorithm.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But you're you're a reason guy though. Think about it. So to me, my concern isn't us. So guys like us will filter through the BS.
My concern is that 25% emotional community that won't. That is my concern. How do we get them to, you know, see in different kind of content than encouraging more emotional reaction to it? That's what I meant by it, but please continue.
Speaker 1: No. I agree. I do wanna go back to a comment you made earlier and I I said to myself, I'm gonna ask you about it then we got carried away. You said the FBI someone from the FBI called you, and you're on a list of 50 names. Can you tell me more about that list and what action have you taken?
Because I wouldn't have expected you. Like, I thought about people that we targeted. I'm not worried about myself because I always try to be in the middle. I'm more geopolitical rather than focused on US domestic politics. You're you do both, a lot more US as well, but you tend to be more moderate.
I know you you tend to be you know, you praise Trump a lot and you praise a lot of his policies, but you do in a very pragmatic way and you're critical of some things as well. Why do you think you're on a list and what actions have you taken?
Speaker 0: Right. So good question. And by the way, I agree with you. I don't know why I'm on the list. When they called me, I got off the phone and went up I went about my business because I don't see myself as somebody that is coming from a place of trying to divide and conquer and, you know, say things to get people emotional.
But I will entertain having Tommy Robinson on. I will entertain having Anthony Weiner on. I will entertain having Andrew Tate on. I will entertain having a lot of people on the podcast. I had Netanyahu on.
Go see my death threats that I got after the Netanyahu interview. Just just let me let me send you the screenshots and the emails and see what it looks like. So to me, it's not necessarily about, you know, how fair you and I are. There there's the element today of guilty by association. I'm gonna talk to everybody and anybody.
It doesn't matter if I'm talking to Kim Young goon. I'll go to North Korea to interview him. No one's off my list. Nobody is. Except if you're using certain words to incite violence, I'm gonna step back a little bit and entertain what I'm gonna have you on.
On. There's been only seven interviews that I've never gone live with. Seven people I interviewed that we had the footage, we never went live with. But for the most part, we'll go live with people.
Speaker 1: Have you shared who those are?
Speaker 0: No. I've never shared who those seven people are, but it's seven interviews that I've done who I've never released to the public. And we have it till today. It's seven names that we never went live with. And those were the interviews that they said certain things that I said, you know what?
I'm just not comfortable with this. We're not gonna go live with this and we just never went live with it. But going back to this, so when I got this call, here's here's what the market looks like right now. So it's very easy today to use CGI and make you know, you say something about Israel, Qatar is funding you. You say something about Qatar, you know, Julius, can you tell the guys in the back?
Can hear all of You say something about Qatar? Oh, you're getting funded by Israel. No. Qatar's giving you money. No.
You're owned by Mossad. No. You are Intel. No. You're CIA.
And today, it's so easy to say those comments and then I agree. I agree. Oh my god. Maybe he's threatened. Maybe he is.
And then boom. The rest is history. Right? You just have to be careful. To me when you're asking about security, comes down to three things.
We had an emergency meeting last week right after when Charlie Kirk got assassinated that night till midnight at my house in Orlando. We And said three things we gotta address, home, office, going on the road. So here we have you know, we're we're gonna put a few million dollars into increasing security in all aspects of our lives. And that's just things that I've been in the insurance business for the last twenty five years. We've sold 750,000 life insurance policies.
It's not that you're gonna be buying life insurance because you're dying tomorrow, you know, when it does happen, you're protected. We're just playing defense to make sure that part is squared away, but nothing is changing. I'm not changing the podcast. I'm not changing talking about what I believe in. I'm not changing interviewing and saying the stuff that I believe in.
You can't move on with fear because when you when you do that, the enemy is winning. The enemy wants you to be scared. Half the time, the enemy just wants to, you know, scare the hell out of you and shake you up where you're like trying to walk on eggshells. I've never met a leader amongst leaders that walked on eggshells. I have met leaders amongst leaders who are careful with the words they choose to use.
I think that we have to improve on. Walking on eggshells and leadership doesn't go together.
Speaker 1: It worries me that you started this by saying that you entertained interviewing people like Tommy Robinson, like Andrew Tate. You interviewed Nathan Yahweh. Now I've had Tommy and and Tate last week, and I have Huckabee not as on Yahoo. I think tomorrow. So when you say this, I'm like, holy shit.
Alright. Maybe I should consider it. I'm not on the list yet.
Speaker 0: But what
Speaker 1: was ironic is I haven't talked about it. It's like literally on the day that the shooting happened, and and I haven't mentioned it because, like, it's it's not about me. But now it's been a few days. Me and the team were talking about because I've done a lot of coverage in Pakistan, so I've received some threats from that country. I'll probably bleep it in the recording.
But from that country, I've received some threats. So we're talking about, hey. Is, you know, is Dubai really that secure? Should I really go do that interview in Eastern Europe? And then later, see that video of Charlie Kirk, and it's just a shock.
It's a shock that, you know, what me and you do we you know, you go home to your family. You come home. You, you know, give your when you come to the office, give your opinion, talk about topics that people like me wanna hear, and then find out that someone else is doing the same thing like Charlie. He's got shot in the neck and died in front of his family. It does shake you.
So it is a day that is hard to forget. Now when things like this happen, a lot of emotions are flowing and, you know, you do get all always get these theories. And you address theories, again, very direct way. And one theory you address is Israel. People love to blame Israel for everything.
Now I'm very critical of Israel, what's happening in Gaza, less so Lebanon, Iran, and and Yemen. But what's happening in Gaza, I'm very, very critical. But then I don't go around and blame Israel for every single thing that happens. You've addressed that on your show. You kinda looked into it, and people referenced a clip in your from your podcast with Charlie Kirk when you were interviewing Charlie Kirk.
Can you tell us about that clip, what the theory is, what your thoughts are on it?
Speaker 0: Right. So that was a day after October 7 event. I think Charlie was on our podcast. It was the first podcast he did out of all the podcasts. So his reaction was the raw reaction that was written about all over the place, and he probably got a lot of pushback.
And but but he if you watch the whole thing, he does go and say, I'm not saying they intentionally did this, but I am saying I have some questions. Again, he knows what words to use where somebody else a little bit more emotional would have said, I know for they they were behind it. They did it. Charlie's more reason. Moderate when he's given his thing.
So I think the part that's going back and forth right now on social is the meeting that took place with Bill Ackman and the influencers that came with Charlie with a total of 100,000,000 followers and maybe finding a way to address some questions about Israel, Judaism, Massad that maybe haven't been answered. And that led to Charlie was getting close. He didn't want to go back to Israel. Israel invited him. Maybe A Pac invited him.
He said no to it. And then eventually that one number that's being thrown around right now that Bebe even offered a $150,000,000 to maybe have Charlie give more pro Israel messages around the world. And do I believe something like that could have happened? Do I believe a $150,000,000 offer was made? I think I'm 50 50 there.
I think that offer could have been made because quite frank
Speaker 1: You got an offer from China a few years ago. No?
Speaker 0: Oh, of course we did. Yeah. I got an offer from China. I got on a Zoom with them. I said, wait a minute.
What do you want me to do? Yeah. We want to come to an event, and we'll pay you $600,000 of which by the way, this whole thing is documented that we have. So there is no, you know Now you've
Speaker 1: talked about it you've talked about it on your podcast.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. So these types of things happen. These types of things happen because they said Turning Point USA was getting a 150,000,000, so Israel wanted to give them another $150,000,000 to give pro Israel messages.
So to me, let's go through all of them. Let's actually dissect those together. Let's say Bill Ackman had a meeting. He's a $10,000,000,000 guy, heavy guy, strong guy, and guy goes from being a liberal to conservative to supporting Trump. And during a time like the last election where probably wasn't a guy that was gonna support him, but he saw how the president of Harvard got fired because of him, and he's got major influence.
So Ackman's been going like this, and he's becoming a power player, probably not somebody the left likes too much right now. But he gives me the vibes of a reasonable player. He doesn't give me the vibes of a emotional player. If you wanna learn more about Ackman, go watch the video of him and Carl Icahn on that one call. If you've never seen it, it's made for TV.
Just go watch it. Carl Icahn is calling him out nonstop, and Ackman is staying here. He's not getting emotional. He's taking it from a legend. Icahn is a goat in his space.
Icahn has called him out because the whole herbal life thing that they're going back and forth with. And, Bill Ackman is just like, well, here's okay. And, anyways, that was an l for him, but he took it in the chin. So you gotta give him respect. So do I think, Ackman, you know, brought these people in to try to sell them on Israel?
Yes. Do I think Netanyahu tried to get Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA to be more pro Israel? Yes. The most hated man in the world right now, you saw the score, I think Musk was one, Bebe was two or some number like that. I think Musk was one.
Bebe was two. But, you know, why is Bebe hated? Why is the market kinda split on him and not split in fifty fifty? It's a higher on the dislike and lack of trust on some of the things that he's doing. Why?
What happened? What did he do? How much of the onus is on him? And and don't countries and leaders have to find a way to increase their likeliness? You know, they're they're they're being liked in the world.
And so he's trying to go to somebody that's got a big mouthpiece, Charlie Kirk, who makes content go viral. Hey. Let us come and support you. By the way, in the last twelve months, names have been added for people that took money from a from Russia. You saw that one right there where people getting paid a $102,100,000 dollars.
You got a couple guys that took money from another organization that is from the leftist organization where Pacman and a couple other guys were on the list where Pacman actually addressed it upfront and talked about it, but people that were paying folks on the left to, you know, encourage the ideas that they have, this is not a new thing. Qatar's paying money. A lot of people are paying money. So, yes, America went around for decades selling America to people. Reagan went to Gorbachev and told him, Gorbachev, here's what you gotta do to make Russia better.
We're selling American exceptionalism for a long time. And Israel's trying to to do the same thing. I think the $150,000,000 makes me a little bit uncomfortable that you're doing that. And the fact that Charlie didn't take the money is kudos to him. I don't know the whole story, but the fact that he didn't take it, good for him.
It's funny because the last six months, if you look at a lot of the stuff people were saying about Charlie, Charlie is a Zionist. He is bot. He is this. He's that. And we had to lose Charlie to learn about the fact that he wasn't bot.
And and it's unfortunate because sometimes you had Charlie who was alive, who to me would have been a very formidable voice for the next fifty, sixty years, and you had to lose him to not believe him? What happened? How come you don't believe him a month ago? How come you don't believe him six months ago? Why not just look at somebody and say, this guy seems like reasonable.
I think he's being honest. I think he's an honest player. So it's unfortunate that we have to get to a situation like this. So, again, just to kinda bring that up to you is I think Ackman is being fair. He's trying to sell what he believes in.
I think the story circulating about BB and Israel offering the money and wanting Charlie to go to Israel, I think that's also true that they're doing that makes me uncomfortable. And in this story that we hear about, I think the person that won in this story is Charlie Kirk, to be honest with you, and he's not even here with us.
Speaker 1: And for people that take it a step further and say, Israel are behind the assassination. Now for me, whenever people come up with theories, I'm like, alright. What is the incentive for such a for for such an action? It just doesn't add up. Israel would lose significantly more and probably not gain anything from assassinating someone like Charlie Kirk, assuming they would even do such a thing, which I don't think they would ever assassinate a US citizen that way.
I won't go into the Epstein story, but just talking about Charlie Kirk for now because a lot of people would go crazy Epstein, etcetera. It just does not make sense to me. For me, it just does not add up. When someone comes up with a theory like this, they need to explain how they came to that conclusion. Not just say, hey, is our conclusion.
For you, do you see any path for such a theory to even be considered?
Speaker 0: No. Not at all. For me, I don't see that path at all. However, if you're able to prove it with facts, I'm open to it. I just don't see any of By the way, Dave Smith, I think he's made a reputation for being the most vocal holding Israel accountable.
Even he came out yesterday and said, what are we talking about here? Are we automatically gonna be this lazy and blaming Israel on everything? By the way, you know, the whole bashing Israel was very hot for the last eighteen months, twenty four months. Some people are tired of it. Some people are saying, it's a little too much.
I got it, man. You just don't like them and something happened to you and somebody offended you and you're gonna do whatever you can to try to destroy Israel. And it's not really about Israel. It's about a person you don't like. It's about a person that offended you.
It's about a person that betrayed you. I totally get it. I fully understand the power of having somebody that offended you publicly for you to for the rest of your life wanted to prove them wrong. I get that part. Michael was like that.
Brady was like that. A lot of people are like that. Use it. But not at the cost of everything one person did is that entire country's fault or it's that entire country's behind it. No.
I mean, look, I I had a lot of guys with the Epstein thing that came here. We sat down. We talked to them. A lot of guys. I've had a lot of Epstein people that I've interviewed here.
Michael Wolf, you know, Whitney Webb, you name him. We've had him on regularly over and over again. And even his brother was with me one time. We did a three hour interview. Two hours of it is live, and the other hour, we're just sitting and talking.
And I do believe they were assets. I do believe they were used. I do believe they sent intel back. I do believe an element of blackmail was used. I do believe all of that stuff happened.
I do. I also do believe the fact that you're doing something to Qatar and you don't call Trump and Trump's not happy about it, that phone call that apparently happened that Trump wasn't happy, and then the next day, they were better together when him and Bibi spoke. I also believe if you want America to give you all this help, you couldn't take out the three nuclear sides, and we go and do the job for you they couldn't do, what are you doing stuff without telling us about it? I I think that part of it of me losing trust is there. But at the same time, to say Israel killed Charlie, you kidding me?
Too much, too lazy, lowers your score. If I was in charge of the algorithms and you're making claims like that without any proof, your score literally goes to zero. Yesterday, had a meeting after our podcast, and I sat down with our talent and I said the following, I said, guys, can we make a commitment to do something? What's that? Let me give you parenting advice even though two of you guys don't have kids.
What's that? Never call your kids stupid. When they do something stupid, don't call them stupid. You could say that's a stupid behavior. You could say that's a dumb behavior.
But if I say you're dumb versus that's a dumb behavior. The dumb behavior, I'm not dumb. But the dumb, I am dumb. I don't know if that makes sense. Criticize the behavior.
Don't criticize the individual. If somebody you say did something like this, tell them, you know what? I think that's a dumb mistake that Netanyahu made. I think that's a lazy mistake that this person made. If we get into the whole immediately assuming everybody is guilty on what they're doing, it's another one of those behaviors of increasing temperature versus lowering temperature.
Great leaders lower temperatures. And when the temperature is high, they stay poised and cause everybody to go like this. That's what great leaders do. Emotional people raise the temperature at all cost. By the way, here's what's weird about emotional people.
Emotional people who raise the temperature a lot also get more eyeballs. That doesn't mean they're right. True. True. So so we have to understand that just because somebody gets more eyeballs doesn't mean they're right.
It just means they're more entertaining. Yeah. And and they attract
Speaker 1: In business, you see you heard the saying there's a stat that in the boardroom, the the loudest person is the one that is listened to, not the one that is right or not the one that has the facts.
Speaker 0: True.
Speaker 1: And, Patrick, one last thing I wanna ask you about is, your interview with Netanyahu, prime minister Netanyahu.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You said you
Speaker 0: got a lot
Speaker 1: of death threats from it. Very, very sensitive topic, probably the most difficult topic I've ever had to cover. I was pretty direct. I told you earlier, October 7, Israel had the right to defend itself. And as time went by, I became more and more critical about Gaza, more objective and in the middle when it came to Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iran, which I know you've covered significant.
So what what did you come out of the interview? So for what was your position when you came into the interview? Has that changed post interview, and how do you think the interview went? Is there certain questions you wanted to ask? They did they ask you not to say certain things because these these are sensitive interviews?
They said to you, Patrick, these are topics you cannot ask if you want the interview. And do you think you got everything off your chest?
Speaker 0: Great question. So let me kinda go through that with you. One, they didn't say I can't talk about this or that at all. I never had a call with their team whatsoever. It was booked.
I showed up. When I'm getting ready to do the interview, they said, can we start fifteen minutes earlier? That was the only thing that threw us off a little bit. We started fifteen minutes earlier and I'm on the other building. When you come to our campus one of these days, we're on 11 acres on an airport and there's the one hangar on this side and there's a one hangar on the other side.
And they're not close to each other. You gotta get downstairs, get on a golf cart, drive this way. That was the only thing that threw us off was the fifty minutes earlier because he was ready to go. He was here fifty minutes early on the screen like you are right now. I had 40 pages of notes.
And the night before, I'm sitting there, they're saying I got thirty to forty minutes. And so in 30 pages of notes, if you narrow it down to 10 topics, then to five topics, then to three topics, you realize you only have three topics to interview because this is the first time you're sitting down with the individual. We're talking right now about a follow-up two hour interview, which is what we would need to have to really ask the questions I wanna ask. But when you have a thirty, forty minute interview, it was three things. One, would the Hamas attack on October 7 happen if Trump was president?
He answered that. Number two, if you're running out of money because this war has cost Israelis $130,000,000,000, their debt to GDP ratio went from 60% to 75%. If you continue going this way, are you all of a sudden gonna come to American taxpayers to ask for 50 to a $100,000,000,000? And he said, no. We got it under control.
Great. He said it on a video. We have it that he's not gonna come to American taxpayers, meaning you have it under control. Good for you. 120 to $130,000,000,000, a lot of money.
And then last one that I asked him was, I'm Armenian. I'm Assyrian. And I wanted to find out about the Armenian and the Assyrian genocide because how is a country that the Holocaust happened to them, how did you not recognize the Armenian genocide? And eventually, he said, well, I just did. And that was big in the Armenian, Assyrian, the Greek community because that was documented and now written all over the place that finally the prime minister said it.
So for me in that interview, I had three outcomes. We got all three outcomes knocked out of the way and some of the guys are, well, you you didn't ask this. You're right. I didn't ask any of that stuff. I had two hours.
I didn't ask the question about how did you not know that, you know, if you claim you have the best military intelligence, Mossad, how did you not know that they were attacking you and how could that happen on your borders? I didn't ask that question because a week before, the trigonometry host asked the question already the exact same question that I wanted to ask. Literally two hours, I was here at the office 06:00 in the morning. Two hours that's on my top three list to ask the question. They're like, watch this question.
It was asked a week before. I'm like, okay. So that one's out the question. I'm not gonna ask you. So it's a filtering process, but hopefully, we'll get more of a two hour interview to do so.
And when I do, trust me, I I I will entertain the two hours, but we'll go through different topics than we did on that thirty minute interview.
Speaker 1: And you managed to piss off another president, president Erdogan. So congratulations on that.
Speaker 0: I don't mind that part at all.
Speaker 1: Patrick, absolute pleasure, sir. Thank you so much for for
Speaker 0: joining us.
reSee.it AI Summary
I reacted to Dan Bongino and Kash Patel's conclusion that Epstein committed suicide. I know Dan well, and I would be shocked if he was lying; he must genuinely believe it. However, I told him that I don’t share that belief. They haven't provided any evidence to convince me, and the video they released seems absolutely ridiculous.
@MJTruthUltra - MJTruthUltra
Tucker reacts to Dan Bongino and Kash Patel concluding Epstein Committed Suicide “I don’t know what to make of that… I know Dan well enough and I would just be shocked if he was lying. He must have believed that. I told him, I talked to him later and told him I don’t believe that. They’ve released no evidence that makes me believe that. And they released this video that’s absolutely ridiculous.”… Clip https://rumble.com/v703wk8-tucker-reacts-to-dan-bongino-and-kash-patel-concluding-epstein-committed-su.html Watch @imelizabethlane Full Show https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YSS0ibugxLg
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks why Dan Bongino and Kesh Patel claimed it was a suicide, noting "we know the cover up happened." Speaker 1 says there is no evidence backing the suicide claim, "they've released no evidence that makes me believe that at all," and references a video they deem ridiculous; "I spent months on this story with Jeffrey Epstein's brother Mark, the only survivor in that family who believes he was murdered and has a lot of evidence that he was." They mention "there were 12 inmates in the secure part of the facility" and say they don't understand why others think it. About Dan, Speaker 1 says, "In Dan's case, just knowing him well, I can say I believe that he believed it. I don't believe it." They discuss honesty reducing suspicion and conspiracy theories. Speaker 1 shares a personal note: admitting you advocated a disaster liberated you; "salvation on this earth."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Wanna ask you about Dan Bongino and Kesh Patel when they were when they were giving interviews, like, to scolded kids that they you know, it's just what was that about? Okay. So okay. We know the cover up happened. Fine.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Trump has his people, maybe not all of them. I know it's hard. I know the capacity it requires to clean up 65 year old mess, maybe even more. But these two showed up and told us, oh no, it was a suicide. Yep, guys, it was a suicide.
I I trusted Kesh Patel. I still trust Dan Bongino.
Speaker 1: I like Dan a lot. Dan's a friend of mine and a and a really good guy. I don't know what to make of that. I think I don't I know Kesh, of course. But I know Dan well enough to know I I I'd be shocked if he was lying.
I think he he must have believed that. I don't believe that. I told him. I I talked to him later. I don't believe that at all.
And they've released no evidence that makes me believe that at all. And they released this video which is absolutely ridiculous. And they've never told us who are the other, so I think there were 12 inmates in the secure part of the facility. And I spent like months on this story with Jeffrey Epstein's brother Mark, the only survivor in that family who believes he was murdered and has a lot of evidence that he was. And I really walked through it all.
To visit him, we spent days on this. And no one's ever explained any of this stuff. And I could go through all the evidence, but, you know, I've already done it. The point is, I don't understand why they think that. In Dan's case, just knowing him well, I can say I believe that he believed it.
I don't believe it. In general, I think we would just be all better off, we'd have less suspicion, less conspiracy theories and misinformation if we were just honest about it.
Speaker 0: Just show us.
Speaker 1: I know in my life that is true when you stop. I mean, when I realized the Iraq war was a disaster, I guess I could have since it all happened before YouTube. I could have been like, Oh, was never for this. I always knew this was bullshit. But I was like, No, I'm not going to allow myself to do that.
I'm going to admit that I advocated for this disaster. That it was all a lie. I participated in a lie unknowingly, but I did participate in it. Right. And once I admitted that about myself, I was totally free.
When you're not hiding something, you're liberated.
Speaker 0: Well, you're also kind of unshakable. There's nothing they can do.
Speaker 1: That's how I feel. How I feel. Yeah. And I'm not a virtuous person at all. I've done a lot of things I'm ashamed of in my life, but I have concluded, because I have done bad things, that trying not to do bad things, doing your best, you probably will do them anyway.
But then admitting it when you do it, that is that's like salvation on this earth. Be
@RedPandaKoala - Red Panda Koala
The moment Alex Jones told Joe Rogan about Jeffrey Epstein 10 years ago from the deleted 911 episode https://t.co/XkL8DntYz0
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 discusses Jerry Epstein and the Lolita Express, claiming Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s planes “like, on 20 flights,” and alleging Clinton flew to a Middle Eastern country with a “chic that's admitted pedophile with multimillion dollar checks and Bill Clinton on the plane.” They state Clinton is a “known sexual predator” and reference lawsuits against Donald Trump with Jane Does alleging involvement with Epstein, saying there was no proof in the law because they log flights on private jets, and asserting Trump “had been a defuse” (likely misstatement) of these claims.
Speaker 1 shifts to John Podesta, describing him as a “progressive guru” and alleging he is connected to an “underage sex slave op,” and mentions “cover upper defending unspeakable dregs.” They question what MMFA is, and Jamie asks what it means. The term MMFA is identified in the dialogue as Media Matters. The speakers then discuss Soros and connect him to ownership of a pizza place where “this all went on.” They claim Media Matters’ head guy, David Brock, has a boyfriend and that the organization hosts major Democratic Party fundraisers. They mention “rock bands there” performing “live Spoken word dissertations of the love of children,” including references to men in goth drag speaking about their love for children. The speakers acknowledge not wanting to repeat some content and suggest they could pull up more footage of these claims.
Speaker 1 asks rhetorically why this is such a bizarre subject and comments on the overall strangeness of the topic.
Overall, the transcript presents an interwoven set of unverified allegations involving prominent figures (Epstein’s associates, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, John Podesta, Soros, and Media Matters), claims of underage sex operations, and allegations about events at a pizza place tied to Media Matters, including reportedly graphic performances by performers discussing love of children. The speakers imply a broader conspiracy or cover-up framework linking political figures, advocacy outlets, and entertainment venues to illicit activities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We all know about Jerry Epstein. Okay? And I don't know about Jerry Epstein. The Lolita Express. Just Google that.
And What is that? Bill Clinton was, like, on 20 flights. First, was set up. That's right. Okay.
Now he's trying to find a high cut that has a temple in it. And then he was also flying to this this Middle Eastern country with a chic that's admitted pedophile with with multimillion dollar checks and Bill Clinton on the plane. And Bill Clinton is a known sexual predator. Okay. So all this stuff's going on.
And so they start bringing up lawsuits against Donald Trump with Jane Doe's claiming he'd been with Epstein even though there's no proof in the law because they make you log even on private jets. None of it was ever true. He'd been a defuse. How
Speaker 1: prog prog, you know, progressive guru John Podesta is in household name as world class underage sex slave op cover upper defending unspeakable dregs escapes me. Early on, did John Podesta imagine his baby MMFA, I don't know what that is, would be covering up for underage sex ops and h oh, hate crimes against blacks. I don't know what that means. What is MMFA, young Jamie? Media matters.
Speaker 0: Isn't that Soros? Yeah. That's Soros. But also, guess who owns the pizza place? Who?
Where all this went on. It's it's MediaMatters head guy, David Brock's boyfriend. And that is where they have major Democratic Party fundraisers, and then they had they had rock bands there that that gave live Spoken word dissertations of the love of children what? I'm talking about guys like in goth drag talking about how much they love children Have you seen this? Yeah.
I I don't even really wanna repeat what they really pull it up. One.
Speaker 1: There's a video of them saying that
Speaker 0: Yeah. This is a comment. This is a comment ping pong. So so
Speaker 1: You know, what why is I mean, this it's really it's a very, very bizarre subject. But why is this, like, so e
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Epstein is so much WORSE than you think.🧩 @davidicke joins us to expose how Epstein’s satanic cult is just a tiny piece of a much larger & darker puzzle most people still refuse to see. https://t.co/CWX7EFPcCp
Video Transcript AI Summary
David Icke and a host discuss the fallout from the latest Epstein files, arguing that the material confirms long-standing claims about a global satanic-pedophile network connected to powerful figures. They insist that Robert Maxwell was a Mossad asset and that Epstein’s circle involved a Massad/CIA/Mossad nexus, with links to Putin, Trump, and other world leaders, and that mainstream media are presenting these revelations as new and sensational when they are not.
Icke argues that the Epstein emails, emails, eyewitness accounts, and party history are all consistent with a vast, interconnected system he calls the global cult, which operates beyond the public’s normal perception. He claims this network is not the origin of human control but a servant of a deeper, astral-level power. He introduces a framework in which the physical world is a frequency band and the astral dimension, outside visible light, is where the origin of control lies. He posits that nonhuman astral entities feed on human energy, specifically low-vibrational energy generated by fear, anger, hatred, and terror, and that this is the gift to the “gods” through rituals.
The discussion lays out how rituals, including satanic and pedophilic ones, are designed to generate maximum terror in victims to produce powerful low-vibrational energy that these astral beings feed on. Pedophilia, in this view, is tied to energy extraction (adrenochrome is referenced) and to possession, whereby an entity influences a human by connecting to their electromagnetic field or aura. The possession can be partial, with facades of normal behavior, or fully infused, causing noticeable facial changes as the entity’s information overwhelms the possessed person.
The participants discuss agency and complicity, noting that low-vibrational beings seek out people who are vulnerable or inclined toward wrongdoing, and that those who are high-vibrational—full of love and joy—cannot be attached to by these entities. They describe how secret societies maintain power through compartmentalization, ensuring most members are unaware of the true occult agenda, while inner circles orchestrate events to sustain the low-vibrational atmosphere that feeds the astral force.
They connect Epstein to broader networks of power, including the CIA, Mossad, and the AI oligarchy, and emphasize how the Epstein case illustrates how the global cult connects people publicly presented as unconnected. They point to specific London connections: Ted Heath, Jimmy Savile, Lord Mountbatten, and Prince Charles, arguing that Savile was a procurer of children for the rich and famous and that internal royal circles knew of Savile’s activities, with media and police dynamics historically protecting such figures due to their connections. They recount how Savile’s proximity to the royal family is documented, including his relationship with Margaret Thatcher.
They reference a supposed transformation: witnesses have described reptilian-like shapeshifting in individuals such as Heath, and a broader claim that some powerful figures are not fully human in a literal sense. They describe how media and political narratives are shaped to keep the public focused on visible conflicts (left vs right, Islam vs other religions) while the astral-level “they” remain behind the scenes, guiding events to generate loosh energy.
The conversation broadens to Nelson-like power networks: Keir Starmer, Tony Blair, Larry Ellison, and Epstein-linked figures, implying that public roles mask deeper affiliations. They discuss how the Overton window is manipulated to keep society within a narrow band of acceptable discourse, and how the true sources of control lie beyond ordinary perception.
Icke argues that the awakening involves redefining self-identity from body-based labels to seeing oneself as consciousness, an expansion of awareness beyond the limited frequency humans typically perceive. By recognizing a larger, interconnected reality, people can perceive the “they” behind the apparent us-vs-them divisions and see how the entire system is coordinated from a higher level.
The Roadmap, Icke’s book, is described as connecting dots across politics, occult phenomena, and afterlife concepts, suggesting that the current revelations are part of a broader unveiling of hidden forces. He frames the public revelations as a process that will shift normals and open pathways to greater insight, with the potential for both challenging and hopeful outcomes as information surfaces and people rethink established beliefs.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, the Epstein Files release on Friday, and the press suddenly pretends that they're learning about these things for the very first time, like the fact that Robert Maxwell was a Mossad asset, that he was murdered on a boat. This is the Epstein files document dump. Of course, this is in there, and people are saying new information is suddenly released about this new information. But, of course, the media is lying, running cover once again. All of this information was written about years ago by David Ike in his books.
The satanic rituals, the pedophilia network, the CIA, Mossad connections, the international network. And now we get to witness all of these so called MAGA influencers, you know, those same guys that had the binders that then suddenly went silent after these documents got dumped. Now, they're running cover for Trump, of course, forgetting his deep associations with Epstein, of course. And then Trump comes out and says, yeah, I never really, was really that friendly with him. Of course, the videos tell a different tale.
Of course, the emails tell a different tale. The eyewitness testimony tells a completely different tale. The the partying, of course, all of it. And then, of course, one of the the mainstream media is running cover in a larger way saying that all of this pedophilia and satanism is just something from a bygone era, of course. And David Ike posted this on his, on his ex account.
The most ridiculous thing I've heard about Epstein is that he ran the world's biggest pedophilia ring, not even close. He ran a Massad CIA blackmail operation that is just part of a vast global pedophilia satanic network that goes back into the ancient world and on which the very existence of the global cult is founded to this day. And he goes on, of course, about all of that. So this idea, as the New York Times points out, that Epstein emails reveal a bygone era.
Speaker 1: It was just one of those things, a one off,
Speaker 0: Thank they God it's all over now. Now as he's gone
Speaker 1: Gatsby, you know, it's gone now.
Speaker 0: David Ike, the great David Ike joins us now to talk all about this, his research, and this vast sort of Satan pedophilia ring and how deep this actually go goes. David, welcome back to the show. Great to see you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Yeah, have you noticed how whenever a scandal breaks, the official response is, Oh yeah, but new checks and balances have been put into place and it can't happen again. It's always the same story, but actually it is happening again because it's a fundamental part of how human society is controlled.
Speaker 1: Well, can you explain that? Because I think if someone is averse to conspiracy theories, they think, well, that was just a one off. That was awful. I can't believe it happened. It can't still be happening.
What is it? How do we know it's still happening? And why would they do this? I guess the big question is, it the pedophilia ring is just one part of other heart of darkness. Can you paint that picture for us?
Speaker 2: Yeah. You see, to understand the resistance to what is going on is to understand that from cradle to grave, people are programmed to believe in a version of normal. Now this normal may change what they call the Overton window, the limits of public debate and considered real world. It may change, so we have a new normal, but there's always a normal. And that normal never encompasses the extremes of what's actually happening.
And, you know, one of the greatest forms of mind control and perceptual limitation is to control the public's perception of the possible. There was a great quote from a guy called Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher, who said words to the effect of Every man it's not actually every man, but it's getting there Every man basically views the world, the limits of the world, by the limits of his own field of vision. And that's what normality does. It gives people a certain view of what is happening, and therefore, when people come along and expose what is really happening beyond the normal, beyond the walls of normal, then they're immediately mad, bad, crazy or all of them. And so to grasp what this is all about and how it all fits together, demanding from the start is a blank sheet of paper in terms of preconceived idea, so that we let the information be our guide rather than preconceived idea, which is from the normal.
And we have the normal ingrained in us through the education system, which this global cult that I talk about, and this pedophilia and satanism is all this cult is founded on that. It created the so called public education system. It created and owns sources of communication, the great majority of them anyway. In other words, it controls the sources from which people form their perceptions to grasp a perception of normality. So first of all, that has to go.
Ladies and gentlemen, the preconceived normal has to go. Just let the information be your guide. And so to put this into perspective and to explain why satanism and pedophilia are fundamentally connected, we have to start to realize that this global network, which I call the global cult, which is the generator and the orchestrator of this global pedophilia and satanic network, it is not the origin of human control. It is the player out of that control. It is the servant of that control.
The origin of it is not in this dimension of reality, which is merely a band of frequency. That's all it is. If people realize, as I said in other chat, if people realized just how little they can actually see, they'd be staggered. We can only see something called visible light, which is so tiny, it's ridiculous. The rest of infinity exists in the same space, but we can't access it visually because this biological computer, as I call it, will only decode, literally decode, a certain tiny band of frequency.
So in the same space that we are experiencing are other dimensions of reality. And there's one very close to this one, but outside of visible light, called the astral frequency. And that's where the origin of human control is coming from. Now, to again grasp why, we have to realize that to this nonhuman force, this astral dimension force, humans are a source of energetic sustenance. Every time we think, every time we feel emotion, we are generating a frequency.
This is well known in mainstream science. We're generating energy. We can't see it because it's outside of visible light, but we can feel it. You know, we talk about good vibes, bad vibes, all horrible vibes. That's because we're feeling the frequencies, but we're not seeing the frequencies, they're outside visible light.
And those frequencies are actually an astral phenomenon. Every time we feel emotion and we think in various ways, we are putting this energy, this frequency into that astral dimension. Now, by their very nature, and demonic is a very good term, by the very nature, this demonic force in this astral dimension is in a low frequency state. It's in a higher frequency state than we are because this human realm is so unbelievably energetically dense, it's unbelievable. But they are in themselves a low vibrational state.
And therefore, if they're going to absorb human energy, it has to be within the band of frequency that they're operating on. And it turns out that that frequency band relates to what you might call low vibrational human emotion and thought. In other words, the emotions of fear, of anxiety, of depression, of hatred, of regret, of resentment, of conflict, of war, all these things generate or trigger people to generate these low vibrational frequencies. So first of all, is no benefit whatsoever in this astral force of entities, which are talked about throughout human history. To have a human world that is based on love, on joy, on peace, on harmony, on balance None, because that's not the frequency they absorb.
So when you had the Morpheus character in the Matrix hold that battery up and say the matrix, which is this is a simulated reality created by this astral force, held up the battery and said the matrix is a computer generated dream world built to turn humans into one of these, it was a very profound truth in an apparently fictional movie. We are an energy source, but only if we're in a low vibrational state. So you have this astral force, these entities, these demonic entities, and they have in service to them within the human reality, this global cult of secret societies, which are fiercely compartmentalized, so most people in them haven't got a clue what's really going on. It's the inner core I'm talking about. And the role of this global cult is to generate events and happenings in the human realm that are going to trigger in human response to these events that low vibrational energy.
So if you look at the world, it's a generator of that low vibrational energy all the time in many and various ways, whether it's, you know, this background anxiety that people feel and worry about the future, or whether it's an outright war, which generates phenomenal amounts, obviously, of this energy. This is a louche farm, as I call it in my book, The Roadmap. It's a louche farm, and louche is the word that's given to this low vibrational energy. So if we then look at the connection between pedophilia and satanism, and why it's so prevalent, and why this global cult has literally a global network, a satanic pedophile network, of which the Epstein network was a part, but only a part, it's to do with energy and it's to do with this low vibrational energy we call LUSH. So, and this is what I've put together over the years in the books, over now thirty six years of full time research.
So as I mentioned in the chat we had, the longer chat we had, I started to realize when I was putting this global cult together in the early 1990s and how it worked, and how the people in positions of power like presidents and prime ministers were just here today, gone tomorrow assets of this cult, many of which didn't even know the cult existed. But the the the cult itself is always there. I started to realize that major players in the public arena that were playing the role of advancing the gender of this cult to more and more centralization of power and human control. They were involved in satanic ritual. And you go, what?
Why? And then you realize that in the ancient world, they were doing, openly human sacrifice rituals to the gods. The gods? Who are the gods? Who are the gods through the ages that these rituals are done to?
Still done to? These nonhuman entities in the astral dimension, they interpenetrate this one. So you had these, ancients doing these these these rituals, and they were sacrificing people. And often you you you hear the the term about sacrificing young virgins to the gods. Well, young virgins is code for children, kids, and there's a reason for that that I'll come to.
And so what is happening in a ritual, whether it's the ancient openly done ritual or the secretly done now as humanity reached a point of maturity where it weren't having their open rituals anymore. Whatever time you're talking about, the question is what is the gift to the gods that these rituals or these sacrifice rituals are doing? And so you then realize that it comes down to this louche, this low vibrational energy, Because the rituals, and I've been given chapter and verse by this, by the people who've taken part over the years, some against their will, some who've seen the light eventually, that these rituals are designed specifically to generate maximum terror in the victim. And what terror does, or what terror is, is a phenomenally powerful low vibrational energy, which these entities feed off. And as I said in our chat, you know, you can look at someone and you can see from their facial expression and their body language that they're in an emotional state, terror, whatever, but you can't see the energy that they're giving off as a result of that, very powerful energy, of terror, because it's going into this astral dimension.
And they're feeding off it. These entities are feeding off it. That's the gift to the gods. And then the Satanists within the human dimension who are orchestrating the ritual, they then drink the blood of the victim, and it's by that time laced with a very powerful adrenaline generated by the energy of terror. And it gives them a high.
It gives them a it's like a drug. It's like an elixir to them. And then you look at pedophilia, that's adrenochrome by the way, that people talk about, and then you look at pedophilia. Now, I've been given chapter and verse on this over the years. I've talked not only to people in the Western world about this, I've talked to shamans in different parts of the world as well that carry the ancient knowledge.
And there's this tremendous synchronicity of explanation between the two. First of all, there's a particular energy that these entities want, and it's the energy of children before puberty. We look at puberty as a hormonal chemical change, but actually what's happening is there's a vibrational change, there's a frequency change in the energy field of children, and that expresses itself in the so called physical world as a chemical hormonal change at puberty. They want that energy overwhelmingly before that happens, if possible. And so pedophiles are basically possessed people.
You know, throughout human history, there has been this constant story, this theme of possession. Well, what is that? We have a physical body, what we call it physical, it's not really, but that's another story. We have this physical body because it allows us to interact with this frequency we call human. As I said in the other chat, I can pick up those spectacles because I have a vehicle that is resonating within the same frequency band as the spectacles, therefore I can interact with them.
My consciousness, which is a field of energy awareness that overrides the body, that is vibrating so fast, I couldn't possibly interact with this dimension and pick those glasses up. So we have this vehicle. But that electromagnetic field that you might call the mind or consciousness can be there can be a connection made between these astral entities and that human electromagnetic field, some people call it the auric field, whatever, and through that electromagnetic connection, then the perceptions of the possessed person can be controlled. And so this whole idea of possession is to connect with the electromagnetic field of human and take control of perceptions and behavior. And you know when you see these themes where literally someone's face changes into some grotesque entity.
Speaker 0: Right. People report seeing the facial shape shifting.
Speaker 2: I've seen it. I've seen it. I've seen it. It's real. Now the question is, what's going on?
It can be very simply explained. Most possession, like, connects powerfully with the person when it wants to impose itself on the behavior of that person. Otherwise, it's one step back. And this is why you can talk to people and they say, well, I met so and so who I know is a satanist. Oh, he's a nice chap.
He's very, very pleasant. Yeah, okay. But you want to see him when the entity comes in. So you've got this like schizophrenia in personality between when the entity imposes itself and when it takes a step back because it doesn't really have to control behavior in the intermediate time. And so you can have possession where the entity is influencing the perception through the subconscious overwhelmingly of the target person.
But it doesn't reach the point where this facial change takes place. However, what the entity is, is a field of information that relates to how that entity looks and what that entity is. And what happens when the possession gets really, really powerful and intense is that so much of the entity's information is poured into the possessed entity's field, that the possessed entity's field starts to reflect the entity, at which point the facial expressions and the facial look of the possessed person starts to change in line with the infused information from the entity. Thus you have this exorcist type look of people and you think, oh my god, their face is changing. I've seen it, it's real.
And so the pedophile is basically a possessed entity. And the charge, the urge to have sex with children is is infused by these entities. It might Do be that
Speaker 0: they have agency? David, do
Speaker 2: they have agent? Say again?
Speaker 0: Sorry. I was gonna say, do they have agency? I mean, because what I'm trying to understand too at these Epstein parties and events, and you saw the, you know, the event that was happening in Mexico where the woman runs out. We've shown the video where she said they're, you know, they're eating humans. They're eating humans, and then she disappears afterwards.
Do they have agency? Like, if they're a part of this process, are are they
Speaker 1: giving Can they get out of it?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Are they giving themselves willingly to it? Do they have what what sort of mechanism is happening there?
Speaker 1: Well, if I may follow-up on that, because we see how these low vibrational vessels are finding each other, looking out an email who's game to do this bad stuff. But we do have an archetype. We have Norm Finkelstein who tells them all to f off. So it seems like they put out their feelers, and this vibration comes together if there's always already a weakness. What what do you think of that?
Speaker 0: But Elon Musk was trying to get to the island. He's like, can I come can I come, please? Can I get there? I wanna go there. I wanna go to the island.
I wanna go to the island.
Speaker 2: All of the above, basically. But if you think about it, these are low vibrational entities. And if you're in a high vibrational state, if you're full of love and joy and peace and harmony, they can't attach to you, because your frequency is incompatible with theirs. Your perceptual frequency, what we call the what I call the electromagnetic field, it's incompatible. What they want is to pull you in to low vibrational states.
So the for instance, the real abuse of alcohol, the abuse of drugs, all these bring you into a low vibrational state which allow possession. You look at these apparently bizarre secret society rituals. But what these rituals are, and I've talked to some Freemasons and said, what's all this ritual about that you do? Oh, I've got a clue it's just lost in the midst of antiquity. Well, actually it's not, but you think it is, because you know, most Freemasons haven't got a clue what's actually going on.
But these rituals are locking you in, they are tuning you in to these entities, this non human force. And then what happens, and my God, just look around the world people who are running this cult, they start to reflect the mentality of these entities. They basically become vehicles for them. So in terms of pedophilia, and this has been I've been given chapter and verse by this over the years in different parts of the world. When the child is being abused, the overseeing entity that's possessing the the pedophile is drawing the energy of the child off and absorbing it.
I remember talking to a shaman in South Africa who was and others have said the same in different parts of the world, that some of these children, these abused children, their energy is basically so absorbed, so drawn off that only just enough to survive is remaining. You know, there was a Central American shaman who talked about this wonderful energetic field that children have and how these entities draw it off. And so the pedophile is the vehicle. It's conduit for this energy to be drawn off, which is how pedophilia and satanism connect. It's all to do with these entities feeding off human energy.
And so you've got to go to this level, this astral level, because at that level, everything connects. At this level within the human world, yes, these cultists can fight among themselves. Yes, they can battle to get up the top of the greasy pole instead of their mate who's also part of it. All this goes on. But if you go to that level, that astral level where it's being orchestrated from, suddenly the left in politics and the right in politics become the same.
Right. Islam and other religions and Hinduism and all these different religions, they all become the same religion. Because what do religions do? What does political ideology do if both are without question and without, if they're rigid in their belief and immovable? They create a belief system that limits where people will go.
They create their own normal within the societal normal. So you have an Islamic normal, you have a Christian normal, you have a Hindu normal, you have a Jewish normal. And these normals are smaller than even the Overton window of society in general. What you're doing is you're limiting their perception. You're holding them in basically boxes of the mind.
And so they're all serving the goal and the agenda of these entities. And once you have these rigid belief systems, different ones, political, religious, whatever, cultural, you've got the perfect environment to play them off against each other. So your target population is fighting among itself, which divides and rules so they don't focus on you, it's controlling it all. And also, what are they producing in their fight and their cussing and their conflict with each other? Loosh, low vibrational emotional and mental energies.
So to understand what's going on, you have to go here. You have to go here. And most people won't go there because they don't think there is a there. Right. And that's what perceptual control has done.
Speaker 0: So when you see the Uni Party, boxes, as you describe it even being narrower than the Overton window, and you see this battling back and forth and giving cover for Trump and giving cover for Elon Musk or whatever it is, it's all just operating within this sort of narrow band. And it's so much bigger than all of these people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all of it. And the other thing about the Epstein files, the drop that's just happened, and the previous one come to that, is that it shows how this global cult works in terms of connecting in the public arena, apparently unconnected. So you have documents, emails, whatever, that connect Epstein to Putin. But he's also connected to the CIA, he's also connected to Mossad, He's also connected to Trump. He's also connected to endless other world leaders and former world leaders.
And he's connected into the AI oligarchy, which is massively relevant to current events. And how many people would realize that Epstein was manipulating on that level and interacting at that level? But Epstein was just one guy. This is how it all works. They're all connected in the end.
You know, there's a Jewish area of Judaism called Shabad Lubavitch, and that connects into Putin, connects into Zelensky, connects into Trump, connects into Lutnick, connects into Yarid Kushner, connects into Netanyahu. There are there are these networks everywhere, not just Jewish ones. No, not at all, not just Jewish ones, but they seem to be very prominent at the moment, to say the least, and and back through history. But but this this cult is encompassing all these different belief systems, just that some are more dominant than others. But there are these networks which connect people that in the public arena are unconnected.
So you look in Britain, you look at Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister. Well, his Svengali is Tony Blair. And Tony Blair is owned by Larry Ellison, who funds him, Mhmm. Who's massively active in AI and the media in The United States, and is the biggest private funder of the IDF in in Israel. And who's who's who was appointed US ambassador by Starmer?
A guy who was a very close associate of Epstein, and has just now resigned from the British Labour Party of Kirstjarma because of his Epstein connections. And this same guy was this Svengali again of Tony Blair, who was the spin doctor that brought him to power as Prime Minister. So you see these connections everywhere because there is the public face, everything's unconnected, everything's random. And then there's the real level where everything is connected.
Speaker 0: Well, don't you hate when people say I told you so? Yeah. That's me, actually, because I I did tell you. Sorry. But I told you that gold and silver were going to reap the benefits of excessive money printing, the Fed just printing money like crazy, overvalued markets, global unrest.
It's here. It's happened. Gold and silver have both soared to all time highs. So I hope you called our friends at Lear Capital and you bought some. If you didn't, trust me.
It's not too late. Experts are predicting even higher prices ahead. And they get it. They know what's coming. Isn't it time, folks?
Get yourself some gold and silver today. Call the best in the business. I personally use them. So does Natalie. We both do.
And our kids do as well in their IRAs. Lear Capital, it's a free phone call. There's no obligation to purchase, just education information on protecting and growing your wealth with gold and silver. I'm sure there are many of you that have called and haven't purchased yet for whatever reason. Don't make the same mistake twice.
Now is the time to get some gold shipped directly to you or shift some dollars in your retirement accounts over to physical gold and silver. It's easy to do. Natalie and I have done it for both, and I've been extremely satisfied with Lear's knowledge, their service, their prices. I urge you to call today and learn more. Call them.
+1 806133557 or go to learredacted.com and you can receive up to $20,000 in free bonus medals with a qualified purchase.
Speaker 1: Early onset dementia and Alzheimer's are on the rise. Reports show a three seventy three percent increase in diagnosis between young people, even thirty to forty four years old, a three eleven increase in people forty five to fifty four. So when doctors are treating these brain diseases, they focus on medicating the brain, addressing the symptoms. But instead, they should also look at toxic proteins that build up in the brain. Like much of the body, many brain tissues track back to the brain issues, rather, track back to gut microbiome.
That's why we'd like to tell you about kimchi one because it is a supplement that contains over 900 probiotic strains. Studies show that its bioactive compounds help reduce inflammation, protect brain cells, and even improve memory and cognitive function by preventing amyloid beta plaque buildup, which if you've studied Alzheimer's, you know, is indicative of Alzheimer's. So that's why Brightcore created kimchi one. Try it out for yourself. You can get an exclusive offer by either clicking our link or going to mybrightcore.com/redacted.
Again, that's mybrightcore.com/redacted. Use the code redacted, and you'll get 25% off. You'll be so happy that you did. Again, it's the benefits of kimchi, but you don't have to eat it if you're not quite used to it. Mybritecore.com/redacted.
So if if I may just see if I'm understanding the picture you're painting is that these evil demonic forces that are driving this human behavior is a part of a spectrum. So as we see, we're like, why does Epstein love war so much? Why does he want provide weapons to a murderous government? Why does he wanna have these demonic pedophilia rituals? It's all the same because boar, you can feed on souls in the same way as pedophilia.
So that behavior is just expansive. Do I understand correctly?
Speaker 2: Yeah. And by the way, the guy I was talking about just not mentioned his name, Lord Mandelson.
Speaker 0: I was gonna say Lord. Yeah. Couldn't remember his last name. Lord. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, Lord Mandelson, yeah. They're trying to get him to drop the Lord and be thrown out of the House of Lords now. But, you know, what you've just described is, yeah, that's the kind of foundation of the way it it works. But, you know, every everywhere has its Epstein.
So you you add the Epstein through that period in The United States and further afield, of course, as we're now seeing. But we had our own Epstein in Britain called Jimmy Savile. Jimmy Savile was a BBC entertainer, and in the 1960s, I remember him coming to prominence, he was known as a disc jockey, which was a new term in those days. And he was a front man host for BBC programs, and he he was on, you know, playing discs on the radio and all that stuff. And, yeah, playing discs, showing my age.
But then in the late 1990s, I published a book called The Biggest Secret, in which I talked about this nonhuman element for the not for the first time, but in detail. And part of it was that I met one section of it was I met a lady who was a close friend of Princess Diana for nine years. I've still got our chat on one of those reel to reel kind of audio tapes. And she told me a load of things about the British royal family, which had been told to her by Diana and she read other sources as well. But she told me about this guy, Jimmy Savile, and how he was a pedophile and was in the heart of the British royal family, and how Prince Charles, then Prince Charles, now King Charles, had used Saville, this disc jockey, as a go between with Diana during their marriage breakup.
Bizarre, you would think. Right. And Savol became a very, very close friend of Prince Philip before they had a big fallout. And well, virtually to his death, if not to his death, was a close friend of Prince Charles, now King Charles. So I started to do kind of research into this guy.
And what you find, by his own admission, is that he was invited into the bosom, the inner circle of the British royal family, by a guy called Lord Mountbatten. Lord Mountbatten was a known pedophile. In fact, there are FBI files on him to that effect. And so this pedophile, Lord Mountbatten, who was a close associate of the Queen, invites this pedophile, Jimmy Savile, into the bosom of the inner circle of the royal family, and he stayed there pretty much for much of the rest of his life. And then after he died in 2011, a year later, there was a television documentary by Independent Television here.
It's not really independent, but it was on that occasion, thank goodness. And it exposed Savol as a mega, mega pedophile. I mean historic levels of pedophilia. And it was a big furore and what have you, but the royal family were never questioned on it. Hold on a minute, this Jimmy Sapple has been in your inner circle since the sixties.
You didn't know what he was? Of course he was in there because they did know what he was, because although his pedophilia, and indeed his satanism, came out as more and more women came forward to describe how Sabol had abused them as kids, What didn't come out, but I established and I put it in my books, is that he was a procurer of children for the rich and famous. Not only was a pedophile himself, he was procuring kids for the rich and famous, including people like the British Prime Minister, Ted Heath, Edward Heath. Edward Heath was the man who took Britain into the, what became the European Union, the common market at the time in the early 70s. And he was prime minister for a time.
And in The Biggest Secret, which came out in 1998, when he was still a member of parliament, I named him as a pedophile satanist. And in the week of publication, a journalist, or pastors for one, contacted him and read the passage to him. I mean, he's an MP, he's extremely rich. He could have taken that book out, but he would have to go to court to do it. And all he said was David Ike must be mad.
And that was the end of it, never heard another thing. Seventeen years later, when various people came forward making accusations about Heath as a pedophile, Wiltshire Police in England did an investigation, he was dead by then, and decreed that if he was still alive, he would definitely be brought in for questioning. There was enough evidence to bring him in for questioning on these allegations, seventeen years later. And I'll tell you something about Ted Heath, right? I was in television.
I finished in 1990 when I had my head explosion and I was launched into this lie for the last thirty six years. But during the '19 the late 1980s, I was also a national spokesman for the British Green Party. It didn't last long because I saw politics from the inside and I thought, I'm out of here. But anyway, different different rosette, same same techniques, same nonsense. Anyway, as a result of there was a European election, I think it was in 1989, and the Green Party had never done very well.
It had very, very small votes and really no mentions in the media at all, really. But during 1998 and into 1989, suddenly the support for the Green Party started to grow and grow and grow. And it was proposed in the polls or said in the polls that the Green Party was going to do extremely well in the European elections of nineteen eighty nine. And so I was invited by Sky News to go to their headquarters and comment live on the show as the election results were coming in. Okay.
So I turn up and I'm met by this lady at the door and she says, oh, I'll take you into makeup. So she takes me into makeup. And when I went into the makeup room, the door was was was out was open there. And I walked in and to me, the place was empty. And she said to me, there'll be someone coming to see you in a minute.
So I go and sit down, and I'm looking at the mirror thing, and then something caught my eye to my right. Now let me emphasize, at this point, I had no idea of any of this stuff that we're talking about now. None of it. That started about a year later. So something caught my eye and I looked across and sitting behind the door, that's why I couldn't see him, was Ted Heath, then the former Prime Minister of Britain, who'd just been interviewed on the live show and was waiting to have his makeup taken off.
So I, you know, being a friendly bloke, said, alright mate, you know, I couldn't stand his politics, but alright mate, yeah, how are you doing? And what happened next, I couldn't explain, but I could now. He's looking at the mirror when I said hello, and he sort of turned in the chair and he looked at me. He never said a word, not a word was spoken this entire time. And he looks at me, kind of an inquisitive look on his face, like, what's this?
That kind of look. And then his eyes started at the top of my head, and then they went down to my feet, and then went back again, and then he turned and looked back at the mirror, never said a bloody word. Now what happened while the, what I would call the scanning was taking place? The entirety of his eyes, including the whites, turned jet black. Jet black.
And I'm looking at this, and I've described it as like looking into two black holes. It was like, you know, when you're having a conversation with people, you have eye contact. There's eye contact between you.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: But he had no bloody eyes, they were black holes. And so it was like looking, I would say now, like looking through his eyes into another dimension. And what happened later was I was in America, it was 1996, and in a fifteen day period, I met 12 different people in different cities because I was talking to nobody, but I was traveling and talking every day, who told me how they'd seen a human, apparently a human, turn into a reptilian figure and then go back again. And you're like, what? But what you don't do is just dismiss it unless you know it's nonsense.
You think, oh, I'll wait and see if other information comes on this, and it did massively. Anyway, I had an appointment after I came back from America to meet a lady who said that she was the former wife of a guy who was the steward of an area in the West Of London called Burnham Beaches. It's an area of copse and clearings and woods, and it's owned by the City of London. And anyone who does research into the city of London, you know how how what an absolutely not only financial center that is, but an unbelievable satanic center that is. I mean Yes.
Horrific. I talked about all that in the books over the years. So I was meeting this lady who was going to tell me about her time with this guy when he was basically organizing satanism and satanic rituals in those woods. So anyway, we have the chat, and I'm writing it all down and all that stuff. And I had a cup of tea, I just finished my tea and I said, well, thanks ever so much for talking to me.
That's kind of incredible. I've got to just kind digest all that. And I put me tea down and I turned and as I turned, I said, you know, I'm having some strange experiences recently. I said, I keep meeting people who say they've seen people turn into reptiles. And I was turning away and all I heard was behind me.
And I turned back and she's going, she says, oh my god, I wasn't going to tell you that bit. She said, I thought even you think I was mad. And she told me of this, of an experience she had in that wood of reptilian type figures. But what she told me, there's this major experience, is that she was out one night walking. It was dark.
And she saw a light through the trees, and she crept up and looked looked through the trees at this light. She said, and and this woman knew nothing about my experience with Ted Heath, nothing whatsoever. She said, and I saw a a satanic circle, and they were in the robes. And she said, it was led by Ted Heath.
Speaker 0: Oh. Oh.
Speaker 2: Here we go. Right? Oh my god. And she said next to him was actually his chancellor of the exchequer when he was prime minister, called Antony Barber. And then there were these other people in the circle, in the robes.
And she said, first of all, I couldn't believe it, but I'm watching. She said, and then there came a point where suddenly Heath transforms into a reptilian figure and grows about two feet. Now this, when they shape shift, they grow about a foot, two foot, is such a common theme all over the world. I've been told by so many people that that's what happens in a shape shift. They basically grow.
And she said that then Heath starts talking. She said, like the old Transatlantic phone calls where there's gaps between the words. People have to be of a certain age to remember the Transatlantic phone calls and what they were like. And she said, what shocked me more than anything is that when it happened, nobody in the rest of the circle reacted as if it was the most natural thing in the world and they've experienced it many, many, many times. And it turns out that pedophile procurer of children for the rich and famous, Jimmy Savile, in a circle member of the British royal family, was a great mate and associate of Ted Heath.
Who was he also a great friend of? Margaret Thatcher. And the Margaret Thatcher cabinet in the 1990s, there were lots of revelations about the pedophilic nature of some members of her cabinet, well, significant members of her cabinet. And all, of course, the lid was put on because you've got the cult that is orchestrating the pedophilia and orchestrating the satanism, but it's also controlling the political and administrative levels. It's also controlling the media, and therefore it not only has the ability to orchestrate what happens, it has the ability to cover it up and make sure it never comes out.
And so what you have is the media will ridicule or it will dismiss, or it won't even bother reporting or investigating these things. And so many times I've come across people, you know, politicians and such, who have sought to follow-up reports of satanic activity and pedophile activity in their area of influence, who've had it shut down and have it shut down by the police. Now, this is another point. It's well known now, and has been for a long time, that the police knew what Savol was doing. They knew that he was a megapedophile.
But he was never collared for it. Never collared for it because of his connections. So you had this guy who was a disc jockey in the 60s, who was allowed to be a megaphaedophile and procurer of children for the rich and famous right to the end of his life. Long after his media career ended, he had houses all over the place and massive cars and Bentleys with no perceivable, seeable source of income because he was procuring children for the rich and famous. But the police never touched him.
Now there is a special branch in the police, there is the Royal Protection Unit in the police that directly interact with the British royal family. They would have known what the police knew of what Savol was doing. You think the royal family didn't know? Of course they knew. And so as these connections constantly are able to be made, you have the Epstein connection to Prince Andrew, massive, and you then have Prince Charles, who has now taken the title of Prince Andrew away in a damage limitation exercise.
Maybe there'll be more sanctions as a result of this latest Epstein drop. And he's like, oh no, you know, Prince Andrew is bringing terrible things on the British royal family. He's been dispatched a long way from London now to a house in the middle of bloody nowhere in Norfolk to try to get him out of the public eye. He doesn't do royal events anymore, he hasn't done for a long time because he was ostracized. But the guy doing the ostracizing was a close mate of Jimmy Savile.
Speaker 0: Right, Keith Charles.
Speaker 2: For all those years, decades.
Speaker 0: Right. The David, whole person's
Speaker 2: you Known you saw in the public arena and the the pictures exist. Now the guy who brought him into the inner circle of the British royal family, Lord Mountbatten, who was a close associate of Jimmy Savile, hence he brought him in, he's known as the mentor of Prince Philip and Prince Charles. So it all kind of connects and no media organization asks the royal family the obvious question. What is this pedophile doing your inner bosom since the 1960s? One other thing, finally, on Savol.
This lady, this friend of Diana, told me that Savol was into pedophilia on a mega scale, yeah, turned out to be true. She told me that he was into satanism, turned out to be true. And she also told me that he was into necrophilia. He likes sex with dead bodies. Now, Jimmy Savile was famous in Britain for doing charity work.
It was one of his fronts. And one of the things he did was volunteer, ongoing over a long period of time, as a porter in a hospital in Leeds in the North Of England. Why? Well, we now know it gave him access to the mortuary. So, you know, and because Savile was so kind of famous and other reasons too in the background, of course the politicians loved him and wanted to be photographed with him.
And oh yeah, Jimmy's such a good guy. And that's how he turned out to be. And so again, you have the public face and you have the real face.
Speaker 0: What are talking about? Go ahead.
Speaker 1: So I felt very strongly around the disappearance of Princess Kate. They're using a doppelganger, her reemergence having beat cancer, that there was something foul there. And and that the idea of using someone who wasn't even close to her appearance for it just really made me extremely uncomfortable. And now in the context of all of this secrecy, it feels like they're like, we can feel it when there's some kind of institutional hypocrisy, when there's something transparent about it. And I I don't wanna ask you to relitigate that because she seems to be back in public appearance, and I don't quite understand it even still, the royal family's explanation.
But it does, again, feel like this is an institutional evil that feeds upon itself. I just
Speaker 2: Yeah. But I'll tell you something else. Over the years, things I've picked up in various ways and various sources. Well, let me let me go back to to the early nineteen nineties when the top of my head blew off and I was launched into this. My television career finished, I left the Green Party and what have you.
And I went on this journey of trying to uncover what the hell was going on in the world. And various things happened to me, extremely paranormal experiences happened to me in 1990, 1991, that launched me on this journey. And from the moment they happened, the synchronicity of my life was just ridiculous. I would walk into people, documents, personal experiences, books, whatever, that were basically handing me puzzle pieces in an extraordinary synchronistic way. And one of the things that happened in the early 1990s is that I would keep meeting psychic people, professional psychics.
I only went to one in 1990, a story I told, and that psychic told me I was going go out on a world stage and reveal great secrets. And I thought you were having a laugh, but this turned out to be true.
Speaker 1: Here we are.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But what happened was after that, after that one I went to, the synchronicity of my life was like, if you wanted to meet a professional psychic, well you should have followed me around for about a year. Because I was meeting them all the time. What do you do? Oh, I'm a professional psychic.
Oh, well not another one, you know. But was, what they were, some of them were telling me synchronistically, was that there was a energetic change coming. What was what it would do would have the effect of bringing to the surface all that had been hidden so that humanity could at last see what had been going on without them realizing what was going on. And, you know, for a long time, you know, when I was, you know, subject to endless ridicule and abuse and what have you and dismissal, it didn't seem like that was going to happen. The first book I wrote, actually, in 1991, or nineteen ninety, ninety one, was called Truth Vibrations, which was about this the title was based on this energy of bringing to the surface all that had been hidden and the fact that it couldn't be stopped.
And no matter how this, you know, manipulation was trying to stop it, it couldn't be stopped. And now I'm starting to look at it. Yeah. And I'm starting to see this bringing to the surface all that had been hidden from us. And this is why, as I said right at the start of our chat, that the normal is going to have to change because what's coming to the surface and being revealed is going to change people's sense of normal.
And it's going to be very challenging to them as they see actually the world they've been living in compared with the one they thought they were living in. Completely different. So I think we're in for some very interesting times, not only negatively, although they're, you know, these global coal is going to throw the kitchen sink now, because it's starting to be backed into a bit of a corner, but also good things in terms of information coming to light and people starting to see, hey, this is real, that they haven't before. So I think, you know, it's not all doom and gloom, absolutely not. And where this goes from here depends on us.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think you're right. I think, you know, seeing the resurfacing of some of these on X, you've seen it over the past seventy two hours. Oh, Princess Diana was right. She was telling us.
She was telling us about these things. We had to wait, you know, decades to to finally see these things.
Speaker 1: Then Michael Jackson.
Speaker 0: Michael Jackson. All these other pieces of these stories. But then you're also seeing people like Dan Bongino trying to go back and do his show after lying after lying to all of us. And then the the comments just filled with thousands of people saying, you're lying. You're lying.
You're lying. You're a traitor. So there's an awakening happening.
Speaker 1: It must be incredibly validating to you who's waited so long and stood in your truth. So, yeah.
Speaker 2: Talk a relief. You you think, well, you know, I'm told this is going to happen, but I can't see evidence of it, but now suddenly you can. Another thing that's happening is that what I call the fake alternative media, present company not included, by the way, the fake
Speaker 1: alternative
Speaker 2: media, they're increasingly being exposed as well. What they really stand for is coming to the surface rather than what they said they stood for. And very quickly, and one thing in my mind I remember is when I talked to this friend of Diana for over nine years, another thing she said, because Diana had died by then in the fake accident in the Pumpdalma Tunnel. Diana, by the way, was an ancient moon goddess, and Pont Dalma means bridge or passage of the moon goddess. It's all symbolism, all symbolism.
And so what this friend told me that Diana told them is about the Royal Family, she actually said, they're not human. And she wasn't talking about metaphorically, she was talking about literally. Wow.
Speaker 0: Well, you've seen and I've studied some of the clairvoyance and remote viewing individuals who've remote viewed into, Westminster and others, and other places and talked of really nefarious things. We're talking cloning. We're talking all sorts of Oh, Mhmm.
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. And of course, Epstein was in into that old cloning arena as well. You know, the know, a lot of people don't talk about this Zorro ranch that he had. So many different aspects. Oh, by the way, Juliette Bryan, who was one of the survivors of Epstein ring.
She comes from South Africa and she was taken to the Epstein ring in America. She talks, as she says on a show on Iconic, our media platform, how when she was with Epstein on the island, that he turned into a dragon type figure. Very briefly, but very clearly to her, it was a dragon like figure. And she said at the time, of course, I'd never, I thought what the hell is going on? Because I'd never heard of any of it.
And then later a mother, I think, came across my stuff trying This to explain what world is nothing like we think it is. It's so important, as I said at the start, to have a blank sheet of paper where our perceptions and sense of reality earn their place on that paper by evidence, not preconceived idea, not what we've been programmed to believe all our lives, but on evidence and on basic common sense often, and to encompass the possibility that maybe we don't know it all. You know, there's an ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates, who talked about to know is to know you know nothing. That's basically the meaning of true knowledge. Other words, realize that whatever you know, given this tiny band of frequency that we're able to see, and just imagine, from this tiny band of frequency comes orthodox science and academia, all from this band of frequency where people glean their perceptions of academia and science.
So one thing you can say without fear of credible contradiction is whatever we know, there's always more to know. And so the question is, what don't we know? And that question constantly expands your sense of the possible, and then you end up in the realm of realizing that the world is not even a smear like we thought it was.
Speaker 0: And trying to navigate all of this, your new book is called The Roadmap. You can see it over your shoulder there, as well. And, yeah. Your new book is called The Roadmap, and you have a brand new UK tour as well. Two of the dates are already sold out, in Hull and Derby.
Gateshead is still available at the February and, Colchester as well. But I highly recommend, and after our last talk, so many of our viewers said they went and bought your book and bought the roadmap to start to to try to navigate all of this craziness.
Speaker 2: Well, the roadmap is about connecting the the dots across all these different areas. It it, you know, it deals with the the here and now Trump phenomena and goes right out into the afterlife, really. So, but it all connects. And it's like, if you encompass this other level from which it's being orchestrated, and you only see this level, well, this level will make it appear as if everything's about us and them. Us and them divide and rule.
But when you go to that level and you realize that these us and thems are actually all controlled from this level, then the us and thems become a they. People say, so who are this they? Well, there you go. That's who they are, ultimately orchestrating human society as a louche farm. And we don't have to be.
That's the point. This is vital to emphasize. You know, the whole point, the whole foundation of human control is to focus attention on this tiny band of frequency, visible light, as if this is all there is. I mean, you've still got orthodox science saying, oh, no. There's no there's no other levels.
It's only this one. Yeah. Okay. And so all those endless areas of unexplored space, there's no life there at all, then. Oh no, evidence.
Well, I mean, just look at it. You know what I mean?
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: But the thing is that once you start to open your mind and let information be your guide, then it's a a process starts to happen where you start to expand your awareness into greater and greater and greater sways of consciousness beyond the manipulated human world, etcetera. And that's when you start to tap into insight, knowledge, awareness that you didn't you didn't know before, you you weren't aware of before. You have these insights, you have these intuitive knowings that suddenly kind of come to you and end up being proved correct with evidence. And the key thing is to understand that level, because what happens is if you're only aware of this human level, if you like, then everything seems to be us and them. Everything seems to be random.
Everything seems to be unexplainable. But when you go to that level and you realize that actually that's orchestrating all these apparently unconnected areas of life and organizations people, then suddenly what appears here to be us and them divide and rule, becomes here, they. People say, who are they? Who's this they? Well, there's the they, and these are just servants to the they.
And and no matter whether it's left or right or or this religion or that religion, they are ultimately in control, even though the vast majority of people with these political ideologies and these these religions have no idea that that's the case. And, you know, awakening is so much easier than than people realize. I've looked at the, you know, the kind of the spiritual side and new age and all that, it all seems terribly complicated. You have to go on these quests or you have to do this or do that to expand your consciousness. I I think it's much simpler than that.
I really do. I think all genius is simple, and I think we're we're part of a a a genius reality in in many ways. Well, more than many ways if you get further out, Total genius. And for me, all we need to do is to redefine our self identity. So if you, are focused on your I, who you are, being your your body and the labels of a a human life, like, I'm a man, a woman, I'm this sexuality, this race, this religion, whatever, then you are self identifying with limitation.
You you you are in a myopia of self identity, and therefore, you are you are trapped in the And and what happens as a result of of of your attention being focused on the myopia of self identifying with the labels of the body is that your consciousness is also reflecting that myopia. And so you're in the world and you are of it. All your information and insights are coming from the information controlled in the world that you're experiencing. In other words, the cult. But if you redefine your self identity to I am the consciousness having the experience.
That what we call human is merely a brief experience in a, what we call a human body, to interact with this particular band of frequency, but who I am, the real I, is the consciousness having the experience, then what happens is instead of your self identity being myopic, your self identity starts to expand and expand and expand it to the point where eventually you realize that you're an expression of an infinite state of consciousness. You are basically all that is, has been, and ever can be, having a brief human experience, which is a long way from Ethel on the checkout and Bill driving the bus that we're told to identify with. And as your sense of self identity expands and expands and expands, so does your consciousness reflecting that expansion, going deeper and deeper and deeper into the infinite realm of consciousness. And this is awakening. Suddenly you're going, I can see it now.
Why couldn't I see it before? Because you were there before. That's why. Now you're here. Now you can see it.
And the idea of the whole foundation of the conspiracy is to keep people so focused in their attention. And I'll give you an example. Okay. I'm sitting here, and I can see I can see the room and and basically all that's around me in this visual light frequency band. So now I do that and I focus on it.
The room's disappeared. There is no room anymore. It's just my finger. And that's what myopia does. Myopia of perception, myopia of self identity, it does that.
And awakening is going, oh, saw that for a game of soldiers. I'm more than I thought I was. And suddenly you start to get insights, awareness, you see things you couldn't see before, because your expansion of consciousness is expanding with your expanding self identity. I am consciousness, ultimately an expression of all consciousness. I am not Ethel on the checkout.
Speaker 0: David, the new book is called The Roadmap. Again, the tour is available for people that want to go see you live. It's been an really an honor. I mean, was no one that I wanted to talk to more about all of this, today to help us make sense of it. And so when you see this sort of myopic approach of people online, it's it's I hope people will share this far and wide.
The great David Ike, thank you so much for joining us, David. It's been an honor once again.
Speaker 2: Well, it's been it's been my pleasure. I can tell you. It's been it's been great.
Speaker 0: Thank you, David.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Bye.
@RedactedNews - Redacted
Exposed: Epstein's web of influence goes deeper than you think. Was he just a Mossad agent? Uncover his shocking connections in global politics and security. The truth is about to be released! What do you think? https://t.co/DCIxsqr9nN
Video Transcript AI Summary
I've said this many times. People ask me, you know, was Epstein a Mossad agent per se? I think that in reality, his stature and the role he played was in many ways far above that. If you look at his conversations with Barack, who at this time was one of the most influential people in the Israeli political security establishment, he'd been the prime minister. He was the defense minister during part of their conversations.
He was really looking up to Epstein. He was looking up to Epstein for help. He was trying to get his attention. The power dynamic was very quite discernible in their interactions. So it was really Epstein was kind of above, you know, any institution like that per se, but they were a resource and a critical node that they actually relied on for connections and help and for money and political purposes and to spread their influence globally and so forth.
So I suspect that these files, which, you know, again, we haven't had a chance to go through in great granularity and really to get extract the true meaning out of them does take some time to kind of put them chronologically together and see what the meaning of all the conversations were in context. But I do suspect that they will point more of this. Now I have been looking at that conversation that you referenced earlier with Barack, and a third figure who you know, we have some theories of who it is, but we're not having we're not sharing them yet, but I think someone people probably know very well. You know, I do think that points to even more detail about, what Epstein was doing. And I think the one thing about these documents is that they're gonna help us do a lot more stories about this Israel connection soon because they filled in the gaps from some of the things that we weren't able to nail down before.
And I think we'll see a lot more stories about Epstein's influence, through Israel, in many countries around the world, including in many countries in Africa, Central Asia, and obviously in Europe and North America and Russia as well.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've said this many times. People ask me, you know, was Epstein a Mossad agent per se? I think that in reality, his stature and the role he played was in many ways far above that. If you look at his conversations with Barack, who at this time was one of the most influential people in the Israeli political security establishment, he'd been the prime minister. He he was the defense minister during part of their conversations.
He was really looking up to Epstein. He was looking up to Epstein for help. He was trying to get his attention. The power dynamic was very quite quite discernible in their interactions. So it was really Epstein was kind of above, you know, any institution like that per se, but they were was a resource and a critical node that they actually relied on for connections and help and for money and political purposes and to spread their influence globally and so forth.
So I suspect that these files, which, you know, again, we haven't had a chance to go through in great granularity and really to get extract the true meaning out of them does take some time to kind of put them chronologically together and see what the meaning of all the conversations were in context. But I do suspect that they will point more of this. Now I have been looking at that conversation that you you referenced earlier with Barack, and a third figure who you know, we have some theories of who it is, but we're not having we're not sharing them yet, but I think someone people probably know very well. You know, I do think that points to even more detail about, what Epstein was doing. And I think the one thing about these documents is that they're gonna help us do a lot more stories about this Israel connection soon because they filled in the gaps from some of the things that we weren't able to nail down before.
And I think we'll see a lot more stories about Epstein's influence, through Israel, in many countries around the world, including in many countries in Africa, Central Asia, and obviously in Europe and North America and Russia as well.