reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government disinformation offices and transparency concerns. - CISA’s office of mis, dis, and malinformation (MDM) operated as a DHS unit focused on domestic threat actors, with archive details at cisa.gov/mdm. The office existed for two years, from 2021 to 2023, before being shut down and renamed after the foundation published a series of reports. - The disinformation governance board was formed around April 2022. The CISOs countering foreign influence task force, originally aimed at stopping Russian influence and repurposed to “stop Trump in the twenty twenty election,” changed its name to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation and shifted focus from foreign influence to 80% domestic, 20% foreign, one month before the twenty twenty election. - Speaker 1 argues that the information environment problems are largely domestic, suggesting an 80/20 focus on foreign vs domestic issues should be flipped. - A June 2022 Holly Senate committee link is highlighted, leading to a 31-page PDF that, as of now, represents the sum total of internal documents related to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation. The speaker questions why there is more transparency about the DHS MIS office from a whistleblower three years ago than in ten months of current executive power. - The speaker calls for comprehensive publication of internal files: every email, text, and correspondence from DHS MIS personnel, to be placed in a WikiLeaks/JFK-style publicly accessible database for forensic reconstruction of DHS actions during those years, to name and shame responsible individuals and prevent repetition. - The video also references George Soros state department cables published by WikiLeaks (from 2010), noting extensive transparency about the Open Society Foundations’ relationship with the state department fifteen years ago, compared to today. The claim is that Open Society Foundations’ activities through the state department, USAID, and the CIA were weaponized to influence domestic politics while remaining secret, with zero disclosures to this day. - Speaker questions why cooperative agreements from USAID with Open Society Foundation, Omidyar Network, or Gates Foundation have never been made public, nor quarterly or annual milestone reports, network details, or the actual scope of funded activities. USAID grant descriptions on usaspending.gov are often opaque or misleading compared to the true activities funded. - The speaker urges transparency across DHS, USAID, the State Department, CIA, ODNI, and related entities, asking for open files and for accountability. They stress the need to open these records now to inform the public and prevent recurrence, especially as mid-term political considerations loom.

The speaker advocates creating a twenty-four-seven declassification office in the White House that reports directly to the president and handles incoming from the United States of America. The office would pursue declassification of high-profile documents, stating a desire to obtain JFK files, the 9/11 files, and other materials. The speaker asserts that the deep state primarily uses an illegal application of the classification system to cover up its corruption. They reference the so-called “Lovebirds” texts from FBI and DOJ officials involved in the Russiagate investigation, specifically Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who allegedly were having an extramarital affair while coordinating support for their stance against Trump. The speaker claims these texts expressed hatred for Trump and discussed creating an “insurance policy” to stop him. According to the speaker, after discovering these texts, the FBI and DOJ redacted them before congressional investigators and members overseeing those agencies for an extended period. The speaker emphasizes that this is one example among broader claims of improper behavior by the agencies. The speaker then notes a recent development: Strzok and Page received a $1,500,000 payout from the Department of Justice to settle a lawsuit over the improper disclosure of their personal text messages on FBI phones. The DOJ allegedly rewarded them, despite claims that they broke the law, violated the chain of command, and weaponized the justice system against a political target they despised. The speaker claims that the text messages were eventually declassified in full when the speaker became deputy director of national intelligence, allowing the world to read them. This, they say, demonstrates the best form of transparency. With this context, the speaker reiterates the rationale for the proposed 24/7 declassification office: to provide direct access to documents, files, and memos rather than regurgitated summaries. They argue that the deep state completed a full circle by rewarding those involved and that this office would enable America to receive the truth. The speaker frames the next step as obtaining the truth for the country, with the office serving as the mechanism to accomplish that objective.

The discussion argues that identifying government corruption requires identifying the actors, and frames RussiaGate as a politically funded operation used in intelligence and law enforcement to obtain a secret-court authorization by lying about a political opponent to surveil him, taking two years to unpack. The central claim is that Gina Haspel was a leading architect of RussiaGate and remained behind the scenes, later becoming Trump’s CIA director. The transcript asserts that in 2016, when RussiaGate was launched in England, Gina Haspel was the CIA station chief for England and the top intelligence officer in the United Kingdom. It claims that, for lawful overseas intelligence and law enforcement operations, the number-one office of the DNI representation must authorize offensive operations, and that Gina Haspel, as the authorized representative in England, had to authorize such activities. The transcript states that new reporting indicates US FBI and intelligence community officials, and possibly other overseas intelligence allies, were involved in “bumpings” in England, and that this could not have happened without Haspel’s authorization. It further claims the key questions were why she did it, what legality she understood, what extent of knowledge she had, and what internal memorandums she would have written to authorize the conduct, including who she worked with, such as Comey, McCabe, Stroock, Page, and others, across England and America. A second key point is that, according to the transcript, Haspel blocked release of an ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment) report. It refers to a report by Devin Nunes and the team on John Brennan’s ICA that the transcript says was critical and should have been released during the Trump administration through the end. It claims Haspel stonewalled it and that it remains in a safe at CIA headquarters, portraying this as the reason the report is still classified and not publicly available. The transcript explains that in 2016 and 2017, John Brennan was ordered by Obama to issue the ICA on what Russia did, if anything, to interfere in US elections, and that the produced report was largely false. It states that, in parallel, Nunes and others created a classified seventeen-page report assessing what went into the ICA, who conducted interviews, what intelligence was used, whether it was false, and whether there was political motivation. The transcript says this report was not released, and calls Haspel the single most important figure blocking it. It also claims this helps demonstrate that the IC was involved and that there was “tons more corruption.” The transcript adds that the president reportedly wanted declassification, but says Haspel worked with DOJ figures including Pat Cipollone and others to argue “national security” concerns. It states the declassification fight was lost due to time constraints and links Joe Biden’s win to burying the materials. It concludes by saying that if President Trump wins, the transcript expects this and other material to be declassified, and it cites Washington Post journalist David Ignatius writing an article congratulating Haspel for blocking release, implying that the article reflected knowledge of the report’s contents and political impact.

The discussion says that over a billion people have visited a site, described as a record. The war department is said to have stated that more files will be released soon. UFO experts and top researchers are described as investigating aliens for years, with sources claiming dozens of crashed UFOs have been recovered and that what was found inside is “shocking.” In response to whether there is one type or many types of nonhuman intelligence visiting Earth, people involved in recoveries are said to have stated there are at least four types. Another scientist is quoted as naming the four types as grays, Nordics, insectoids, and reptilians, with all said to have two arms and two legs “just like us.” Experts speculate that reptilians are scaly with long tails like a lizard, insectoids look like a praying mantis, grays resemble classic movie aliens, and Nordics resemble regular Swedish people but are seven feet tall. The evidence is described as not having been seen, but Pete Hegseth is said to say more evidence is coming and that there are many believers in Congress. Speaker 3 says they have seen evidence “in a skiff” that leads them to believe there are things humans cannot explain, and that they have observed things of nonhuman origin and creation, stating it as their opinion. The transcript also claims that releasing the files is difficult because they have been “hitting for years,” and that many people want to keep them unreleased. A further claim is made that “deep states” are fighting the president over release, that the president kept his word, and that “not so friendly comrades” and “alphabet agencies” are slow-walking information. The reason given is that it is about power and control in Washington.

In the excerpt, the discussion centers on a torture video and questions surrounding redactions and the handling of victims. The key points are: - It is stated that Sultan Ahmed bin Suleyman Suleyem sent the torture video to Epstein in 2009. The transcript presents Epstein’s replies within that exchange, including: “Where are you? Are you okay?” and, reflecting a mix of fascination and distress, “I love the torture video. Jeez. I am in China. I’ll be in The US May. What the fuck, man?” - There is a strong focus on why a person’s name is redacted. The speaker presses: “Why is his name redacted? Why would your name be redacted if you're not a victim? Like, this is what's crazy about all this. Like, how come you redact some people and you don't redact other people? Like, what is this?” - The broader political critique follows, with the speaker asserting that “This is not good. None of this is good for this administration. It looks fucking terrible. It looks terrible. It looks terrible for Trump when he was saying that none of this was real.” The speaker emphasizes that “This is all a hoax” as claimed by Trump and argues against that framing: “This is not a hoax. Like, did you not know? Maybe he didn't know if you wanna be charitable, but this is definitely not a hoax.” - The speaker questions the credibility and transparency of disclosures: “And if you've got redacted people's names and these people aren't victims, you're not protecting the victims. So what are you doing?” This leads to a demand for more transparency: “And how come all this shit is not released?” Overall, the excerpt juxtaposes a reportedly circulated torture video linked to a named individual with concerns about redactions and victim protection, while interweaving political commentary about the administration and statements by Trump that claimed the matters were a hoax, contrasting those claims with the speaker’s insistence that the situation is not a hoax and warrants fuller release of information.

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

The unredacted Epstein files have been shown on Capitol Hill, with Ro Khanna and Thomas Massey beginning to view them. The discussion centers on why large portions of the documents were redacted by the DOJ and why Pam Bondi may not have complied with the Epstein Transparency Act. An ad aired during the Super Bowl urging transparency and truth about the victims and the case is referenced. Ghislain Maxwell, Epstein’s associate, appeared before Congress and pleaded the fifth when asked direct questions. Ro Khanna summarized his view of Maxwell’s deposition: after listening to her refusal to answer questions about the men who raped underage girls, she should be sent back to maximum security rather than stay in a country club setting. The conversation then returns to why the DOJ did not release the names of clients and coconspirators, with Massey highlighting the failure to release those names as a core issue. Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared on Redacted to speak about the Epstein files. She emphasized the victims’ desire for transparency and the public’s right to know the truth, noting the files illustrate violence and possible murder, far beyond what initial perceptions suggested. Greene stated that the release of the files has shown the American people more than many can handle, and she argued that the DOJ is breaking the law by redacting certain names and deleting or redacting information in ways that protect the powerful. She also asserted that the files reveal a vast cover-up involving rich and powerful elites, and she tied the issue to a broader theory of an international deep state. Greene claimed that the problem is not just with individuals like Pam Bondi, but that “the man at the top is Donald Trump,” who she said initially opposed releasing the files and labeled the release a “democrat hoax.” She argued that Bondi works for Trump and that the FBI and other agencies operate under the president’s authority, making independent action difficult. She asserted that the president’s stance has influenced the pace and scope of disclosures, and that those who press for release face political backlash. She also described her confrontation with the two-party system as a “political industrial complex” that punishes dissidents, detailing how Massey and others have faced political and professional retaliation. Greene reflected on the personal cost of pushing for disclosure, recounting the pressure and the “knife in the back” she has felt from colleagues across the aisle. She described the political environment as a “blood sport” in which those pushing for transparency are isolated, while the system rewards conformity. She criticized neocon Republicans and asserted that governance is driven by fear and fundraising rather than principled action. She indicated that, for her, the Epstein issue underscores broader frustrations with Washington and the perceived inability of independent actors to enact change within a two-party framework. Regarding potential remedies, the discussion touched on the possibility of an independent counsel. Greene suggested that the American people themselves are the independent counsel, explaining that trust in politicians to appoint such counsel is limited. She expressed skepticism that the Epstein files will yield accountability, noting that the president warned that “his friends would get hurt.” She stated she does not expect significant resignations or indictments of major figures, including those connected to Israel, but underscored the desire for full transparency and justice for the victims. When asked about listing the names seen in the documents, Greene clarified that the list is held by the women involved and that reading it publicly could expose them to costly lawsuits; she did not have the list herself.

- Kibbe on Liberty hosts Congressman Thomas Massey for part one of a mega episode focusing on the FBI-identified pipe bomber in the January 6 events and the anomalies in the official narrative; Massey argues he does not believe one loner acted alone. - Massey discusses prior coverage and context, noting a Steve Baker interview that documented inconsistencies in the official narrative. He points to fallout from that interview: a Capitol Hill Police official, who was third in command, resigned the day after the interview; another whistleblower contacted Massey about that officer, suggesting misconduct unrelated to the pipe bomb but part of a larger pattern of investigations. - Massey argues that the FBI’s announcement of a suspect came about a week after that interview and after reporting by The Blaze, and suggests the timing is suspicious. He says this coincidence is surprising and potentially a red flag, given that the investigation had been deemed inconclusive or dormant for years. - Massey emphasizes his own context: his staffer on the Hill watched hours of video to identify who found the second pipe bomb; he asserts that the individuals who found the second bomb should be considered suspects, and that the FBI admitted this to him. He recounts efforts with Kevin McCarthy to release video showing how the second pipe bomb was found, noting that those who found it were very lucky to locate it quickly. - He describes other connections and leads: his staffer now works for Kash Patel; Massey has spoken with a counter-surveillance officer who found the pipe bomb and with the officer’s handler, a Capitol Hill Police member who had previously worked for the ATF and later for Metro Police and Capitol Hill Police. He also mentions conversing with the assistant FBI director in charge of the Washington field office, in a transcribed interview with Jim Jordan about why cell phone data wasn’t used to geolocate the suspect (the provider allegedly corrupted data, which the judiciary committee and Barry Loudermilk’s committee disputed). - Massey references a 100-page report from Barry Loudermilk’s committee on the pipe bomb investigation, noting leads the FBI did not follow. He mentions a lead about an individual in Falls Church, Virginia (a former military man now in government service) whose metro card was used on January 5 and January 6; this person’s childhood friend allegedly used the metro card to approach the RNC/Capitol Hill Club area and take photographs near the pipe bomb sites. Massey asserts this person of interest, plus a neighbor who shared a wall with him, could be connected to others the FBI has not fully explored. - He contends that the arrest appears to derail other investigations and interviews that were being planned. He asserts that a “pro-Trump” motive has not been established for the suspect, contrasting the media’s framing with details such as the suspect’s My Little Pony interest and parental political donations. - Massey criticizes the prosecutor in the case, Jocelyn Ballantine, and recounts concerns about her track record (including involvement in the Flynn case, the Proud Boys case, and alleged attempts to obtain confessions implicating Trump). He questions why she remains at the DOJ. - They discuss broader concerns about FBI politicization and surveillance: Massey references reporters and contact with Kash Patel’s team to argue for cleaning house at the FBI, but notes Ballantine remains in place. He describes eight senators discovering they had been spied on, leading to a legislative push: in the last continuing resolution, lawmakers added a half-million-dollar payout and standing to sue the government for surveillance abuses, a provision he characterizes as carving exemptions out of the law; he says this was supported by most lawmakers, who voted for the CR due to Trump concerns. - They debate possible explanations for the pipe bomber case: the possibility that the FBI identified the suspect and cleared him, prompting no arrest due to exonerating information; or the possibility of a false narrative crafted by others to preserve the January 6 prosecution framework; or the involvement of a patsy or rogue actor. - Massey reiterates his three things he said on Twitter: the bomber was a lone wolf (which he disputes); the FBI was unwittingly incompetent for four years (which he says he questions and calls a cover-up); and it was not a Trump supporter. He stresses the need for more transcribed interviews and explanations from the FBI and ongoing oversight to uncover the full truth. - The discussion shifts toward Epstein files coverage and the broader goal of maintaining public pressure for transparency. They indicate a plan to release a separate bonus episode focusing on Epstein files.

John and Mario discuss the breadth and implications of the Epstein files, asserting that Epstein was an access agent connected to Mossad and deeply embedded with various intelligence actors. - Epstein as Mossad access agent and broader intelligence ties: - John asserts that Epstein’s status as a Mossad access agent is correct and that Epstein sought contact with the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Council, MI5, MI6, and even Russia’s Putin. He notes emails from Epstein’s side asking for private meetings with Putin, which were granted in a restricted form, while Epstein’s attorneys reportedly filed FOIA requests with the CIA and NSC about any association with them. - The conversation expands to consider broader pressure on the DOJ and the Trump administration to redact or withhold documents, with Congresswoman May mentioned as observing DOJ monitoring of her and colleagues. - The two discuss the idea that the “movers and shakers” in American culture and the billionaire/political class are driving the cover-up, with the implication that releases mandated by law have not been fully honored. - Death of Epstein and questions about the death/mortality: - Both speakers repeatedly state “Epstein did not kill himself,” noting the belief that he was murdered and cremated, preventing body examination. - They list several anomalies surrounding Epstein’s death: attempted suicide on July 23 with deleted footage, six days of suicide watch followed by removal from watch contrary to protocol, guards’ missed rounds, an empty cell with a removed cellmate who had been violent, an unmonitored call the day before death, and camera malfunctions on the day of death. - They discuss a decoy body used in the autopsy process and discrepancies in the autopsy report (ear shape, nose, and penis appearance) and a DOJ report dated a day earlier than publicized. The discussion includes the possibility of a decoy body to mislead reporters. - A forensic expert is cited, noting that the autopsy description described a normal penis, conflicting with accounts from a victim about a deformed penis. - Redactions, sources, and the release of documents: - They argue the released files overwhelm audiences and muddy facts, with millions of documents, of which only a fraction has been released; the rest remain redacted. - John explains FOIA processes and redaction rules (sources/methods, unindicted co-conspirators, victims’ privacy), emphasizing that there is little justification to redact content about Epstein himself since he is deceased. - They compare the redaction situation to the torture report, where redacted material obscures critical findings, and point out inconsistencies in what names are redacted (e.g., Les Wexner redacted as “Les” but not his full surname). - Libyan assets, Ukraine, and other financial angles: - A memo shows Epstein plotting to loot Libya’s frozen assets, with Greg Brown (former MI6 and Mossad connections mentioned) proposing to identify recovered assets and take 5–10% as compensation, with Libya’s reconstruction spending potentially exceeding $100 billion. - The discussion notes that the U.S. Treasury rewards those who facilitate repatriation of unfrozen assets, creating incentives for private actors with intelligence ties to pursue such recoveries. - A separate thread cites a 2014 Ukraine-related discussion where Epstein allegedly said the upheaval could provide opportunities; the Rothschilds are reported to have emailed Epstein about Ukraine and asset management strategies, implying Epstein represented the Rothschilds in asset opportunities. - They discuss the possibility that events like regime changes could be exploited for personal gain, with Epstein’s reputation management and potential money-motivated exploitation of geopolitical upheavals. - Honeypots, blackmail, and sex as an intelligence instrument: - The discussion covers claims of victims receiving death threats in Hebrew, and whether this indicates Mossad involvement or a private group using Hebrew phrasing to threaten. They argue Mossad has historically used threats and spying, and Epstein’s network could include others who leveraged sexual exploits for leverage. - They examine emails describing sexual activity in a transactional manner, with grainy surveillance footage capturing some redacted sexual content, suggesting a blackmail operation rather than simple perversion alone. - They consider whether Epstein’s sex life served as a bargaining chip for intelligence services, with Epstein’s protection and coercion potentially enabling illicit activity to be used for intelligence purposes. - Notable connections and individuals: - Fergie (Sarah, Duchess of York) is discussed as having close ties to Epstein, including emails referencing “marry me” and a period after his conviction; Prince Andrew is noted as heavily implicated in the broader Epstein network. - Howard Lutnick’s name appears in the documents; his denial of involvement with Epstein is highlighted as a potential discrepancy given the surrounding evidence. - The possibility that redacted materials could still reveal high-level connections or be weaponized against political figures is considered, with the overarching view that information could resurface or be released later to influence politics. - Final stance and ongoing investigation: - John maintains that Epstein’s role as an intelligence asset is supported by the files released to date and that more documents remain to be disclosed. He emphasizes that the situation involves intersecting intelligence communities, financial opportunism, and political exposure, with ongoing questions about the true extent of who knew what and who protected whom. The conversation closes with an acknowledgment that more files will likely be released, more information will emerge, and expert analysis will continue to evolve.

In the post from earlier today, two Republicans voted nay to stall the government funding bill, but it ended up being only one again: Thomas Massey. The comments that followed labeled Massey a rhino, a democrat, and a grandstander. The speaker then presents Massey’s own explanation for voting against the omnibus, highlighting a breakdown of what Massey calls the most ridiculous items included, including some “America first” items that were not. Massey’s stated rationale includes: - $5,000,000,000 to provide cash benefits, health care, day care, and job programs to refugees on the taxpayer dime. - $315,000,000 to fund the CIA’s branch of the State Department that propagandizes and destabilizes the globe and has an interest in censoring and attacking conservative media outlets. - $3,300,000,000 to our greatest ally, President Trump, with an extra $500,000,000 for the greatest ally. - $1,500,000,000 to Egypt. - $2,100,000,000 to the Jordanians. - Nearly $700,000,000 to foreign HIV/AIDS programs. - Additional items described as America first that Massey says they refused to include. Massey also cites amendments he would have supported but were blocked: - The amendment to freeze funds for the daycare fraud. - The amendment to stop warrantless surveillance of Americans via loopholes in the FISA act. - The amendment to prevent the kill switch on your personal vehicle. - The amendment to end propagandizing US citizens by the State Department and the US Agency for Global Media. - The amendment to stop the creation of CBNCs (which relates to financial surveillance and control of your wall). - The Save Act was included by someone, described as “Grimstander” in the narrative. The discourse portrays Massey as a traitor to America and a grandstander, with tweets and reactions framing him as disloyal to President Trump. The speaker’s compilation emphasizes that if Massey is called a traitor for these positions, others might be viewed similarly, urging readers to compare actions across the broader political landscape.

We received a couple hundred pages of documents from the FBI, but a source indicated more evidence was in the Southern District of New York. I gave them a deadline, and thousands of pages of documents arrived. The FBI and Director Patel's team are reviewing them to determine why these documents were initially withheld. While redacting to protect victims is crucial, we aim for maximum transparency, believing Americans deserve to know the truth. The Biden administration claimed no one acted on these documents, but why were they hidden? This same principle of transparency applies to the JFK files and other cases. When we redact, we will clearly mark the specific lines and explain the reason, such as protecting a victim's identity or national security.

There is no client list detailing people Jeffrey Epstein trafficked. Instead, there is a redacted FBI affidavit from accusers accusing various people of improper sex. The speaker, as the former lawyer involved in investigations, knows the identities of those redacted, but claims none are public figures currently in office. Some were previously in office, and some are dead. The redactions are the result of court orders from two judges in Manhattan protecting alleged victims. Pam Bondi, the Justice Department, and Donald Trump are not responsible for these redactions, and the speaker is unaware of any undisclosed information they could release. The speaker claims the vast majority of names in the files are already public knowledge, appearing in articles and books. The speaker believes the media has not done enough to find the people already disclosed in the public record.

There are more documents to be declassified that will show how sinister the FBI was in amplifying Hillary Clinton's steel dossier as real and credible, and how they buried the counterintelligence referral memo. According to Speaker 1, he and FBI director Patel will be declassifying these additional documents. Speaker 1 stated that there is no Russia collusion hoax file cabinet at the FBI or CIA, and that they have to look for well-hidden documents by tracing through emails and looking for signs and clues. The Trump administration will continue to shed transparency, light, and truth because this was the greatest political scandal of our lifetime. It derailed the country and President Trump's first four years in office, and Donald Trump is committed to making sure it doesn't happen again.

The transcript centers on a long-form discussion of the Epstein case, the alleged “deep state,” FOIA operations, and political maneuvering around Trump, with frequent calls to aggressively release and pursue Epstein-related documents and other investigations. The speakers assert that the FOIA department is being used to shield deep-state ties and that many federal offices are filled with anti-Trump figures who have prevented full disclosure. - Epstein files and the role of the deep state - The speakers claim the Epstein files are being selectively redacted by FOIA departments to conceal deep-state connections. They state that FOIA personnel are controlled by deep-state actors and that Epstein’s case involves a “fleet of aircraft” and operations linked to major power centers. They argue Epstein’s activities connect to money laundering, information laundering, and a broader set of deep-state assets and operations. - They propose a remedy: appoint Tom Fitton as special counsel on the Epstein files, arguing he “knows how FOIA really works,” understands key personnel, and has litigated Epstein-related cases for years. They assert this would restore public confidence and expedite the exposure of Democratic ties and other actors alleged to be involved. - They advocate for Trump to have executive-privilege-style powers to declassify and release Epstein materials, suggesting a broad interpretation of “Epstein file law” that would allow him to disclose or appoint an ombudsman with power to release materials at will. They emphasize the need to disclose Democratic ties and to hold press conferences when releasing documents, avoiding the use of fake documents or videos. - Specific figures and institutions named - Kash Patel is cited as saying there are “open files on a dozen plus coconspirators” and as someone who has noted alleged misdirections by those handling Epstein-related material. - Kyle Serafin and Phil Kennedy are mentioned as documenting a person at the FBI capacity who is “an anti-Trump advocate,” implying that deep-state appointments control FOIA and related processes. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss replacing FOIA and related personnel who are deeply implicated; they specifically name Tom Fitton as the ideal choice and entertain other high-profile figures like Tulsi Gabbard as potential custodians of the Epstein disclosures. - Tulsi Gabbard is described as being in charge of broader investigations tied to the Epstein files and other major political issues (elections, COVID-19, etc.). They also reference “Epstein files” intersecting with other investigations they attribute to the deep state. - Epstein, Maxwell, and allied networks - Epstein is described as deeply embedded with Western intelligence agencies (French, Israeli, UK, and US) and tied to Robert Maxwell, with Maxwell’s daughter linked to Epstein. Epstein is portrayed as having been “recruited by Bill Barr” and as a central figure in a long-running intelligence and blackmail operation. - The discussion links Epstein to Leslie Wexner (Victoria’s Secret founder) and a French talent agency, portraying these connections as part of a large, interconnected network involved in money laundering, arms trafficking, blackmail, and intelligence work. - The speakers insist that Epstein’s activities extended to the late 1990s and beyond, including alleged involvement in “Shutters” in Santa Monica and other high-profile cases, with a consistent pattern of using underage girls and blackmail to exert influence. - They emphasize a broader motive: exposing the “deep state” to vindicate Trump and indict deep-state actors who allegedly engaged in illicit operations, including foreign intelligence services and Western governments. - The broader political frame and potential indictments - The Epstein files are presented as a potential hinge for indicting a wide array of figures across political lines, including references to Comey, Mueller, Hillary Clinton-era actors, and other “rogue actors” who allegedly hindered investigations. - The conversation ties Epstein to broader themes: the 2020 election, COVID policies, and anti-Trump actions by the “deep state.” They contend that the Epstein disclosures could demonstrate the depth of state interference in political processes and media, making Democrats and their institutions targets of accountability. - They argue the Epstien files could show criminal activity by multiple national actors, including Israeli, UK, and French components, and could reveal coordinated efforts to derail Trump and manipulate media narratives. - The Candace Owens angle and related criticisms - A substantial portion of the dialogue critiques Candace Owens, alleging she is running a “CIA-style” operation that distracts from the true conspiracy around the deep state and Tarantifa, and that she manipulates narratives related to Tyler Robinson and Charlie Kirk. - They accuse Owens of shifting narratives, fabricating alibis, and promoting disinformation, calling her a “SIOP” (psychological operation) and alleging her behind-the-scenes connections to MI6 or other international actors through her husband (George Farmer) and other associates. - They recount multiple incidents where Owens purportedly changed stories about meetings, alibis, and involvement in various investigations, asserting she uses “receipts” selectively and inconsistently to support divergent claims. - The speakers allege that Owens’s public warfare against Trump and TP USA is part of a broader intelligence operation intended to disrupt conservative momentum, link to Royal/MI6 circles, and undermine investigations into the deep state and its networks. - Tyler Robinson case and media dynamics - They describe Tyler Robinson as a Middle American figure whose transformation into a political actor is portrayed as a product of online radicalization and Tarantifa-linked influences. They claim there was a concerted effort to spoon-feed disinformation about Robinson and Candace Owens’ involvement. - They argue this is part of a larger pattern of media manipulation and disinformation designed to distract from real conspiracies and to target Trump and conservative movements. - Strategy and messaging guidance - The speakers advocate for Trump to go on the offensive with Epstein, releasing comprehensive, verified documentation, and pushing accountability for “rogue actors” in the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, and the NSA. - They stress the need for aggressive prosecution and the appointment of trusted figures to lead the Epstein disclosures, arguing that this could restore public confidence and pivot the political conversation toward accountability for the deep state. - They urge addressing the statute of limitations issues in COVID, January 6, and 2020 election-related cases before the window closes in early 2026, warning that delays by Bondi, Blanche, and others could jeopardize prosecutions and political support. - Promotional and logistical notes - The dialogue includes frequent mentions of promoting Alex Jones programs, products, and stores (alexjonesstore.com and infowarsstore.com) to fund operations, along with appeals to listeners to support the broadcasts financially and through purchases, framing financial support as essential to sustaining investigations, media efforts, and broader political action. In sum, the transcript presents an entangled, aggressively conspiratorial narrative: a claim that Epstein’s files illuminate a vast, deeply embedded deep-state apparatus spanning multiple nations and agencies; a call to appoint trusted figures (notably Tom Fitton) to supervise full disclosure; a push for Trump to declassify and publicly prosecute the implicated actors; a harsh critique of Candace Owens as part of a disinformation ecosystem; and a broader strategy to use Epstein, along with related investigations, to dismantle perceived institutional corruption while fueling political narratives and fundraising.

Last week, I spoke about the FBI hiding an unclassified document, known as the 10/23, from Congress and the American people. The FBI eventually agreed to show the document to Congress, but it was heavily redacted. The 10/23 allegedly involves a bribery scheme between Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and a foreign national. The Justice Department then announced charges against former President Trump for mishandling classified records. This senator is committed to fighting political corruption in the Department of Justice and the FBI by promoting transparency. The 10/23 contains references to audio recordings of conversations between the foreign national and the Bidens. It is crucial for the American people to have access to the unredacted document to understand the truth and hold the FBI and Justice Department accountable. Congress must continue to fight for transparency and release the document without unnecessary redactions.

Thomas Massey holds a high-ranking seat on the judiciary committee in Kentucky. The transcript claims that if he loses his election, Kentucky would lose that seat and, as a result, lose his position to effect change through the judiciary committee. It says that two weeks ago, during a judiciary committee session, a bill was introduced quietly and was about to pass unanimously. The transcript identifies it as the Protect American AI Act and claims it was supported on both sides of the aisle. It further claims that Massey “single handedly killed” the bill. According to the transcript, the bill would have granted immunity to data center developers for any harm they cause to communities. The transcript describes Massey’s action as unexpected and states that there is not a single article written about it. The transcript then claims that data centers “paid” to ensure nobody knew about Massey killing the bill, characterizing data centers as a hot button issue and saying they do not want anyone to know this outcome. It asserts that people believe data centers should not be able to build across the street, destroy home values, damage the water table, or poison children without accountability. Finally, the transcript argues that residents should be able to sue data centers to hold them accountable for harms they cause.

The FBI handed over hundreds of pages of documents, but a source revealed more evidence was in the Southern District of New York. Thousands of pages of documents were then received. The FBI is reviewing them, and Kash Patel will provide a detailed report on why the documents were withheld. The initial documents included flight logs, names, and victim names, but more was expected. The goal is to protect the Epstein victims, of which over 254 have been identified, while also providing transparency. The Biden administration allegedly did nothing with the documents, which raises questions. Redactions will be made to protect victims, national security, and grand jury information. The public will know what is redacted and why, unlike past practices. The speaker believes the American people have a right to know about the Epstein files, the JFK files, and the Martin Luther King files.

Transcript centers on truth and why Epstein files should be public. They note both parties avoid real reasons. Speaker 1 says the president views it as “all a trap” and that it “reminds him of Russiagate”—an attempt by Democrats to ensnare him in a fake scandal; “he's not... never did anything creepy,” the speaker says. The speaker argues transparency would have helped “the country” and “the administration,” giving it credibility. They speculate why disclosure is feared: “could it be that Trump was there and he just doesn't wanna jeopardize his presidency even putting it out there?” Epstein is described as “the center of New York society for... decades.” The claim: “I don't think having dinner at his house or even necessarily going to his island is proof of a crime.” Finally, they note “Epstein had contact with Israeli intelligence” and “British intelligence”—“probably scarier than Mossad and CIA.”

Bezos owning the Washington Post is described as an arm of the CIA, a claim raised by Speaker 0. He suggests that the newspaper is part of a broader pattern where media power is consolidated in the hands of a few billionaires, accusing the outlet of being used to push a particular agenda. Speaker 1 responds dismissively to that assertion and mentions Ellison taking over of [text incomplete in the transcript], signaling ongoing concerns about who controls major media and institutions. The conversation continues with Speaker 0 asserting that Barry Weiss is trying to squash real news and hide it, and that reporters who are doing real journalism are being targeted, framed as investigations or actions run by a few billionaires who control much of the media landscape. A related critique follows, declaring Bill Clinton a “slimeball” for deregulating the Federal Communications Act of 1996. The speakers reference the consequence that there were thousands of independent radio stations, television stations, and newspapers before deregulation, and now six companies control 92% of the media as a result of that action, calling Clinton a “lousy little slime ball.” The discussion moves into personal remarks about Monica Lewinsky, with a claim that “I didn’t have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky,” followed by derisive language directed at Bill Clinton, describing him as “that little clown.” The conversation then shifts to the Epstein files, with frustration expressed about why those files are not being released. The speakers criticize the redaction of the Epstein files and question, “Where the hell are these Epstein files?” They argue that the redactions are to protect individuals, using charged language to describe the situation as disgusting, and they call for the files to be made public. The topic then turns to the DOJ’s handling of redactions related to Congressman Thomas Massey. The DOJ reportedly missed deadlines to provide reasons for the redactions to Massey and “walked right past his deadline.” The speakers say they interviewed Massey on the show, reiterating that the DOJ violated the deadline and ignored the will of the people, with the DOJ referred to as the “DOJ, Department of Jerkoffs.” Finally, Massey is praised as one of the top lawmakers, described as one of the few in Congress who is truly respected, and “one of a kind,” with Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 expressing strong admiration for his work and integrity.

In the discussion, Congressmen Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie were shown viewing the unredacted Epstein files on Capitol Hill, including material that had been previously redacted by the DOJ. The hosts question why large portions of the files were redacted and accuse Pam Bondi’s team of noncompliance with the Epstein Transparency Act. They suggest the move to foreground Bondi is a signal of political maneuvering to manage the release of the documents. Speaker 1 presents a Super Bowl ad urging the DOJ to release what the law requires, followed by a note that Epstein’s associate and alleged child sex trafficking figure Ghislain (Ghislaine) Maxwell appeared before Congress and invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about the men who allegedly abused underage girls. Ro Khanna’s reaction is shared: Maxwell should not be in a cushy setting and should be sent back to maximum security. Speaker 2 emphasizes that, of the files released, the names of clients and coconspirators in the sex trafficking ring have not been disclosed, while victims’ names have been released. This is framed as either over-redaction or omission, with a claim that government names should not be redacted under the Transparency Act. Speaker 0 introduces Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who explains her perspective. She notes the urgency of transparency and states that victims deserve the truth, accusing the DOJ of failing to comply with the Epstein Transparency Act and calling out a persistent “battle” over the release of files even after the 2025 law. Speaker 3 (Greene) describes the impact of the disclosures, noting that the files reveal “violence, possibly murder,” and that survivors’ testimonies are harrowing. She recounts facing personal and political backlash for pushing disclosure, arguing that the administration and many Republicans have shifted their positions since the revelations. She asserts that the released files show that “the DOJ breaking the law” through redactions of names of former presidents, secretaries of state, and government officials, while leaving victim information exposed. Speaker 4 asks Greene about the possibility that the information might point to a broader, deeper network. Greene responds by stating that the files include FBI forms about Epstein, implying a level of official involvement, and asserts that the Trump administration has not released the information; she claims President Trump referred to the Epstein issue as a “Democrat hoax” and that Pam Bondi, who works for Trump, controls the release. Greene suggests the “independent counsel” would be the American people themselves, explaining distrust toward political figures and the two-party system. She shares that she would not vote to support foreign aid or a central bank digital currency, and notes the chilling effect of the retaliation she and Massey have faced from party structures, including loss of campaign staff and suggestions of political blacklisting. Speaker 0 asks about potential accountability or a special counsel and whether there might be more significant revelations. Greene predicts limited accountability, arguing that the president has influence over DOJ and other agencies, and that the people are the true independent counsel. She laments the “uni-party” dynamic and predicts continued resistance to releasing the full Epstein files. Towards the end, Greene reiterates that she does not plan to run for higher office and reflects on the broader political environment, emphasizing that the public’s demand for transparency could drive change. The dialogue closes with Greene expressing willingness to return and discuss further.

John and Mario discuss the EpsteinFiles with a focus on who is behind the cover-up, the involvement of intelligence services, and the implications for justice and power. - Epstein as Mossad asset and broader intelligence links: - John reiterates his original conclusion that Epstein was a Mossad access agent and adds that he was actively seeking contact with the CIA, the FBI, the NSC, MI5/MI6, Germany, and even Vladimir Putin, aiming to burnish his credentials with intelligence communities. Epstein allegedly requested private meetings with Putin, which were arranged with others present, and there were FOIA requests by Epstein’s attorneys to confirm associations with the CIA and NSC, which reportedly went unanswered. - Mario notes Epstein’s access to the Skiff (a highly restricted, sealed room for classified discussions) and argues Epstein’s entry suggests closer ties to American intelligence, since only Five Eyes would have access to such a space. He contrasts this with a broader view that the “movers and shakers” in American culture and the billionaire/political classes drive the cover-up, as evidenced by congressional mandates to release documents and the DOJ’s involvement. - The discussion flags that the released files show Epstein’s attempts to connect with major intelligence actors, and hints at a possible broader Israeli involvement (Mossad) and questions about whether Israelis were spying on the CIA/NSC. - The scope of the release and accountability: - John emphasizes that Congress passed a law mandating release of these documents; the executive branch has not released all materials, with millions unreleased and only a fraction of available data being disclosed (debate around 2% of data released in some outlets). He criticizes the DOJ for surveillance-like behavior of congressional briefings (e.g., a DOJ official observing members while they review materials). He also notes the CIA/FBI/FIVE EYES redactions that obscure sources and methods, and argues that there should be little redaction since Epstein is deceased. - Mario adds that the files reveal extensive redactions and questions about what remains unreleased, comparing it to the torture report’s redactions, and suggests the redactions may be politically or strategically motivated. - Notable file threads and alleged illicit activities: - A Libyan assets subplot: An associate, Greg Brown, discusses identifying and recovering frozen Libyan assets (potentially 80+ billion dollars). The plan purportedly offered Epstein a percentage (10-25%) for recovery, with Libya’s reconstruction as a potential cost. Brown claimed connections with MI6 and Mossad to identify stolen assets, illustrating a pattern of opportunities for private actors to profit from geopolitical upheavals. - Ukraine 2014 dispatches: A tweet claimed that Epstein, in 2014, discussed opportunities arising from Ukraine upheaval, with the Rothschilds emailing Epstein to discuss asset management and Ukraine, implying Epstein represented the Rothschilds in exploring opportunities amid regime changes. - The role of wealth and elite involvement: Mario and John describe how Epstein’s financial power enabled him to operate at the intersection of intelligence and global finance; the “go-to” for large asset claims is a reality that would require serious governmental or intelligence ties. - Death of Epstein and questions surrounding it: - The panel discusses the widely accepted view that Epstein did not kill himself, citing multiple irregularities: the July 23 attempt, the deletion of relevant footage, Epstein’s removal from suicide watch against protocol, a mass-murderer cellmate, unmonitored calls, camera malfunctions, and a decoy body claim. They discuss the autopsy differences (ear shape, penis description) and an DOJ note dated a day earlier than the death as a potential anomaly. - John explains that in the federal system prison guards’ qualifications and camera reliability are problematic, and argues that the death raises serious questions about the suicide narrative, while acknowledging a lack of inside information to confirm any particular theory. They discuss a decoy body and the possibility that Epstein was secretly killed, with ongoing debates about whether he’s alive or dead. - They reference a note about an escape plan and a will being signed days before death, suggesting Epstein anticipated danger and attempted to plan escape, though this is balanced against the argument that prisoners often contemplate escape. - Victims, threats, and blackmail: - They recount death threats to Epstein’s victims, including threats in Hebrew and references to Mossad-like intimidation. John explains that Western intelligence rarely issues direct threats to civilians, whereas Mossad has historically used such tactics; Epstein’s circle included individuals who reportedly faced threats and harassment. - They discuss Epstein’s private security cameras and alleged blackmail operations, citing emails in which victims describe transactional sexual experiences and Epstein’s networks. They consider whether intelligence agencies exploited Epstein’s perversion to further strategic aims and whether those networks used blackmail to recruit or control powerful individuals (e.g., Prince Andrew, Les Wexner, etc.). - High-profile associations and potential redactions: - Fergie (Sarah Ferguson) is mentioned as having close ties with Epstein, including emails after his conviction and marriage-like language; Prince Andrew is highlighted as heavily implicated. They discuss whether these relationships were used for blackmail or influence, and whether such information remains usable as leverage. - The breadth of individuals implicated ranges from Trump to Clinton to business titans; John notes there is no direct evidence of crimes by Trump or Clinton in released materials, but the extent of connections complicates public perception. - Conclusion and ongoing questions: - The conversation closes with an agreement that Epstein’s death and the surrounding files reveal a web of intelligence connections, high-level influence, and potential blackmail, with substantial redactions and a continuing need for full disclosure to understand the full extent of involvement, high-level figures, and the truth behind Epstein’s death. They anticipate further file releases and ongoing analysis.

Speaker 0 shows notes the attorney general brought to the hearing, captured by a photographer in the room. The notes include a list of Democratic congresswomen and their search history. The photo indicates that searches performed by members of Congress at a DOJ facility—where they sit at a computer to search unredacted files—are being tracked and read by the Department of Justice and the attorney general. Speaker 1 responds that this represents a surveillance of Congress by the Trump administration and calls it totally improper, though not surprising given their misconduct in various areas. He notes that when he visited the facility, they log in under each person’s name, implying an attempt to make something of the situation. He states that members who visited shared the information they found, and emphasizes that it is not a pretty picture. He adds that lawmakers were required under the law to remove redactions unless necessary to protect the privacy of victim survivors. In his view, the redactions were used to protect offenders and coconspirators, with their names blacked out. He contends that information about the survivors was actually revealed, which he says was very wrong and contrary to the law. He also suggests that many survivors feel the exposure was deliberate, intended to intimidate them and silence them, though he says he does not know if that is true. The statement ends with “The other thing that's inter” before the transcript cuts off.