reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I'm just tired of the Epstein conversation. These powerful people implicated in these files will never let them be released. I'm putting the Epstein files in the same category as the JFK files, things the American people will never see because the people involved are still in control. It's amazing how anything implicating Israel is never declassified. Look at JFK's assassination and his arguments with Israel's Prime Minister, Ben Gurion. JFK demanded AIPAC register as foreign agents, then he was shot, and we can't see those files either. With Epstein's apparent Mossad connections, it becomes too complicated to release files. Now, we're told phase one is coming, but they need to blackout victims' names. 250 names? I could do that in an hour. I'm just tired of the political back and forth and pretending. As soon as Israel might be involved, transparency goes out the window. Phase one was a nothing burger.

Epstein was building control files using sex entrapment and laundering money. $21 trillion disappeared from the Department of Defense (DOD) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) while Epstein was operating. Rubin, who became Secretary of Treasury, took Epstein to the White House in 1994. After Rubin went to Treasury, money started disappearing and Epstein's wealth ballooned. Epstein was laundering money coming out of DOD. His relationships with Mossad and Israeli intelligence are relevant, as Mossad was taking over DOD while money went missing. Cybersecurity and IT in the Israeli constellation were active in government at that time. If the Epstein files are released, people will connect Epstein, Mossad, the growing power of Israel and APAC, and the location of pension fund money. The institution that laundered $20 trillion also ran Operation Warp Speed. If the Epstein files come out, people will connect too many dots, with dramatic ramifications for the financial system.

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.

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 speaker asserts that the effort to release the Epstein files came directly from President Trump. They acknowledge that many people may have a hard time with this claim, but state that it is the truth. The speaker also says that Trump fought the hardest to stop these files from being released.

The conversation centers on claims that Israel and pro-Israel organizations have a major influence on the U.S. government and U.S. politics, including support for wars in the Middle East and outcomes affecting American servicemen and U.S. spending. Jeb Ball describes a viral moment at a Turning Point USA event in North Dakota where Glenn Beck filled in for Charlie Kirk (described as having died). Ball says he asked Beck a question about why the U.S. still supports Israel, citing allegations that Israel influences U.S. politics through APAC, involves the U.S. in Middle East wars, and is connected to the USS Liberty incident, which he says was not taught in school. He states Beck did not let him finish and instead shifted to talking about radical Islam. Casey Allen asks Ball what encouraged him to speak up and react that day. Ball says he was initially not planning to attend, bought a ticket about an hour before the event, and went after being encouraged by his father to regret not doing something rather than regretting doing nothing. Ball says his question was cut off quickly and that, in his view, freedom of speech exists only for topics people in power want to discuss, while Israel-related or “real issues” are shut down. Ball then discusses how young people around him are changing their views: he says friends who previously dismissed Israel-related claims as conspiracyists now ask questions and engage more, and he portrays the issue as not strictly left-right, but as becoming more widely questioned among younger people. The discussion expands to broader political and cultural grievances. Ball and Casey talk about immigration, tariffs, inflation, and what they describe as economic capture by large corporations and elites. On immigration, Ball says illegal immigrants should be removed and supports stopping immigration for at least ten years. He argues mass immigration harms workers, communities, and the American middle class, benefiting corporations. Casey adds a point about deportation causing work shortages, while citing an unemployment rate and claiming deportation would affect only a portion of the workforce; the conversation continues with both framing it as a question of priorities and labor impacts. They also discuss tariffs as restoring American manufacturing, deindustrialization, and currency effects from money printing. Ball references the end of the gold standard in 1971 and claims quantitative easing and expanded money supply benefit large corporations and billionaires at workers’ expense. They further discuss “technocracy” and what they portray as interlinked corporate and political power, with mentions of partnerships involving Trump and figures like Bill Gates and Zuckerberg. The conversation includes discussion of Elon Musk’s involvement in media and platforms, particularly his actions related to Twitter, and Ball describes Musk as “shady,” while also citing a view that platform access can allow discussion of topics previously restricted. Ball raises an extended theory that media “liberalization” and increased amplification of far-right figures could serve “social engineering” ends and ultimately justify harsher platform restrictions after a disruptive event. He also references alleged threats against pro-Israel influencers and says related actions occurred in Europe and Canada. He claims censorship and surveillance are increasing, and he connects this to a fear of false-flag events as well as the Israel conflict being portrayed as able to trigger major incidents. Casey asks about the “Sampson option,” which Ball says he has heard of, describing it as a plan where Israel would “flip a switch” and the U.S. would “go down with them” if the U.S. does not keep Israel alive. They frame this as a major national security threat they say is not seriously discussed. The conversation includes references to Operation Midnight Hammer and alleged U.S.-Iran bombing claims, which Ball says many people around him reacted to with support despite his belief that Trump campaigned against wars. Casey and Ball connect this to what they see as persistent U.S. intervention aligned with Israel’s interests, and they discuss Netanyahu’s visits and lobbying efforts as a driving influence. Ball and Casey then discuss Christian Zionism and evangelicals. Ball claims many evangelicals view support for Israel as a religious/spiritual obligation and that people who question it are treated as disloyal or demonic. They claim Christian Zionism did not originate in the Bible and instead was influenced by politicians. Ball describes social and generational differences in the South and in places like North Dakota, saying the concern is less among his younger peer group but more among older people. The conversation moves to U.S. elections and the GOP direction. Ball expresses hope that the Republican Party could shift and says he does not think J.D. Vance will be the nominee, suggesting possible alternatives like Steve Bannon or Rand Paul/Thomas Massie (with the transcript mentioning Massie repeatedly). Ball claims Israel-related politics and donor influence may drive candidates’ positions and that Massie’s stance resonates with voters in Kentucky. He says he expects pressure on candidates opposing what he describes as Zionist politics, including through wealthy donors. They discuss AI regulation, arguing that AI and automation should be regulated to protect workers and small businesses, and they claim federal efforts were included in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” but removed due to unpopularity. Ball emphasizes that big tech and major corporations have major stakes in AI policy. A major portion of the transcript is devoted to Epstein-related claims and alleged connections between Epstein, Mossad, politicians, and Trump. Ball argues Epstein was an international agent, claims political blackmail, and says Epstein should be released and that the public should know what happened. They discuss allegations about funding relationships and mention people Ball associates with Epstein’s wealth sources. Ball also claims Tulsi Gabbard has access to Epstein-related files and that releasing them would be highly damaging, so they will not be released. The transcript later discusses the assassination attempts on Charlie Kirk and Trump, with Ball drawing parallels. Ball describes similarities: young alleged perpetrators without a public history, limited disclosed details, and a lack of transparency (including mentioning “no autopsy”). Ball claims reactions and subsequent political developments benefited Trump, and he asserts that Thomas Crooks acted with help from federal elements. Ball also claims he doubts details about public accounts of Crooks and mentions questions about missing or absent imagery and process. The conversation continues with Ball speculating about staging and operational capabilities. Toward the end, the discussion returns to censorship and social media bans. Ball says platforms may wait for a triggering event to justify crackdowns, and he advises caution in what people post while still encouraging people to speak. He also discusses alleged accounts and bans in right-wing influencer circles and claims that policies against “Holocaust denial” and “anti-Israel/anti-Zionism sentiment” were used to justify shutting down accounts. He emphasizes that even if platforms are restricted, he believes voices and ideas cannot be fully removed. The transcript closes with a broader theme of generational change, calls for younger people to speak out based on facts and rationality, and a hope that the next political cycles will reflect growing opposition to Israel lobby influence and establishment capture.

The speaker claims the release of the Epstein files is a psyop orchestrated by Israel because Trump is not sufficiently pro-Israel. According to the speaker, the Times of Israel suggests the files resurfaced and are overwhelming Trump because he criticized Netanyahu. The speaker says that while Trump bombed Iranian nuclear sites, he didn't bomb them for a full week as he should have. The speaker alleges that despite Trump's actions for Israel, it's not enough, and the Epstein list will be a problem for him because he messed with Israel. The speaker states that the Times of Israel implies Trump is being threatened by old files because he occasionally criticizes Netanyahu and his administration isn't fully compliant with discrimination against Christians in Israel.

Matt claims that Epstein was an operator for a foreign government, leveraging compromising situations to control behavior, a tactic used by multiple intelligence agencies. He believes the reluctance to reveal the truth about Epstein stems from the US government's similar practices. The conversation then shifts to hard drives found in Epstein's house marked as evidence, which have not been released. Matt posits a countervailing theory: releasing such materials without evidentiary review could set a dangerous precedent, allowing for politically motivated leaks and mischaracterizations of evidence. He then suggests that a foreign government, in concert with elements within the US government at a state-to-state level, was responsible for Epstein's death, possibly due to weapon systems and global deals at play. He admits this is just a theory.

I was once told by a reporter at Fox that Epstein was an intelligence asset for people in the Middle East. This person was absolutely sure that Epstein was either knowingly or unknowingly working as an intelligence asset. It's a mistake to assume that Epstein was the only one with access to the videotapes from his plane and island. The reason some people wanted the Epstein story to disappear is because many assume that Epstein was the only one who had damaging information on powerful people. According to my source, that is not the case. It makes sense that the blackmail story is more widespread than people know. I do not know which Middle Eastern countries were involved.

The speaker believes Jeffrey Epstein was connected to intelligence, as Vicki Ward reported, and that the DOJ was told to leave him alone in 2008. They claim there's been a cover-up and will publish a video detailing the exact documents the DOJ should seek and individuals to question. The speaker believes the Epstein intelligence connection hasn't been investigated due to the Pandora's box it opens. They think public outrage might force some disclosure. The speaker attributes the suppression of information to a combination of donors and national security officials with intersecting interests who have influence over the White House and executive branch agencies. They claim Trump World donors were involved in Epstein's network. If Epstein's intelligence ties are confirmed, every aspect of his career would be scrutinized to determine which intelligence agency was involved, triggering intense investigation into his dealings. This, combined with donor pressure, has created a power struggle for the White House.

So, the Epstein files aren't online yet. Instead, the White House gave binders of the first disclosure phase to mainstream conservative influencers. Hopefully, the PDFs will be available soon. My concern is with some of the chosen influencers, particularly the staunchly pro-Israel ones. Considering Epstein's ties to Israel, it's questionable to have them control the documents. Their online presence seems to heavily favor Israeli narratives. More importantly, remember that access is a form of control in politics. These influencers now have access to the administration, which may compromise their ability to report critically and unbiasedly. While I'm staying optimistic, I hope everyone involved, regardless of their perspectives, reports the facts honestly and ethically.

Speaker: The speaker argues that we need to step back and examine the bigger picture of what was really going on with Epstein. According to the speaker, Epstein was “more than just a serial pedophile and a pervert. He was an incredibly powerful man,” who, in “multiple instances in the files that were just released,” was “talking about his work for Mossad, talking about his work for the Rothschilds.” The speaker emphasizes that this points to a broader pattern or operation, stating a need to “discuss the blackmail operation that was taking place” and asking, “which government that's a special ally of The United States put him up to it?” The speaker then questions the nature of U.S. alliances, asking, “do we really want to be allies with the country that kidnaps young girls, for rape just so they can have dirt on American politicians and control our foreign policy.” This line of inquiry is presented as the bigger underlying issue that, in the speaker’s view, has not been sufficiently discussed. The focus remains on connecting Epstein’s alleged activities to a broader blackmail or influence operation involving a foreign ally, and on the implications of such an alliance for U.S. political decision-making and foreign policy.

Discussion centers on why Epstein files aren’t public and reluctance; Tucker Carlson is mentioned. Speaker 1 says the president views it as "this is all a trap" and that it "reminds him of Russiagate"; "He had nothing to do with Epstein," and transparency "would have helped the country" and "the administration a lot." The other host wonders why fear of exposure matters. Speaker 1 testifies, "I knew Epstein. He did creepy stuff at my club. I kicked him out." Epstein was "always around" with figures like "Ahud Barak is living there. He's got Stephen Hawking and he's got members of the British So Royal on that level," and "half the people on television hung out with Epstein." He notes Epstein had contact with Israeli, US, and "most critically British intelligence" and ends, "There's nothing bad that happens that doesn't have British intelligence involved in it, I have noticed a lot."

The discussion centers on claims drawn from “Epstein files.” Speaker 1 says they found information “nobody else found,” highlighting Catherine Rumler, described as Barack Obama’s White House counsel and later general counsel for Goldman Sachs. Speaker 1 claims Rumler was “very, very close to Jeffrey Epstein,” with “constant” email exchanges. They cite emails in the latest tranche where Rumler tells Epstein that John Brennan, director of the CIA, “gave me the CIA’s highest honor this morning,” and where she tells Epstein she will arrange for him to be in Washington next Tuesday and sets up a meeting with Brennan. Speaker 1 asks whether there was contact between Jeffrey Epstein and John Brennan, noting Brennan “is not talking,” and states that “3,000,000 more documents” have not yet been released, and “of the ones that haven’t been deleted possibly” suggests permanent deletion may have occurred. They say people are expected to “take their words for it.” Speaker 0 suggests focusing narrowly on portions of the files involving sex trafficking and billionaires abusing kids, but Speaker 1 argues that zooming out shows “arms deals” and “collaborations across intelligence.” Speaker 1 says the theme everyone should focus on is that Epstein was “an Israeli access agent,” claiming certainty about this position. Speaker 1 says the next tranche (described as “3,000,000,” “like 2,700,000 documents”) shows Epstein trying to work for the CIA and possibly doing something with the CIA. They state they “don’t know yet” and that Epstein “didn’t authorize that.” Speaker 1 adds that Epstein was also working with MI5 and MI6 in the UK, “possibly the Germans,” and “definitely the Israelis.” They claim Epstein repeatedly tried to secure a one-on-one meeting with Vladimir Putin, was denied repeatedly, and eventually was offered a meeting with Putin and three others; Epstein declined and wanted only Putin alone, after which “the Russians walked away.” The conversation concludes with discussion of “Israeli connections,” including Speaker 0 saying that when they asked Congress people about it “today and yesterday,” they “run screaming from the room.” Speaker 0 also notes that the topic is sometimes turned into a Democrat-versus-Republican issue rather than something broader, and Speaker 1 replies: “And it’s not. They’re both corrupt.”

If the Epstein files reveal Israel's prime role in a blackmail ring involving child sex trafficking, would you release them? Exposing this could halt aid money and redefine our view of Israel, possibly seeing them as our greatest threat, surpassing even the Soviet Union's subversion during the Cold War. The core question is whether Cash Patel and Pam Bondi will risk exposing a foreign nation's espionage, even if it implicates a supposed ally. I'm addressing the question about whether to release these files head-on. I am not anti-semitic, I judge people individually. Publicly available information and logic point to Jeffrey Epstein working for Israel, supported by Zionist Jewish billionaires who have devoted their lives to furthering Israeli interests.

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.

The speaker claims to have compiled an Epstein client list using victims' testimonies, internal emails, court documents, settlements, financial records, and staff testimony, not a single "black book." This list was released publicly in 2019 but received little attention due to the speaker's prior cancellation for opposing Israel. The speaker asserts that Epstein was working for a foreign government, compromising powerful Americans. Contrary to popular belief, people *have* been prosecuted and companies have paid large settlements related to Epstein, but it's not publicized. Jean Luc Brunel, allegedly the number three man in the Epstein ring, was arrested but died in prison. The speaker believes the truth about Epstein is being ignored, similar to 9/11 conspiracy theories. They state that videos from Epstein's properties exist and that many pedophiles and human traffickers are being arrested, but the media is silent. The speaker shares pages from the list and urges someone with media reach to discuss the issue.

The speaker argues that pressure on Netanyahu to reveal real information could emerge if a real US-Iran deal is forming. They claim Netanyahu would sabotage such a deal by releasing Epstein material against US government officials, including Trump, introducing new material not previously public. The claim extends beyond Trump to other officials as well, with Howard Lutnick noting that there are additional officials involved. The overall point is that Netanyahu might undermine the negotiations by exposing sensitive material tied to multiple US officials.

The speaker expresses concern that the Epstein files have not been released despite orders from the president and attorney general. They fear the "deep state" may have shredded documents before the new administration could access them. They hope someone has a copy of the files, as Anna Paulina Luna's task force is frustrated by the lack of release. The speaker believes the "deep state" covers its tracks and wouldn't leave incriminating evidence. Their concern is whether the government was involved with Epstein, using videos to blackmail influential people. If the government knew about the crimes and did nothing, the speaker believes the American people would not be okay with it. They don't believe any cover-up would be out of affection for figures like the Clintons, but rather to protect the agencies involved.

Jeffrey Epstein was working on behalf of Intel Services, likely not American, and it's valid to question on whose behalf he operated. How did he go from a math teacher to owning multiple airplanes, a private island, and a large Manhattan house without a college degree? Epstein had direct connections to a foreign government, and while people avoid naming Israel, there's nothing wrong, hateful, antisemitic, or anti-Israel about asking if he worked for Mossad, running a blackmail operation. Everyone in Washington D.C. suspects this, but feels unable to voice it. The speaker believes open discussion is better than suppressed resentment and hate. The question of whether this happened has been posed to the Israeli government, who declined to answer. The speaker argues that as long as the U.S. sends Israel money, the U.S. has a right to know if Israel committed crimes on U.S. soil.

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.”

Discussion centers on why Epstein files should be public and why both parties avoid reasons. "It's all a trap," the host says, noting the president views the matter as a Democrat trap similar to "Russiagate." He claims the president "knew Epstein" and "he did creepy stuff at my club. I kicked him out." The speakers suggest transparency would have helped credibility. They describe Epstein's prominence in New York society, listing guests "Ehud Barak" and "members of the British So Royal," arguing that "having dinner with him" isn’t proof of crime. They question why intelligence agencies tolerate such associations, speculating "He clearly had contact with Israeli intelligence. He clearly had contact with US intelligence, and maybe most critically British intelligence," describing British intelligence as "probably a little scarier than Mossad and CIA" and noting "There's nothing bad that happens that doesn't have British intelligence involved in it, I have noticed."

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: Do you agree with Candace Owens that the reason we are not going to see the client list is because Israel is implicated? Speaker 1: Israel is implicated. I’m just going to say that. Speaker 0: But what would Israel have to do with Epstein? Speaker 1: I mean, the former prime minister of Israel, he had Barack lived at Epstein's townhouse for years. I mean, the allegation is that Epstein was running a blackmail operation against powerful people where they would be videotaped having outside of marriage or illegally with underage women, that information will be used against them to get them to comply with whatever request that government wanted them to comply with. I think it's absolutely fair to ask to what extent was Epstein involved in a foreign intelligence operation on our show. This is our country. This country doesn't belong to any foreign country. Okay. This is our country. I was born here. I pay taxes here. So if some foreign country, I don't care if you claim it's our ally or not, is running an intel operation on my soil, I have a right to know what that was.