TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker recounts the depth of the evil involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s network as described by survivors during a press conference. They explain that 14-year-old girls were told by a high school friend to come to an old man’s house, give him a massage, and he would pay $200, with a swimming pool and other enticements presented. The massage would escalate to sexual acts, and Epstein would keep their phone numbers. Through the shame and coercion, the girls were compelled to show up at his beck and call whenever he wanted. The only way they could get out of performing sexual favors was to find another girl at their high school who would take their place. One survivor broke down in tears as she admitted that she faced a choice between finding a replacement girl or returning to perform the acts, and she chose to find another girl. The speaker notes that even after it was known that these were 15-year-old girls coerced by an adult man, people still said they were sex traffickers and trafficked these women. The speaker emphasizes the realization of how evil it is for someone to make others commit evil acts and then implicate them, which made it harder for the survivors to come forward. There is discussion of why the names of the victims aren’t released. Epstein’s abuse involved billionaires who could pay off authorities and judges. After girls reached the age of consent, Epstein would traffic them to his friends, arguing that some were prostitutes who were 18 or older and thus consenting. The speaker explains that when these men had money, they could pay off police departments, cause reports to disappear, or influence judges. Many of the girls came from less affluent families, and the money paid to the families ranged from $150,000 up to $500,000, while the girl often would not testify. The men would then use defamation lawsuits to bankrupt the survivors who spoke out or tried to contest their false allegations. The process itself functions as punishment, with survivors forced to go broke just to defend their names.

The conversation centers on the ongoing examination of Jeffrey Epstein’s files and what they reveal, with a focus on disturbing content, coded language, and the reliability of the material. - The speakers note the FBI’s earlier claim that there was no sex trafficking, calling that claim gaslighting given the scale of material now public. They emphasize the last four file dumps as “unbelievable” in their volume and in the disturbing, often coded language contained within. - They discuss how widespread Epstein’s influence appears to be, noting that Epstein’s activities touch many high-profile figures across politics and business. Names that repeatedly surface include former president Bill Clinton (clearly named in one journal entry) and former president Donald Trump (referenced repeatedly, sometimes with redactions that leave the identity ambiguous). Other figures mentioned include Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, and Ivanka Trump, among others. They point out that some references are explicit, while others are obfuscated or redacted. - A central feature of the material is the use of code words to describe sexual abuse and trafficking. The participants give several examples: - The journal of a 16-year-old Epstein trafficking victim uses coded language; words like “yucky,” “gross,” and other terms are interpreted by an attorney as code for sexual assault. The journal explicitly mentions Chelsea Clinton in one passage and references to Bill Clinton, with the implication of inappropriate acts. - “Pizza” is repeatedly identified as a common code word in emails and journals, linked by some to the broader Pizza Gate lore, and sometimes paired with “grape soda” or “beef jerky” as coded references. They note that “pizza” appears over 900 times in some files, and “grape soda” is mentioned in the context of sexual references or secret messages. - The reliability and credibility of victims’ accounts are discussed. The 16-year-old victim’s journals include extraordinary claims (for example, about having Epstein’s child), and the speakers acknowledge that some allegations are “out outrageous” and may be difficult to corroborate. They stress the need for more forensic verification to determine what is authentically attributable to the victim and what may be embellishment or misinterpretation. They mention claims that a baby allegedly connected to Ghislain Maxwell and Epstein existed, but note that there is no independent corroboration of a child, while other entries discuss the possibility of egg freezing and related issues. - Redactions are scrutinized. Some names are clearly identifiable (e.g., Clinton, Chelsea), while others (including a Trump-related item) are redacted or partially disclosed. The hosts suggest the redactions may reflect AI-assisted and manual redaction, with some omissions caused by the sheer volume of material and potential misses during processing. They acknowledge that some files were removed after the initial release due to redaction errors, which complicates interpretation. - The discussion moves to Epstein’s personal network and possible roles as a liaison or intelligence asset. They observe Epstein’s connections to Middle Eastern figures and governments, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, and speculate about possible associations with Mossad, Saudi intelligence, and other agencies. They discuss Epstein’s travel history, mentions of forged or fake passports, and the possibility that he might have contemplated operating outside the United States. - The material includes extensive photographic and video evidence. The speakers remark on the sheer number of images and videos, the presence of many well-known individuals in Epstein’s orbit, and body-language cues suggesting Epstein treated others as objects for his pleasure. They note that even after his 2008 conviction, Epstein remained photographed in public settings, implying ongoing power dynamics and influence. - The possibility that Epstein is alive is entertained, sparked by references to a possible escape plan and by discussion of questions around his death. They analyze a document scribbled in jail that the speaker interprets as an escape plan, including references to red notices, visas, banks, and “blackmail,” and discuss the idea that the death could have been staged or influenced by external actors. They contrast this with official accounts that describe Epstein’s death as suicide, while acknowledging inconsistencies in the DOJ and inspector general reports, and noting new observations such as delayed camera activity and reports of document shredding. - They conclude that the scope of material is enormous (tens of thousands to millions of pages, images, and videos), with three point something million released out of six point something million known to exist. They caution that the released files likely represent the tip of the iceberg and emphasize the value of collaboration among investigators, journalists, and researchers to parse the data. - Throughout, Epstein’s associates—including Maxwell and high-profile figures in politics and entertainment—are repeatedly examined in terms of possible roles, affiliations, and complicity, alongside broader questions about intent, corroboration, and the interpretation of coded language within the files.

There is a perception among young people that there is a group of untouchable elites involved in sex trafficking. Examples like Jeffrey Epstein and Robert Kraft support this belief. The question is whether we can prioritize these powerful individuals and actually hold them accountable. Speaker 1 believes that these elites hide in plain sight, and although people were aware of Epstein's actions, no legal action was taken due to fear. However, someone finally stood up and said enough is enough. The house of cards is starting to crumble, and these individuals will be caught and made examples of. Speaker 1 expresses disappointment in Epstein for not facing the consequences of his actions.

Epstein was hiding in plain sight, and everyone knew about his illegal activities. However, people were afraid to take legal action against him. But now, someone has decided to stand up against him and expose his wrongdoings. The truth about Epstein is like a house of cards that is about to collapse. Those involved in his crimes will not only be caught but also serve as examples. This is especially important because, in my opinion, justice must prevail.

There is disbelief that influential people could be involved in an island where they engage in sex with underage individuals. The speaker mentions Jeffrey Epstein, who went to jail for this crime but still had connections with people like Bill Gates. Epstein later died under suspicious circumstances, and no one was held accountable. Ghislaine Maxwell, who was involved in this illegal activity, was arrested and convicted, but the list of people involved was not released. The speaker expresses frustration, stating that this kind of injustice shouldn't happen in the United States, regardless of the individuals' power.

Epstein surrounded himself, I'm sorry, with the powerful leaders of our country and the world. He abused not only me, but countless others, and everyone seemed to look away. He bragged about his powerful friends, including our current president, Donald Trump. I live every day with PTSD, distrusting a world that has betrayed me. There are files, government files that hold the truth about Epstein, who he knew, who owed him, who protected him, and why he was allowed to operate for so long without consequence. Why was Maxwell the only one held accountable when so many others played a role? Why does the government hide this information from the public? This secrecy is not protection. It’s complicity. That is why this bill matters. Passing it will bring accountability, transparency, and prevention, and protect the next generation of predators. This is not just my story; it is about every survivor.

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.”

Epstein operated openly, and while many were aware of his actions, there was no legal action taken against him. Fear of him prevented anyone from pursuing justice.

Speaker 0 discusses the nature of the allegations surrounding Epstein and the broader “pedo” discourse. They begin by asking whether the situation is essentially pedophilia, noting a reluctance to voice this directly but concluding that they feel compelled to say it. They state: “This whole pedo thing, it's like, isn't it really pedophilia? I don't wanna be the one that has to say it, but I guess I'm being forced to say it.” They then attempt to distinguish between what some describe as trafficking and what they consider the case to be, saying: “It's not really pedophilia, okay? They weren't trafficking five year olds, it was like they were technically not legal. Big difference in my opinion.” They acknowledge this as a controversial perspective and proceed to articulate a position: “I know that's a controversial take, but that's not really the issue there, Okay? The issue is not that they were barely legal teens, which is what it is. It's horrendous, it's awful, it's pedophilia.” The speaker then shifts the topic away from the legality of the ages to a related, more conspiratorial claim, emphasizing that the core issue, in their view, lies in an alleged association between Epstein and a broader espionage context. They insist: “Okay, relax. No, the issue is that Epstein is a Jewish spy probably working with Israel.” They frame Epstein as being connected to Israeli intelligence, presenting this as the central dilemma rather than the specifics of the sexual exploitation allegations. Throughout, Speaker 0 presents a sequence of framed assertions: first, a provocative reframing of the ethical category involved (from illegal but not strictly illegal acts to pedophilia), then a qualitative judgment about the severity and nature of the acts themselves, and finally a shift to a geopolitical and intelligence-related conspiracy claim about Epstein’s possible affiliation with Jewish identity and Israeli intelligence. The speaker explicitly acknowledges the controversial nature of their viewpoint but maintains that the primary concern is not the legal characterization of the victims’ ages but the asserted espionage connection. No further context, evidence, or qualifiers are provided in the excerpt, and the speaker does not offer evidence supporting the espionage claim within this transcript. The emphasis remains on contrasting opinions about how to categorize the behavior, followed by a bold assertion regarding Epstein’s alleged role as a Jewish spy associated with Israel.

The conversation centers on the Epstein file controversy, the DOJ's handling of it, and what the speakers see as systemic failures and political risk for Donald Trump and allied figures. - The Epstein/file issue is framed as predictable and frustrating. Alex Jones notes a “slow drip of nothing” and calls the initial promise of full file disclosure a pattern of “promise something, deliver nothing.” Pam Bondi’s statement that “the files were on my desk” is discussed as an apparent misstep or staged moment, but the core point is that large amounts of material are not being released despite public promises. - The discourse questions where the files actually reside and who controls access. The claim that a “truckload of files” existed and was hidden at DOJ is rejected as a mischaracterization; the speakers emphasize that the FBI and DOJ have files, but access and disclosure have been hampered by internal political dynamics. They highlight the tension between the Southern District of New York and the DOJ, noting that SDNY answers to the DOJ and the Attorney General, thereby questioning the premise that one regional office is independently sabotaging access. - There is a persistent critique of DOJ leadership and governance. The argument is that DOJ has not been “rooted out of corruption,” with mid-level and high-level managers and appointees still in place, propagating practices that the speakers deem contrary to transparency and accountability. They point to supposed failures by individuals such as Cash Patel and Pam Bondi in relying on FBI briefings rather than verifiable records, suggesting that power in intelligence agencies is still too dependent on information control. - The Epstein files are treated as emblematic of a broader issue: a two-tier or selective justice system. The speakers argue that there’s a pattern whereby powerful individuals have access to information and protection, while the public lacks full visibility. They mention that Trump’s response and the way the files have been handled have become a larger “Russiagate-like” narrative, with Epstein serving as a lightning rod for accusations of corruption and cover-up. - The political dynamic is central. Several participants emphasize that Trump’s stance and the responses of his allies are under intense scrutiny. They discuss the risk that Trump’s association with the Epstein disclosures could become a political liability if the files aren’t released. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tom Massey are mentioned as consistent voices pushing for full disclosure, while Roger Stone’s warnings about CIA and foreign involvement in the Epstein nexus are cited as supporting the view that a larger, international financial/transnational network may be implicated. - There is criticism of how the media and political opponents handle the issue. The speakers claim Democrats are using hearings to turn the Epstein matter into a broader political weapon and to portray Trump as obstructive or complicit, regardless of the factual state of file disclosure. They argue that the public is being led by a PR war, with “photoshopped” or redacted material used to frame narratives rather than to reveal truth. - The discussion turns toward accountability and remedies. The speakers insist that federal law requires the release of the Epstein files by a deadline, and that failing to comply constitutes a constitutional or institutional crisis. They argue that Congress lacks direct enforcement power and must consider funding or other leverage to compel compliance, noting the apparent reluctance of Congress to act decisively. - There are predictions about personnel changes and institutional reform. Dan Bongino is discussed as likely to depart from his DOJ-related role, with Todd Blanche as the lead prosecutor taking heat for not meeting deadlines. Andrew Bailey is floated as a potential replacement. The broader implication is that there will be a shake-up in DOJ and possibly FBI leadership in the near term, though the speakers acknowledge uncertainty about how far reforms will go or whether entrenched interests will impede real change. - The Epstein matter is used to illustrate how compromises and cover-ups operate across power structures. The speakers argue that the problem isn’t just the existence of the files but how the system treats those files—how access is controlled, how redactions are justified, and how political narratives are constructed around high-profile investigations. Harmony Dillon and Liz Harrington are cited as voices who underscore the need for mid-level reform and more transparency, suggesting that the deepest issues lie in organizational culture and incentives rather than in isolated acts by a few individuals. - A broader reflection on American governance finishes the discussion. The speakers warn that a failure to release the Epstein files or to purge corrupt practices could deepen distrust in federal institutions and threaten the legitimacy of the government. They suggest that if reform stalls, the country might devolve into a state-by-state dynamic or other less cohesive arrangements, as confidence in a functioning central government erodes. In summary, the transcript frames the Epstein file disclosures as a litmus test for DOJ integrity and political accountability. It portrays a pattern of delayed or selective disclosure, questions about who controls information within the FBI/DOJ, and a risk that political calculations are interfering with lawful obligations. It also foresees significant leadership changes and intensified scrutiny of the department in the near future, with Epstein serving as a focal point for broader critiques of how power and information are managed in the United States.

Attorney General Pam Bondi disclosed the existence of tens of thousands of videos featuring little children in relation to Jeffrey Epstein. This was the first time an official publicly acknowledged videos of Epstein and his victims. Nine days prior, the attorney general had a similar conversation with a stranger in a restaurant, stating there are tens of thousands of videos, all with little kids. A reporter sent the AG's office the text of the recording, questioning why this detail was not disclosed to the public but was instead told to a random stranger. The attorney general used almost the exact same language as she did with the stranger. Questions are raised as to why the information was shared with a stranger before the American people, and why this information was held back in the first place. It is questioned whether a government apparatus is still working behind the scenes to protect.

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.

The speaker expresses frustration over the sealed list of Jeffrey Epstein and questions why it is being kept hidden. They believe that releasing the list would have severe consequences, causing society to crumble and eroding trust in governments and the wealthy. The speaker suggests that the list is being withheld because it contains the names of powerful individuals who do not want their involvement exposed. They advocate for the release of the list, even if it means taking a step back in order to move forward.

Epstein was hiding in plain sight, known by all but untouched by the law. Suddenly, someone stood up and said enough is enough. The house of cards is falling, and those involved will be caught and made examples of. It's time to hold them accountable, especially those who prey on others.

Speaker 0: The speaker alleges a cover-up by people including Bill Barr and Mike Pompeo. Bill Barr, described by Jeffrey Epstein as “CIA,” allegedly covered up Epstein’s murder in federal detention, with Barr saying publicly, “we gotta make sure everyone thinks this is a suicide.” The speaker asks why Barr isn’t being questioned about this. Mike Pompeo is accused of plotting to murder Julian Assange, head of WikiLeaks. The speaker notes that WikiLeaks released the first tranche of emails to the public, and that Assange suggested on Dutch TV that his source was Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who was found murdered in Washington in what was described as a robbery where nothing was taken. Assange hinted in the interview that his sources faced great risks, mentioning Seth Rich; the interviewer pressed whether Rich was murdered for the leaks, and Assange said he couldn’t reveal sources but that they faced risks. Shortly after, Assange was incarcerated, first in an embassy in London and then in Belmarsh Prison, without criminal charges, actions the speaker attributes to the CIA and Mike Pompeo. The speaker contends that someone should ask Pompeo about this. Speaker 1: The speaker expresses anger at what they see as broad, systemic cover-ups versus ordinary Americans facing jail for minor offenses. They reference Pizzagate and Epstein, asserting that cover-ups extend across other issues, including Benghazi and Hillary Clinton material, which they claim were never properly pursued with the appropriate parties. They point to a long list of alleged co-conspirators connected to the Epstein matter, including those revealed in a recent document drop and corroborated subsequently. The list reportedly includes ten co-conspirators: one named Leslie Wexner, pilots (three identified by name), and others such as Ghislain Maxwell and various assistants who recruited girls, as well as individuals trafficking models. The speaker asserts there were many people around Epstein who were deeply involved and deserve serious questioning. They also reference Ehud Barak as among those connected to the network. Overall: The conversation presents multiple allegations of high-level complicity and cover-ups involving Bill Barr, Mike Pompeo, Julian Assange, Seth Rich, and a broad network around Jeffrey Epstein, including named and unnamed individuals, with claims of documented co-conspirators and ongoing questions about accountability.

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.

Six women who experienced trauma from Epstein’s network speak together for the first time in an exclusive NBC News interview, sharing familiar patterns of grooming, promises, and then sexual assault. The group notes that the nature of this abuse conditions silence, isolation, secrecy, and shame. One survivor, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, says Epstein associate Ghislain Maxwell recruited her when she was working as a locker room attendant at Mar-a-Lago, and that Epstein directed her to have sex with a number of powerful men, including Britain's Prince Andrew. Virginia recounts being 17 when a photo was taken with Prince Andrew in Maxwell's London townhouse, next to the bathroom where she says he sexually abused her. She describes waking to be told she would meet a prince, being trafficked to the encounter, and later being with Prince Andrew in London, then in New York at Epstein’s mansion and at Andrew’s Virgin Islands estate. She says Prince Andrew abused her two more times, while he denies the allegations, and Buckingham Palace reiterates that the duke had no sexual contact or relationship with Virginia, calling the contrary claim false and without foundation. Virginia says the abuse moved from the bathroom to a bedroom, and recounts a night in Club Tramp where Prince Andrew bought her alcohol, and she was told to do for him what she did for Epstein. She acknowledges the difficulty and says that the law of statute of limitations affects pursuing accountability, noting that defamation suits are a route to hold Ghislain Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein accountable in the absence of criminal charges. Maxwell has denied the accusations, and Epstein died by suicide in jail while awaiting trial on child sex trafficking and conspiracy charges. The six women share a common desire for justice: to hold perpetrators accountable who helped or participated with Epstein, and to encourage more survivors to come forward to piece together how Epstein operated for so long and how he evaded accountability. The interview conveys the survivors’ sense of betrayal and questions about why they were not taken seriously, with a emphasis on the impact of Epstein’s death on their sense of justice. The participants emphasize that they matter, and they send a message to other potential victims who may still be waiting in the shadows. The group’s solidarity is highlighted as a powerful and compelling element of the interview, illustrating the enduring strength of survivors who have stood together to tell their stories.

"There's no Epstein list. There are no Epstein files." "All of the real story begins in 02/1967 when he's arrested in Palm Beach." "The search warrant basically protected him and it prevented the authorities from collecting meaningful information." "It was like, you're allowed to look in Drawer 3 but not Drawer 4." "So the truth is the US government doesn't have that much." "Massive transfer of money from this guy Les Wexner in Ohio to Jeffrey Epstein." "Leon Black, same thing. He says for accounting services, that's clearly not true." "That's not about Mossad or MI6 or CIA. Right." "So I think as usual, the crime is right in front of our faces."

The speaker discusses the high-profile individuals who were associated with Jeffrey Epstein, including Prince Andrew, Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton. They question how many of these people who visited Epstein's private jet, island, and ranch were involved in the exploitation of children. They also mention that Epstein was well-known but evaded legal consequences due to fear. The speaker criticizes Sydney McCain for not taking action against Epstein despite her knowledge of him. They conclude by stating that Epstein's death was likely not a suicide, similar to Jeffrey Epstein's case.

The speaker expresses frustration over the sealed list of Jeffrey Epstein and questions why it is being kept hidden. They believe that releasing the list would have severe consequences, causing society to crumble and eroding trust in governments and the wealthy. The speaker suggests that the list is being withheld because it contains the names of powerful individuals who do not want it to be made public. They advocate for the release of the list, even if it means taking a step back in order to move forward.

We need to address the power players who are causing this issue. Although it may seem impossible to touch them now, we cannot ignore them. Epstein, for example, was hiding in plain sight and everyone knew about his illegal activities, but no one took action due to fear. However, things have changed. We are no longer afraid and we will go after them. Their house of cards is about to crumble, and if they don't leave the country, they will be caught and made examples of. This is what we should be doing with these guys.

The speaker connects Jeffrey Epstein to a broad web of influence and alleged illicit activity across several decades. Key points presented: - Epstein’s involvement is linked to the BCCI network, and to foreign policy activities in the Middle East during the 1990s, plus his alleged ties to high-level officials across Israeli, Saudi, British, and French governments, spanning the Clinton era into the early 2000s. - Epstein was investigated by the SEC in the 1980s and was one of the two people who ran the largest Ponzi scheme in U.S. history at that time, tied to the Towers Financial collapse. Epstein’s business partner went to jail for twenty-something years, while Epstein allegedly “skates completely free.” - He is said to have been involved in a billion-dollar fraud case in the U.S. Virgin Islands, with allegations that his campaigns funded local politicians there and that prosecutors answered to those politicians. - The speaker suggests Epstein’s pervasive presence—“always in the room” in four decades of American foreign policy and intelligence activity—implies a systemic concern about money sourcing for that activity. - Regarding Epstein’s crimes, the concern cited is the same one discussed with Orlando Massfer: don’t bring the case, and if you do, bring it in a highly limited way. - This culminated in the 2006 indictment, which was described as a “sweetheart plea deal” that limited prosecutions, protected coconspirators known and unknown, and allowed the case to proceed quickly before a full trial could uncover broader lines of evidence about Epstein’s network.