reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker mentions that the document was redacted to protect the source. They also mention that there are 17 voice recordings, two of which involve the current president. The speaker questions why this information was redacted and not given to the House Oversight.

Recently, in January, a member of the Senate Intel Committee tried to block someone from getting a job in the intel world because this person would push for the release of the JFK files. This senator's main goal is to keep those files secret, but I don't understand why they would be protecting the CIA, especially after the Church Committee hearings already discredited them. I know that a member of the Senate Intel Committee made that call to block the appointment. Someone asked if it was Tom Cotton from Arkansas, but I haven't asked him directly for an interview, even though I probably should.

The FBI handed over hundreds of pages of documents, but more were expected. A source revealed evidence was in the Southern District Of New York. Thousands of pages of documents arrived by the Friday deadline and are now in the FBI's possession. Director Patel will provide a detailed report explaining why these documents were withheld. The initial documents included flight logs, names, and victim names, but seemed incomplete. The newly acquired documents will be reviewed cautiously to protect Epstein's victims, of which over 254 have been identified. While protecting victims, transparency is a priority, and America has the right to know. The Biden administration allegedly did nothing with the documents, which raises questions about why they were in the Southern District Of New York. Redactions will be made for victim protection, national security, and grand jury information. Redactions will be clearly marked with explanations, 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.

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 states they are being asked to justify targeting people they don't like, but clarifies it's about people they believe are dishonest, not people they dislike personally. The speaker doesn't know most of them. It's not about anger, but a belief that these individuals are not worthy of access to top secret information. The speaker believes this is acceptable, noting Biden did the same with their people. The speaker reiterates the decision is based on their assessment of worthiness, not anger.

The speaker mentions that the information has been discovered independently four times before, but has been suppressed each time. However, this time they believe it won't be suppressed. They mention having interactions with various agency affiliations, both protective and threatening. They state that if the US government hasn't intervened and told them to stop, then they are allowed to proceed. There are people waiting for them to publish, while others are questioning why they haven't been silenced yet. The speaker feels torn between those encouraging them to proceed and those warning them of potential harm.

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.

The speaker questions why FBI keeps records secret, suspects cover-up. Names in FBI report redacted, including Lady Rothschild, linked to Epstein, Clinton, and Prince Andrew. Epstein had blackmail material, as confirmed by conversations with speaker. More evidence of blackmail likely hidden.

Speaker 0 explains that the people who are very powerful on the scene are included in “the files,” and if you’re powerful and not in those files, it would be an insult because it means you’re a loser. Speaker 1 asks who isn’t in the files, and Speaker 0 confirms that those not in the files are losing. When asked if the speakers are in the files, Speaker 0 answers yes, noting that it’s any journalist who wrote about it that’s in the files.

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

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.

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.

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.

The speaker states the FBI handed over hundreds of pages of documents, but a source indicated more existed in the Southern District of New York. The speaker gave the FBI a deadline of Friday at 8 AM to release everything. Thousands of pages of documents arrived by the deadline and are now in the FBI's possession. Kash Patel and his team will produce a detailed report explaining why the documents were withheld. The speaker says the documents included flight logs, names, and victim names, but they are looking for the rest of the information. The speaker identified over 254 victims in phase one. The speaker says they believe in transparency and that America has the right to know. The speaker claims the Biden administration said no one did anything with the documents and questions why they were in the Southern District of New York. The speaker says national security and grand jury information may be redacted. The speaker says the public has a right to know about the JFK and Martin Luther King files as well. If something is redacted, the line will be noted, along with the reason for the redaction.

There is active pressure on elected officials to stop the disclosure of information, specifically regarding the JFK assassination. The source of this pressure is unknown, but it is not believed to be the CIA or John Ratcliffe. The question is posed: who is powerful enough to scare people into slow-walking disclosure, which is the same as preventing it? The purpose of this slow-walking is to continue hiding facts. It is questioned what force is acting on the US government and the new administration to prevent disclosure, especially considering the assassination of a president undermines democracy. Getting to the bottom of the JFK situation is deemed very important.

The speaker expresses concern over media silence and the deletion of online posts. Speaker 1 is unsurprised by the mainstream media's refusal to cover or their attempts to diminish the impact of revelations found in declassified documents. The speaker claims the media avoids specific evidence and the voices of intelligence professionals who protested against malicious actions taken by figures like John Brennan and James Clapper under President Obama's direction. These actions allegedly involved creating an intelligence assessment filled with falsehoods. The speaker asserts the media avoids these voices because it would expose their complicity in pushing a lie and hoax throughout President Trump's first administration.

The speaker claims to know that documents are being suppressed to protect individuals, and knows the names of those individuals, why they are being suppressed, and who is suppressing them. However, the speaker states they are bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and cannot disclose what they know. When asked if those being protected are politicians, business leaders, or both, the speaker responds that they are everything.

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.

There is active pressure on elected officials to stop the disclosure of information, specifically regarding the JFK assassination. It is unknown who is exerting this pressure, but the speaker does not believe it is the CIA or John Ratcliffe. The speaker questions who is powerful enough to scare people into slow-walking disclosure, which they equate to preventing disclosure altogether. The speaker believes it is a fair question to ask what force is acting on the US government to prevent disclosure, especially considering the gravity of a president's assassination. Getting to the bottom of the JFK situation is considered very important.

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.

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.

The speaker contends that the real reason for hard efforts to prevent the release of the files for months is to protect billionaires, friends of the speaker and associated political donors. They claim Epstein had close ties to our own intelligence agencies and Israel's intelligence agencies, and argue that there will be attempts to stop this somewhere else, which they believe will backfire.

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.