reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I've uncovered a secret Justice Department memo outlining plans to target 12 new "perversions," including bestiality and pedophilia. This memo details strategies to undermine churches, pastors, and businesses that assert their religious freedom. The LGBT movement is just the beginning; they plan to expand to other perversions. So, you're saying you are aware of a Justice Department memo that says there will be an effort to legitimize bestiality, pedophilia, and other perversions? That's correct. They're coming down with twelve new perversions, expanding beyond the LGBT movement. Nothing surprises me anymore.

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.

"I think we'll eventually get there." "the folks who stayed up all night to go through the 34,000 individual pages have found that they're so redacted as to be useless and that many of them were already available." "the scope of their investigation is to investigate the investigators." "they don't ever intend to have any criminal referrals." "but they're not going in and trying to identify who these perpetrators were of these heinous sexual abuse crimes." "Well, I made the mistake of getting 12 cosponsors and the so the White House knew who to target." "So I'm not gonna name anybody who's thinking about joining." "They're literally calling it a hostile act to sign this discharge petition now."

The discussion centers on accusations about government actions and the handling of whistleblowers. Speaker 0 argues that the FBI is examining the situation “to chill speech” and to silence Democratic members of Congress and other elected leaders who speak out against Trump. According to Speaker 0, the motive is to stop them from speaking out. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking for clarification, wondering what exactly should be stopped. The question arises: “Stop what?” and “you’re saying that you believe that inherent in the video is that Donald Trump has given illegal orders.” Speaker 0 responds that he will speak about Congress’s role in whistleblower protections, noting that there have been whistleblowers in the Biden administration as well as in past administrations. He emphasizes that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that whistleblowers inside the federal government and the military have protections, wherever they are located in government. Speaker 1 suggests that the message might be read as Democrats encouraging the military to defy the commander in chief over current orders that cannot be named, but Speaker 0 contests this reading, implying a misinterpretation of the message. In trying to clarify, Speaker 0 states: “Here's what I believe. I believe that regardless of the president, no one in our military should actually follow through with unconstitutional orders.” He asserts this as his belief, though he concedes uncertainty about other specifics: “I’m saying regardless. I don’t know. Regardless of justice. I’m not. I’m not understanding.” Throughout, the exchange centers on the tension between protecting whistleblowers and the implications of political messaging about the president and military obedience. Speaker 0 maintains that Congress must safeguard whistleblower protections across federal government and military contexts, citing the Biden administration as an example and noting similar protections have occurred in other administrations. Speaker 1 probes the interpretation of the video and the intent behind messages that might appear to call for disobeying orders or challenging the president, while Speaker 0 reiterates a belief in the obligation to refuse unconstitutional orders, independent of which president is in office.

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

The discussion describes live activity at the White House North Portico on the North Lawn, where scaffolding and renovation work were said to be “standard renovations,” but large sheets have been hung over the structure. The question raised is whether more than routine architectural upkeep is being done. The second speaker claims the sheets are effectively a printed cover of the White House that preserves the appearance of the building from Lafayette Park while work continues out of view. They argue this is connected to construction they say is occurring in the East Wing, including ballroom construction and an underground military facility center, rather than merely column restoration. They contrast the North and South porticos: the South portico is described as the prominent scenic entrance where Marine One helicopters land; the North portico is described as the covered motorcade entrance on Pennsylvania Avenue for vehicles to unload and enter directly. The speaker says the North portico is the one covered over and alleges that a chandelier was taken down during restorations, suggesting workspace for infrastructure “underneath the ballroom,” including “technology” installed below. A third statement is introduced: “The ballroom essentially becomes a shed for what's being built under the military, including from drones.” The speaker then portrays the covered area as holding physical tools for a classified military facility, including “GPU racks, server racks” and “secure communication skills.” They connect this to concerns about sensitive data and a supposed rush to place it “under the executive office of the president” before legal processes like subpoena or FOIA could occur. The transcript cites claims involving “Doge” and unauthorized handling of sensitive government data, including an assertion that Social Security Administration confidential data was sent through unauthorized servers and that the SSA could not confirm what was taken or where it ended up. The speaker further claims a unified database is being built under the East Wing, framed as dangerous because it unifies information that has historically been kept in separate agencies and databases, creating access rules and safeguards. They also list related developments they say support the unified-database idea: a “modified version of the SAVE Act” described as narrowing immigration status and fusing social security identity records and citizenship information with bulk searches of state voter rolls into a single lookup. They reference the “Genesis Mission” as training and deploying AI using sensitive federal data, and they state that on June 4 Trump ordered multiple agencies and the NSA to share AI models and data and expand secure computing infrastructure. They add that three weeks later the White House Office of Administration signed a long-term data storage agreement and funded a building alteration contract with minimal public description, and then sheets went up at the North Portico. Finally, the speaker predicts that around July 22, when “Genesis Mission Awards” are announced, journalists should watch the North Portico because the sheets may come down, and they suggest that any “GPU” entry would be consequential.

The transcript argues that Thomas Massey’s campaign is in “trouble” because it violated a “golden rule” of campaigning: never allow the public perception you sold to be dismantled, especially in the last few days. It claims Massey spent the last year creating a perception that he is a champion for transparency, and that once this narrative is dismantled, it “is gone forever” and cannot be restored. It says the campaign’s need to revert to that narrative is what they “wanted to happen last” in the final days. It also claims the “Gray Ops campaign” is trying to convince viewers that Thomas Massie did more to take down “p three DOs” than the entire Republican Party, calling it “the biggest lie they’ve ever told.” Donald Trump and his administration are said to have released 4,000,000 documents related to the Epstein files, described as 4,000,000 more documents than any other president before him. The transcript asserts that none of those documents contained incriminating information, and it gives two reasons. First, it claims that people close personal friends and political allies of those likely to be incriminated had controlled the files for two decades, implying they would not leave real incriminating information by the time the Trump administration picked them up. Second, it claims the Trump administration was forced by a law written and pushed and passed directly by Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna. It says Massie wrote the bill that created a legal umbrella requiring the Department of Justice to redact many names. It further states the bill required redacting names authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and foreign policy and properly classified under that executive order, and that disclosure would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution. The transcript concludes by reiterating that Massie wrote the bill that required redacting the names that it says he spent a year trying to convince the public he was demanding transparency over.

Speaker 0 recounts discovering a secret SCIF on campus, a secure facility with files nobody knew existed. An employee walked by a door, inquiries were made, the room was entered, and individuals were found working there with secret files on controversial topics. Those files have been turned over to attorneys and the speaker is pursuing what happened. The speaker notes that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) knows every traveler entering the country and every good that comes in, and they assess and collect tariffs. They highlight that information about travelers during COVID was with national labs under the speaker’s jurisdiction, and that scientists at those labs participated with the Wuhan lab. The speaker claims these scientists traveled back and forth between each other and worked on those experiments, describing this as eye-opening. Addressing Elon and his team, the speaker says they were extremely helpful since the speaker’s arrival in office, assisting in identifying a troubling issue: some of the speaker’s own department employees had downloaded software on the speaker’s phone and laptop to spy on them and record meetings. The speaker states that this had happened to several politicians and notes that bringing in technology experts helped reveal this software; without examining laptops and phones, the activity would still be ongoing. The speaker emphasizes a need to continue partnering with technology companies and experts to bring them in for assistance, as government work—especially within the department under the speaker’s jurisdiction—has been neglected and lagging behind what it should be. The speaker recalls that in the first four months, they couldn’t even email a PowerPoint from Department of Homeland Security servers if it was longer than six pages, illustrating what they view as backwards thinking that hindered national security. The speaker reflects on the concept of a deep state, admitting that they previously believed it existed but didn’t realize how severe it was. They describe daily efforts to uncover individuals who do not love America and who work within the Department and across the federal government. The overall message conveys uncovering secrecy, internal surveillance concerns, cross-agency connections involving CBP and national labs, collaboration with tech experts, and a strong critique of past departmental conduct and systemic protection failures.

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

Clayton interviews investigative journalist Timothy Alberino about recent “disclosure” documents released under the Trump administration, including videos and audio files, and about whether the U.S. government has alien bodies and when such evidence will be publicly shown. Alberino says he was warned the first tranche would be “underwhelming,” but expects subsequent releases—staggered on an “every two weeks” schedule—to become “more spectacular.” He claims earlier releases largely draw from material already held by the Pentagon’s AARO, describing it as a “sham UAP investigative body,” and from prior FOIA-released material, with some new content. Alberino argues against conflating the Trump administration’s disclosure efforts with access to deep underground special-access programs housed in “dumbs” (deep underground military bases). He says the President of the United States, the Secretary of War, and others have not been read into these programs and do not have access on a need-to-know basis. He says the White House and agencies like the FBI are reviewing documents to determine what can be released without breaching national security interests. He maintains that Trump and figures such as Hegseth and Patel are not withholding because they “don’t agree” with disclosure; instead, he says they plan to release as much as possible that does not conflict with national security so the public can draw conclusions. Alberino says Trump will not go onstage and present alien bodies or Roswell-style images, and that classified information about the “legacy program” will not be publicly released. When asked directly whether alien bodies and autopsy videos will be shown, Alberino says “absolutely not,” stating that Trump, Hegseth, and Patel do not have access to bodies. He claims the disclosure process is constrained by what officials can access, while the more important material is allegedly sequestered in private contractors rather than held within agencies like the Pentagon, FBI, or DNI—allowing officials to claim they do not have that information. Alberino describes “oppositional factions” inside government, intelligence, the White House, and the Pentagon: a “secrecy group” that wants the public kept uninformed, and a “disclosure group” that wants limited disclosure centered on a “baseline truth” that non-human entities exist and that craft and bodies have been recovered. He says the disclosure group seeks congressional oversight, which he claims is intentionally circumvented by compartmentalized, contractor-heavy programs with limited oversight. He further claims there are “rogue elements” and introduces the idea of “alien reproduction vehicles” (ARVs) derived from non-human technology, used for “nefarious things,” though he frames these as actions by rogue elements rather than the U.S. government as a whole. He identifies people he says are on the “limited disclosure” side, naming Congressman Eric Burlison, Tim Burchett, Anna Paulina Luna, and others, and states Tulsi Gabbard is also on the disclosure side. He claims that inquiries from the DNI and official attempts to inspect facilities are met with runaround and deception about projects shown on site. Alberino says facility visits by congressmen have not necessarily revealed bodies and suggests that craft footage may be more likely than biological evidence. He references that higher-resolution videos are supposedly seen in private than what has appeared via public FOIA releases, and he expects footage similar to Gimbal, GoFast, and Nimitz-level imagery. He also claims that if whistleblowers come forward publicly, they face NDAs and career consequences, and he says whistleblower protection legislation proposed by senators and representatives has faced repeated defeat. He describes whistleblowers privately briefing members of Congress “but they won’t come forward…they won’t go under oath.” In discussing interdimensional claims, Alberino says there is no certainty conveyed in classified settings about the “ontology” of beings, though he says interdimensional language is discussed publicly. He asserts that congressional-level information indicates the phenomenon is real and that there is evidence suggesting a legacy program exists, but he says those he interacts with have not been shown direct evidence explaining origins. He discusses speculation about extra dimensions and space-time warping, connecting these ideas to craft behavior such as phasing out or disappearing, and references Bob Lazar’s claims about craft appearing to lift off and then vanish. He also speaks about transmedium movement and the idea that a craft may create gravitational bubbles that bend light. Alberino includes claims about materials and technological gaps, saying extracted exotic materials are crucial and that the ability to reproduce them is limited. He describes an “arms race” framing involving legacy programs beyond the U.S., including China and Russia, and says strategic advantage may be why much is not released publicly. For religious aspects, he says media coverage conflated different stories and points to two streams: (1) evangelical leaders connected to Paula White, which he says involves “ontological shock” from being told something; and (2) a separate private UAP-and-human-trafficking investigative organization he describes as having briefers who share mostly public-domain information and seek to encourage pastors to prepare congregants for disclosure, while emphasizing that their theological views are not based on being read into programs. He claims this private group focuses heavily on human trafficking. Toward the end, he reiterates that a new tranche of documents may appear within about a week and continues into a slow drip toward summer, with underwhelming early releases followed by more impressive footage later. He also says he has been told AARO is being “frozen out” of the release process after being ordered to turn over lower-tier material, and that the strategy is to reduce AARO’s role in public dissemination.

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.”

Jeffrey Epstein’s parent suicide is referenced, with the claim that he “definitely killed himself,” alongside a demand to know more. The discussion then shifts to government accountability, arguing that the way government is functioning is not as it should be and that similar events can happen to anyone “hundreds and thousands of times every day.” Prosecutors are described as having “absolute discretion and absolute immunity” to go after whoever they want, raising the question of why the public cannot know the reasons behind such decisions. One speaker says there is “no secret plan happening behind the scenes,” presenting the situation as the reality itself. They then address the message to President Trump, stating agreement that President Trump does not “care” is not believed. Speaker 1 directly appeals to President Trump: “the next Attorney General needs to be an outsider.” The conversation also asks how many people have been fired in the DOJ due to being directly connected to “weaponization,” and whether there were things witnessed inside courtrooms—specifically involving judges or prosecutors—that might shock people by revealing “this is what was going on.” The exchange ends with concern about time: “Everybody needs to know,” and the claim that the speaker is coming out and doing this because they are “afraid.”

The speaker mentioned that some people were inside the Capitol and the SSA responded. The speaker was personally involved in these conversations and questioned why they couldn't be shown the 11,000 hours of available video footage. The reason given was that there might be undercover officers or confidential human sources in the videos whose identities needed to be safeguarded. The speaker then mentioned Mr. Allen experiencing retaliation.

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.

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.

Speaker 0 says that people were inside the Capitol. Speaker 0 states that the SSA responded, and that Speaker 0 had firsthand access to these conversations, asking why they couldn’t be shown access to the 11,000 hours of video that are available. Speaker 0 says the reason is that the videos may contain UC undercover officers or CHS confidential human sources whose identities need to be protected. Speaker 0 then says, “So Mr. Allen, you got retaliated again.”

Congressman: The Department of Justice has unfairly treated whistleblowers like Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen: The treatment is unfair, and the process felt like the punishment. Mr. Horowitz: Putting someone like Mr. Allen on unpaid leave for over two years is unfair. Congressman: The process was to punish whistleblowers and make an example of them for reporting improper actions at the FBI and DOJ. Congress has not appropriately protected whistleblowers, and continuing resolutions put no consequence on the DOJ or FBI for their actions. Congress should ensure whistleblowers receive back pay; otherwise, maybe the FBI director and attorney general shouldn't get their paychecks or perks. Voting for these continuing resolutions perpetuates the punishment of whistleblowers, and Congress underwrites the weaponization of the Justice Department.

Survivors in the room stood and raised their hands to indicate they have not yet met with the Department of Justice. The Congresswoman urges Attorney General Bondi to apologize to the survivors for the DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files, calling the release of the Epstein files and their information “absolutely unacceptable.” She asks Bondi to turn to the survivors and apologize, stating this is about Bondi taking responsibility for the Department of Justice and the harm it has caused. The exchange continues with the Congresswoman insisting that Merrick Garland has sat in that chair twice, and she questions whether Bondi will respond to the survivors, not to those who predated Bondi. The Congresswoman reiterates, “This is not about anybody that came before you. It is about you taking responsibility for your Department of Justice and the harm that it has done to the survivors who are standing right behind you and are waiting for you to turn to them and apologize for what your Department of Justice is.” The hearing appears to encounter procedural friction. The Congresswoman complains that the question is not being answered as expected, accusing the proceedings of theatrics, while another member clarifies that witnesses answer in the way they choose. The chair and other members intervene to maintain “regular order.” The Congresswoman asserts that the situation represents “a massive cover up,” accusing then-President Donald Trump of making the release of the Epstein files a center of his political campaign because he thought it would benefit him. She claims that Bondi’s office claimed to have a client list, but says there was no list, and alleges that Deputy Todd Blanche met alone with Elaine Maxwell and “transferred her to a minimum security prison.” She insists that Bondi should turn to the survivors who are standing behind him on a human level. The chair interrupts and remarks that time has been delayed, noting that the gentlewoman has time remaining but the session ends with a reflection that the general has done something, though the exact action is not specified in the excerpt. The session ends with an acknowledgment of the time constraints and appreciation for the discussion.

The speaker mentioned that there were individuals inside the Capitol and the SSA responded. The speaker questioned why they couldn't be shown the 11,000 hours of available video footage. The reason given was that there might be undercover officers or confidential human sources whose identities needed protection. The speaker then mentioned that Mr. Allen faced retaliation.

CNN’s investigation reveals unredacted videos of young women, including at least one minor aged 15, posted by the Justice Department as part of its Epstein file release. The videos show faces and bodies unblurred, in some cases in compromising situations. MJ Lee reports from the front. CNN’s review of the Epstein files found at least seven videos featuring unredacted women. One clip shows a girl in a bikini and heels doing a model walk and saying she is 15 years old. The girl says, “Hello. My name is I’m 15 years old. I’m a major star of day, 70 major strong, and I’m from Ringgold, Avenue.” It was only after CNN inquired about the videos that a DOJ spokesperson said Thursday the videos in question have been removed and are being reviewed for appropriate redactions; an error message now appears in place of the videos. One video included brief nudity when a young woman pulls up her shirt to expose her breast after singing “Happy Birthday.” The publication of these videos risks the potential revictimization of women who may have been abused by Epstein years ago, and it violated the DOJ’s stated criteria on what information would be redacted to protect victims. Speaker 3 notes: “To protect victims, we redacted every woman depicted in any image or video with the exception of Miss Maxwell. We did not redact images of any men unless it was impossible to redact the woman without also redacting the man.” Like many Epstein files, these videos lack context—no information about who the women are, who took the videos, or when they were taken. The DOJ has faced fierce criticism for other improper redactions in the Epstein files, including publishing victims’ names, birthdays, and addresses, and for over-redacting information about individuals who may have helped Epstein. Speaker 4 recalls: “Your Department of Justice initially released nude photographs and even the identities of Jane Does who had been protected for decades until your department released their names.” Attorney General Pam Bondi faced lawmakers in a contentious hearing, vowing the DOJ would act quickly to correct mistakes. “If someone’s name was redacted, we said right away was not redacted and should have been meaning a victim. We went back and redacted it. We’re doing everything.”

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

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

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