reSee.it - Related Video Feed

"I wouldn't be surprised one bit. I am convinced based on my own sources and my own reporting on this story. He wasn't one of ours." "I guess Mossad given his connection to Ghislain Maxwell." "it's possible that that's the reason everything's getting buried." "as for whether he was an agent, that I don't know. I I haven't looked into that. I'll get back to you." "And, Megan, remember, Alexander Acosta in 02/2007, he said he was told to treat Epstein carefully because he was an intel asset." "His subpoena, his search warrant on Jeffrey Epstein's residence was very narrow. It was not the kind of like, let's get everything inside this guy's, you know, dressers and so on." "We did not find the magic documents or photos or evidence of anything." "And why not? I don't know. We'll ever know why not."

Antisemitism is “you know, it’s always kind of lurking underneath, and you need sometimes sometimes events over the years, you know, pull it out.” The speaker recalls Captain Dreyfus being accused of treason in France and Theodor Herzl watching, and suddenly, “kill Dreyfus, kill all the Jews.” The question is, where did “kill all the Jews” come from? The response is that, from one guy, antisemitism can surge. The speaker notes that today we have our Dreyfus again. We have the war. We have Jeffrey Epstein, who, the speaker says, “hated Israel,” and “had nothing there was nothing about him that was Jewish. Didn’t observe Judaism, didn’t practice Judaism.” The speaker adds as a side thought: “If you don’t mind me jumping in on this,” and then discusses a common claim: people say you can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic, arguing that Judaism is just a religion, not a nationality, so they are not against the religion but against the nation, and it “shouldn’t be considered a nation.” The speaker then contends that Epstein is not a Jew under that standard because there is nothing about him that identifies with Israel. The only related claim is that “one of his emails says, I hate Israel. Right? There’s nothing about him that is religious at all.” However, when it comes to antisemitism, the speaker asserts, “he’s a Jew.” That is presented as the final point on Epstein’s case. The speaker mentions Epstein “tried to work with a former prime minister,” calling that his only connection. The former prime minister referred to is David Barak, described as not in politics for many, many years and having no influence in Israel, and “is the, kind of, the main political antagonist of Netanyahu.” The transcript notes that Epstein’s only connection was with David Barak, and that Barak is viewed as Netanyahu’s main political antagonist, despite Barak’s long absence from active politics. The passage ends with that acknowledgment of Epstein’s connection being limited to Barak.

The speaker mentions that a former head of military intelligence in Israel was friendly with Epstein. They point out that there is no evidence provided to support the claim that Israel was involved in running Epstein. They mention that Maxwell worked for Israel and Epstein worked for Maxwell, and that Epstein was introduced to Maxwell's daughter and Israeli intelligence.

Jeffrey Epstein likely worked for non-American intelligence services, and it's acceptable to question on whose behalf he operated. How did he acquire his wealth and connections without a college degree? Epstein had direct connections to a foreign government, and it's acceptable to name Israel without being hateful or anti-Semitic. Criticizing a government's behavior is a right of citizenship, not an act of disloyalty. Citizens have the right to expect their government to act in their interest and to demand that foreign governments not act against their interest. Many in Washington D.C. believe Epstein was running a blackmail operation for a foreign government, possibly Mossad, but are afraid to say it. The longer this is avoided, the more hateful the conversation becomes. The question of whether this happened should be asked directly to the Israeli government, and their refusal to answer should be unacceptable as long as the U.S. provides them with money. Citizens have a right to know if crimes were committed on U.S. soil.

The speaker asserts that there are thousands of hours of tape that are child pornography, and the FBI is not releasing them because the tapes do not show underage people with third parties on Epstein Island; according to the speaker, “those tapes are just child porn,” and that is why they are not being released. Regarding the Epstein list, the speaker says sources in the federal government have seen documents and claim there is no Epstein list. Instead, there is a “black book of Jeffrey Epstein contact,” and most of the contacts are already public, with names such as Prince Andrew or Alan Dershowitz commonly mentioned. The speaker claims that, according to the DOJ and the FBI, there is no evidence that any of those third parties were trafficking girls to them. The speaker then references Tucker Carlson asserting that Mossad was involved, noting that this is a hot internet speculation without evidence. In addressing this, Naftali Bennett, the former Israeli prime minister, is cited as stating with 100% certainty that the accusation Epstein “worked for Israel or the Mossad running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false.” Bennett reportedly told the speaker that the Mossad has not been active in the United States since the Jonathan Pollard scandal of 1987, when a US army contractor working for the Navy revealed classified information to the Israeli government and was imprisoned for nearly thirty years. According to Bennett, Israel has not spied on the United States since then.

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.”

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.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss whether arrests will occur under Trump and how they might be framed. - Speaker 0 asks if arrests will happen under Trump and if figures like Bill Clinton or Obama will be arrested, suggesting that any arrests might be part of “dark handing the keys off to the light” and that the deep state would sacrifice some players. - Speaker 1 responds by outlining alleged close connections: Trump was one of Epstein’s closest friends; Howard Letnick was Epstein’s neighbor; the first lady was Epstein’s girlfriend. He argues that Epstein’s relationship to Israel and the Mossad, and the president’s loyalty to Israel, are significant, and contends that many would say this loyalty goes beyond the United States. He adds a dismissive remark that the other speaker is “smoking dope.” - Speaker 0 contends there will be arrests but believes they will be for optics to bolster support for Trump, implying the releases would be to energize followers and that “deep state players” will be sacrificed. - Speaker 1 refers to certain individuals as “chew toys,” naming Fauci and Gates, suggesting they are used as targets or distractions. He reiterates skepticism that any arrests have occurred so far, noting that Trump has been in power for a year and there hasn’t been an arrest. - The conversation touches on the speed of data-center-related actions and mentions “Stargate” as part of what Trump did, implying rapid actions or moves on day one.

Speaker 0: "We're just gonna try to we're we're gonna just stamp out everything type type of practice, but it goes to the point where if, for example, if I I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government about backlash than actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird, isn't it, Megan?" Speaker 1: "That's not right. Wrong headed." He says he faced blowback after saying, "Mossad, possibilities with Epstein," a comment he stands by, and that he "reported what Alan Dershowitz has said as his lawyer." He writes, "He says, I think he would have told me. He didn't say he had any of those connections. I hear all that. That doesn't mean it's not true." "I think all these things should be explored." "It's one of the many things that should be explored around Epstein." He finishes, "But saying that and also saying he might be a US asset, etcetera, doesn't make you antisemitic."

The speaker defends himself against allegations and claims to have nothing to hide. He offers to release all evidence to prove his innocence. The interviewer brings up the association with Jeffrey Epstein, to which the speaker explains that he and his wife had massages at Epstein's house but denies any wrongdoing. He mentions that many prominent individuals also had massages there and that his friendship with Epstein was purely academic. The speaker argues that having a massage does not make him guilty and that the person making the allegations has admitted to possible mistaken identification. He concludes by stating that he and his wife are innocent.

The speaker defends himself against allegations and claims to have nothing to hide. He offers to release all evidence to prove his innocence. The interviewer brings up the association with Jeffrey Epstein, to which the speaker explains that he and his wife had massages at Epstein's house, but denies any wrongdoing. He mentions that many prominent individuals also had massages there and that his friendship with Epstein was purely academic. The speaker argues that having a massage does not make him guilty and that the person accusing him has admitted to possible mistaken identification. He asserts his innocence and states that neither he nor his wife are guilty.

Speaker 0 believes the American government is trapped by the Israelis and that Jeffrey Epstein is one of their tools to trap them. He says Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Yasser Arafat met in the nineties and there was no peace deal because of Epstein, claiming Epstein was blackmailing them. He adds that Ehud Barak, then the prime minister of Israel, was also a friend of Epstein but was blackmailed by the Israeli right wing as well, and that this blackmail prevented an agreement with Arafat for a two-state solution. He asserts Epstein was used to change the course of history in the region and that Epstein’s influence trapped a number of US presidents, encompassing not only sexual matters but money as well, questioning where the money came from. Speaker 1 asks what he thinks of Dershowitz’s denial. Speaker 0 continues, stating that Epstein’s influence affected US policy and that “everything is stuck over Gazelle.” He claims Israelis have the American government captive due to Epstein’s past actions. He accuses Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal of publishing a card or birthday card Trump allegedly sent to Epstein, asking where they obtained it. He asserts Trump does not want to continue the war or genocide and suggests Israelis are holding him back, given Trump’s power to forge peace in places like South Korea and Palestine, and questions why they would need Epstein if they could simply assassinate Trump. He references speculation about John F. Kennedy’s assassination with Israeli intelligence help and notes that attempts on Trump’s life have occurred before elections, acknowledging sensitivity around such claims. He mentions the influence of bereaved or starving children imagery and the political pressure on leaders to act, predicting Israelis might ultimately face a reckoning or “harakiri.” Speaker 1 offers a geopolitical angle, suggesting GCC countries could leverage financial power to replace APAC lobbying and asks if Trump can leverage Arab world, Global South, and BRICS power to end the genocide. Speaker 0 responds that Trump can end the genocide if he stops fearing the Israelis, asserting that leaders will face accusations of abuses and billions of dollars taken, but morality should prevail and Trump should stop the genocide at any price. He mentions Robert Maxwell as an intelligent man who supposedly tried to leverage against the Israeli state with financial deals, noting that people can still be killed if they challenge Israel. He concludes that he cannot comment further but hopes Trump will have the United States and Middle East interests at heart and do the right thing.

The speaker claims the FBI isn't releasing tapes from Epstein Island because they contain child pornography, not evidence of underage people with third parties. According to the speaker's sources, there is no "Epstein list," only a black book of contacts, most of whom are already publicly known. The speaker states that the DOJ and FBI have found no evidence that these contacts were involved in trafficking. The speaker references Tucker Carlson's assertion that Mossad was running Jeffrey Epstein. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett stated that the accusation that Epstein worked for Israel or Mossad is false. Bennett claims Mossad has not been active against the United States since the Jonathan Pollard scandal in 1987.

"We're just gonna try to we're we're gonna just stamp out everything type type of practice, but it goes to the point where if, for example, if I I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government about backlash than actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird, isn't it, Megan?" "That's not right. Wrong headed." "I So got some blowback after saying Mossad possibilities with Epstein, a comment behind which I stand." "I've, of course, reported what Alan Dershowitz has said as his lawyer." "He says, I think he would have told me." "He didn't say he had any of those connections." "I hear all that. That doesn't mean it's not true." "It's one of the many things that should be explored around Epstein." "But saying that and also saying he might be a US asset, etcetera, doesn't make you antisemitic."

One of the largest political figures in America is assassinated on live TV, prompting the question: "was this a professional assassination?" The speaker says, "not usually are they planning out a carefully orchestrated hit that involves them getting away clean, and then giving a whole text message admission of guilt on regular old texts." He adds, "we have more than enough evidence to be asking the question, was there intelligence agencies involved." He notes, "the Israel conversation is not one. No one is claiming at this point that Israel was involved in this in any way," while claiming, "I have made that claim because I'm not involved." "This is not my case to solve. I was not involved. I didn't know Charlie." "Since day one, we have gotten more and more and more evidence that maybe we should be looking in Israel's direction." He cites, "an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the list of Israeli assassinations." He states, "Epstein worked for Israel" and asks, "Do you think there's any intel community involvement in this?" He continues, "I wouldn't be surprised one bit. I am convinced based on my own sources and my own reporting on this story. He wasn't one of ours." "So he was an American, which leads basically three options, MI six, Saudi, or Mossad? Which one would you choose? I guess Mossad, given his connection to Ghislain Maxwell." The crowd cheers.

Speaker 0 from Fox News asks Senator Durbin why he won't subpoena Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs. Senator Durbin claims to have no knowledge or interest in the issue, stating that it has never been raised to him. Speaker 0 mentions that Senator Blackburn has wanted to subpoena the flight logs but there hasn't been a vote in the committee. Speaker 0 questions if Senator Durbin is curious about high-profile individuals potentially involved in illegal activities, but Senator Durbin dismisses the question and thanks Fox News for their time. Speaker 0 persists in asking if Senator Durbin will take action, but the conversation abruptly ends with Speaker 1 calling Durbin a liar.

Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad. Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now. Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”

The conversation centers on Jeffrey Epstein as an intelligence asset and how such arrangements work across multiple agencies. Speaker 0 questions how Epstein operated as an intelligence asset for the CIA, Mossad, MI6, SBU, and others, noting a media narrative that portrays Epstein as a Russian intelligence asset while allegedly overlooking other connections. John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer, explains his view that Epstein was likely an access agent—most probably recruited by Mossad—to provide access to people the Israelis were interested in. An access agent is someone who can grant access to target individuals rather than possessing direct access to classified information. Still, such an agent can be a free agent who can trade information or favors with various intelligence services (FBI, CIA, MI6, MI5, French services, etc.) in exchange for potential future assistance. Kiriakou emphasizes Epstein could barter with different agencies to build goodwill if he ever faced trouble. Regarding Epstein’s lenient 2008 sentence, Kiriakou notes that former US Attorney Alex Acosta said the order came from the top and, when asked why, stated it was intelligence-related. He questions who has authority over a US attorney, suggesting possible involvement of higher-level figures in the Bush administration (President or Vice President) and invites scrutiny of who ordered the lenient deal. The discussion then shifts to the mechanism of clandestine work. Kiriakou describes a covert environment where meetings occur without an overt trail: if Epstein were treated as a normal source, a meeting might be arranged at a yacht-club parking lot at 02:00, with arrangements made in advance to avoid written records. He contrasts this with cases where some elements are written (as in Watergate, where signals and pre-arranged triggers prompt meetings) but otherwise relies on verbal cues or signals to avoid paper trails. The panel explores the relationship between Epstein’s sexual offenses and his espionage role. They agree these were parallel issues: recruiters identified Epstein’s vulnerability as a pedophile to compel him to provide information, financing his operations while turning a blind eye to his activities. They discuss whether Epstein evolved into a honeypot operation over time, recognizing that decades of activity could allow intelligence services to entrap or manipulate many powerful individuals. Peter Mandelson’s case is cited as an example of a British figure deeply entangled, raising concerns about state secrets and possible exposure; Mendelson’s ties threaten political stability in the UK, with potential lifetime imprisonment if implicated in treason-like activities or heavy state-secrecy violations. The dialogue touches on the perception of Israeli diplomacy as flexible and sometimes aligned with adversaries when convenient, asserting that Israelis are “free agents” who act in Israel’s best interests, even if that means sharing information with hostile or competing intelligence services. This is illustrated by a debate with Alan Dershowitz about Epstein’s possible Israeli ties and the broader implications for extradition and sentencing. Toward the end, the speakers reflect on public accountability and transparency. They emphasize that no one should be granted a pass in crimes involving children, and they advocate for openness about investigations, including calls for Trump to release more information. They contrast the push for transparency with a desire to avoid premature judgments, urging scrutiny of all prominent figures involved. Finally, John Kiriakou promotes his shows—Deprogram, Deep Focus, and Dead Drop—as platforms for continued discussion.

Speaker 0 addresses the topic of the Epstein situation, expressing a controversial viewpoint about labeling the matter. They begin by saying, "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 clarify their stance by asserting, "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." The speaker acknowledges that this interpretation is controversial, adding, "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." They continue to differentiate between the legality and the ethical horror, insisting, "It's horrendous, it's awful, it's pedophilia, okay." However, despite labeling it pedophilia, they pivot to a different focal point, stating, "No, the issue is that Epstein is a Jewish spy probably working with Israel." The speaker characterizes Epstein as being "probably working with Israel" and frames this as the underlying dilemma. They conclude by reiterating their position, "He's working with Israeli intelligence," emphasizing that this supposed affiliation constitutes the core of the dilemma discussed.

The speaker discusses Epstein-related documents and the implications people draw from them. They claim: - The memo circulated with media suggesting Jeffrey Epstein worked for the KGB, and that Epstein might have had multiple passports, talked to Israeli politicians and Jewish businessmen, and repeatedly invokes his Jewish identity. - In an email with former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, Epstein says he’s totally not working for Mossad. - Former Mossad officer Ari Ben Menashe says Epstein was working for Mossad. - In documents, Mark Iverson states that Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jeffrey Epstein were working for Mossad; the speaker asserts that Robert Maxwell was not a Soviet spy. - British Foreign Office and Israeli whistleblowers say Epstein was working for Mossad, and he was given a hero’s burial in Israel, not in Russia. - In an actual email with Peter Thiel, Epstein says that he represents the Rothschild family. - The speaker poses questions: If a Russian passport proves he works for Russia, does boarding CIA planes prove he works for the United States? If he has a blackmail list on United Kingdom politicians, does that prove he works for the British? If he talks to Emmanuel Macron and prime minister Nicolas Sarkozy, does that prove he works for the French? The speaker concludes that, regardless, Epstein’s primary loyalties are with his people. - The speaker asserts that Zionists on Twitter claim the Epstein documents are a “nothingburger,” and urge continuing with other topics; they accuse those who disagreed of having low IQ and claim the documents reveal clear content with their own eyes. - Senator Bernie Sanders is described as saying this is a cautionary tale about wealth and power; the speaker counters by saying “your cousins” are helping orchestrate this, and that Sanders has repeatedly criticized Israel. - The speaker accuses proponents of diverting attention from the primary culprit and states that such attempts are not working on anyone.

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

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

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