reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

Speaker 1 asserts: "Yes. Yes. I mean, obviously, he fears for his life, and I was told that he feared for his life before the two assassination attempts, one coming within a millimeter of striking his head." He adds: "I mean, I've been told, yes, that Israel is a major source of concern for Trump." He warns: "If he suspended arms to a country that carries out assassinations all across the globe, that specializes in assassinations, that has an entire wing of its intelligence services, that conducts assassinations including with household goods like pagers, would you not be scared?" "So, yes, Trump is scared." He concludes: "And what I learned... is that during one of Netanyahu's many visits to The US this year, some figures in his retinue, Israeli agents, placed electronic devices on emergency response secret service vehicles. The secret service found them, they reported this to the White House. You know, these would be emergency response vehicles, that would respond to an incident potentially involving the president."

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.

In a discussion with Glenn about rising US-Iran tensions and the prospect of war, Syed Mohamed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, outlines several key points and scenarios. - He asserts that Iranians are preparing for war, with the armed forces building new capabilities and underground bases, while ordinary Iranians remain calm and continue daily life. He notes large demonstrations on February 11, with up to 4,000,000 in Tehran and 26–34,000,000 nationwide, seen as a show of solidarity against what he calls Western “rioters or terrorists” and against aggressive posturing by Israel. He stresses that Iran government negotiations will be framed around Iranian sovereignty: Iran will not negotiate who its friends are, who its allies are, or give up its rights to a peaceful nuclear program or enrichment, but could consider a nuclear deal. He argues any new deal would not revert to JCPOA terms given Iran’s technological advances and sanctions. He says a deal is unlikely under current conditions, though not impossible, and that even with a deal, it wouldn’t necessarily endure long. Ultimately, Iran is portrayed as preparing for war to deter aggression and preserve sovereignty. - The conversation discusses broader regional security, linking Israeli-Palestinian issues to potential peace. Marandi argues that Zionism has ethnosupremacism and that Western media often whitewashes Israeli actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. He emphasizes that a genuine peace would require recognizing Palestinian humanity and restoring fair treatment, arguing that a one-state solution could be the only viable path given the West’s failure to secure a lasting two-state arrangement. He contends the West has allowed colonization of the West Bank and that only a one-state outcome will resolve the situation, while portraying growing international hostility toward the Netanyahu regime and Zionism, including among young Jews. - On possible US strategies, Marandi rejects the notion of token strikes, arguing that even limited actions would invite broader conflict and potentially false-flag provocations that could be used to escalate toward war. He warns that Iran would respond with full force and could target US bases, naval assets, and regional interests, potentially shutting the Strait of Hormuz or sinking ships, with widespread economic ramifications. He predicts a regional war involving Iran’s allies in Iraq (where PMF played a key role against ISIS) and Yemen, and Hezbollah, suggesting that Arab Gulf regimes hosting US bases would likely collapse quickly in such a conflict. He stresses that Iran’s missile and drone capabilities are heavily focused on the Persian Gulf area and that war would be existential for Iran and its allies, but a dangerous, protracted challenge for the United States. - The potential consequences of US oil and petrochemical disruption are discussed. Marandi notes that Iran could retaliate against Iranian tankers or, conversely, seize Western tankers in response to piracy. He emphasizes Iran’s comparatively lower dependence on oil exports due to sanctions and sanctions-driven diversification, arguing that attacking Iran would backfire economically for the US and its allies. He also highlights that such a war would be regional, not just Iran versus the US, given Iran’s relationships with Iraq, Yemen, and other actors, and that Gulf regimes would be under immediate pressure. - Regarding current US leadership and narrative control, Marandi critiques the inconsistency of Western narratives around regime change, human rights, and democracy, pointing to the Epstein files as revealing a distrustful climate in Western politics. He argues Western media often uniformly pushes a narrative of Iranian repression while ignoring or whitewashing similar or worse actions by Western allies. He suggests that the lack of a cohesive, credible Western narrative signals a shift in geopolitical dynamics and could limit the ability to mobilize public support for aggressive actions against Iran. - They also touch on US-Israeli diplomacy, noting Trump and Netanyahu’s posturing and the Epstein documents’ potential implications. Marandi contends time is not on the side of aggressive policy, given midterm political pressures in the US and growing public skepticism about war, which could undermine leadership like Trump and Netanyahu if conflict escalates. The discussion ends with acknowledgment of the complexity and volatility of the situation, and gratitude for the opportunity to discuss it.

Dan Bongino highlighted why Israel is a focal point, arguing that unwavering support for Israel doesn't align with an "America First" agenda and hinders national freedom. A Fox News source suggested Epstein was an intelligence asset for Middle Eastern entities, possessing blackmail material of influential individuals. This blackmail isn't solely in Epstein's hands, but controlled by a foreign country, potentially compromising U.S. officials. High-profile individuals have shown stronger allegiance to Israel than to America. Despite some Israelis being supportive, many pro-Israel figures avoid addressing financial aid to Israel, which may be actively blackmailing the U.S. government. The Epstein case alone warrants severing ties with Israel until the truth is exposed, as blackmail compromises our government's integrity.

The discussion centers on whether Israel is driving a war against Iran and how the United States fits into that effort, with conflicting reporting from major outlets and a mosaic of intelligence interpretations. - The hosts outline two competing major-news stories. The New York Times reports that Netanyahu has asked Trump not to bomb Iran, arguing Israel is not prepared to withstand Iran’s retaliation. The Washington Post had reported a few weeks earlier that Israel sent a delegation to Russia to assure Iran that Israel does not intend to strike first, while Netanyahu in Washington was pressing Trump to strike Iran. The implication is that Israel is trying to avoid being seen as the aggressor while hoping the U.S. acts, effectively using the United States to carry out escalation. - The Post’s framing suggests Israel wants to escalate tensions but avoid the perception of initiating the conflict; Iran, according to the Post, responded positively to Israeli outreach but remains wary that the US could still carry out attacks as part of a joint campaign. - Iran’s perspective: they are wary and believe the U.S. and Israel are not to be trusted, even as they respond to outreach. There is a suggestion that Iran, with Russia and China, is prepared to counter, and that Tehran is not fully aligned with Western narratives about Iran as a terrorist state. - Larry Johnson (Speaker 2), a former CIA intelligence officer, joins to break down the behind-the-scenes dynamics. He references an alleged economic operation around Trump’s meeting with Zelensky that targeted Iran’s currency, triggering protests and destabilization, allegedly orchestrated with CIA/Mossad involvement. He lists various actors (Kurds, the MEK, Beluchis) and claims they were directed to inflame unrest, with the aim of manufacturing chaos to enable a military strike that could be stopped or degraded by outside intervention. He argues the plan failed as Iran’s security forces countered and electronic warfare helped by Russia and China blocked the destabilization. - Johnson emphasizes a broader geopolitical balance: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey told the United States they would not permit overflight for strikes; Russia and China bolster Iran, raising the cost and risk of Western action. He notes that 45% of global oil passes through the Persian Gulf and that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz, which would massively impact oil prices and global economies, benefiting Russia. - On the potential next moves, the panel discusses whether Israel might consider nuclear options if faced with existential threats, and they acknowledge the difficulty of countering hypersonic missiles with current defenses. They reference reports of an earthquake or saber-rattling related to Dimona and mention that some in Israel fear escalation could be imminent, but there is no consensus on what comes next. - The conversation also touches on U.S. political voices, including Lindsey Graham’s reaction to Arab involvement, and questions whether there is any mainstream American call to accommodate Iran rather than confront it. Overall, the dialogue presents a complex, multi-layered picture: Israel seeking US-led action while trying to avoid direct attribution as aggressor; Iran resisting Western pressure but positioning to counter with support from Russia and China; and a regional and global economic dimension that could amplify or deter conflict depending on strategic choices and alliance dynamics.

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.”

Ashwin Rutansi opens from The UAE, noting the expiration of the nuclear arms treaty and highlighting global flashpoints: a USS Abraham Lincoln shot down an Iranian drone in the Gulf, ongoing talks among Witkoff, Arakashi, and Kushner in Oman, Russia–USA discussions in the UAE, the Rafa crossing between Gaza and Egypt amid continuing Palestinian violence, and Washington’s deployment of troops to Nigeria with 26 airstrikes in Somalia in January. He mentions the UK-backed assassination of Saif Gaddafi in Libya as an example of NATO’s impact on Africa, and notes BRICS’ alignment with Iran, China, and Russia against NATO actions. The discussion of who really controls NATO is framed around the 3,000,000 Epstein files, suggesting they reveal Zionist nuclear strategies and naming Ari Ben Menashe, an Israeli intelligence asset, as a figure connected to these issues. Ari Ben Menashe joins from Montreal to discuss the Epstein materials and their potential impact on Trump. He says the Epstein files appear to be a distraction from broader world events, with some material out and some not, and asserts there is “nothing about Trump really in what they released recently,” calling it a distraction. He suggests Israelis hold sensitive information and might release it when threatened by Trump, implying Israeli influence over the DOJ’s handling of the material. Rutansi presses on whether the Times of Israel’ s focus on Trump being compromised by Israel and Jared Kushner is connected to Chabad Lubavitch, and Ben Menashe traces Epstein’s recruitment to Maxwell and Ehud Barak in the 1980s, alleging a broader network compromising American and other politicians. The conversation touches Tony Blair’s alleged role in Gaza peace plans and the suggestion that Blair is a “wrong choice.” Ben Menashe recounts that Ehud Barak previously had an East Jerusalem office under Israeli control and notes changes in Israeli policy toward Hamas under Netanyahu. They discuss MI6’s involvement in a Libyan assassination and whether Epstein’s material implicates Putin or Russians, with Ben Menashe asserting that portraying Epstein as a Russian agent is a cover‑up linked to Israeli interests. Rutansi and Ben Menashe discuss ongoing US–Iran talks, with expectations of an embassy exchange and sanctions relief, while Netanyahu might sabotage any real deal by releasing Epstein material against US officials. Ben Menashe asserts Trump would like a deal with the Iranians, a view tied to past efforts at ending hostilities in the region. The dialogue covers Epstein’s network, alleged Israeli and MI6 involvement, and the role of Tony Blair and Qatar’s prime minister in the files. Ben Menashe describes Netanyahu as a “real problem” for the US and regional stability, and claims that Netanyahu could press a nuclear button if needed, illustrating the “Sampson Option” by Sy Hersh. They debate the possible collapse of Netanyahu’s leadership and the risk of a nuclear exchange in the region. Toward the end, Rutansi asks about justice for women trafficked by Epstein, and Ben Menashe doubts that families will receive justice, predicting more noise rather than accountability. The program closes with a preview of reporting on the World Government Summit in Dubai and a promotion of Going Underground’s online channel.

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.

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

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

The speaker claims that AIPAC has bought the seats of 93 out of 100 senators, and that the other 6 are already pro-Zionist. They allege that Jeffrey Epstein ran a child sex trafficking and blackmail operation on behalf of Mossad, targeting figures like Bill Clinton. The speaker suggests that Monica Lewinsky, who is Jewish, was part of a Mossad operation to blackmail Bill Clinton during the Oslo Accords and the Jonathan Pollard situation. They claim Benjamin Netanyahu had phone recordings of Lewinsky and Clinton and used them to try to blackmail Clinton into releasing Jonathan Pollard, an Israeli spy. The speaker states that Israel has been spying on and stealing from the U.S. for a long time, including stealing nuclear weapons technology. They claim John F. Kennedy pushed for inspections of Israel's nuclear program and was lied to. The speaker alleges Israel has a nuclear doctrine called the Samson Option, which dictates that if Israel is about to fall, they will nuke everyone.

The speaker claims that AIPAC has bought the seats of 93 out of 100 senators and that Israel uses a child sex trafficking ring run by Jeffrey Epstein and Mossad to blackmail powerful figures like Bill Clinton. They allege Monica Lewinsky, who is Jewish, was part of this operation. The speaker says Benjamin Netanyahu blackmailed Bill Clinton with recordings of Clinton and Lewinsky to pressure him to release Jonathan Pollard, an Israeli spy. They claim Israel has been spying on and stealing from the U.S. for a long time, including stealing nuclear weapons technology. The speaker states that John F. Kennedy pushed for inspections of Israel's nuclear facilities and was lied to about them. They assert Israel has a nuclear program they have never announced and an unofficial doctrine called the Samson Option, which dictates that if Israel is in danger of failing, they will nuke everyone.

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.

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

Netanyahu may be pushing for regime change in Iran to distract from his political troubles at home, as he recently survived a vote of no confidence by only two votes. The speaker believes the focus on Iran's nuclear program is a pretext, as North Korea poses a greater nuclear threat to the U.S. because they possess the bomb, delivery system, and reentry vehicle, unlike Iran. While Iran's rhetoric is hostile, North Korea openly threatens to wipe out US cities. The speaker suggests a diplomatic approach with Iran, similar to Trump's approach with North Korea, but acknowledges Iran has expelled IAEA inspectors, raising concerns about a secret nuclear program. The speaker points out that Israel, which also possesses nuclear weapons, allows no international inspections. While not judging Israel's nuclear ambitions, the speaker deems it hypocritical to initiate a regime change war over secret nuclear weapons when Israel has them too. The speaker proposes a deal where both Iran and Israel give up their secret nuclear weapon programs, suggesting Trump could broker such a deal.

Nick Bryant and Brian (the host) discuss a new tranche of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents and the broader implications of the material that has surfaced. Key points and claims from the conversation: - Torture emails: Four emails in the torture section reference explicit discussions of torture, including an exchange with the UAE Sultan (referred to as “the Sultan”) mentioning a torture video and a note that the Sultan was in China; a Harvard professor, Martin Nowak, with Epstein noting “Did you torture her?”; and an Italian hedge fund partner, with Epstein asking “do you want me to try to do her or just torture her?” These emails raise questions about the cruelty described, with Nick noting that “these are incriminating emails,” while Brian observes that some messages suggest saving details for a phone call. - The broader pattern: Nick emphasizes that Epstein seemingly operated “above the law” and communicated with a circle that believes they are beyond accountability. He notes that some emails include casual references to pizza, muffins, and dinner, but that the torture-related messages are especially ominous. - Zoro Ranch and possible graves: The discussion revisits the Zoro Ranch (New Mexico) with claims about trafficking and possible burials. An extreme email from 2019, allegedly from Edward, describes two foreign girls buried on orders of Epstein and Maxwell, with multiple attached videos and extortion demands. Nick mentions reports that a Fox News story covered stolen USBs containing underage footage, though Fox News reportedly declined to view the material. The possibility that bodies are buried at Zoro Ranch remains a focal point of speculation. - Baby and cloning themes: The conversation covers allegations of a “baby factory” at Zoro Ranch and discussions of human cloning. Nick cites a 1995 Dolly the Sheep milestone and explains how cloning could be technically possible, suggesting Epstein might have been intrigued by the idea of cloning himself. They discuss emails about black market babies and Epstein’s interest in having a baby, with a direct claim that Epstein asked a victim to have his baby. Nick notes that another victim, Rina Oh, described Epstein asking her to have his baby, and that additional victims corroborate similar inquiries. - Eugenics, hormones, and infant development: The dialogue mentions an email from Robert Trevers about hormone manipulation to shape newborns (male/female genitalia) and a UCLA neuroscientist, Mark Trammell, describing “how to enhance a baby’s sucking ability” via a provocative email to Epstein. The pair stress how shocking these emails appear because they involve high-profile academics communicating with Epstein. - Access to classified material and international links: An email allegedly from a former Norwegian prime minister forwarding a “classified” polio report to Bill Gates is cited as an example of Epstein’s access to sensitive information and high-level networks. They question how Epstein could access and share classified data, though they acknowledge his extensive intelligence-community connections. - Intelligence connections and power networks: The discussion explores how Epstein might have operated as a blackmailer within a web of powerful individuals. Nick argues Epstein could not have controlled or coerced the most powerful people on his own; instead, an intelligence-backed network or protection might exist. They reference the possibility that Epstein worked with both Israeli and American intelligence, noting Channel 4’s reporting that only a fraction of the millions of documents have been released, and that Israeli intelligence reportedly installed security systems at Epstein’s Manhattan apartment, which could suggest access to additional material. - Notable named figures and procurement patterns: They discuss Les Wexner (Victoria’s Secret founder), Reid Hoffman, Howard Lutnick, Alan Dershowitz, and others as individuals who should be looked into more deeply. Nick asserts Wexner’s involvement in Epstein’s operations and suggests that some procureurs—like Sarah Kellen, Leslie Groff, Adriana Marcincova, and Adriana Ross—could be indicted if the government shows the will to prosecute. They maintain that a congressional commission could reveal why child trafficking was covered up and who perpetrated it. - Legal and political action: Nick promotes Epstein Justice (epsteinjustice.com) and advocates for an independent congressional commission comprised of non-government personnel to investigate and prosecute perpetrators. He argues that, with political will, authorities could file indictments and compel witnesses to testify. Surprising or unique elements emphasized: - The extent of explicit torture discussions in Epstein-related emails and their potential implications for criminal liability. - The assertion of a “baby factory” at Zoro Ranch and the possibility of baby-related genetic or reproductive experiments involving Epstein’s circle. - Claims of frequent, direct engagement with high-level public figures and academics on ethically or legally egregious topics, including cloning, hormone manipulation in infants, and sexual exploitation. - The suggestion that Epstein’s material could be tied to intelligence agencies (Israeli and American), with security systems installed by the Israeli government at Epstein’s residence used as potential evidence of deeper access to incriminating material. Concluding note: Nick urges ongoing public pressure for an independent congressional commission to uncover why child trafficking was allegedly covered up and to prosecute perpetrators, stressing that investigators would need to rely on the testimony of victims who feel safe to come forward.

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

The United States made a poor decision entering a deal that has emboldened Iran, leading them to believe they can act without consequence. There’s a strong assurance that Iran will never possess Israeli weapons. Netanyahu was brought into the conversation, and there’s a sense of disbelief about his involvement. The discussion touches on the opinions of figures like Nick Fuentes and Ye, indicating that their views are not favorable. There’s a humorous exchange about Netanyahu’s reputation and the speaker’s unfamiliarity with him until recently, highlighting a mix of seriousness and levity in the conversation.

Speaker 0 asserts that Donald Trump decided to bomb Iran because Israelis said, for the first time, that if Trump did not bomb Iran to take out deep bunkers, Israel would use nuclear weapons; they had never threatened that before, and bombing Iran might save them from the start of World War III by preventing Israeli nuclear use. Speaker 1 asks for clarification, restating that Israelis told the U.S. president to use military power to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, or Israel, acting on its own, would use nuclear weapons. They note the problem with that statement, since Israel has never admitted having them. Speaker 0 concurs, and Speaker 1 points out the contradiction: they are saying Israel just admitted to having nuclear weapons, yet the U.S. does not have them in the IAEA treaty. Speaker 0 adds that, if Israeli nuclear whistleblowers are to be believed, Israel has had nuclear weapons, and began working on them in the 1950s.

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.

Transcript centers on truth and why Epstein files should be public. They note both parties avoid real reasons. Speaker 1 says the president views it as “all a trap” and that it “reminds him of Russiagate”—an attempt by Democrats to ensnare him in a fake scandal; “he's not... never did anything creepy,” the speaker says. The speaker argues transparency would have helped “the country” and “the administration,” giving it credibility. They speculate why disclosure is feared: “could it be that Trump was there and he just doesn't wanna jeopardize his presidency even putting it out there?” Epstein is described as “the center of New York society for... decades.” The claim: “I don't think having dinner at his house or even necessarily going to his island is proof of a crime.” Finally, they note “Epstein had contact with Israeli intelligence” and “British intelligence”—“probably scarier than Mossad and CIA.”

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: 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.