TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: I know a little about human trafficking. The human trafficking portfolio fell underneath me in the counterterrorism shop where I was ahead. I worked with Tim Ballard at the White House to stamp out human and child sex trafficking. He was doing incredible work back then. Speaker 1: I'm the bad guy in the story. Last week, I got a call from some of the accusers, and what they're accusing him of is really not just—they're just really bad stuff. Really, really bad things. At first, because I've been friends with Tim for so long, I thought, that's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. Blew by them. Ridiculous. Until they persisted, and I started hearing more. I just heard somebody had filed in the HR complaints or something. Like, that's not possible. Well, the more the complaints come out, the worse it gets. These women called last week, and they wanted to do a show with me. That's not something I've even offered Tim. And I don't want to be the one making the calls on this. I'm not a journalist, and I'm also involved. Tim has been a friend of mine. OUR is a great organization, but I also stand up for victims. And I don't feel remaining silent on this or neutral if I know is acceptable. I don't know what they've done, but I've passed the women's number onto Leon Wolf, our news director, and said, put a journalist on this if you want. And I told him at the time, take it where it leads. I just want the truth. I just want the truth. So he put our best investigative reporter on it, and I heard last night that they are close to finishing the story. I was hoping that it was gonna be released today because this is yeah. If if if if it's true, I can't believe how many of us were duped. Speaker 2: Got pearlized. But it's still some guy who got fried and cried by the side. We gonna steal, slide, slide, slide until they all die. These niggas ain't seeing me because these niggas be small fry. I got big dude status, k l

Speaker 0 states they are going to Washington D.C. to meet with senators and representatives, after which they will sell Avery's books. Avery (Speaker 1) expresses reluctance about the book, stating it has ruined their life and its publication will worsen it. Speaker 0 reminds Avery that they previously wanted people to know about the book. Avery acknowledges this, but now considers it a "stupid, silly mistake" and no longer wants the book published.

The speaker introduces Monica Crowley, a leader, patriot, and longtime friend. He jokingly blames her for his wrongdoings, as she was an early supporter when he ran for Senate. Crowley is described as having the credentials for chief of protocol, including multiple master's degrees and a PhD in international relations from Columbia University. She is a New York Times bestselling author with a successful media career and has worked for two presidents. At 22, she was hired as a research assistant under President Richard Nixon and remained close to him. The speaker apologizes to Crowley for writing a book chapter criticizing Nixon.

I saw Alan Dershowitz and Bill Clinton on the island. Dershowitz was there for a business meeting, while Clinton was sitting with Jeffrey Epstein on the porch, Epstein's favorite spot. There were no other guests present. I was surprised to see Clinton with Epstein.

I want to clarify that I did not have sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky. However, I did have an inappropriate and wrong relationship with her.

Speaker 0, a lawyer who clerked for a federal appeals judge, says, "we have a a potentially serious case here for defamation," and that he is "speaking with lawyers, and we'll see what happens." He states, "She is lying in a way that is resonating with people in a way that damages you significantly" and adds, "It's just so evil." He describes Charlie as "a good friend of mine" he had known for "five, six years," noting they were "really close over the final year, year and a half" and "in daily communication." He says he doesn't know precisely how much Candice communicated with Charlie, but "she very much was on the outs of Turning Point USA" and they were "not in touch at all" aside from "a happy birthday" moments. He ends with, "Aaron, when I first found out that Charlie had been shot."

Speaker 0, Jeffrey Edward Epstein and my residence address is 6100 Red Hook Boulevard in Virgin Islands. Speaker 1: Is it true that you forced Virginia Roberts to have sex with numerous friends of yours? Speaker 0: Wouldn't love my fifth amendment right. Speaker 2: You had a number of meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, who, when you met him ten years ago, he was convicted of soliciting prostitution from minors. Speaker 3: And, you know, I've said I regretted having those dinners regretted having those dinners. We did what we did because we wanted to see Epstein go to jail. He needed to go to jail. Were there young women in another part of the house giving massages, when I wasn't around? I have no idea of that. Speaker 1: Sent him three 12 year old girls from France who spoke no English for defendant to sexually exploit and abuse. After doing so, they were sent back to France the next day. Speaker 0: Please, they never saw a young underage woman. Speaker 3: You know, those meetings were were a mistake. They didn't result in what he purported, and I cut them off. You know, that goes back a long time ago now. There's you know, so there's nothing new on that. Speaker 2: We now know that he was and had been procuring young girls for sex trafficking. Speaker 0: We now know that. At the time, there was no indication to me or anybody else. I kept my underwear on during the massage. I don't like massages particularly. Speaker 3: If we had had more transparency, perhaps this case would have gone differently. Speaker 2: It was reported that you continued to meet with him over several years. Speaker 3: You know, I had dinners with him. I regret doing that. Speaker 0: You have what's been described as an egg shaped penis. Speaker 3: Well, he's dead. So, you know, in general, you always have to be careful.

The speaker was asked if they told someone that the Steele dossier was financed by his political opponents. The speaker responded that they didn't think they used the term "Steele dossier," but instead referred to "additional material." When asked if the person had a right to know the dossier was financed by political opponents, the speaker stated they didn't know. They added that informing the person of the financing was not necessary for their goal, which was to alert the person that they had this information.

I was introduced to him by Rothschild, a prominent lady in law. He had connections with many influential people.

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.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

I woke up yesterday and saw that Bruce Reinhart signed off on the warrant to search Trump's Mar-a-Lago. I host two podcasts on Jeffrey Epstein and remembered Reinhart was one of Epstein's lawyers. He previously worked for the Southern District of Florida, which prosecuted Epstein for the sex crime case in 2008. The victims felt like a huge injustice occurred with Epstein's sweetheart deal. They named Reinhart in their suit because they felt it was unfair that Epstein hired civil servants to represent him. There's no proof that Reinhart used inside Justice Department information, but he did switch to the other team. I am not saying there is a connection between Epstein and the raid, but Reinhart does have a history with Epstein.

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.

Together because they are completely interlinked. Epstein is linked with Howard Lutnick, our commerce secretary whose firm manages the treasuries that back tether, the largest stable coin. And Brock Pierce, who was Epstein's crypto adviser, who was a cofounder of Tether and was the head of the Bitcoin Foundation before it collapsed, and then MIT took over the developers is right in the middle of this. So in essence, the endgame of this is what they have figured out as a way to have a backdoor CBDC where they specifically profit. I'm starting to call this now the creature from Epstein's Island because in the end, what are we getting out of this? We have something called USAT, which is the new official stable coin that complies with the genius act. So we have a situation where it's a digital token backed by fiat, backed by treasuries that can be programmed, tracked, and censored. And the biggest financial beneficiary is Howard Lutnick's firm. They managed to create so think about it this way. He's managed to create a central bank digital currency where only one firm profits from all of the fees for managing the treasuries. This is the biggest financial heist probably in human history. And it is connected directly to Epstein and Brock Pierce and the hijacking of Bitcoin. That's how they're linked. Now, do I think were they playing five d chess and this is what they thought was gonna happen? I don't know. May be if so, it's very clever or were they opportunistic about it? But make no mistake about it. These government regulated stablecoins are backdoor CBDCs in not in the sense that they're issued by the central bank, but in the sense that they are controlled and surveilled by the government and tracked by the government, which after all is the thing that people are worried about with CBDCs. The concern isn't really so much about the central bank. Of course, the central bank is complete unnecessary third party, but financial surveillance comes from Congress. All of the bank secrecy laws, all of the tracking and the suspicious activity reports, this is Congress. This is not the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve does not initiate any of that. So this is in many respects worse than the creature from Jackal Island. This is worse than the creation of the Federal Reserve itself because what it's done is created a digital dollar where one political member of a cabinet, his family and his company is the biggest single beneficiary. One of the things that came out of the Epstein file is Lutnick's claim that he was disgusted by Epstein and had nothing to do with him after 2006. The emails show Lutnick emailing Epstein coordinating to visit Epstein on Epstein's Island with his yacht and with his family. There's another email showing Lutnick contributing $50,000 to an event that Epstein was running. Lutnick flat out lied, and I will have to check whether that was under oath about his relationship and association with Epstein. He was a next door neighbor of Epstein and bought his house from Epstein. The connections here are overwhelming. It's so much data to map that I'm using AI to start making initial connections, then humans correct. How do these pieces fit from a timetable perspective? This is game changing. Epstein's hijacking of Bitcoin has not been widely acknowledged, and some Bitcoin Maxis resist this information. I urge people to do their own research, not to rely on spin. Look into Epstein's emails via Jmail and other sources. The information is out there, including the Epstein files, and the article I wrote for Brownstone at brownstone.org with screenshots of emails. Do your research. Don't accept a single influencer's take. Epstein literally funded changing the Bitcoin protocol to make it digital gold, yet there is no indication he actually held Bitcoin. This warrants investigation. Roger Ver, once a prominent Bitcoin advocate, has described hijacking in his own book, and his later treatment suggests suppression. The broader point is that there are deeply interwoven connections among Epstein, Lutnick, Pierce, Tether, and the Bitcoin ecosystem, with implications for who profits and how governance and surveillance could unfold.

The speaker is questioned about his time at West Point Grey Academy and his relationship with a convicted sex offender. The speaker denies any involvement in sexual misconduct and refers to his autobiography for more information. The speaker is then asked about the attention he received from teenage girls in the yearbook and if there were any relationships with them or their mothers. The speaker claims to have been a good teacher and struggles to remember the details of his departure from the school.

The speaker claims to have done absolutely categorically nothing wrong, stating that's what lawyers and people do. They were introduced to someone by a lady in law, Rothschild. The speaker indicates that this person knew all the most prominent people.

Speaker 0 stopped representing Epstein after the deal was made and hasn't seen him in years. Introduced to Epstein by Lady Rothschild, Speaker 0 had an academic relationship with him, attending conferences and seminars. Once they learned about Epstein's other life, all social relationships ended. Speaker 0 became Epstein's lawyer and defended him, proud of representing controversial people. Some criticize the deal, but Speaker 0 defends trying to get the best deal possible. Speaker 0 denies ever meeting the woman who made allegations against Epstein, calling it a complete lie. Speaker 1 appreciates Speaker 0 joining to discuss the explosive story and the horrific allegations against Epstein.

Speaker 0 argues politics used to be partisan but not like this; in Washington, he had Democrat friends, they ate together, teased, and sometimes beat us. "This is a new thing"—he says it comes directly out of the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. He had written a book on the Clintons; "the longest chapter on that book is on Jeffrey Epstein" because he read every word of the testimony. He interviewed Virginia Roberts Jafre for six hours in two three hour sessions. "The idea that she committed suicide is ludicrous, out of the question." She's now deceased. He says he knows how many times Bill Clinton was on the island from her testimony and he had FAA manifest records back in 2015. Epstein's butler sold his phone book; "'names circled' of those involved in sex trafficking or were material witnesses, including 'Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, Bill Gates, others.'"

Speaker 0 contends that the entire Jeffrey Epstein story can be explained if Ace Greenberg brought Jeffrey Epstein into the BCCI deals at Bear Stearns. This, he says, would explain Epstein’s meteoric rise and why many were charmed by him, suggesting the charm was not genuine. He asserts that by 1982 Epstein was already meeting with major intelligence figures, including the CIA, MI6, and Saudi intelligence officials, as well as Doug Lee, Stan Pottinger, Adnan Khashoggi, and Middle Eastern sheiks. The claim is that Epstein handled BCCI at Bear Stearns, disguising illegal weapon sales as complex financial transactions for commodities or oil, which, he argues, explains Epstein’s specialty in complex financial transactions and why he was put on the BCCI account. The narrative connects Epstein’s work with Edgar Bronfman, claiming BCCI was helping US, Saudi, British, and Israeli interests in the Iran-Iraq affair and in Afghanistan. This, he says, explains how Epstein was protected whenever he encountered fraud trouble and that the justice department took action against him for securities violations, yet Epstein publicly stated in court that Bear Stearns was secretly moving money for the CIA, a claim he asserts cannot be disclosed in open court, hence the decision not to prosecute. Further, he claims Epstein had French intelligence connections, British intelligence connections, Israeli intelligence connections, and Saudi intelligence connections, all linked to his broader CIA connections. He ties these networks back to the Safari Club network of the late 1970s, which he says later scaled up into BCCI.

Speaker 0 explains that Epstein’s legal problems began with police investigations into allegations that underage women were coming to Epstein’s house. Epstein allegedly believed that Trump was the first to inform the police about what was happening at Epstein’s house, and from that point they became bitter enemies. Speaker 1 asks if this is what Epstein is telling him. Speaker 0 confirms that this is the version he is relaying, as presented by “Oh, the hoax yesterday.” Speaker 2 clarifies that “the hoax” refers to Democrats using a narrative to attack him. He says Epstein has never said or suggested or implied that the hoax is real; he has talked to Epstein many times. He states that the whole thing comes across as a hoax, not that Epstein’s actions are a hoax. He explains that Epstein believes himself innocent, and that when he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Maribago. He adds that Epstein was an FBI informant trying to take this matter down. The president knows and has great sympathy for the women who have suffered harms; it’s detestable to him. He and the speaker have spoken as recently as twenty-four hours ago. What he is talking about, according to Speaker 2, are the Democrats who are pursuing this with impure motives. If they truly cared, he asks, why didn’t they act during the four years of the Biden administration when the Biden DOJ had all the records? They didn’t say a word about it, and now they pursue it for political purposes. Speaker 3 notes that our current president has had relationships with Epstein in the past, and mentions Katie Johnson and possibly other victims who have accused Trump of involvement in similar matters. In the speaker’s experience, Trump supporters will not listen to such claims. He admits the court of law isn’t present here. He asks if there is anything that can be said about the validity of those claims or whether more is known. Speaker 1 responds that he can say nothing at all. He states that the only thing he can say about President Trump is that in 2009, when he served subpoenas and gave notice to connected people that he wanted to talk to them, Trump was the only person who picked up the phone and said, “let’s just talk.” Trump offered as much time as needed, provided information that checked out, and helped him so they didn’t have to depose him. He adds that this occurred in 2009. Speaker 3 asks if there is any truth to James Patterson’s claims that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago. Speaker 1 confirms that he definitely heard that.

I no longer represent Epstein and haven't seen him in years. If his lawyers ask me about the deal, I have to answer as a lawyer. I was introduced to him by Lady Rothschild and we attended academic conferences together. We had no idea about his other life and ended our social relationship when we found out. I became his lawyer and defended him, which some people criticize. However, I deny ever meeting the woman who accused him and call it a complete lie. I will continue to say this until I die, and my children will say the same.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they told Penley that they had informed Ken about his authority. Speaker 1 confirms that they told everyone on the phone call, including Penley. Speaker 0 clarifies that Speaker 1, as the chief of staff of the Attorney General's office, advised Paxton that it was okay to sign an outside counsel contract. Speaker 1 agrees and mentions being honest with Paxton's executive staff. Speaker 0 points out that despite this, they still went to the FBI. Speaker 0 then asks Speaker 1 about their personal beliefs and mentions the implications of an affair. Speaker 1 responds cautiously. Speaker 0 brings up the idea of perfection and sin, and suggests that having an affair doesn't make someone a criminal. Speaker 1 agrees and Speaker 0 concludes by highlighting the hypocrisy of labeling someone a criminal for a marital indiscretion.

The speaker met Tiffany who suggested she wear a blonde wig. Donald Trump specifically asked about her because she reminded him of his daughter and Tiffany told him she was 13. He knew her age the first time he saw her but took a liking to her because she looked like his daughter. The speaker is coming out now because when it happened originally, she wanted to forget it, but when she saw that he was running for president, she felt it was her responsibility to tell the country what kind of man he is. After meeting Tiffany, she went to a party run by Jeffrey Epstein, who had a private interview with her. The first time she met Epstein, he tried to force himself inside her. At about the 3rd or 4th party, he forced penetration during a massage. She told him she didn't want that, but he got irritated. By that time, she realized she wasn't there for modeling and was being used, holding him responsible.

Of the thousands of lawyers that you could hire to help you through this process, why Marc's aid? Mark Zaid is a leading opponent of president Trump, notorious for his online activity that is very anti Trump. He was heavily involved in president Trump's first impeachment. and furthermore, he advised his clients to leave the country after president Trump won the twenty twenty four election. So I actually was not aware of of any of those, details associated with Mark Notorious for his anti Trump activity and involvement. And you hire you hired that guy. Mark Zaid and I have never spoken about politics. I never asked him about his politics. He has never asked me about my politics. So you're claiming to be naive about Mark Zaid's political activity as he sits behind you advising you for this hearing I have not had That's astonishing.

Bill's connection with Jeffrey Epstein was one of the many factors that contributed to the divorce. The speaker expressed their disapproval of Bill's meetings with Epstein and even met him once, regretting it immediately. They described Epstein as an evil person and empathized with the young women who suffered because of him. Despite sharing their feelings with Bill, he continued to spend time with Epstein. The speaker believes that any questions about Bill's relationship with Epstein should be directed to Bill himself.