TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I flew on Jeffrey Epstein's jet twice. The first time was in 1993 when I went to Florida with my wife and kids to visit my mom. We were offered a ride to Palm Beach by Glenn Maxwell, whom my wife had a relationship with. The second time, I flew with my family to Rapid City, South Dakota for a weekend of fossil hunting. I never flew on his jet alone. This was 30 years ago, before Epstein's crimes were known. I believe all information about Epstein and the high-level political figures involved should be released to the public without any redactions.

I was offered $200,000 to falsely accuse Michael Jackson of molesting my kids, but I refused. I would have taken action if it were true, but I believe he was innocent. A personal photo of my son at Michael's house was used as evidence, but I didn't allow it. Michael won the case, and I was on my way to support him when I was told my help wasn't needed.

I did not like Jeffrey Epstein and never wanted anything to do with him. While others associated with him, went to his island and other places, I never did. I have good taste. James Patterson, a member of Mar-a-Lago, confirmed that I threw Epstein out many years ago. I am not a fan of him. Also, those who came into the country illegally must be deported.

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 was asked about my relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I've said many times I shouldn't have had dinners with him. It was just dinner, nothing more. Regarding my divorce, my ex-wife has stated that my meetings with Epstein were a problem in our marriage. She made it clear she didn't like them. She even met Epstein once to see who he was but regretted it immediately, describing him as "abhorrent" and "evil personified," and had nightmares afterwards. I don't know why I kept seeing him. I am a rich man, but that's not a reason to take me seriously.

Dershowitz, a longtime friend, represented Epstein in his underage sex case. Dershowitz claims he never saw a young underage woman. However, Epstein's former butler swore under oath that Dershowitz was at Epstein's residences at the same time underage girls were there. Dershowitz stated he has no idea if young women were giving massages in another part of the house when he wasn't around. Dershowitz said he once received a massage at Epstein's mansion, but from an adult woman, and that he kept his underwear on during the massage.

I was horrified that Ghilan Maxwell had been transferred to what's called a a low security it's it's really is like a like a holiday camp, and that a Department of Justice notification arrived after it had happened. "This woman abused children. I was abused by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell for over ten years. Ghislaine Maxwell was present for some of my abuse at the hand of Jeffrey Epstein." "She was present. She was complicit. She was enabling, and it is appalling and disgusting." "And it's one of my worst nightmares that she not only be transferred, but at the possibility that's very much going around that she might be pardoned." "This is not okay, guys. This is not okay." "To to our country, to the young people in our country that someone that we all know is aware of these crimes could be given a pass." "Epstein would brag about her relationship with Donald Trump." "My first trip to the Palm Beach residence, I drove there from the airport with Gilen Maxwell, and they Jeffrey and Gilen were always very boastful about their friends, their"

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 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.

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 questioning begins with noting a calendar or schedule, then moves to record-keeping instructions: "Turn off the video record at 01:05PM." - Mister Epstein is asked about sexual attraction to underage minor females. The question is objected to as harassing and argumentative. - Epstein invokes his rights: he states he must invoke his fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment rights to not answer questions today or any questions relevant to this lawsuit. - The questions focus on the names of any underage minors who were the subject of criminal charges to which Epstein pled guilty. Epstein responds, "I don't know." - The examiner asks what the charges were about and what the underlying allegations were. Epstein states the charge as "Solicitation of prostitution," clarifying it was not underage prostitution but prostitution. - The examiner asks if the victims or prostitutes were minors. Epstein repeats, "I plead guilty to solicitation of prostitution." - The examiner presses for details of the cases—what happened, what the underlying facts were, how Epstein engaged with the individuals. Epstein repeats that he cannot tell more than that and ultimately says, "I plead guilty to the solicitation of prostitution. Not underage prostitution, but prostitution." - The examiner asks to clarify whether the three females who were the subject of the guilty pleas in state court were procured by Epstein by having underage minor females locate other underage minor females and bring them to Epstein’s house. Objections are raised for argumentative, harassing, and assuming facts not in evidence; the examiner moves to strike. - The examiner asks whether all people with whom Epstein engaged in sexual activity were underage and brought by other underage girls. Objections persist; Epstein states he does not understand the question. - The examiner repeats a question about whether Epstein used underage minor females to bring other underage minor females to his house for sex; the exchange indicates the question had been asked and answered earlier. - Epstein again states, due to his counsel, that he must assert his sixth, fourteenth, and fifth amendment rights and cannot answer that question at the moment. - In closing, Epstein cites that his firm, Edwards and Jaffee, has been described by the US attorney as perpetrating one of the largest frauds in South Florida’s history, crafting malicious cases of a sexual nature to fleece people using bogus schemes and investment schemes. He reiterates his attorneys advised he must assert his constitutional rights, and therefore he cannot answer at this time.

I made a mistake by meeting with Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender, multiple times. My intention was to raise money for global health, but I now realize that my association with him downplayed the terrible things he did. I have learned from this and acknowledge it as one of my big mistakes, along with not following Melinda's advice sooner.

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 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.

They if what people are saying they're afraid of is that Trump did something gross with women I I really don't believe wanna be clear. I do not believe that. Yeah. Not covering for Trump. I just don't think that's true. I've seen any indication of it, and I've talked to people, to be totally honest with you, close to Epstein, very close to Epstein, who've told me off camera, in private, no, it's not. Trump never did that shit. So I don't think it's about that. But why is no one talking to Les Wexner? And

I want to address the lawsuit that has been brought to my attention. I want to make it clear that it did not happen. I don't remember ever meeting this person, and I would never harm anyone. This is not who I am. The credibility of the person filing the lawsuit is questionable, as they have filed many lawsuits and written a book on how to win them. I have been in public life for almost 40 years, and people know my character. I would never do anything to harm someone. Right now, we need to stay focused and let go of distractions.

The speaker references Brock Pierce, described as an Epstein client and alleged child abuser and as a cofounder of Tethr, and asks, “Who is friends with Epstein client and alleged child abuser, Tethr cofounder Brock Pierce.” They then say, “I don't know shit about Brock's history, and I've never met him. I don't know if he's an Epstein client. I don't know anything about these allegations, and I don't really care at this point because it doesn't affect my life at all.”

I will not comment on allegations regarding my family's business dealings. The claims are false. I did not interact with their business associates. There are many questions.

Prince Andrew denies any involvement in the activities of Jeffrey Epstein and maintains that he did not have any sexual encounters with Virginia Roberts. He claims that he stayed at Epstein's house out of convenience and that his judgment was clouded by his sense of honor. He denies sweating or having any recollection of the specific events described by Roberts. He acknowledges being in a photograph with her but cannot explain it. He also denies any knowledge of suspicious behavior or underage girls at Epstein's residences. Prince Andrew states that he would be willing to testify under oath if legally advised to do so. He emphasizes that he is focused on his philanthropic work and moving forward.

I regret having dinners with Jeffrey Epstein, as he claimed to have connections to people interested in global health philanthropy. However, those meetings were a mistake and did not result in what he promised. This happened a long time ago and there is nothing new to add. When I learned about his background, I cut off contact with him. The lesson here is to always be cautious. Despite this, I am proud of the philanthropic work we do at the foundation, which is my main focus every day.

This woman abused children. I was abused by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell for over ten years. Ghislaine Maxwell was present for some of my abuse at the hand of Jeffrey Epstein. She was present. She was complicit. She was enabling. And it's one of my worst nightmares that she not only be transferred, but at the possibility that's very much going around that she might be pardoned. My first trip to The Palm Beach residence, I drove there from the airport with Gilen Maxwell, and they Jeffrey and Gilen were always very boastful about their friends, This is not okay, guys. This is not okay.

Bill's connection to Jeffrey Epstein was one of many factors in our divorce. I met Epstein once and found him abhorrent. I shared my feelings with Bill, but his relationship with Epstein is for him to explain. My heart goes out to the young women affected by Epstein.

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.