00:00:00
Okay, everyone. By popular demand, we're doing an all Epstein show today. My
00:00:04
besties are all on vacation for ski week, so I'm taking this on solo. We have three different guests on who all
00:00:10
have very different interpretations and opinions of the Epstein story. Sagar and
00:00:15
Jetty from Breaking Points believes that the Epste shows that there is a quote unquote Epstein class that operates
00:00:21
above law and accountability. He views the story as an indictment of our ruling elites. Michael Tracy is skeptical about
00:00:28
many of the most salicious claims about Epstein and questions whether they meet any kind of evidentiary standard. He has
00:00:34
criticized the media feeding frenzy over what he has called Epstein mythology. And finally, Kevin Bass, a citizen
00:00:41
journalist who's been tracking the release files and posting his findings on X, specifically in regards to Reed
00:00:47
Hoffman, perhaps the figure in tech most closely associated with Jeffrey Epstein.
00:00:51
Some of it gets heated, but hopefully you'll come away with new perspectives
00:00:54
and great information. I felt like it was important to showcase a range of viewpoints on this issue. I'm trying to
00:00:59
keep an open mind and I'll describe my own point of view at the end of the show. And with that, here we go. Sager,
00:01:04
let me start with you. What is the import of the arrest of Prince Andrew in the UK this morning? I mean, is this a
00:01:14
case of show us the man and we'll tell you the crime? I mean, it obviously it
00:01:19
seems kind of coincidental that he's not being arrested for misconduct in the
00:01:24
Epstein affair. He's being arrested on mishandling, I guess, trade secrets or public
00:01:32
documents. So, obviously, the timing of this is not coincidental. >> No, it's certainly not coincidental, but
00:01:38
I do believe that the facts do matter in this case. And uh unfortunately, you know, for Prince Andrew, for Lord
00:01:42
Mandlesson, the former ambassador uh to the United States from the UK as well, it is pretty clear-cut that they did
00:01:49
violate their official duties. We should remember that the crux of this case involving Andrew is not just about some
00:01:55
of the accusations that were made, although that is the genesis, let's say, of the investigation and of the
00:02:00
interest. This is about Prince Andrew serving as a UK trade adviser and forwarding non-public information to
00:02:06
Jeffrey Epstein has been released that's currently in the file. Some of it is
00:02:09
involving scheduling. However, uh Gordon Brown this morning said that he had actually shared some new information
00:02:15
with Scotland Yard in the police. So, none, it's not exactly just what's in
00:02:20
the file, but it could potentially be other uh material that Gordon Brown and the chancellory were able to investigate
00:02:26
as to what Prince Andrew was sharing as part of a broader probe into Lord Mandelson and the tip off that he gave
00:02:33
to Jeffrey Epstein about an upcoming bailout. And I do think that this does reveal quite a lot about Jeffrey
00:02:38
Epstein. The next is the genesis of his rise to power, his wealth, and his influence. something that involved let's
00:02:44
say even some of the co-hosts uh let's say on this very podcast which is a deep
00:02:49
financial knowledge of moneyaundering networks of trying to be at the very forefront of moving money across the
00:02:55
globe which I believe is his real power and his influence which is what enabled much of the behavior that much of the
00:03:03
public is now horrified by >> okay wait I I can't let that just go by what do you mean by involving co-host of
00:03:09
this podcast >> I'm talking about Jason I actually thought that the Jason email uh was Very
00:03:13
interesting. So you'll see that in 2011 that Jeffrey Epstein is contacting Jason
00:03:18
about Bitcoin. This is by I saw I watched your discussion. I'm not implicating him in any crime. I'm saying
00:03:23
if you watch and look at that email very closely, you are watching Jeffrey Epstein, a master money launderer and
00:03:29
financial mastermind himself, be at the forefront of the Bitcoin technology and wondering about it in 2011, which as
00:03:37
Jason even pointed out in the last episode that you guys did about this when Bitcoin was some $1 and some sort
00:03:43
of open-source project. Like to me that shows how at the forefront he was of new
00:03:48
technology and new ways to move money surreptitiously across the globe, which is what I believe was his real strength
00:03:55
and his basically um his his uh raise on detra for being so useful to all of these different foreign governments and
00:04:04
intelligence assets including ours, Russia, Israel, various different Israeli or various different
00:04:11
intelligence uh networks across the globe. Yeah, let me just for for viewers of this episode who didn't see that
00:04:17
episode, let me just summarize what exactly happened there because I want to just make sure that
00:04:24
>> Jason's reputation is not unfairly impuged. And I don't think you're doing
00:04:28
that, but just to be absolutely clear about it, what happened was that Jason hosted an episode of This Week in
00:04:34
Startups roughly, I think in 2011, with a couple of the Bitcoin core founders and then Epstein reached out to him for
00:04:41
an introduction to those people. I thought and and one of my takeaways from that was like you said Sagar that Epste
00:04:47
was extraordinarily early to Bitcoin. He clearly had a nose for putting himself in the middle of things. I think 2011 is
00:04:55
when I discovered Bitcoin. So that was relatively early. I thought it was almost comical the way that Jason was
00:05:03
trying to warn Epstein, oh, you don't want to meet these guys. These are some
00:05:09
these are some crazies. They're like these crypto libertarians. They want to
00:05:12
take down the government. There's no profit. Um there's no investment opportunity here. In a way, it was kind
00:05:19
of comical that Jason was trying to warn Epstein about the Bitcoin guys rather than vice versa. But I don't really
00:05:27
think people knew at that point in time what Epstein was involved in. Do you disagree with that? Do you think people
00:05:35
should have known by 2011? Well, David, I mean, I will say there is a way back machine and we can go back and we can
00:05:40
look at what the Google results were and we do have somebody who pled guilty. And
00:05:43
look, I mean, this is for every individual to make up their own mind. You can't Google for solicitation of
00:05:49
prostitution involving a minor. I mean, that was literally a matter of public record. I can only speak for myself.
00:05:54
That's not really somebody I would involve myself with, even at a professional level. Uh, and had you
00:06:00
known? >> Well, you can Google it. It's literally public, >> but it wasn't widely publicized at the
00:06:03
time. Palm Beach Post. There were numerous news articles. >> I thought the Palm Beach story didn't
00:06:09
come out until or sorry, maybe it was the Miami Herald didn't come out till 2018.
00:06:13
>> Well, you're Yeah, you're talking about the 2018 kind of the broader story, but
00:06:16
the original solicitation of prosecution involving a minor charge, 2007, I believe, is when the nonprosecution
00:06:23
agreement came to bear. That was all public record in terms of registration of a sex offender. And again, you can
00:06:29
use the way back machine and you can go back and look. I mean again this doesn't
00:06:32
necessarily implicate anybody in a crime and anybody can make up the decision for
00:06:37
themselves as to how they would have uh you know involved themselves with that person but it was it was out there like
00:06:43
it wasn't uh unknown and I do think it's not really responsible to imply
00:06:46
otherwise. >> Quick factual clarification on that although it wasn't an enormous story at
00:06:51
the time. You can find coverage in the New York Times in July of 2008 after Epstein pleaded guilty to the two state
00:06:59
level prostitution charges. We didn't have the full scope of the information
00:07:03
obviously about what he was accused of or the nature of the nonprosecution agreement, but a Google search would
00:07:08
have yielded that at that time. >> Yeah, that's right. >> Yeah, it's hard for me to judge. I
00:07:11
certainly in that time period had never even heard of Jeffrey Epstein and I don't think most people had. When
00:07:19
did this become sort of a cause celeb? I mean, wasn't it more around his >> 2018? I would say
00:07:25
>> 2018. Yeah, I think it's important to explain and >> when the incredibly overrated Miami
00:07:29
Herald series by Julie K. Brown, which is just r rife with errors and mischaracterizations
00:07:36
became this sensation across the media landscape and Julie K. Brown was showered with all these accolades from
00:07:42
all these bogus journalism industry organizations. Even though, for example, I caught her fabricating quotes in her
00:07:48
book, Coversion of Justice, which was based on the initial Miami Herald series. But Michael, I don't think that
00:07:54
you would clownish people in the journalism landscape. >> Michael, I don't think that you would
00:07:57
deny that ultimately that this did not Yes, it was sparked by Julie K. K. K. K. K. K. K. K. K. K. Brown's Miami Herald
00:08:02
story is that a federal judge was not necessarily like, you know, a federal judge who reviewed the nonprosecution
00:08:08
agreement did say that this was a violation of the Crime Victim's Rights Act because
00:08:12
>> that was overturned on appeal. >> Right. Well, I understand, however, that
00:08:15
this has also gone forth to the Supreme Court involving Gain Maxwell. As I understand now, is currently being
00:08:20
litigated. But I do think it is important. >> The Supreme Court rejected it.
00:08:23
>> Yeah, that's what I'm what I'm talking about. >> Maxwell's appeal appeal.
00:08:27
>> I'm talking about the Maxwell appeal, but specifically the nonprosecution
00:08:30
agreement and the overturning is what re led to the current indictment of the 2019 indictment of Jeffrey Epste. No,
00:08:36
>> that's wrong, Sager. >> No. Well, go ahead. You I'm happy for
00:08:39
you to explain it to me. Go ahead. >> Yeah. I mean, this is a misconception.
00:08:41
The nonprosecution agreement was never overturned. Gileain Maxwell's argument
00:08:46
includes Let me just finish. >> Sure. Gileain Maxwell's argument in her
00:08:50
appeals included citing the nonprosecution agreement as something that she claimed she ought to have been
00:08:57
covered by. Yes. And therefore insulated from federal prosecution which was initiated against her in 2020. The
00:09:06
nonprosecution agreement was never nullified. It was never voided. Bradley Edwards, the victim lawyer, attempted to
00:09:12
convince federal judges to somehow nullify it, but he failed. The reason why Jeffrey Epstein was federally
00:09:19
reprosecuted in 2019 is because prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, Moren Comey at all, concocted
00:09:26
this cockamame rationale for how they could circumvent the nonprosecution agreement by picking claiming they found
00:09:33
a new victim in New York, claiming that there was some interstate nexus in which
00:09:38
they could tie some of the old Florida allegations, but it was never nullified at all. So just I I apologize for not
00:09:46
being very specific in my language. It was ruled in 2019 that it had violated the Crime Victim's Rights Act. That's
00:09:52
what led to the reindictment. But what I'm spec Well, no, >> there was no connection.
00:09:57
>> Well, no, because that led to the story reopening from Miami Herald and that led
00:10:01
then to the 2019 SDNY. >> You got I mean, I'm sorry, not to be combative, but you have your chronology
00:10:07
wrong. The Miami Herald story was based on Julie K. Brown. Julie Yeah, that was based on Julie K. around colluding with
00:10:13
the victim's lawyers, not the court ruling on the crimes victim's rights
00:10:17
act. >> All right, guys. Let me let me just get control of this again because I think
00:10:20
we're going down a rabbit hole and there's lots of aspects of this story
00:10:22
that that we could discuss. I think that >> we should probably judge each person who
00:10:28
interacted with Epstein or visited his island and so forth and so on individually in terms of what they
00:10:33
actually did, what they actually knew. Sar, I just think you're being a little
00:10:36
bit unfair to Jason because all he did was exchange emails with >> I I don't think in the 2011 time period.
00:10:43
That's all. >> Well, what I was trying to point out was Jeffrey Epstein's knowledge or interest
00:10:48
of Bitcoin in 2011. And that links to a broader Epstein involvement with money laundering and tax fraud and so-called
00:10:58
involvement with Leon Black and many of these other multi-billionaires who paid him lots of money. I'm just saying I'm
00:11:04
putting that as part of into a broader scheme. >> Yes. And I think that exchange was
00:11:09
noteworthy for the reason you just said, which is that Epstein somehow was putting himself in the middle of all
00:11:14
sorts of things. I mean, he's almost like a Zeligike figure who pops up in many different newsworthy stories over
00:11:22
the last few decades, which is what I think makes this interesting. I think maybe a question for each of you is who
00:11:27
do you think this guy ultimately was? I mean, you hear all sorts of theories. Let's say maybe the Epstein maximalist
00:11:37
position would be that he was an intelligence asset or intelligence agent who was running a vast compromat
00:11:46
operation on his island and thereby was corrupting and blackmailing the world's
00:11:52
elite to someone who uh I think Michael you you have a different point of view on that. Let me not characterize it.
00:12:00
I'll let you guys do it, but Sagar, let me start with you. Who do you think this
00:12:04
guy was? And ultimately, you know, at a 30,000 ft level, what do you think is going on here? What is this Epstein
00:12:11
story really about? And then Michael, I want to go to you on the same question. >> Yeah, sure. I mean, I do think that
00:12:14
there is a very low IQ unfortunate, you know, explosion of accusations that are out there. And I want to be very
00:12:21
responsible in the way that I describe it. I think that Jeffrey Epstein was somebody who arose under very suspicious
00:12:28
conditions uh in the 1980s potentially involving Iran Contra knowledge specifically with arms traffickers like
00:12:35
Adnan Kosigible and Douglas Lease Steven Hoffenberg as well and that these black
00:12:40
market moneyaundering tax evasion strategies were honed over a period which eventually inspired various people
00:12:48
like Lesie Wexner and many other multi-billionaires and that at the very same time he also had you know his
00:12:54
sexual proclivities which I think at this point were wellknown and that those became and became useful his
00:13:00
moneyaundering specific uh duties and knowledge and usefulness let's say to the CIA to various other intelligence
00:13:07
assets became a very useful part of the nexus in the postcold war environment and that at the time it was also
00:13:14
socially known for a lot of Epstein associates that he had this bizarre practice of often you know seeking out
00:13:22
massages which In some cases, they are saying involving underage girls. And so to say that he was running a vast
00:13:29
compromat operation, I think ascribes too much intention to what's really happening here. And the reason why I'm
00:13:36
being intentional in my language is that what he clearly was doing was recruiting
00:13:40
and running this like vast massage scheme also involving Gain Maxwell all across the world, Russian and Eastern
00:13:47
European women, but also that this behavior was tolerated in some cases seen by a vast number of the global
00:13:54
elite. Now, the 2007 circumstances of the nonprosecution agreement, you know, and Michael and I could go back on this
00:14:00
uh forward a long time as to the circumstances of which that arose. However, I don't think Michael, you
00:14:06
would even deny that his access to wealth, power, and money did eventually allow him to get off with the 2007
00:14:13
nonprosecution agreement and the eventual sweetheart deal uh that he gets with his hiring. I wouldn't agree with
00:14:18
that, actually. Well, I mean, I don't think the average Joe can just hire Ken
00:14:21
Star and uh private investigators and lawyers to tell some of the >> Oh, sure. I mean, his vast wealth
00:14:27
enables him to secure very high power legal represent representation. >> That's what I'm claiming. This whole
00:14:32
concept of a sweetheart deal is a total canar that Brown. >> Michael, I don't want to get off on that
00:14:38
yet, but just go back to my original question of what is your 30,000 ft take on what this story is about? Who was
00:14:44
this guy in your view? >> I will answer that. However, I do want to just stipulate upfront that I think
00:14:50
this reflex to have to offer some kind of totalistic assessment of who Jeffrey Epstein was
00:14:57
at, his very essence has fed into so much of the constant churn of algorithmic slop that has generated this
00:15:05
hysterical frenzy around this issue and has led to people being totally deluded about what we're even talking about.
00:15:11
What do most people I I I have some surmises about Jeffrey Epsteine. He definitely was a money manager who, as
00:15:18
you mentioned, was sort of like this Zelig character who did have an extraordinary cross-section of
00:15:23
connections with people from across fields. And, you know, I just was looking through some of these records in
00:15:30
the new Epstein Files Productions, and I was looking for something else, but there are there's an archive of these
00:15:35
old message pads that he had at his Palm Beach house >> and I'm scrolling through and it turns
00:15:40
out Holly Berry left him a couple of messages. I had no idea that Holly Berry was ever in contact with Jeffrey
00:15:45
Epstein. So you can always find somebody new and novel who apparently had a one dealing or another with him. But why are
00:15:52
we talking about Jeffrey Epstein right now in February of 2026 >> because PE he is believed to have been
00:15:59
the most prolific child sex trafficker in American or perhaps world history which is why this issue might now take
00:16:06
down the British government. It's embroiling Norway. A minister in Slovakia had to resign over it. There's
00:16:13
a new criminal investigation that was just launched in France, etc. That's what people conceive Jeffrey Epstein to
00:16:20
have been. And that whole notion is based on just an onslaught of mythological nonsense that's pumped out
00:16:28
daily by these YouTube shows, I won't mention names, podcasts, etc., social media personalities who are driven by
00:16:37
these perverse algorithmic incentives to be totally divorced from the facts. foreground this rampant speculation that
00:16:44
ties in the Mossad, ties in unnamed other intelligence agencies with this presumed
00:16:52
implication or this presumed uh reality that of course we know for sure that Jeffrey Epste was running this pedto
00:17:00
crime ring and we all so they they presuppose a conclusion that's just been floating out there in the ether thanks
00:17:06
to all this horrendous media coverage. I think this is the worst story of my adult lifetime in terms of the media
00:17:12
coverage and it implicates the alternative media, the mainstream media and everybody in between. It's actually
00:17:18
shocking. I will predict here and now that if we revisit this issue in I don't
00:17:22
know two or three years, people will come to realize if I have anything to do with it that they were bamboozled on a
00:17:29
mass scale. There's genuine fraud that has been rampant in ter the journalistic
00:17:34
malfeasants. We're not supposed to ever consider the massive financial incentives where the Epstein industry is
00:17:40
now something like I've estimated a billion dollars in terms of the payouts that have been given to purported
00:17:46
victims who are allowed to just reimagine things that happened to them 20 years before as an adult, not as a
00:17:53
child, but adult at the time of their claim victimization and then call themselves a sex trafficking victim and
00:17:58
then they can secure a couple million dollars tax-free from JP Morgan and the media will hail them as these brave
00:18:05
survivors without doing a single thing to check the veracity of any of their claims. You know why people are so upset
00:18:12
about these redactions in the Epstein files? And I'm upset too. I criticized
00:18:16
Thomas Massie and Roana for the language of their bill that they crafted, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which
00:18:22
they crafted in concert with Bradley Edwards, this extortionist quote unquote victim's lawyer who's made a killing on
00:18:28
this issue over the past 10 years in conjunction with David Boy, another shyer. and Bradley Edwards at his urging
00:18:37
Roan and Thomas Massie put in this giant carveout to so-called transparency and disclosure into their bill such that the
00:18:44
DOJ was authorized to redact or withhold or conceal any information that could be
00:18:49
the most tangentially tied to anything that's quote victim identifying. So, they've been arguing frantically in
00:18:55
federal court for the past few months that they're opposed to the disclosure
00:18:58
of Epstein files because it's going to terrorize all these belleaguered women.
00:19:04
I don't know. Do you think that maybe if we did get full transparency, it might
00:19:08
disrupt this sanitized quote survivor narrative that everybody pushes so credulously? I'll just give you one
00:19:15
example and I don't want to go on for too long and I there's so many uh threads that I could pull here that you
00:19:20
have to kind of rein me in. But one narrative that could disrupt if we actually did get genuine disclosure,
00:19:26
which we're not. And in fact, Edwards at all demanded that the entire archive be
00:19:30
taken down because this disclosure was just too horrendously threatening to them. We would maybe get more insight
00:19:38
into some of the government propaganda that's been allowed to promugate unchecked. Sag, I wonder if you've
00:19:44
corrected this on breaking points. You can let me know. But for months, >> people politicians across the media the
00:19:51
the political spectrum as well as the media at large have unthinkingly regurgitated this figure that there were
00:19:57
over a thousand victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Sometimes that gets upgraded to thousands of victims. That's what pre uh
00:20:02
Primila Japal said at the Bondi hearing last week. Ro Connor constantly blurts out this whole this claim of over a
00:20:08
thousand survivors. And this is based on the July 6th, 2025 FBI DOJ memo which claimed that they after a review of the
00:20:17
evidence after the second Trump administration came in, they found that over 1,000 victims were quote harmed by
00:20:23
Epstein. So they used this very conspicuous conspicuous weasel wordage and it was very dubious to me the
00:20:29
instant I read it. Turns out, you know, thank God on some level for the Epstein files because there is a major
00:20:34
revelation contained therein, which is that this whole this number is a fraud. It's bogus. They they they admit in FBI
00:20:42
memoranda that this number is based on a total of purported victims, the majority
00:20:48
of whom were would have been adults at the time of their claim victimization. Anyway, but it that includes the family
00:20:54
members of alleged victims in that total number that's been how many alleged
00:20:59
victims are there? >> Well, who knows? Why is the government deceiving the public about it? If people
00:21:04
want to be mad about Michael tell him Pam Bonnie for putting out that phony propagandistic figure and
00:21:12
then have it be repeated adnauseium without the slightest bit of critical discernment.
00:21:17
>> Well, I do, Michael. I think we can at least agree that Cash Patel and Pam
00:21:20
Bondi haven't uh handled this all that responsibly on that particular issue.
00:21:23
>> Oh, oh, well, I mean, you're asking me to correct the record of something I've
00:21:26
never even uttered. I've never said the word. It's literally not something that I've
00:21:32
ever claimed. I mean, I do think, Michael, uh, that what you like to do is to go after, and really, I think
00:21:38
fundamentally, I'm not even sure if you would reject this. You reject the idea
00:21:41
of victimization, that post victimization, uh, can't even happen. And I also, I don't even necessarily
00:21:46
want to get the idea of victimization. I don't even know what that means. >> Well, you reject the idea that women
00:21:51
could be victimized, uh, let's say, by Jeffrey Epste, manipulated. Yes. in even
00:21:55
if some cases money were exchanging hands. I will say, by the way, that just paying or flying in adult women from
00:22:00
Eastern Europe to for the express purposes of having sex is a crime, by the way. Sure, it's not underage.
00:22:05
However, we do have the 2007 draft indictment where there were a number of underage victims that were mentioned
00:22:10
there where Epstein specifically asked a 15-year-old if he knows anybody who's
00:22:14
younger uh that he could be able to recruited. And so, I do think your core contention that at the end of the day,
00:22:18
he was a quote pedophile uh is definitely illegitimate. But I also don't necessarily want to get dragged
00:22:23
into the victim uh stuff which I think that you are fundamentally focused on because I do think when you're saying
00:22:30
why are people talking about this? It confirms a general suspicion of the way that people act with impunity at the
00:22:36
highest levels of American or global society in terms of their moral character in terms of their dealings
00:22:42
let's say financially and uh you know you like to brush across this intelligence question. I actually I
00:22:48
would love for you to be able to just grapple with some of the facts, you know, necessarily just related today
00:22:53
where the Israeli government was installing surveillance equipment in Epstein-owned apartment but used for the
00:22:59
former prime minister of Israel, Aud Barack, where we have Aud Barack and Epstein uh joking questioningly about
00:23:05
Mossad where Epstein is foying 1999 the CIA for any mention of himself for the very dealings that he himself had with
00:23:13
the arms dealing industry in the 1980s for the fact that he had a false Austrian passport at the age of 29 years
00:23:20
old. Austria being the capital of spies long before he ever became, you know, very filthy rich. And so, Michael, I
00:23:26
think what you're obiscating is a general interest in the story. And often that what you try to do is find the
00:23:32
lowest IQ, most maximalist people talking about cannibals or anything like that and then paint that as a
00:23:40
but I barely mentioned the cannibalism stuff. I mean, of course, you're trying
00:23:46
to Yeah, you paint the rest of us who believe, let's say, in some of a bigger
00:23:50
part of this story as >> I mean, if you believe if you believe that we can just accept at face value
00:23:55
that a 21-year-old model who accepted an invitation to visit Jeffre Island when she was in the British false pretenses,
00:24:04
let me finish under false pretenses by Jean Luke Brunell. And you've looked into it. No, it had nothing to do with
00:24:10
it. This is nonsense. I mean, I'm >> Tell me if you've looked into what I'm
00:24:13
about to describe. Can I have 30 seconds to describe it? >> All right. Uh, go ahead.
00:24:16
>> Lisa Phillips, who was one of the women, quote, survivors who spoke at these
00:24:21
press conferences in front of the US capital and infamously declared that she and her fellow survivors were going to
00:24:27
create their own list of Epstein clients and then hand it over to Marjorie Taylor
00:24:31
Green and Thomas Massie so they could read it out on the floor of the House of Representatives under the protections of
00:24:36
the speech and debate clause and caused a giant media firestorm. As I don't have
00:24:41
to remind you, her whole tale of victimization is that at age 21 as a professional model, she was on a photo
00:24:48
shoot in the British Virgin Islands. Another girl, you know, or young woman that she was with invited her to take a
00:24:53
ferry to Jeffrey Epstein's island in the US Virgin Islands. She accepted. She
00:24:59
never claimed victimization for likeif or 20 years. She's on a podcast in 2020
00:25:04
saying, "Gee whiz, I never heard anything about all this crazy Epstein stuff, but I knew him and I I don't know
00:25:10
what went happened there." Then all of a sudden, JP Morgan opens its floodgates
00:25:14
for settlements of, you know, $290 million. You know, I know like we're not supposed to acknowledge human nature
00:25:21
about what that can incentivize on this particular subject. I mean, explain that
00:25:25
to me. And she now claims that we're supposed to just take her to be a survivor. She was the one one of the
00:25:31
women who also stood up and protested Pam Bondi last week. So yes, Sager, if you do take at face value that that
00:25:37
person can be rightly designated as a victim and fuel and fment this giant worldwide pedophilia crisis that we're
00:25:44
supposedly in the midst of, then I don't know. I mean, I consider you to have a
00:25:48
pretty high IQ and that's just not some like random on social media talking about cannibals. So you tell me if you
00:25:55
agree that that's a legitimate case of victimization and it should be just on
00:26:00
the classic example of selecting somebody. Look, I'm not here to defend every so-called Epstein victim. Because,
00:26:06
by the way, I think that what you do very expertly is finding people like Lisa Phillips and then trying to portray
00:26:11
all of them of that sort. Like, would you deny that vast wire transfers were sent to Eastern Europe to fly in women
00:26:18
for the express purposes of sex? Because that is women. Okay. Is that not a crime, Michael? Have you Googled the man
00:26:25
act? I mean for somebody who has actually looked into prostitution I mean this is what I'm talking about is that
00:26:30
by the way also you have not yet grappled with the 2007 draft indictment there okay I mean look I have
00:26:36
unfortunately very limited amount of time out for that hold on guys so told us um up front that
00:26:44
he only had half an hour so okay >> you know we don't have that much time
00:26:47
listen let me ask you a couple other questions and then once leaves Michael we can get you to say what you want to
00:26:53
say I want to go to the less waxner deposition the other day. What did we learn from that specifically about how
00:27:01
Epstein got his start? I do think that there are these questions about again who this guy was, how did he accumulate
00:27:10
hundreds of millions of dollars so early in his career? How did he seem to um obtain all these different uh
00:27:18
connections specifically to the intelligence world? Did any of that get resolved? And what what's your take on
00:27:24
that? >> No, David, it wasn't resolved. Unfortunately, the entire transcript is
00:27:28
not public. What we do know from the House Oversight Committee, at least what's been released now so far is
00:27:33
Leslie Wexner said he was never questioned ever once by the FBI or the Department of Justice involving this
00:27:38
case. I will say if you look at the track record of Leslie Wexner, it's incredibly bizarre. He claims that
00:27:44
Epstein was a con man who stole his money for decades. In 1991, we had the power of attorney that was signed over
00:27:49
to him. He claims that Epstein was a financial genius and a wizard. We have the transferring of the town home which
00:27:55
eventually there was some payment uh that was reconciled uh on the back end. But an incredible amount of control that
00:28:01
Jeffrey Epstein had over Leslie Wexner's finances over the Wexner Foundation
00:28:05
which he used to funnel money to Aud Barack the former prime minister of Israel support many Zionist causes under
00:28:11
the Wexner Foundation including the Wexner Fellowship currently at Harvard University. I do think it's important
00:28:17
for us to explore some more of that. There's some very odd dealings with the
00:28:21
beginnings of their relationship. Previous Epstein associates have testified that in 1992, which is shortly
00:28:27
after power of attorney and all of that uh was acquired or the relationship, sorry, between Epstein and Wexner began,
00:28:33
is that much of Epstein's lifestyle exploded. Wexner does not even dispute uh that Epstein had vast control over
00:28:40
his finances and even claims that he was stolen from by Jeffrey Epste that their
00:28:44
uh relationship is supposed to have ended sometime I think in 2007 but he has not yet answered questions about
00:28:51
this relationship in an open public forum beyond some statements and he currently did issue an opening statement
00:28:57
for the record. I personally would like to see the release of that transcript. I
00:29:00
mean all for transparency here in this particular case. He's an 88-year-old man
00:29:04
and I do think it's genuinely bizarre. Oh, and not to even mention the modeling
00:29:09
uh industry uh which you know ep which Wexner himself was involved with and there's several emails including
00:29:15
Wexner's own crude drawing in the Epstein birthday book involving boobs that he said that's all Epstein ever
00:29:21
wanted. So there be their relationship is bizarre goes back decades. Wexner maintains as I said that he was conned
00:29:28
and that he was stolen from. I don't really believe much of that story. Uh, Michael, you and I have now read
00:29:34
thousands of Epstein emails. There's no sophisticated financial instruments going on. Uh, even back to the very
00:29:41
beginnings of Jeffrey Epstein's claims here about managing money. Almost none
00:29:47
of it passes the smelter. David, you're a very high net worth individual. You
00:29:50
can go to Goldbin Sachs or many other financial houses and get teams of people to manage money for sophisticated uh,
00:29:57
financial instruments and others not available to the rest of us. be very odd for you to turn over your finances to to
00:30:03
Jeffrey Epstein. >> Yeah. So, he he began his career, I guess, at Bear Sterns. I guess it was a
00:30:08
brief stint where he worked I guess he one of the curious things about him is he dropped out of college around age 20.
00:30:15
>> I guess he was studying math. He then was a teacher at the Dalton School for
00:30:19
like a year, >> correct? >> And then he worked at Bear Sterns for four years.
00:30:23
>> He met Ace Greenberg through the Dalton School. Greenberg's I think it was it
00:30:27
was either one of his children uh was there and then he went to Bear Sterns. He's fired from Beer Sterns after a
00:30:32
couple of years and that's when his descent into what I call like the darkness his expertise in
00:30:37
moneyaundering. I believe that that's when it was honed as reflects in the record and the testimony of the people
00:30:42
who dealt with him there at the time including the false passport Iran contour arm smuggling and all of that
00:30:47
that I've laid out. >> S can I ask you a quick question because I know you have to go soon. I'm I'm
00:30:51
honestly curious if you would agree with the statement from Thomas Massie. This is from
00:30:54
>> Okay. February 16th, he says, quote, "We're exposing the extent of Epstein's
00:31:01
global pedophile ring and how it touches our government and aristocracy." So, do
00:31:06
you think it's a factually valid statement that what we know to have taken place and maybe even is still
00:31:13
ongoing is a quote global pedophile ring? Well, I mean, when what you're asking about a global pedophile ring, it
00:31:20
was well, sorry, >> this is Thomas Massie saying >> Thomas Massie, a global pedophile ring
00:31:26
is a ring of global elites who seemed aware and perhaps participated in the abuse of underage children. Now,
00:31:35
Michael, I will grant you this and what I respect. Well, no, I will grant you this. What I think you do well is to
00:31:40
parse the actual individual claim of many of the victims and others that are out there. And I actually think you have
00:31:46
a great role in this ecosystem for debunking especially some of the lowest IQ content which is out there like you
00:31:52
did with the torture video. So I do want to appreciate you for doing that. >> That was low hanging fruit. I mean I
00:31:57
don't I don't really appreciate this idea that I only focus on low IQ social
00:32:02
media blushia of all this sag. >> Yes, I know you have. Jeffrey Epste is just casually called a pedophile
00:32:11
virtually everywhere in the media and among every politician much of your what he is nobody thought because he would
00:32:21
like to pre post pubar don't you find it bizarre that for all the enormous media resources that have
00:32:28
been poured into this story over the past however many years among by newspapers magazines podcast specials
00:32:34
you name it I guess I'm the only one who ever thought to actually go into the
00:32:38
Florida court document and pull up the transcript of the plea hearing in June of 2008 when he entered his two guilty
00:32:44
pleas for two state level prostitution charges and he's called a convicted pedophile
00:32:51
adnauseium. It turns out the sole minor victim who was cited in that plea hearing as the sole minor to whom he
00:32:59
procured for prostitution was literally 17 years old. Yes, Michael. I understand
00:33:04
that because they picked the oldest person in the indictment to plead guilty to and there's a 14 15year-old which is
00:33:11
named in the 2007 draft indictment which was released. Michael, you're focusing I
00:33:15
I am focusing on a federal document. Uh there's a federal document which specifically alleges a 14 and 15year-old
00:33:21
who are abusing including asking a 15year-old if there is this 2007 draft. You have read it. You're going to take
00:33:27
as dispositive. >> Well, I I'm not going to Okay. Unfortunately, it was never uh never
00:33:31
contested because of the plea agreement which eventually came forward. I mean, I
00:33:35
think you're using the same tactic Alan Dersowitz did in his defense. Unfortunately, I have nothing to do with
00:33:40
Dersuits or I don't share his tactical maneuver. >> I unfortunately have to take my child to
00:33:45
a doctor's appointment as I flagged uh to do uh and uh in the beginning of this
00:33:51
entire thing. And I do >> I think you'd be operating in good faith as well. Sager for the most part unlike
00:33:55
a lot of people who have glombmed onto this story and you're willing to you know engage on the substance. So that
00:34:01
again is appreciated by me and you know whenever you'd like to engage further
00:34:04
I'm always available. >> All right Michael uh thank you David for the invitation.
00:34:08
>> Yes. Thank you for coming Saga. Appreciate it. All right. So Michael let
00:34:11
me kind of reset here. >> Okay. I'm I'm not sure you've had a chance to kind of lay out your case for
00:34:19
what you called Epstein mythology. >> Yeah. >> So, I want to give you a chance to kind
00:34:23
of just lay out your thesis here that what's happening is actually a type of
00:34:29
moral panic or feeding frenzy, a type of hysteria. You've compared it to the
00:34:33
Salem witch trials. >> Yeah. >> There was also the case in the 1980s of
00:34:37
the whole day child abuse. >> Satanic panic. the satanic >> where I think hundreds of people went to
00:34:43
jail or were prosecuted for that. It turned out >> I don't know if it was hundreds but more
00:34:48
than enough to make it a extreme miscarriage of justice. >> So that's the comparison you've made. So
00:34:54
I guess I want to let you lay out that case in a clear way cuz I'm not sure that you've had a chance to quite do
00:35:01
that yet. >> I mean I definitely laid out my case on this score in many other venues and on
00:35:06
many other occasions but I guess not on this particular podcast yet. So, I'm
00:35:10
happy to sketch it out. In terms of the satanic panic parallel, that's not one
00:35:14
that I would have necessarily been most inclined to bring up until recently just
00:35:19
because there's now this new layer of the mythology that's added been added
00:35:23
with the production of these Epstein quote files where people are reading snippets of emails to signify some kind
00:35:31
of coded messaging around cannibalism or around grotesque child sacrifice. that really wasn't a hallmark of the Epstein
00:35:38
story so much before this enormous tunch of emails were released. And it relates
00:35:46
to the satanic panic frenzy in so far as claims around such things as like truly
00:35:55
grotesque child sacrifice, mutilation of infants, you know, bathing toddlers in blood. Like all the most
00:36:03
nightmarish scenarios you could possibly dream up were alleged in the 1980s and taken deadly seriously by the
00:36:12
authorities resulting in as you alluded to a good number of people actually being thrown in prison for many years
00:36:18
and it was turn it was found to be just a gigantic hoax. Um, but maybe a more apt parallel that also would have been
00:36:26
apt even before this latest record production is that the satanic panic frenzy of the 1980s
00:36:33
was ultimately concluded to have originated really with one woman who was just straightforwardly mentally ill,
00:36:41
delusional, needed to essentially be institutionalized. And yet she would make claims about sex child sex abuse
00:36:48
that the authorities countenanced or gave credence to. And there's a similar
00:36:53
thing going on with the Epstein mythology. Now, when I mention the Epstein mythology, I'm not talking about
00:36:58
the 2007208 Florida nonprosecution agreement or that whole scenario that Sager brought up in
00:37:04
peace meal before. That's a different element of this whole story. The mythology developed later, mostly around
00:37:12
2014 with the introduction of these new claims by Virginia Roberts Guay and her lawyers Bradley Edwards, Paul Cassell,
00:37:20
later David Boy in which she alleged that she had been child sex traffked around the world and that she knew that
00:37:32
Epstein enforced this child sex trafficking operation via blackmail. And also she made specific allegations
00:37:38
against three particular individuals. Alan Dersowitz, Prince Andrew, John Luke Brunell, and then also she accused a
00:37:47
generic category of other high-profile trial persons who she didn't specify as
00:37:52
also victimizing her like prime ministers and um uh politicians and presidents and so forth. Um, so that's
00:38:00
the basically the origin of what I would call the mythology, which is just sort of a different order or
00:38:08
magnitude than the initial Palm Beach prosecution, which was effectively a local crime. But in terms of the mythol,
00:38:14
the parallel to the satanic panic, Virginia Roberts Kufra was a profoundly disturbed mentally unwell person who was
00:38:23
validated and legitimized and now continues to be celebrated as some kind of martyr for truth. Even though if
00:38:31
anybody had used a lick of discernment about as to her claims, it would have been found that she could not be treated
00:38:38
so credulously. maybe she needed some help, but this idea that she would be the basis for this global scandal that's
00:38:46
rocking all these countries is just outrageous. And there are two others who are fundament two other mentally ill
00:38:50
women. And I don't say that even to be pjorative or derogatory at all. It's
00:38:54
just objectively true. If you take a look, Maria Farmer is one of these other definitely mentally ill persons who, for
00:39:01
example, introduced or was integral in introducing this idea that Epstein had cameras set up in all his bedrooms and
00:39:07
bathrooms and was surreptitiously recording prominent people so he could use it for blackmail. And then another
00:39:13
one, Sarah Ransom, was one of the people who spurred the mythology in large part
00:39:18
around the island. So she came to claim after going through several mental health crisis that she had been
00:39:26
systematically raped at the island even though when she actually had to eventually give a deposition. She really
00:39:31
described nothing of the sort. She was also an adult when she went to the island voluntarily and she described
00:39:38
what it was effectively a se a consensual you know minor sexual encounter with Epstein but she
00:39:43
dramatized it radically in the wake and people don't know I mean David do you
00:39:48
did you know this or does anybody know that there in the public know that despite everybody and their mother
00:39:54
including like Rokan and Thomas Massie at all declaring that the Epstein property in the US Virgin Islands the
00:40:02
private island that it's rape island or pedophile island that there's never been
00:40:06
a credible allegation of rape ever discovered that that take that took place on that island. Like is that well
00:40:12
known or am I crazy? >> No, it's not well known. The only reason I knew is because I've heard you on a
00:40:19
couple of podcasts. So, I thought it was important to get you on as a counterpoint. So, just with respect to
00:40:24
these three women, they did go to the island. Is is that true? >> Sarah Ransom did.
00:40:29
>> Okay. >> Um Maria Farmer, no. Maria Farmer is the one who purported that she was actually
00:40:35
the original Epstein accuser and she was this great hero whistleblower because she tried to sound the alarm way before
00:40:43
all these other females were abused. She claims that in 1996 after she had been a 25-year-old
00:40:52
employee of Epstein's who basically sat at his front desk in his New York townhouse that she was invited and
00:41:00
accepted uh to go to the Ohio compound of Lexley Wexner to be an artist and residence of sorts because she was a
00:41:07
paint a painter. And then she claimed that over the course of her interactions with Epstein and Maxwell, she ended up
00:41:14
filing a first an attempted police report and then went to the FBI. And she never really specified what it is that
00:41:21
she claimed that she reported to the FBI with any clarity. But she told this tale
00:41:26
about how Epstein had supposedly stolen these photographs that she had produced of her younger sisters who were below
00:41:32
the age of 18 so that she could use those photographs to paint paintings of her younger sisters in the nude. Now, I
00:41:38
don't know. I mean, I guess that's a confession to production of child pornography, but technically speaking,
00:41:43
but you know, um, but that's what she claimed. And then she also added that she had been sexually assaulted or
00:41:48
abused or raped by both Epstein and Maxwell. And somehow over the course of that assault at age 26, she had like a
00:41:54
divine revelation literally and realized that they were both pedophiles. This is
00:41:59
how she recounted it years after the fact. And if you look at the police that FBI intake report or the complaint that
00:42:06
was memorialized that has come out in terms of the what was contemporaneously documented, she mentions nothing about a
00:42:13
sexual assault. She mentions nothing about any kind of sex crime at all. She simply claims that these photos of hers
00:42:19
were stolen and there's never been any evidence that those photos were actually
00:42:23
stolen. So that's one person and she's come these and these three women ransom
00:42:27
farmer uh Roberts Guay were all integral in different dimensions of the mythology. They were incredibly
00:42:35
important named plaintiffs in critical litigation. They, you know, criminal investigations were launched based on
00:42:41
the basis of her their claims in various respects. And they're all just profoundly mentally ill, erratic, and
00:42:48
wholly unreliable to the degree that if we're going to have a international pedophilic mass hysteria narrative
00:42:56
that's at all predicated on their claims, then we've entered into a fantasy land because it will never in
00:43:02
the future hold up to any kind of rational re-evaluation or scrutiny at all. >> Okay. So, Robert Scufrey or VRG as as I
00:43:10
think you've called her in your Substack. >> Yeah. >> When did she come forward with her?
00:43:16
>> Yeah. >> Her story >> cuz I she was the basis of that Netflix
00:43:21
movie or documentary >> called Filthy Rich about about Epstein. You were saying that that happened
00:43:28
>> after the whole 2008 Palm Beach. >> Yeah, I I'll I'll explain. by the way,
00:43:32
Filthy Rich, which uh o over this past summer when the Epstein furer kind of got reignited, it like skyrocketed to
00:43:40
like the one of the, you know, the top of the charts on Netflix once again. So that little piece of commercial
00:43:46
commercial propaganda has been very determinative in terms of how people have had their perception shaped of this
00:43:53
issue. And it is like literal propaganda I would argue in the sense that it was concocted as a PR vehicle for the victim
00:44:03
quote unquote victims and especially their lawyers to create like a public clamor for some kind of remedial action
00:44:11
to be taken against um Epstein's co-conspirators or more more relevantly his estate. It was it was a maneuver. It
00:44:19
was a PR maneuver by a legal team who worked alongside the producers of that documentary as has as have been so much
00:44:28
of the mass market entertainment products that have been produced around the Epstein affair. It's only taken from
00:44:34
that one perspective of the purported victims and that perspective is shaped very carefully by their lawyers to
00:44:42
create this sanitized survivor narrative that is now the predominant one. But in
00:44:47
terms of her origins, yes, she um she initially filed some civil litigation around
00:44:55
I want to say ' 09 2010 maybe 08 as a Jane Doe um maybe 2011 somewhere in that range as
00:45:04
first as a Jane Doe meaning she wasn't named in the litigation and this related
00:45:09
to a period of around 2001 2002 when she was in the Epstein orbit to some extent. And there's
00:45:17
there's evidence that she was in the Epstein orbit to some extent. She's not
00:45:21
hallucinating everything. I've argued that I would she's not so much a liar. I
00:45:25
wouldn't say like I've never directly accused her of lying about anything as
00:45:28
such. I've called I've said that she's kind of confabulated an alternate
00:45:33
reality. And that's a little bit different because it doesn't necessarily
00:45:36
conote willful deceit and it's almost even more disturbing if you think about
00:45:41
it. But >> what's your basis for that? The big one I guess is that in your view that she
00:45:47
recanted her story about Dersowitz or >> Yeah, she recanted her story not just
00:45:52
about Dersitz. That's maybe the most well-known instance of her recanting one
00:45:57
of her marquee claims and it really only came about because Dersowitz was unusually motivated to actually pursue
00:46:04
some sort of resolution through a very protracted litigation process against very highpowered lawyers. I mean, one of
00:46:09
the fallacies here is that these survivors, quote unquote, such as Virginia, are taken to be these
00:46:14
bleaguered victims, etc., who had no power at all in this dynamic, and yet, I mean, they were represented by some of
00:46:20
the most powerful and skillful lawyers in the country, such as David Boyce, who's like one of the best known lawyers
00:46:26
of all time and was hugely wellresourced and also, you know, Virginia Guay became
00:46:33
incredibly wealthy. maybe not as wealthy as you, David, but you know, 20 estimates range from like 15, 20, $25
00:46:41
million. It's hard to know because a lot of the settlement details are secret.
00:46:44
Um, so it wasn't just this hless victim who had nothing, no leg to stand on in
00:46:50
order to make her claims, but yeah, Durowitz, she ended up recanting her allegations. And bear in mind, it wasn't
00:46:57
just that she, you know, happened to level some accusation at some point, maybe in like casual banter.
00:47:04
It's that she made allegations of herself having been victimized by Dersuit sexually on at least six or
00:47:10
seven occasions. And she described each individual instance of that victimization in vivid, graphic, almost
00:47:17
grotesque detail, describing Dersuit's body parts, sexual proclivities, etc.
00:47:22
And she did this in sworn affidavit and under deposition. So could theoretically
00:47:28
even be subject to perjury charges should a prosecutor ever have been inclined to bring them which of course
00:47:33
they wouldn't have been in this environment. Um and but it goes much further. She had to recant claims
00:47:39
against Harvard professor Steven Klin who she claims she had intercourse with. Um, she recanted even claims against
00:47:46
John Luke Brunell, who's another sort of actor or a player in this whole story
00:47:51
that leads people to make their postulations about there being this supposedly international sex trafficking
00:47:56
ring because he was like a modeling mogul. But he ends up getting arrested by French authorities under pressure
00:48:02
from the US in 2019 after Epstein himself was federally indicted and arrested. And given the vagaries of the
00:48:10
French legal system, which I don't fully comprehend still in relation to the
00:48:13
United States, he was in custody or incarcerated for quite a long time prior to any formal charges being brought.
00:48:19
Eventually, she's called to provide evidence against Virginia is called from
00:48:23
Australia to go to Paris to provide evidence against John Luke Bernell in 2021 in this format that is nothing that
00:48:31
takes place in the US, but it's like where the both the defense and the prosecution have an ability to question
00:48:35
or have colloquiz with the accuser. And she ends up having to retract her claims
00:48:39
against him as well. And you know they her lawyers had to admit that this memoir that she produced or memoir
00:48:45
manuscript that she produced in 2011 and 2012 that she was sort of scheming with
00:48:49
this ghost writer who was potentially going to work with her, Sharon Churcher, a journalist at the Daily Mail. She was
00:48:55
scheming about how they could get the biggest possible book deal or even like a movie deal or some kind of
00:49:00
entertainment package deal. and she already had been paid 160,000 plus by the Daily Mail plus serialization
00:49:07
revenue for having done an interview with them and given over the Prince Andrew photo and then they wanted to
00:49:12
marshall or leverage that momentum publicity wise from the Daily Mail's articles in 2011 into a book and so
00:49:19
Sharon Sarin Churcher in this email exchange you can go read it came ac yeah you know what just like throw throw
00:49:26
anybody's name in you can think of who might have had the most fleeting association with Jeffrey Epstein
00:49:32
And that'll get us the biggest possible book deal that'll entice the most
00:49:36
publishers and agents. And as to Duritz, yeah, I mean, he's pretty well known and
00:49:41
we all think he's a pedto, so throw him in there, too. I mean, that's what
00:49:45
they're saying. Um, and >> wait, this is your interpretation of what happened.
00:49:51
>> Almost literally what they say. I'm almost quoting ver I'm not exactly
00:49:54
quoting. >> Who said that? Who said that? >> This is what Churcher says to Virginia
00:49:58
Roberts Guay and she's all on board with it. Wait, how do we know that? >> Because we have the transcripts of the
00:50:04
emails. >> Oh, wow. Okay. And >> they came out of the course of discovery
00:50:09
in in litigation. >> And this person was >> she was a trash journalist. Yeah. Who
00:50:15
was working on co-authoring the book with her or what was >> they were in talks for her to
00:50:20
potentially be the co-author of the book. Uh, so they were they were sort of strategizing as to how they could get a
00:50:27
book deal or get a literary agent to sign on with Virginia and get her a lucrative book deal.
00:50:34
>> And then what what ended up happening? >> A draft manuscript was produced. I don't
00:50:41
know exactly how involved Church was. >> Was there published or >> not initially? Finally, a version did
00:50:48
eventually come out last October after Virginia Roberts phrase purported death in April of last year. And I only say
00:50:56
purported because the circumstances of it are still bizarre. Look, I mean, I'm
00:50:58
I I'm willing to grant that she is in fact dead at this point, but I mean that's another sort of tangent. But no,
00:51:04
it didn't come out for a long time. a draft was produced and then the draft manuscript had to be had to be um
00:51:11
um revealed or handed over over the course of litigation with Durowitz and her lawyers by the by 2017 to 2019
00:51:22
had to admit on her behalf so David Boy at all that this fiction that that this memoir manuscript which had been
00:51:29
presented as non-fiction which was shopped around to potential book publishers as non-fiction which have
00:51:35
been the basis for a lot of media coverage around these allegations as as though it were a non-fictional
00:51:41
representation of her purported experiences. They finally have to admit that it was a fictionalized account of
00:51:46
her purported experiences. So like for example, >> this is VRG's own lawyers ad like David
00:51:53
Boy, >> right? Yep. So they basically said that this manuscript which had been the basis
00:51:59
for her story and >> a lot of the mythology like Bill Clinton was on the island she claimed no
00:52:04
evidence Bill Clinton was ever on the island. He did fly around in Epstein's
00:52:06
private jet in 2002 and 2003 but no evidence he ever went to the island she saw him on the island and which is false
00:52:13
as far as we as far as we know as far as all the available evidence has ever suggested. That probably is one of the
00:52:19
most repeated claims in respect to Epstein, which is that Oakland was on the island. And you're saying that's
00:52:24
just completely untrue. And that came from VRG's manuscript, which ultimately
00:52:30
they had to admit was a work of fiction, not >> non-fiction, at least her own work.
00:52:34
>> Correct. But to but what's so mindboggling is that just relatively recently after this whole blow up around
00:52:41
Ebstein got ignited last July, the book publishers obviously realized that it was a highly profitable
00:52:52
opportunity for them to produce some version of her manuscript in the form of a new memoir. Now, she had been working
00:52:59
on a new version of it with another ghost writer for some time, Amy Wallace, but they
00:53:06
obviously wanted to peg the publication of it to this renewed Epstein uproar. So, this her the memoir finally gets
00:53:12
published in some capacity in October of last year. It becomes an international bestseller, not just in the United
00:53:18
States, but in Britain, Australia, etc. And I'm still stunned. I mean, maybe I
00:53:25
don't I can no longer really be stunned anymore, but it's still stunning to
00:53:30
think back on how credulously the reception to that memoir was, even though I mean, it was basically just Amy
00:53:36
Wallace, this ghost writer, repackaging and massaging. Um, oh, I always catch myself when I use the verb massage now.
00:53:43
I shouldn't use that. Repackaging the initial memoir manuscript and basically
00:53:50
updating it for 2025 and Nowhere do they nowhere do they dis do they disclose that it's based on a
00:53:57
fictionalized manuscript. So it's just a fraud that was >> So they ultimately did publish a version
00:54:02
of the manuscript. >> Yes. Last year. >> And did that book include the
00:54:06
accusations against Dersitz and Bill Clinton or had that been removed by that point?
00:54:11
>> To clarify those allegations of sexual improprieties against Dersitz were not
00:54:15
in the 2011 manuscript. Those were concocted later as a basis for Virginia Roberts Guay to join this ongoing
00:54:24
litigation that her lawyer Bradley Edwards had initiated around something called the Crime Victim's Rights Act and
00:54:29
how the nonprosecution agreement from 2007208 had supposedly violated the non the Crime Victim's Rights Act. It's a
00:54:36
it's a complicated issue. Um but that was debut those those claims against Durich were debuted in December of 2014.
00:54:44
Um, but there are a bunch of other claims already in the manuscript from 2011 and there's a reference to
00:54:49
Dersowitz, but it's just not a an accusation of sexual uh misconduct. >> Okay. The the three women that you
00:54:55
mentioned um Grey Ransom Farmer, did they have the same lawyers or different lawyers? Were lawyers working together?
00:55:03
>> Uh, pretty much the same lawyers. I mean, it's basically the same cabal of
00:55:06
lawyers. It's uh Davis and then Bradley Edwards firm. Bradley Edwards was the initial lawyer that that
00:55:14
oversaw primarily the Florida the the the purported victims from the Palm Beach phase from like 200
00:55:22
2 to 2005. um he started representing them around 2008. And then boys came a little bit later around the more kind of
00:55:29
grandiose litigation, but they were working they've worked in conjunction with one another and still are. They're
00:55:34
still suing as a in a class action lawsuit that they initiated last October, Bank of America to extract a
00:55:41
couple hundred more million dollars just like they did from JP Morgan and Deutsch
00:55:45
Bank and the Epstein estate and plenty of individualized lawsuits that they've
00:55:50
alluded to but never um clarified the parameters of like they brag Bradley Edwards does that they got like 20 or 25
00:55:58
settlements that are still secret. he says from specific individuals whom he acknowledges may not have committed any
00:56:04
wrongdoing at all, but just simply don't want to suffer the PR backlash that
00:56:09
we're seeing now on steroids. So, it's a hugely lucrative industry. And I don't
00:56:13
know, you tell me, David, is this like dimension of this whole story ever mentioned anywhere in any of the popular
00:56:18
media coverage, whether it's on podcasts or on CNN or anywhere? >> No. Um, okay. So, and even the
00:56:23
Deutschbang settlement, I don't think I'd heard of that. What What was that?
00:56:28
So when Epstein dies August 10th, 2019, right, the aing frenzy breaks out in terms of
00:56:38
litigation that is brought against his estate cuz at that point Epstein is obviously
00:56:44
no longer available to contest any claims that are made against him and liel laws ceased to apply. People are
00:56:50
aware obviously that he was very wealthy. He wasn't like a multi multi-billionaire as a lot of people
00:56:54
suspected at the time, but according to his um disclosure of assets when he was arrested, his net worth was like six uh
00:57:03
650 million. So still a pretty big estate. And so because of this flood of lawsuits against the estate, the
00:57:12
executives of the estate, Darren Indk and Richard Khan, decide to agree to coordinate with the victim's
00:57:21
lawyers, Bradley Edwards, David Boy, at all to set up a basically a mediation program that they call the embassy and
00:57:27
victims compensation fund, which is a holistic settlement process that victims or
00:57:34
alleged victims could submit claims to and then there would be a mediator brought in to evaluate the claims and
00:57:42
decide what amount of money to give out. So there wouldn't have to just be like a
00:57:46
flood of individual lawsuits. They could kind of consolidate it. And so they set
00:57:50
up a settlement model basically for the Epstein estate which was expressly non-adversarial, meaning there would be
00:57:55
no adversarial scrutinization of the claims that were made to justify somebody's entitlement to millions of
00:58:04
dollars. people as uh uh claimants were entitled to as much as $5 billion from just this
00:58:11
one settlement fund and it was taxree by the way. >> Wait, this is with this is with Deutsch
00:58:15
Bank. >> No, no, this is the epsian estate. I'm getting to Deutsch Bank because it ties
00:58:18
into the Epstein estate from the Epstein estate. This Epstein estate was first in
00:58:21
the chronology of settlements >> and so they set up a settlement model, right? It's a non-adversarial,
00:58:25
confidential, tax-free because they claim that it applies under that it could be categorized under the IRS code
00:58:32
as like compensation for an injury. So therefore, you don't have to pay income
00:58:36
taxes on it. Um, and so that gets set up, right? And then >> and who adjudicates that?
00:58:43
The court in the US Virgin Islands because the estate was doiciled in the US Virgin Islands
00:58:50
appointed on the recommendation of both parties a an independent mediator or administrator Simona Lelchuk her name is
00:59:00
who specialized she claimed anyway in this sort of thing and like she had an extra sensitivity toward sexual assault
00:59:07
victim she claimed um I mean it's kind of a phony we don't want to get you know
00:59:12
sucked into that nec necessarily tangent but um yeah so there's an independent
00:59:16
administrator and that was modeled they said on >> previous consolidated settlement
00:59:21
mechanisms such as like the Jerry Sanduski >> um I don't know if you recall the Jerry
00:59:26
Sanduski sand scandal at Penn State where claims were made that this football coach had abused a bunch of
00:59:31
boys and so a consolidated settlement program was set up to pay out settlements to claimments.
00:59:36
>> Okay, got it. So that's the Epstein estate. So let's get to the
00:59:38
>> So then they they they take that model that had been set up for the Epstein
00:59:42
estate and then they start going after bank major multinational banking institutions that David Boy and Bradley
00:59:48
Edwards decide to very creatively and cleverly I have to say allege were complicit in Jeffrey Epstein's like
00:59:56
world spanning child sex trafficking operation and therefore reliable. >> Wait, what is the nexus between Deutsch
01:00:04
Bank or Bank of America and Epstein? Were those the banks that he used? >> Epstein banked at those institutions. So
01:00:10
first JP Morgan from like the late 90s to 2013 roughly and then Deutschbank from 2013 to 2019.
01:00:17
>> And the argument is that they should have somehow stopped his activities.
01:00:22
>> Yeah. That >> or failed to do a KYC or something like that. >> Yeah. I mean they they they they they
01:00:27
first started making a much more accusatory argument about their direct complicity in facilitating a sex
01:00:33
trafficking operation. But what the judge ultimately agreed to was to that they were effectively or they were
01:00:40
reasonably guilty or reasonably to be found liable for essentially negligence because Epstein would withdraw cash
01:00:49
and that's supposed to trigger certain monitoring provisions that it was claimed JP Morgan and Deutsch Bank did
01:00:56
not satisfactorily do. I mean it was kind of like a stretch of an argument frankly but because of the popular
01:01:00
climate around oh the people anybody who was involved in this in any way has to pay for all this pedophilic sex
01:01:06
trafficking there wasn't a whole lot really that the lawyers for those banking institutions could do to take
01:01:12
the heat off >> so they settle right so they settled so there are two funds and that yeah
01:01:17
>> how big are those settlement funds th those two >> so JP Morgan was ended up totaling
01:01:22
around 290 million and the lawyers end up convincing the judge who presided over this agreement
01:01:29
in New York, the federal judge Rakeoff, to grant them 30% in legal fees or attorneys fees that they claimed. Um,
01:01:38
and Deutsch Bank was around 90 million or 80 million maybe. Um, >> okay. >> So, just add those up now. So, the
01:01:46
Epstein estate was around, if I'm remembering, 121 million and that's gone
01:01:51
up actually since even more litigation has been filed separated apart from the class action settlement. JP working 290,
01:01:57
Deutsch Bank around 80 or 90. So we're already at like a half a billion dollar
01:02:01
industry and there's plenty of other lawsuits and settlements that have been spawned from
01:02:08
this thing. And so I just have never understood or I do understand it. So I should correct myself. I've always found
01:02:14
it perversely amazing that this whole aspect of this story is never mentioned because it's led to such things as this
01:02:21
gross inflation of the total number of victims where you have adult there's financial incentives. You're saying
01:02:26
there's financial incentives here and just the lawyers are these are contingency fee plaintiffs lawyers. They
01:02:32
get like 30% or what's their I mean these guys are not paid by the hour, right? They they're they get
01:02:37
>> Well, no. Well, could that they I don't think it's No, not it's not a
01:02:41
contingency fee. >> Okay. >> Set up for this. They they got the judge
01:02:45
to approve >> a 30% earmark of the resulting settlement funds to be g given over for attorneys fees. So, it
01:02:56
wasn't a contingent based on the client. It was that the judge approved 30% of
01:02:59
the overall settlement. >> Got it. So the the lawyers who sort of organized these settlement pools,
01:03:06
>> right, >> negotiated essentially their cut up front and you're saying with the judge
01:03:11
and you're saying that was about 30% >> of all these exactly 30%. >> Okay. Okay. Got it.
01:03:16
>> But you have a if you have a set of criteria that are so lax, I mean JP
01:03:19
Morgan even had even more lax criteria than the epste which basically allowed anybody who ever like came within two
01:03:25
football fields of Jeffrey Epstein to file a claim against them and get a few million dollars taxfree. Um but the the
01:03:31
JP Morgan settlement was even more lax. So there are people who are event basically rejected the few who were
01:03:37
rejected from the Epstein estate fund end up getting a settlement from some of them anyway the JP Morgan or Deutschbank
01:03:44
fund. So that that's so this woman Lisa Phillips who was like an adult model
01:03:50
never made any claim about anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein that was wrongful for like 20 years said on a
01:03:55
podcast publicly that she had no idea what these girls were talking about when they make these allegations against
01:04:00
Jeffrey Epstein as of 2020 she said this by 2023 she's getting you know she never
01:04:05
she I asked her she didn't disclose to me her full amount but you know probably
01:04:09
around 2 million at least and then they get free healthcare from yet another settlement between the US Virgin
01:04:15
Islands, the government of the US Virgin Islands and the and JP Morgan um that they set aside for just free health care
01:04:22
for until 2028 for any alleged Epstein victim. Um and it's just like don't
01:04:30
people recognize how that can be incentivized this inflation of the number of total
01:04:36
victims we're told must exist and that thus gives rise to this mass hysteria
01:04:41
and moral panic about like thousands of victims. I mean at this Bondi Pam Bondi hearing that was so contentious last
01:04:46
week at the House Judiciary Committee you had people screaming thousands of victims need you know demand justice and
01:04:52
it's just like a concoction that is not grounded in any approximation of like
01:04:58
empirical fact. So I always say if people want to be mad at Pam Bondi and Cash Patel for something, be mad at them
01:05:05
for signing off on that ridiculous memo from last July where they include that figure of over a thousand victims that
01:05:11
has f given fuel to the most maximalist conceptions of Epstein mythology in terms of the victims that were left in
01:05:17
their wake. I mean soccer always wants to and I shouldn't maybe say too much.
01:05:21
I'm not and I'm not trying to impute him at all, but I do get a lot of people on
01:05:24
the internet doing a variation of what soccer did saying, "Hey, let's just talk
01:05:27
about the Intel ties. Forget all this, you know, gossip stuff around. >> Well, they are interesting. I mean, the
01:05:32
intel ties are interesting, right? >> Sure. I'm I'm, you know, the whole story
01:05:36
is interesting. It's interesting that Epstein apparently met Michael Jackson
01:05:39
in his Palm Beach house and photos of it came out. It's interesting that he can
01:05:43
live with everyone from Donald Trump to Bill Clinton. I agree. It's interesting.
01:05:46
>> Let me bring up one sort of criticism of you and then I want to give Kevin a
01:05:51
chance to get in here. So look, I I think it's very important that we hold this process to evidentiary standards
01:06:00
like you're saying. I think that people's motivations need to be examined, especially like the lawyers
01:06:05
who are bringing these cases who are, you know, reaping hundreds of millions of dollars. So I think you are and I
01:06:11
think even Saga admitted this, I think you're playing an extremely important
01:06:14
role in this process by bringing some rigor and accountability to a lot of these claims. I think that's really
01:06:21
important. At the same time, you're not really offering an explanation of so many
01:06:28
aspects that are so interesting about Epstein. And I'm not saying it's necessarily your duty to do that, but
01:06:35
I'm wondering, you know, do you have a a theory of how did he accumulate hundreds
01:06:40
of millions of dollars? How did he get so connected? Some people like Mike Benz have said that it all goes back to Burr
01:06:47
Sterns where he says that one of his accounts was BCCI which was this notorious international bank that was
01:06:54
involved eventually was shut down because it was involved in international moneyaundering and crimes things like
01:07:01
that. So I think this is Mike Benz's theory. In any event, do you have a theory that would provide a satisfactory
01:07:09
explanation for so many of the threads that we see? Or do you just feel like it's not really your job to to do that
01:07:15
and your job is really more just to poke holes in, you know, what are some of the
01:07:21
more outlandish claims of politicians or lawyers? >> Well, I'm happy to address any little
01:07:27
data point that people want to throw out at me. I mean, I do that all day every day pretty much. So, it's not like I'm
01:07:32
trying to avoid anything or be at all evasive, right? So, people ask me all the time, okay, how did he make his
01:07:39
money? What about Leslie Wexter, etc., etc. So, it's not like I'm unaccustomed
01:07:43
to addressing any of this stuff. It's just that I feel like there's a bit of a
01:07:46
fallacy or a logical flaw in attempting to say that it's incumbent on me to profer some kind of
01:07:55
ultimate totalizing theory. I have a theory I could sketch out that maybe explains some of what people would like
01:08:02
to know in such you know that people are so titillated by. But I think again one
01:08:07
of the things one of the reasons why the coverage of the story has been so horribly bad is that
01:08:13
speculation has replaced fact and we just have this whole mythology or folklore that's developed and that
01:08:19
people just kind of am ambiently absorb and then they end up just believing things that are totally false. So, for
01:08:24
example, people just believe, and I'm sure you've seen this, that Epstein must
01:08:28
have referred to his private plane as Lolita Express. Therefore, anybody who was ever on the plane must have known
01:08:33
that this was like a child sex trafficking plane because why else would it be named the Lolita Express after the
01:08:39
famous book about, you know, 12-year-old girl or whatever who was a sexual object. That's just like false. I mean,
01:08:44
that was this is there's never any evidence for that. It was a nickname that it was invented like by a it was a
01:08:50
cheeky nickname invented by this British tabloid. And so that's just one example
01:08:54
of all this flatsom that >> Okay. But but but to go back, do you have a theory of how specifically
01:09:00
Epstein got started? Because somehow I guess it was in the 80s he went from someone who was just a trader at Bear
01:09:07
Sterns to very quickly amassing a fortune that I don't know seems like hundreds of millions of dollars. I mean
01:09:13
like you said he died with about 650 million. I don't know how big the fortune was in the 1980s. We know that
01:09:20
Wexner sold him the townhouse. I guess one of the details that came out the other day is Wexner said it was at what
01:09:26
he was told was fair market value and Epstein obtains his plane from Wexner. So, I mean, is that the explanation that
01:09:35
somehow he got his start because Wexner was extraordinarily generous towards him? Like, I'm just curious like
01:09:42
>> not quite. Um, so I mean there there was a a huge New York Times article that was one of the
01:09:49
few helpful contributions to the popular knowledge around Jeffrey Epstein recently in December where they go
01:09:55
through I mean they they basically set out to answer the question that everybody always asks with like a wink
01:10:00
and a nod as though they think that the asking of the question is supposed to prove that the answer would be
01:10:05
fundamentally sinister. Meaning how did Jeff Jeffrey Epste make his money? Because the idea is that he must have
01:10:10
made his money by dent of his orchestration of this pedophilic sex trafficking ring that he enforced by
01:10:16
blackmail at the direction of the MSAD or something like that. And the New York Times goes into fairly forensic detail
01:10:23
about how he ended up accumulating money over the course of the 1980s. So people
01:10:28
could go read that if they'd like. I mean, I do think that it's fair to say,
01:10:32
and saying this does not mean that you have to have to condone everything that Jeffrey Epstein ever did over the course
01:10:36
of his entire life, but I do think that he was definitely very high intelligence. I do think that he was
01:10:43
um highly proficient in mathematics as a young man, which is why he part of why he became a math teacher at the Dalton
01:10:50
School, a pretty prestigious private school in Manhattan. then ends up getting recruited to Bear Sterns and
01:10:55
ends up innovating some novel financial maneuvers that you're probably much more
01:10:59
fluent in than me in terms of describing because I'm not a finance guy. But it
01:11:03
was around a time where there was a demand for Wall Street to innovate new tactics for very high netw worth
01:11:08
individuals to structure their wealth to lessen their tax burden to do all kinds
01:11:13
of other things and Epstein did so and then he leaves Bear Stern. So he rose to the ranks of Beer Sterns pretty quickly.
01:11:20
So around around age 24 25 he was like a partner or he had some relatively high ranking position um relative to the rest
01:11:28
of the workforce at Bear Sterns at at a young age. He starts up his own boutique
01:11:35
financial advisory firm that's tailored specifically to very high netw worth
01:11:38
individuals such as ultimately Leslie Wexner who is one of the wealthiest people in the United States. Yes, they
01:11:44
do have a he was wexter was definitely Epstein's most important client. They
01:11:48
there was the power of attorney that was handed over which is seen unto itself on
01:11:51
the internet to be either inherently sinister or to show us that of course Epstein must have been in some kind of
01:11:57
like pedophilic collusion with Wexner. But I mean it's explicable if you actually want to know what it was about.
01:12:03
At a certain point people just want to have to have the ability to keep asking that question with like a gleam in their
01:12:09
eye as though the they're supposed to it's supposed to imply that there is
01:12:13
this ped that like that the pedto sex trafficking is the ultimate answer to everything. But you know, Gilelay
01:12:19
Maxwell, when she gave her proper interview last summer to the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanch, in the
01:12:24
very first time, amazingly enough, that she was asked by any US government official to simply describe her
01:12:28
experiences with Jeffrey Epstein. Imagine that. Um, despite having been integral, we were we've been told all
01:12:34
these years in the running of the most prolific child sex trafficking operation, I guess, in the world
01:12:39
history. Only in July 2025 did any government official ever just ask her to describe what her relationship with
01:12:44
Jeffrey Epstein was all about. And she said that she observed Epstein doing a lot of work that would seem very
01:12:49
complicated and intense to her in terms of his financial business. So for example, Maxwell says Epste basically
01:12:58
restructuring all of the finances for Wexner's business holdings. And you know, he owned the limited, he owned
01:13:04
Victoria's Secret, other kinds of women's clothing outfits and retailers,
01:13:08
he had real estate developments. And Epstein was basically the money guy for all of it. And for a man who in the
01:13:16
early 90s was already worth like a couple of billion Wexner that is if Epstein is getting like a yearly cut of
01:13:21
the revenues that could add up over time, right? And they had a handful of other very high net worth clients like
01:13:28
Elizabeth Johnson who was an ays to the Johnson and Johnson fortune. Leon Black the head hedge fund uh manager. So you
01:13:36
don't need that many extremely high net worth clients, right? If you're their
01:13:39
go-to money manager to eventually de uh build up a pretty nicesized fortune. I would imagine. So, I'm not saying we
01:13:45
have a full accounting of like every penny that he ever accumulated over the course of his life, but we have quite a
01:13:51
bit of information and it just occurs to me that some the people who are who most
01:13:56
loudly ask how did he get his money almost don't even want to know or read into the information that is currently
01:14:04
available. >> All right. Well, I mean, it is kind of unusual that a money manager in that
01:14:10
position would obtain that much money so quickly. I'll just say like from my
01:14:14
experience with the money management business, they're not generally able to
01:14:17
charge that much. But let me put a pin in that cuz I want to let Kevin Bass get in here. I've been following your feed
01:14:24
quite a bit. You are basically a startup entrepreneur who got interested in in the Epstein files. I think you used AI
01:14:32
to analyze them. And in particular, you've been looking at Reed Hoffman's
01:14:37
story about Epstein, and you've put together an analysis. I think you've
01:14:43
called it the Reed Hoffman Files. I've been following your your tweets, and it's quite interesting. Let's start with
01:14:48
how you got into this, what got you interested, and and how you've been doing your research.
01:14:52
>> Yeah. So, originally, I just saw that uh there was kind of a conflict uh on
01:14:57
social media about Reed Hoffman. I didn't know much about uh the Epstein files or or about that particular
01:15:05
conflict, but I was curious. I built some really sophisticated AI tools, you know, mostly using like vectorzed s uh
01:15:14
SQL databases and and some of the MCP stuff with the new agents and uh for for some other purposes. And so I wanted to
01:15:22
port those over to see if I could resolve some of these questions. Uh Elon had some very strong
01:15:30
opinions about Hoffman's involvements with Epstein and he's usually at least
01:15:34
uh if he's not always directly on the bullseye, he's usually at least a few
01:15:37
inches away. So I wanted to go check those out. And then you know I they they came out in I guess late January,
01:15:43
January 30th, the big ones that the big drop that recently happened. And so I just uh I started going through the Reed
01:15:49
Hoffman part in particular uh and I essentially started to try to organize or I have organized most of my analyses
01:15:57
around some core claims that Hoffman made about his involvement with Epstein. I've just been asking the question, are
01:16:04
these claims true? Uh are they supported by the record or are they contradicted by the record? And um overwhelmingly,
01:16:13
like absolutely overwhelmingly, uh they appear to be contradicted relentlessly by the uh the drop that came out in
01:16:21
January um 30th. If you want, I can go through some of the big ones. Uh and then I can talk about
01:16:30
>> Yeah, maybe maybe a place to start is with Reed Hoffman's statement in 2019 to
01:16:35
Axios. This is when I guess the Epstein scandal first, I think, became national news and people who are closely
01:16:43
associated with him felt the need to characterize the relationship with him to distance themselves to explain how
01:16:50
they knew him or how closely they knew him. And Reed's statement at that time
01:16:57
was the following. Let me just read this out. This is uh Reed Hoffman speaking. My few interactions with Jeffrey Epstein
01:17:04
came at the request of Joey Itto for the purposes of fundraising for the MIT Media Lab. Prior to these interactions,
01:17:13
I was told by Joey that Epstein had cleared the MIT vetting process, which was the basis for my participation.
01:17:21
My last interaction with Epste was in 2015. Still, by agreeing to participate in any
01:17:27
fundraising activity where Epstein was present, I hope to repair his reputation and perpetuate injustice for this, I am
01:17:34
deeply regretful. >> Oh, give me a break. >> Is that statement accurate?
01:17:39
>> Not at all. Uh, and in fact, it's not just from 2019. Uh, he even reiterated this on February
01:17:47
4th this year on X repeatedly. He said, "I only know Jeffrey Epstein because of
01:17:52
fundraising relationship with MIT, which I very much regret. These meetings were
01:17:57
all coordinated by Joeyto, then director of MIT Media Lab." Uh, and he also says,
01:18:02
"We with Joey Eito, the director of MIT Media Lab, who asked me to help MIT
01:18:06
fundrais with Epstein. I regret blah blah blah." Like, none of that's uh at
01:18:11
all true. Uh there's very few mentions of even fundraising with MIT. I would
01:18:16
even go so far as to say I don't know. I I've said it this way on on some of my
01:18:22
posts, but it's like the extent of the relationship between Epstein and Reed
01:18:29
Hoffman, it almost looks like best friends. Like my my best friends I don't interact with as anywhere near as much
01:18:36
as as as Reed Hoffman and um and Jeffrey Epstein did over, you know, between 2013
01:18:42
and 2019. Um you know there are constant contact uh there's something around on the order
01:18:49
of about 400 initiations by Hoffman to Epstein. It wasn't just mediated by Joe
01:18:55
Eito at all. And uh you know there's their their sec their assistants were in constant
01:19:01
contact with each other. They had extensive financial relationships. There's something like 42 different
01:19:06
meetings uh that are documented. Around 20 are absolutely confirmed. Uh they met
01:19:12
in in person for breakfast. They would uh spend each other spend each other spend time with each other's at each
01:19:19
other's houses overnight meet um you know Epstein met his wife. It is claimed
01:19:25
that by Hoffman that he only was there for one night. Even the one time that we have absolutely document that documented
01:19:31
that uh he's referring to he was there for two nights and almost certainly there was two other island visits as
01:19:38
well in addition. Uh it's an extraordinarily extensive personal and business relationship and it's not just
01:19:45
about Joito. Now Joita was a really important part of it. Um Joey was sort of uh as far as I can tell again you
01:19:53
guys know a lot more about this than I do but as far as I can tell really going through the files the last couple days.
01:19:58
Joey was sort of um Epstein's uh gateway into sort of academia, Cambridge, Harvard science. that's that's sort of
01:20:07
his main uh gateway there. Uh Reed Hoffen was his gateway into uh Silicon Valley into tech the main guy and uh so
01:20:15
so there is a very close relationship as well between Joito and Hoffman but there
01:20:20
is also very much an independent relationship between Hoffman and Jeffrey Epstein. Uh very much independent of
01:20:28
Joeito. Okay. So So Reed claimed that he only had a few interactions with Epstein.
01:20:34
That's false. You're saying he had hundreds >> hundreds >> including dozens of in-person meetings
01:20:41
and >> yes >> stay stay at the island >> at least once you said for two nights
01:20:45
not one and there were probably a second or third visit. >> Yes. >> There was the stay at the townhouse.
01:20:51
Reed claimed that all of his interactions were sort of mediated by Joeyto and were about the MIT media lab.
01:20:59
By the way, it's not clear why someone would feel compelled to spend so much
01:21:03
time fundraising for MIT, which wasn't even their alma mater. So, this whole
01:21:08
explanation didn't really make a lot of sense from the beginning. But it's
01:21:12
pretty clear that the topics of conversation were not about MIT or MIT Media Lab. In fact, I thought one detail
01:21:20
that was really kind of interesting was their first interaction, one of the first was about they bonded over a book
01:21:28
called deception, which I haven't I haven't read the book. I don't know what the thesis is, but it
01:21:34
appears to justify the use of deception in certain circumstances. >> Anyway, I just think that was ironic, I
01:21:43
guess, if nothing else. >> But look, I you know, >> can I make a quick comment or go ahead?
01:21:47
Yes. Yeah, Michael, go ahead. Do you want to be Reed's defense attorney in this context?
01:21:51
>> Not not exactly. Although I end up, I guess, putting myself into a position
01:21:55
where it can come across that way. I'm really trying to be the the defense attorney for like sanity.
01:22:00
>> Yeah. >> So, here's what I would say. I have to just reject the whole premise of this
01:22:05
discussion that is so ubiquitous now, which is that anybody who so much as exchanged a shortling email with Jeffrey
01:22:13
Epstein, and I know Reed Hoffen apparently had a closer relationship with Jeffrey Epstein than just one email
01:22:18
here or there, but the principle that anybody who had some interaction of of some degree to some degree or another,
01:22:27
Jeffrey Epste now has something that they have to issue these mealymouth melodramatic statements of profound
01:22:32
apology for is just so tedious and ridiculous. What are they guilty of? If the implication is that they're by
01:22:41
association guilty of enabling pedophilic sex trafficking, that is a flagrant misconception. Do people know
01:22:49
how come it's never clarified that Jeffrey Epstein was never even accused of committing any illicit sexual acts
01:22:57
against any person under the age of 18 after the year 2005. So I don't know what years Reed Hoffman and Jeffrey
01:23:04
Epstein interacted. But this idea that he was like looking the other way while all these pre-teens were being raped is
01:23:11
just nonsense. But the media never clarifies it. So now we have everybody from Nome Chosky to Steve Bannon being
01:23:17
told that their reputation is in tatters and they are themselves like by association some sort of like sex
01:23:24
criminal enablers and it's just a it's just a total fantasy >> find this moral panic.
01:23:30
>> Yeah, Michael, I think this I think you're making some really interesting
01:23:33
points. Um I think they're important. I think >> I mean Epstein pleaded guilty to two
01:23:37
prostitution charges in 2008. You're saying Reed Hoffman and Nome Chosky and
01:23:41
Steve Bannon should have all said, "Oh, because the guy pleaded guilty to two
01:23:45
prostitution charges, which they were, which they were, that means nobody can ever consort with him ever again for the
01:23:51
rest of his life." I think that's a ridiculous standard. >> There's two there's two different issues
01:23:54
here. one is um whether or not there's this global pedophile ring and you know
01:24:01
we can even go further and there's this sat these satanic rituals and all this
01:24:05
other stuff which uh I'm inclined to think that uh you're you're very close
01:24:10
to the truth in what you're saying. On the other hand, um there are Reed Hoffman's public statements like
01:24:18
dramatically minimizing the relationship. Now sure >> I think that can easily obviously be
01:24:24
explained. There's an obvious explanation where we don't have to necessarily impugn to Reed Hoffman, you
01:24:31
know, being a pedophile or any of these other things that people are wanting to suggest because he lied. And the
01:24:37
alternative explanation is just that this is such a hot potato. There is a hysteria. So people lie about their
01:24:44
relationship with Epstein even though they're not guilty of something that's
01:24:48
terrible behind the scenes. >> Any association at all is radio with Epstein is radioactive. I mean, but so
01:24:53
if somebody lies, then I mean, they can be condemned for the lie because lying is like how Lutnik made up a ridiculous
01:24:59
lie that was totally pointless and actually counterproductive for his purposes. And the lie itself can be
01:25:06
condemnable, but not necessarily because Howard Lutnik is covering up any kind of
01:25:09
pedophilic sex criminality, just because of the moral hysteria that's been allowed to be unleashed around this
01:25:14
stuff or like any connection in any way to Epstein is like grounds for censure. >> Yeah. And all right, let me tell you my
01:25:21
my point of view on this. So So first of all, I think you're correct that there's
01:25:26
a lot of guilt by association happening and there is a little bit of a feeding frenzy. And like you said, just because
01:25:32
someone emailed Epstein doesn't mean that they were involved with him in some
01:25:36
nefarious way. And I thought it was unfair when Sager mentioned that Jason had, you know, emails with Epstein back
01:25:45
in 2011 to make an introduction. I think that's >> I had even seen that. I mean, it's not
01:25:50
important enough even to draw my attention. Like, who cares? There's plenty of interesting material in the
01:25:53
files, but like random emails. >> No, no. And I I agree and that's why I
01:25:57
tried to defend Jason there cuz I know that there was just nothing to that. Now, in the case of Reed, I think that
01:26:04
there's a couple of things that are interesting about this. Number one is when this new Epstein files
01:26:11
drop, Reed came out on X and very aggressively started pointing the finger at other people, wildly accusing both
01:26:21
Elon Musk and Donald Trump of somehow being involved in Epstein's purported crimes. And this is just a
01:26:30
classic case of someone throwing stones while living in a glass house. I mean, you look at his own statements from 2019
01:26:39
all the way up to weeks ago and they don't hold water at all. He lies about the extent of his relationship with
01:26:47
Epstein, how many times they met, what the subject matter was, what the context was, how many times he visited the
01:26:53
island potentially. I mean, just one lie after another while again wildly accusing other people. And you do have
01:27:01
to just ask what is going on here? >> Yeah. And I mean, that just goes to show
01:27:05
how weaponizable this whole thing is and how the Epstein story or any kind of tangential connection to Epstein can be
01:27:14
leveraged to serve some kind of pre-existing agenda. So, if like Reed Hoffman and Elon Musk don't like each
01:27:19
other, then they could accuse each other of like having a more a closer connection to Epstein than they did. And
01:27:25
it's just like a uh a slugfest. And yet, I'm still struggling to understand like
01:27:30
what the underlying accusation of wrongdoing is supposed to be. above and beyond just how perhaps Reed
01:27:37
Hoffman and or Musk or whomever might have misrepresented the relationship. >> Well, the question the question is also
01:27:45
partly like why did he need to so aggressively attack others? Why did he need to so aggressively lie about the
01:27:52
relationship? Is it just that he's covering himself because of a moral hysteria or is there I don't know. Well,
01:27:58
I mean, my my theory on this, I think it's kind of obvious what he's doing, is
01:28:02
that by pointing the finger at Trump or Elon, actually both, he's driving everyone into their partisan tribes,
01:28:11
>> right? >> So, as to, I think, seek protection of the Democrat tribe to which he's
01:28:16
contributed hundreds of millions of dollars. And I think it's worked. I mean, you look at the mainstream media
01:28:21
coverage of this, the New York Times coverage of it, which we talked about in a previous episode of the show. They
01:28:25
wrote an article about Epstein's ties to Silicon Valley. Other people who had far
01:28:32
less extensive of a relationship with Epstein got paragraphs in that story. Reed Hoffman was only mentioned in one
01:28:40
sentence along with three other people. So, he does seem to be getting a pass from, you know, Michael, if you know,
01:28:46
you want to characterize this as a feeding frenzy or moral panic or a Syria or what have you, whatever it is, he
01:28:53
seems to be getting a pass from the media. And my point about this has not been to accuse Reed of crimes because I
01:28:59
don't think we have any basis for that whatsoever. Let me just state that clearly. My
01:29:04
>> is there a fallacy of all this then? >> No. Well, let me let me me get to that.
01:29:07
My my point has just been that the media needs to cover this >> in a fair and even-handed way as opposed
01:29:13
to like you said weaponizing it to go after the people they don't like because
01:29:18
there's political advantage in that. Or another parallel is Hillary Clinton just
01:29:22
came out this week and gave an interview on the BBC where she said we the Clintons, Bill and I, we had no real
01:29:27
connections with Epstein, but Donald Trump, we can just assume as unassalably true that he's in the process of
01:29:35
orchestrating a cover up because he has something to hide. Now, and then on on the other hand, Trump will toggle back
01:29:41
and forth between uh Bill Clinton and Larry Summers and Reed Hoffman. They're the ones who are
01:29:47
truly implicated by their association with Epstein. I had nothing really to do with the guy. And then the next day
01:29:52
he'll say, "Oh, I'm a little upset or rofal that Bill Clinton's been dragged
01:29:56
into this mess." And it just gets, you know, framed around, organized around
01:30:02
just like a partisan battering ram. And it just becomes incredibly tedious because there doesn't even have to be
01:30:07
anymore any concrete allegation of any wrongdoing whatsoever. There's no credible allegation of any pedophilic
01:30:13
wrongdoing by either Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Reed Hoffman, Elon Musk, anybody. It's like what are we talking
01:30:18
about here? Ultimately, we're like in this other domain of like who can establish the most damning guilt by
01:30:23
association even though nobody can spell out what the guilt is supposed to be tied to.
01:30:29
>> Well, and but here's the question is why did Reed so brazenly lie about his
01:30:35
relationship with Epstein? It could just be >> why do you have a lipnic lie? Well, it
01:30:40
could just be that he wants to protect his reputation in business by minimizing the association. But obviously, when you
01:30:47
lie that extensively and that brazenly about it, it is going to make people think that you have something to cover
01:30:53
up. And you know, I think that >> people think a lot of dumb things. I mean, is there like any evidence at all
01:30:59
that would that would tie Reed Hoffin to some kind of child sex crime? Not >> I'm not accusing him of that. So if
01:31:04
people think that's what's being covered up, then they should be disabused of
01:31:08
that facious notion rather than countenancing the notion and allowing the mass hysteria to continue
01:31:15
proliferating unhindered. >> Can I ask you something, Michael? What evidence is there for um so on the
01:31:23
island or in general? What evidence is there that um people were being trafficked? Maybe not minors. Uh, did
01:31:32
that actually were people actually going to the island for that purpose? Was that
01:31:36
that extensive or not? >> It's impossible to know what people even mean by trafficking anymore. Trafficking
01:31:42
is an incredibly nebulous concept. It's very much open to the whims and discretion of prosecutors who seek to
01:31:51
fit some fact pattern to a desire to prosecute somebody for some sort of t, you know, sexual related offense. if it
01:31:59
involves simply facilitating the movements of somebody from point A to point B. So if adult women consensually
01:32:05
flew on an airplane to go visit a luxury island in the Caribbean and over the course of that visit maybe they engage
01:32:12
in some consensual sex act and then 20 years later they can retroactively classify it as trafficking and that will
01:32:21
entitle them to like millions of dollars in taxfree settlement money. Are we going to take at face value that that
01:32:26
constitutes trafficking? because I don't. So I'm I'm always a little bit
01:32:29
mystified as to what we're supposed to understand as trafficking. Now, >> so your overall perspective on this is
01:32:34
basically that a lot of the discourse about this is constructed and we don't
01:32:38
really understand the underlying facts. Is that your >> I mean I understand the underlying facts
01:32:43
to the greatest degree that I can ascertain them. And I think that they're they are just chronically and almost
01:32:50
unbelievably mischaracterized everywhere you look. >> Let me get you to react to this tweet
01:32:54
that someone just at mentioned you on. Uh oh, here we go. >> A brilliant uh feedback. Um
01:33:02
>> well, this is Okay, this is a guy. I don't know this guy. Present witness. Um
01:33:06
but this is what he's saying is the evidence. Okay, so I just, you know, I want to get your reaction to Well, let
01:33:12
me read this for people who are just listening and can't see the screen and then I'll get your reaction to it. So he
01:33:17
he says, here's the evidence. $160 million from Leon Black, $50 million townhouse and power of attorney over
01:33:23
Wexner's estate. Cameras in his residence wired by Israeli government. Compromising photos of Prince Andrew
01:33:28
Clint, etc. Confirmed sex trafficking of underage girls from Maxwell Brunell and
01:33:33
others. Teaching job with William Bar Princy's CIA. Kosogi was a client of Epstein.
01:33:40
Princes moneyaundering for intelligence. Adviser to Ehood Barack and the Rothschilds. Rumler chief who was a
01:33:47
chief legal officer of Goldman Sachs and former White House counsel under Obama was a key adviser and backup executive
01:33:52
as well. There are millions of files still redacted. None have been released by CA, State Department. This is just
01:33:58
the tip of the iceberg. Anyone telling you that there's nothing to see here is
01:34:01
attempting to whitewash the most important revealing intelligence related story of our lifetimes. And then he
01:34:06
calls you out here. Michael Tracy doesn't understand the difference between evidence and proof and is
01:34:11
cynically exploiting sexually abused women for engagement. >> Okay. I mean, first of all, I don't know
01:34:17
what that guy is even arguing all that stuff is supposed to be evidence of. like what is the ultimate contention
01:34:22
that he's claiming those myriad scattered data points are supposed to justify? I mean it it that's that's why
01:34:31
that's what's so strange about this story. Nobody can really ever articulate
01:34:35
like Sager struggled to articulate what I suspect actually is his ultimate belief which is that there was some kind
01:34:41
of pedot trafficking operation. like he I think said that he agreed with the Thomas Massie quote that I read out to
01:34:47
him, but on its face that's sort of like a bizarre statement to make. So, they
01:34:50
latch on to this other peripheral stuff around intelligence and whatnot. And that guy said,
01:34:59
"How dare anyone ever say there's nothing to see here?" And he ascribed
01:35:02
that to me. I've never said there's nothing to see here. People tell me all
01:35:05
the time that I allegedly have said there's nothing to see here, but I don't
01:35:09
say that at all. I'm pretty much as obsessed, if not more obsessed with this
01:35:14
story than anyone at this point to a degree that's probably not very healthy
01:35:18
like mentally. >> Obsessed with it, but hold on. You're obsessed with Hold on, Michael. Let me
01:35:24
just let me ask you about that. >> You're obsessed with it in the sense
01:35:27
that you think this is a modern-day Salem witch trial, >> right? Which is fascinating.
01:35:32
>> Yeah. So you're fascinated from like a sociological standpoint which is have
01:35:36
humans evolved beyond you know where they were hundreds of years ago engaging in witch hunts and things like that or
01:35:44
do you think it's interesting in other ways? >> I think it's interesting in other ways
01:35:48
definitely in that way as well but there are other ways in which it's interesting. I think it's almost
01:35:53
interesting as an anthropological survey of sorts among you know elites movers and shakers you could say where Epstein
01:36:00
did have this extraordinary ability to network and to convene people who probably otherwise would never have been
01:36:08
convened. So I've been saying that I think Jeffrey Epstein is the only man on
01:36:13
earth who could have brought together for a friendly social pow-wow Nam Chosky and Steve Bannon. Like I'm almost
01:36:21
jealous of that. I mean, I'm sure that would have been a very fascinating discussion to listen in on, right? And
01:36:27
there are other examples. And so, I think it's interesting from that perspective. I mean, I think everything
01:36:33
that every little piece of information that can be uncovered about Jeffrey Epstein's life is now almost
01:36:38
intrinsically interesting just given the salience of the story, right? So, I guess I'm interested just from that
01:36:46
perspective because like obviously he's now a historic or world historic even
01:36:50
figure. And so, yeah, I'm always I'm always down to find out something new
01:36:55
about what Jeffrey was up to. So, sure, I think it's interesting politically
01:36:59
just in terms of how this can be leveraged into some sort of political battering ram against enemies. And, you
01:37:08
know, this is like the number one oppositional Trump narrative of the second term. It's almost Russia gate
01:37:14
redux in the outsized prominence that ep that uh Democrats are giving it in terms of what they bring up
01:37:22
day after day in hopes of it undercutting Trump or beding him. So >> yeah, it it doesn't have to be like the
01:37:30
the new new Russia gate in in that way where every possible >> tangential fact is somehow connected
01:37:37
>> and it the whole thing kind of metastizes and is used in a partisan weaponized way.
01:37:43
>> Yeah. And but but it's different in that there's an international component like
01:37:46
this is the number one scandal right now that's ravaging Norway, Slovakia, I was
01:37:52
mentioning obviously Great Britain today, other places, you know, United Arab Emirates, um name your country. So
01:37:59
there's like it's been internationalized, which is just fascinating as well. The didn't didn't
01:38:04
they burn like an effigy of Jeffrey Epstein in Iran or something? I mean it just never ends. So of course there's
01:38:09
like infinite fascinating material at least to me. I just don't accept that in
01:38:14
order to be fascinated by this, we must buy, we must, you know, have this weird epistemology where we can just collect
01:38:23
all these discrepant little pieces of information, blast them out on the internet, and then just think that we've
01:38:29
done the argumentative and logical work necessarily necessary to somehow establish how that proves our ultimate
01:38:37
notions about what the story is supposed to signify, which again is pedophilic sex trafficking. enforced by blackmail
01:38:44
that ens snared prominent individuals at the direction of some intelligence agency. That's the crux of the Epstein
01:38:49
mythology and it's been systematically unraveled including you know partially by this the
01:38:55
disclosure of more Epstein files but even prior to January 30th or December 19th the two productions there was never
01:39:01
any credible evidence for any of it. So yeah, I am fascinated in terms of how people come to believe such mythological
01:39:08
things and the journalistic malfeasants again that has been characterizing the story as well is is of particular
01:39:17
interest to me because they it's been a central factor in how the mythology has
01:39:22
been allowed to just kind of proliferate without any counterveailing point of view
01:39:30
being put to it. All right, I think that's a pretty good place for us to wrap up. Kevin, do you have any final
01:39:34
thoughts? >> Um, I'll just continue releasing some of this stuff. I uh I tend to agree with
01:39:42
Michael, but um you know, I also think that sticking to the facts is also very important too and and telling the truth
01:39:48
is is important in both directions as well. So, >> can I can I just make one concluding
01:39:53
thought? I I actually do think it's, you know, I'm I'm happy for this opportunity
01:39:57
to speak on your podcast. I assume I'm reaching an audience that probably would
01:40:00
not not otherwise hear of me to a large extent and because I do think it's actually very disturbing that so many
01:40:07
people around the world are being told that it's somehow been proven or vindicated that there is a massive child
01:40:13
rape ring or that there were mass child rapes that were allowed to be perpetrated by the highest levels of
01:40:19
government and then were covered up because as I mentioned on Piers Morgan this week, it's very easy to imagine how
01:40:26
people with a predisposition toward mental illness who hear this stuff and believe it might
01:40:31
be driven to do something like homicidally crazy. So, I'm not predicting anything in particular. I
01:40:37
just think it's it's probably the most explosive thing to tell the mass public in terms
01:40:46
of what it might incite particular people with a particular mental instability to to to do. So, I mean,
01:40:56
that's just one of the potentially detrimental effects of all this that I think it should be rationally countered
01:41:01
to the maximum extent possible. And I think we're going to be beset with this
01:41:06
issue for the foreseeable future. So, at a certain point, I don't know, maybe
01:41:11
there should be a little bit more momentum behind providing some degree of a rational corrective. I mean, or does
01:41:16
it is it just me? I mean, am I the only guy who's going to be doing this forever
01:41:21
more? I mean there's some more who have like come to take on a little bit more
01:41:23
of a skeptical perspective but >> well I think we we have we should be cognizant of the real world
01:41:29
ramifications rather than just speaking about it in the abstract or who suffers more Reed Hoffman versus Elon Musk or
01:41:36
all this other stuff. I think it it really is a crazym thing that's been inculcated in the public.
01:41:41
>> Yeah. Well look I think both of you have performed very valuable services
01:41:46
for the public in regards to this whole episode. I think Michael, you are asking
01:41:51
really important questions about evidentary standards and what is the basis for some of the more let's call
01:41:56
them Epste maximalist claims out there again about this global pedophile ring and so forth and I think you're right
01:42:03
that when you're talking about crimes you have to be evidence-driven and there
01:42:06
is a little bit of a feeding frenzy here and it is appropriate to ask what the motivations are of everyone involved in
01:42:13
the story and you're one of the only people who are doing it although it does
01:42:17
seem like you are making a There does seem to be a vibe shift a little bit around what you're doing.
01:42:22
>> Yeah. Most people who are have like who have their brains wired in a normal way,
01:42:26
which would not include me, you know, would probably have an like a negative emotional reaction to being inundated
01:42:32
day in and day out with accusations of personally being a pedophile or harboring like depraved sexual fantasies
01:42:38
of >> children or whatever. But like, you know, obviously that is not the case for
01:42:43
me. But I can withstand it because I'm used to the torrent of vitriol. But most
01:42:47
people, I think, probably would be dissuaded from taking a certain angle on a certain subject if that's what they
01:42:53
had to endure. >> Well, the mob does not like being accused of being a mob. And their
01:42:58
defense mechanism seems to be to accuse anyone who points out some of these problems and the the logic of basically
01:43:08
somehow being involved in in the crimes that they're alleging. So in any event, I I I do think that you
01:43:15
are performing a valuable service. You know, when Hollywood dramatizes this, it's um you know, it's like Henry Fonda
01:43:22
and the Oxbow incident or maybe it's Gregory Pek and Tequila Mockingbird. You've got a mob and you have this one
01:43:28
lone figure who's standing up thwart the mob trying to talk sense into them. And
01:43:34
you know, in real life, it's not Gregory Peek. It's like a guy in a one-bedroom
01:43:38
apartment in New Jersey. >> Yes. for all the money I'm told I'm surreptitiously receiving from Leslie
01:43:44
Wexner and the MSAD. I mean, I wish I could get some better digs, but >> yeah. And Kevin, I do think that what
01:43:50
you're doing is really important because I think that this the citizen journalism
01:43:54
here that's soothing through the Epstein files is turning up really interesting
01:43:58
things. And I do not think it's appropriate for Re to be again wildly pointing the finger at other people
01:44:05
while the evidence shows that he's been bold-faced lying about every aspect of
01:44:10
his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And to be honest, if he had just kept his mouth shut and not accused other
01:44:15
people, I'm not even sure this would be a topic on the show. I would just wait
01:44:18
to let the chips fall where they may and see what ultimately comes out about this. But he kind of put himself in play
01:44:27
by saying all of these things and I do think it's appropriate to examine the
01:44:32
record and and assess his credibility on that basis. And you've done that job and I
01:44:40
hope you and other people will keep going through the files and actually seeing what is actually there so we can
01:44:45
get to the truth of this story. >> I agree and thank you. >> Well, let's let's wrap it there. I just
01:44:51
want to make one final point, which is, you know, even when years ago this was sort of a cause celeb
01:44:57
on the right where you had right-wing podcasts pointing the finger at Bill Clinton or other left-wing figures. I
01:45:04
never weighed in on this. I wasn't sure what to think. I still am not completely sure what to think
01:45:11
about it. I don't want to get over my skis in terms of overly associating myself with any one point of view
01:45:16
because I think when people do that they do kind of dig in and I'm keeping an
01:45:21
open mind with respect to what comes out next. It would not surprise me at all if
01:45:27
Michael Tracy turned out to be correct but also it wouldn't completely surprise
01:45:30
me if some version of Sagar's uh version of the story proved to be correct assuming more evidence comes out. So I'm
01:45:39
keeping an open mind. I do think it's really important for us to evaluate the
01:45:43
claims critically, which is why I think it's important to hear from people like
01:45:46
Michael Tracy and I look forward to seeing what comes next and we'll address
01:45:52
it then. I >> I try to be rigorously evidence-based as well myself. So, I don't discount the
01:45:56
idea that something could theoretically come out that would undermine some of the assumptions or conclusions that I've
01:46:04
derived from my, you know, research and reporting on this. So I think that's a
01:46:09
healthy epistemological habit to always be open to the possibility of something that's contra in contravention of your
01:46:16
prior assumptions uh being presented to you. >> Absolutely. >> Fully agreed. Okay, we'll leave it
01:46:22
there. Thanks, guys. >> We'll let your winners ride. >> Rainman David
01:46:31
and >> we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love
01:46:36
you. Queen of >> your besties are gone. >> That is my dog taking notice your
01:46:49
driveways. >> Oh man, myasher will meet me up. >> We should all just get a room and just
01:46:56
have one big huge orgy cuz they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual
01:47:00
tension that we just need to release somehow. be wet your feet. We need to get murky's art.
01:47:18
I'm going all in.