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