Sober here and we are following this breaking
news out of Washington. Some serious allegations this
morning facing the State Department. That's right. According
to internal State Department memos, the agency might
have called up or intervened
an investigation into possibly illegal and inappropriate behavior
within its ranks,
allegedly to protect jobs and avoid scandals. This
concerns the time that Hillary Clinton was secretary
of state. We wanna get right to NBC's
chief White House correspondent, Chuck Todd, with the
latest. Chuck, good morning to you. Good morning,
Savannah. You know, there's an old saying in
Washington that the cover up is worse than
the crime. But in this case, both parts
of it are disturbing. Allegations of prostitution
and pedophilia
and allegations
that those crimes were somehow covered up or
not looked into. So that
It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality. Reality.
Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours
breaks free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection
of the day.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Tuesday, 02/03/2026.
Thank you for joining me today.
Largely one
major topic we're discussing today, not just the
Epstein files that's the focal point, but the
reality of the long term conversation of this
and whether what's happening and kind of has
always been happening. And I imagine you all
are right there with me on this question
and the answer probably in your mind on
whether or not this is pacification
or accountability.
And, you know, it it it's I I
think it behooves all of us to not
you know, I would argue it's very it
seems very clear
that that this is about trying to yeah.
That's what I said the other day in
regard to even Trump doing this. As much
as he deserves the administration deserves some level
of credit for releasing this more than others
have. But at you know, basically, at at
you know, while being threatened to make it
you know, if we're gonna really understand the
way this is going, lie after lie after
lie.
But it's it behooves us to not
see what we think is there and really
take a step back and try to look
at it because, you know, there it's what
I've been trying to do today are really
just of the last so many days of
all this happening is it it's easy to
see what you wanna see. I always try
to think about that when something's going on,
something I've researched in the past. And ask
myself, is it possible
that this is what some of the supporters
might want this to be? Is it possible
that this is Trump doing everything that they've
asked for and this is the way that
he got it done or the you know?
And and, obviously, the more this goes forward,
the more that will become true or not.
But I think it's worth asking that. I
mean, my opinion right at the gate is
I think it's pretty clear that this is
a reactionary release
that is meant to pacify people from
wanting some kind of accountability as much as
that may seem counterintuitive.
But I'm I I think it's important that
we ask these questions and and try to
see
different arguments from it. But I think that
both the partisan sides, as usual, are missing
some part or another that helps them see
it the way that they want to. And
I'm also still of the mind that the
majority of people out there are now existing
in some kind of limbo state between all
of it, varying degrees. But I wanna talk
about this today in regard to the information
that has been coming out and whether this
will continue in any meaningful way
And what might happen to you know, we've
talked about
foreign policy.
Clearly, there's building discussions and whether that will
be used to drive away from this conversation.
But simply that point today, and a lot
of different angles to get into, some follow
ups on on the other parts of the
conversations we've discussed. I'm gonna start with a
point from the Palantir connective point. I'm not
gonna go deep on that today, but just
kinda follow-up some points that add to the
last show we did, and then largely get
into, for the most part,
the the conversation
around,
what was the main part here? I mean,
the Israel connection, I think, does stand out
quite a lot, and I wanted to make
sure we didn't miss that. But, again, it
kinda really all connects back to the larger
conversation of left, right, just your government
managing whatever this has been. And from that
point, as we keep trying to highlight, not
just the Epstein manipulation,
blackmail, like, for, I guess, his own personal
interest, but the obvious connection to what that
is,
one part of a much larger apparatus that
goes well beyond one country.
And if we know that, which I think
is very easy to demonstrate,
then it can't just be about Donald Trump
and Biden or left and right or whatever
else. It's about the larger agenda. It is
about the globalist change. It is about the
transition of society. It is about the eugenics
mindset from a long time ago and now
into the technocratic time frame. These things are
very much a part of this. But so
let's get into it today to start with
a clip from a an interview that I,
a joint interview that I did
with Vanessa Bieli and BetBeat Media.
I want to start with this for a
reason because you've heard me talk a lot
about this discussion,
and I wanna make sure we set that
parts those parts for the of of, you
know, set the table within that regard for
the conversation today, but also the the bigger
points and ways this connects, like with Gaza,
but really the idea of this model
and how that part think about how an
Epstein
and Mossad's CIA apparatus fits into this.
I look at it as the idea that
this is a
coercive mechanism that's used to achieve whatever their
goals are, not necessarily like it's all some
ideological
focused agenda, like, you know, the woke mindset
and the UN and globalism. Those are there,
clearly.
But I it's important, I think, to step
back and see that those might be the
things in and of themselves being used by
the larger entities that don't really care about
ideology one way or the other, but really
control at the end of the day. But
this is an important clip, I think. And
I'll I'm playing this one because I think
he cut parts of it together. I'll include
the full episode, which I recommend you check
out. I really enjoyed the dynamic, and Vanessa
adds some really important points as always.
But I I I I'm only saying this
because the way that they edited it on
the clip that went out, somebody sent it
to me, so I'm not even sure where
it came from. It, basically has just other
imagery in the background. So just know that
that's something that they added. But I think
it's the vlogger video is even is is
good in and of itself. I'll include the
actual I guess I could put it on
my server and include it. But if somebody
knows where it came from, let me know.
I'll include that as well. But they clipped
this part I'm gonna show from this interview.
But important to think about this in a
larger sense. I'll play this, and then we're
gonna get into some of the couple different
points about Palantir and the connective idea, and
then get into the larger conversation for today
and where it seems to be going. And,
of course, we're gonna end on some of
the awareness that is changing. I mean, I'm
trying not to beat a dead horse here,
but I think every day it becomes more
important to highlight
the evolving conversation.
You know? And it's it only becomes repetitive
because we called it out so long ago
when it was not it's still barely being
acknowledged. So if I don't bring it up,
it becomes as if we never talked about
it. And that's actually interesting in the part
we're gonna talk about today, maybe halfway through
to the end, about Pizzagate.
That's an important the reality of that conversation
before if you don't if you haven't heard
about the, you know, really, the conversation at
all or more so specifically the way that
somebody like myself or Ben Swan have covered
it, then I argue you don't really know
what the under the conversation is about. Not
really. There's a lot of manipulation around it.
But most of you here in the audience,
like, I imagine you do. But we're gonna
talk to you on that.
Interestingly, with Ben Swan bringing it back into
the conversation,
about a real part of this conversation. That's
why I started with the link the the
Chuck Todd point that I did. We'll get
to all of that. But realizing that this
is something that Ben Swan, for example, myself,
a lot of us were talking about a
long time ago, well before it became the
story that it was in the corporate media.
And there's been probably fifteen, twenty different points
where that could have been brought back up.
But it feels you know, we'll get to
why it's relevant today, but realize that Ben
Swann being the best case, he he got
he lost a lot for doing the honest
reporting about that. Not the subjective circumstantial points,
which are still relevant, but the real points,
the ones you could prove, the evidence based
reality of it in conjunction with those superficial
points and lost a lot for it. And
so I'm glad to see him stepping back
out. And he'll probably get a lot of
more heat and negative attention for it, but
he's right in what he's reporting. And we'll
get to all of that and how that
ties in to all of this. And, again,
that's the larger picture, not just the individual
examples. But start with this clip about the
bigger technocratic picture. I think I'll play this
Ryan Christian clip because he does a pretty
good job explaining how Gaza is the, you
know, it is the blueprint for the rest
of the world as the Board of Peace
is is a worldwide
body.
But at the end of the day, it
really is my mind is the same agenda.
Donald Trump and his team at at the
World Economic Forum in Davos, you know, yes,
they they shout some token things out. Globalism
is dead and then outline the globalist agenda
that they're rolling out. You know, it's a
with with Gaza and the presentation of what
appears to be a new global
UN dynamic that Trump is creating, you know,
but he's not a globalist. You know, it's
it's all kind of a a a bait
and switch. And so what I see is
that being this extension of it today.
It's a it's what I framed it as
a techno feudal state. I mean, this is
what it seems is even I mean, I'll
say say short of, like, saying that exactly
what they're framing in their own literature about
this. You know, the the the reference goes
to, Srinivas,
Srinivas.
I'm blanking on his name. Srinivasan,
for the former CTO of Coinbase. He's the
one who wrote this book and is kind
of, you know, a major part of this,
you know, discussing how he sees this. And
weirdly enough, I was just reading about how
this goes back to even before this point
discussing doing this in San Francisco. So there's,
like, this evolving agenda, but what he calls
tech Zionism, which I think is just wildly
problematic with what we see Zionism doing in
the world today and obvious other conversations we
could have. But, really, even if you take
it at the way they want you to
perceive Zionism, it still basically means taking territory
from something else and and repurposing it for
your agenda. But, you know, when I when
you to go to go to the larger
view about what this transition is. Right? Like
I said before,
it's my opinion that this is a reaction
to a, an, you know, the elitists. I
don't think they're elite. I think they're elitist.
But at the same point, if these people
in these inner circles recognizing
diminishing influence in the average conversation, you could
even go back further in history and argue
that this transition away from the feudal state
mindset was basically a way to convince us
that we were in control when we still
weren't. You know, I think that's kind of
what this is now is the transition to
the new system to make us think we
pick this when it's even less influence. But
at the end of the day, it comes
down to this network state agenda. Right? And
this overlaps with this is what I really
wanted people to see early on in Trump's
administration, that the freedom city agenda
is the same conversation. Seasteading, freedom cities, Praxeas,
Greenland,
Prospera, it's all the same thing. Almost every
part of it tied back to Primo's or
Promenose Capital, which is Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel,
all, you know, kind of driven. And it
all it all comes back to this this
kind of, you know, philosophical driving mindset from
the Curtis Yarvin kind of, you know, many
books they've written. There's so much we can
get into that just what they say is
terrifying to me. But then the point is
that this is about transitioning into,
like net like Vanessa was discussing, kind of
away from the current reality of the way
our government structure works. And the main point
is everything I'm seeing today is just because
I think most people are unhappy with that.
Most Americans, most people in the world are
tired of the way that governments have been
abusing everybody, and so they find a way
to convince us this is the solution to
that. Sort of like saying we're gonna end
the Fed, but here's the CBDC. It's like
this everything like that is happening right now.
And so they're can they're driving us into
this position where they're creating, you know, a
CEO run, tech run, you know, Freedom City,
you know, whatever. And this is what Trump
was discussing. That's also,
promoted. And and if it was to happen,
the funding was coming from the same people
involved with Prospera. Freedom Cities Inc, whatever the
company was called, that is backed by the
same people that's driving Prospera. That's Peter Thiel.
That's Marc Andreessen. That's the same conversation. So
what I see is these people, either with
Trump's administration or all of The US Government's
involvement or just have their own volition through
lobbying, which kinda ends up being the same
point, They're trying to reimagine the way our
society operates. Marc Andreessen and Joe Rogan discussed
literally this mindset, like, trying to re like,
convince us that, no, the old ideas of
democracy have never worked. And I'm of the
mind, by the way, that I don't for
democracy's mob rule, constitutional republic is what should
we be discussing or or just no government,
really. But the point is that they're saying
that your system doesn't work. What you need
is the good oligarchs. That's what he actually
discussed. Come to save you from the bad
oligarchs. So it's like they're really showing you
this transition of power, and it very well
could be a a an illusion of the
same people, or you could argue this is
a different group of elitist trying to take
power from another group of elitist, but none
of them in my mind have the interest
of the people at heart. And if you
really dive in last point on this of
of the network state mindset of what they
write, even, like, aside from the kind of
token libertarian mindset things they throw over the
top in material like, in a practice, what
they're doing is the opposite. And you can
see this. And and and I think it
goes to a point of
the great reset mindset of you'll owe nothing
and be happy despite the way they frame
it. When it comes to the digital mindset,
you know, you own the keys to all
of your assets. But who owns the who
controls those keys? This is the way they're
framing this. It's like having something in Coinbase
where they can go, yeah. You can access
it, but we can decide to cut you
off the moment we don't like what you're
saying out loud, which is happening. So it's
a transition. It's an illusion of control.
Now for most of you who watch this
show, you've you've heard almost all those points.
Or, you know, mostly probably all of them.
But the reason I wanted to play that,
and I'm sorry if it was redundant for
people who've heard me make those points before,
it's just I think it's just a a
well you know, and and and he the
person who made the clip actually put together,
like, three different points I made at different
parts of the conversation. But it really does
do a good job, I think, in in
a not, you know, fact based. It's you
know, or other than the things I'm saying
are based in fact, but the re it's
not like I'm dropping source material. Right? It's
just the idea.
But I think if I think if people
take a second to think about that, it's
these are what I keep saying about that
is it's it's right in front of you.
They're not these aren't debatable points. It's about
whether they connect. That's discussion we can have,
but the reality is that it's happening. And
this is why I think what's happening with
the Epstein files and the way it all
interconnects. And you can find connective points to
almost every part of this today through those
files right now that are that are and
and not all of it are are bombshell
provable things, but just connective tissue that show
you that there's a there's something in between
them. There's something that's changing. Why is Jeffrey
Epstein speaking about Bitcoin or these things with
people like the, you know, the inner circle
of Trump's cabinet right now? Why was that
happening? Well, it could be benign. Right? It
could be completely something different that he maybe
he thought it was a good investment. That's
all it was. Could be. And we should
be objective and ask and and and,
acknowledge that.
But if you stand back and look at
how it all went together, knowing what they're
involved in, knowing these the intelligence connections and
then what those intelligence apparatuses are are apparati
are driving,
we really need to start asking whether these
were and, you know, I think it's the
case, that these were building blocks to where
we are now, including the Bitcoin point we're
gonna go over. So that all being stated,
let's move to
a couple of other opening points that I
wanted you guys to see. Oh, and I'll
just this is the show we just recently
did to set the table for that larger
idea of the network point. Now like I
said, these are some three or four points
that I wanted to include that will really
just if I saw them, they would've been
included on this show. And this was the
last one, Epstein files exposed cover up, which,
as far as I can tell, that seems
to be almost what everybody thinks. Excuse me.
Other than those out there who are, you
know, choosing to play aside. Right? Like, I
just you know, I'm gonna fight this because
they're the bad guy or my team's the
good guy. Left and right, it seems everybody's
pretty clearly pulling this a cover up of
some one degree or another.
And that it the Epstein files reveal Palantir
network state connection. Not bombshell necessarily.
Could be. I think they're important with what
we know. But just really that there's a
Palantir which was already there, more so Peter
Thiel, but specifically Palantir, which I'll show you
more today. Or you have, Ryan Grim shared
an important clip where Jeffrey Epstein was telling
Uberock about, hey. Invest in Palantir. That's where
it's gonna you know, it's strange. And so
even there, whether it's all completely benign other
than that, you go, well, okay. Did did
this company become what it is because of
people like this? Doesn't that matter? That's these
are questions we should be asking.
But it's also the network state connection, which
is involved with all of these overlapping points.
Now to get to this
oh oh, first, actually, I was this one
I was referencing the clip that I'll play
for Ryan from Ryan Grim. I also just
wanna include in this overlap with the Elon
Musk and the rest, the connection, so I'm
gonna say that between times.
Elon Musk merged SpaceX with a with XAI
just recently, which, New York Times says
creates the world's largest value
most valuable private company with what? $12,200,000,000,000.0,
something insane like that that your mind can't
even that our minds can't even grapple with?
The the number is meaningless at some point.
I I talked about this a lot. It's
a it's a psychological thing. Like, after so
many million, your mind just kinda it's just
a large number. You can't even contextualize what
it means anymore. And if you actually map
it out visually, I can play that clip.
It's it's only about it only goes up
to, like, a 100,000,000. It it blows your
mind. How it's it's like
acres and acres of just stacks high of
$100 bills, and you can't even imagine. You
know, my point is that it's it's a
it's a amount of money that almost becomes
meaningless.
And why I think that's relevant in this
context is these people don't even think about
money anymore. It's irrelevant to them. Like, I
made I used to make this point about
Bill Gates a long time ago, and it
applies to any of these trillionaire billionaire types.
They could literally stand in front of a
fireplace.
You know, assuming that they have, you know
really, I would argue just having any investments
that aren't ridiculous, that are giving some return
with how much money they have. I think
I read this in a it was a
magazine that made this point. But you could
be shoveling him money with a huge snow
shovel, $100 bills into the fire, and couldn't
shovel them fast enough to run out of
money, that he's making so much money behind
it that he's actually gaining while he's doing
that. And it just it's think about the
mindset that creates of not that's all just
things I felt like including. It wasn't necessarily
for this point. But interestingly, that the lack
of concern about money changes the kind of
person you're talking about. But the real point
here was not just the money, but this
is a very clear transitional thing.
SpaceX is a government contractor, of course, also
for the deep state pedophile that they say
Biden was. That's not weird at all seeing
as how that's the peep the creep they're
fighting, but I'm kind of joking. The point
being Biden and Trump are all war criminals
in my mind, but if he's what they
say he is, then why was Elon working
with him? You guys have heard me say
this before, but I just think these points
should open the door to logical thinking. They're
all the same. But SpaceX is a major
military contractor.
XAI is now also a military contractor since
he recently merged XAI
with Twitter. And then XAI
became a Department of War contractor,
which in my mind, these are all just
moving narratives. This was always what it was,
in my opinion, whether on paper or not.
Now he's merged XAI
or rather SpaceX with with XAI. So for
I just said that backward weird. So first,
it was XAI with Twitter. Before that, it
was him taking over Twitter, DARPA allowing him
to take over XAI, which is what that
was. That's what this discussion is, the quiet
transition from DARPA's XAI to Elon's XAI, and
now merging SpaceX with XAI.
So now your
social media platform is literally SpaceX. It is
a military contractor, which is my point is
I feel like that's always what this has
been.
But I think this represents this ongoing transition,
this consolidation.
It whatever it looks like, these are these
are
what's the right word for it? Not just
changes,
but this like, if you have to imagine
what this means for people that engage with
this, like, does that now mean that and
has it always meant that the literal
military side of this is mapping and watching?
Well, yes. I think that's always been the
case. But now it might as well just
be on
the terms of service.
I'll include this for you. It's an important
show to watch to understand how this is
continuing. Now here is an interesting overlap. These
I just want I'm I'm I want these
to be quick points. I'm not gonna take
too much time on it, but this is
about a clip DropSiteNews put out,
an audio clip of Epstein speaking with the
former
prime minister of Israel. And I think this
is relevant just because of what we know
what's going on today.
He he thought there was two cyber companies.
Look out and
even though I know Peter I've never met
Peter Thiel.
And everybody says he sort of jumps around
and asks for storage like he's on drugs.
Smoking. Yeah. Yeah. He looks under drugs. Both
of them said that, by the way. You,
Barack, and Epstein, called said he looked like
he's on drugs because he is, by the
way. I'm not saying that as a as
a negative. I'm just saying they he's been
him and him and Elon have admitted one
war one way or another that they do
drugs all the time in public places. But
the point is the conversation about the cyber
companies. So you could make it about any
company that they choose to tap in with
or just recognize their mindset
with the agenda. Just relevant points. However, here's
a company called Palantier,
p a l l e n,
t e t I e r. Palantier is
Peter Thiel's company. And look out. Palantir,
p a l a n t I e
l? Yes.
Well, think about all the different connections,
right,
between all of the of of How do
you like t t h I
e l l l? T h I e
l. Oh, I hit the wrong button. Think
think about all the different connections between Israel,
Palantir, you know, the larger global agenda. Like,
this could very well be a moment where
they this ultimately got like, it's just worth
thinking about the deeper connections between all of
this. You know? And and even to this
point, like, think about Alex Jones and plenty
of others arguing that Palantir,
like, months ago or rather what, like, six
months ago, is just some small thing the
Democrats are focused on. You think so?
Really? You get Epstein suggesting it to a
prime minister of Israel? This has always been
something bigger than what it looks like. That's
my opinion.
Yeah.
L l y no. P t h I
e l l.
Okay.
So he thought that Peter would put you
on the board of Palantir.
Peter Thiel is one of the best I've
never met him. He's gonna come here next
week.
I wonder if that's true, by the way.
Because it's been proven that they have they've
connected and met.
But who who's to say whether that, you
know, the the point would be it could
have happened after this.
But there's what we're now finding out too
is that it's pretty clear.
I I would argue it's opinion, but it
seems pretty clear to me deductively
that Epstein was aware that emails were not,
you know, which everybody is, are, have been,
are now, that emails are not secure.
And then ultimately, there's examples where you can
see that he goes, like, not on email,
not here. Right? And then for example, that
one where he goes, make sure you tell
them I'm not Mossad with a smiley face.
It's like, I think it speaks to the
opposite even though a lot of the magazine
was like, see, we knew it. He's not
Mossad. It's like, well, aside from the 700,000
other points where he basically says that. So
it's interesting to think about that being, you
know, like a nod. Like, make sure you
say that on the record. But knowing that
these kind of things, he he was aware
that people be might
look at these later is the point. So
he might say that. So I wanted to
talk to him. If I talk to you
Yeah.
He and
Andreessen.
It's called Andreessen Horowitz. Mhmm. And both of
them together make Pernomos Capital, which is the
main agenda I was assessing to start. Andreessen
Horowitz, that's what that they pay Larry a
million dollars a year.
Just
to advise dreas and? A n
d r e e
s o n, Andreasson
at Horowitz.
And Howard?
H o r o,
Horowitz.
Yes. What they are? It's a lobbyist. What
what they are doing? They are the biggest
venture capital
people in Silicon Valley.
What? Bigger than Sequoia or Planet These are
the these are the new Planet Perkins. Everybody
these are the smart boys. Mhmm.
Yeah.
So those two companies right away in terms
of I said that we need count now
in the next three weeks if you're gonna
leave.
Like I said, then, you know, these are,
connective points. I personally find that very relevant.
And, clearly, Brian does as well. That's why
he shared it. It it just it's it's
a it's not the bombshell, but it is
important with what we know and very well
may end up being something that's much more
relevant than we realize now. But I just
think it's so hard to if you're being
honest with yourself, it's pretty clear that we're
seeing behind the scenes a little bit right
now of the actual ruling structure of the
world.
That's, I think, just very interesting and it's
uncomfortable for especially those people, but even it
seems like just as much for people who
just don't wanna acknowledge it. They just, you
know, it's like stomping their feet, head in
the sand. I don't wanna know this because
it makes my life more complicated.
I get it, but that's not the way
to live your life in my opinion. But,
yeah, I find this to be important. And
he adds at the bottom, appears to be
from the dinner with Barack and Larry Summers.
And he includes one of these links. You
know, so there there's so much of this
coming out. And I do wanna reiterate that
a lot of the stuff coming from the
Epstein files are are things that are subjective,
that you shouldn't be taking at face rather,
you can somebody put this forward. Doesn't mean
that it actually is what happened. They could
be lying. They could be incorrect. And and
you could argue on top of that. I'm
not trying to give anybody a pass because
we should be questioning this, not assuming it.
But that clearly, in some of these cases,
that could be why the FBI didn't feel
it was necessary to follow-up or to investigate
because we did, you know, that this was
or they did and found out there was
nothing there. I'm not gonna assume any of
that. We need to prove every one of
those points, but we can consider that that
could be the possibility.
It's not it's it's it's rarely all or
nothing. Even though I know more than better
than most that these people are corrupt from
every side, I'm still willing to be objective
because that's in my interest. That's in our
interest. Don't be like them. Don't fall to
their level. That's always important.
Next point on this is just to think
about the Palantir overlap. So he's referencing Palantir.
I'll include this episode so you can check
out the bigger or the the article. Here's
an another example of the larger kind of
direction of all this. Let's not forget
Epstein, his weird eugenic scientific direction, and, you
know, and that's a very there's a lot
you can get into on that. Whitney and
I have talked about in the past. Whitney's
done entire work on that on her own.
There's important stuff around that. But I found
this interesting. Here's an email
that is to Bill Gates,
c c Larry Cohen.
Doesn't say it said now up here, you
get the main one that says to Jeffrey
Epstein, and then says mail to both. But
behind it, what they're mailing to both, whoever
that would be,
is one to Bill Gates.
And what it goes on to is something
that says to Bill. Now this is being
framed out there by as somehow like, this
you have to understand. This is something written
to Bill. As much as you know my
opinion about who Bill is and what he's
involved with since we really spearheaded the exposed
Bill Gates day,
it's simply acknowledging that it very well could
just be written at him and be all
lies. I don't think that, to be clear,
but that's being objective, and it could be.
This is how we have to frame this.
What's important, though, to me, is that this
is coming from Jeffrey Epstein.
Right? Or rather, this is to him and
then from and then he's involved with the
bottom conversation. This is the one saying mailed
to both to him from whoever sent it
to him. Of course, we don't know who
because the White House decided we shouldn't know
that. Go figure.
But I found this interesting. So the the
it's to Bill Gates. It says Larry and
I have been working on deliverables
for my time and the Bill Gates, you
know, Bill Gates Foundation, I believe, b g
three c three.
Since you and I spoke at Larry's request,
I have spoken with Roger, Mark, Chris, Trevor,
Jeff, and we and next week, Bose, Jonah.
Everyone has offered guidance, advice, thoughts, and ideas.
So deliverables case just means basically what we
are expecting for our investment, for example. You
know, when are they supposed to deliver a
certain product by a certain time? And so
what's interesting is they go into it and
talk about some of the things they're expecting.
Now realize, I think it's relevant that they're
deliverables,
not just let's discuss this abstract idea. Right?
Two areas where I'm interested in terms of
scope, domestic health
and neurotech,
brain science.
Now this is my whole point about this.
We talk about neuroscience
today like it's some fantastic, ridiculous idea in
most people's minds.
Neuroweapons and neuroscience has been a very re
I'd reference James Giordano in The US Government.
I've we've talked about this with,
Catherine Austin Fitts.
We're talking the kind of stuff optogenetics,
for example.
Now let's not forget about the I'll just
grab that too.
The
there we go. Good. I wanna get the
show that popped up. The, the generative optogenetics
program,
which is new. The optogenetics
have been going on a long time that
overlaps with the weird COVID nineteen technology stuff
from Charles Lieber, Rob Langer Bob Langer, who
was the cofounder of the Moderna
Scientific, cofounder of Moderna Shot. This is a
new program using that just to include that
for you. The point, though, is that neuroweapons,
neuroscience kind of stuff is the kind of
things that she we,
Catherine describes as something that you're can be
in front of your computer, and that's why
optogenetics came to mind. Light pulses could be
used to manipulate your body, the way you
think, the way you feel, your your body's
processes. That's what this entire thing is about.
It's not a secret. It's very well documented.
That seems crazy to some people. Even though
I can prove it, people will still dismiss
it. It. My point is, this is what
Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Gates are involved with,
which we know that, or was or is,
depending on how you talk about Jeffrey Epstein.
It also goes in rather to get to
the deliverables under the category of domestic health
and neuroscience,
neurotech,
brain science.
It is to improve, access, and secure personal
health data.
Think about the interesting nature of that with
where we are now.
Now you could argue that just means for
yourself, but look at where we went. You
could argue it was about controlling. Your had
dealt data. That's not even the important parts,
though.
Recommendations for a zero knowledge proof based digital
system to secure private personal health information while
allowing access to digitally redacted personal information. Doesn't
that seem to say we're we're gonna give
you a platform that appears to be secret,
but we can have access
to you know, or just recognize this is
pointing to the very system that's built out.
Now it goes under white paper on consumer
health expenditures, white paper on or and or
recommendations
on neurotechnologies
related to chronic and degenerative disease.
White paper on neurotechnologies
as weapons. It's right there
in national intelligence defense. This is Bill Gates,
Jeffrey Epstein, and somebody we don't know.
Follow-up recommendations
and or technical specifications
for a strain pandemic simulation.
Now let's be clear.
These things these pandemic simulations are not even
secret. They do it all the time. Some
of them are, but
right we there are plenty of them they
do, and they argue that they're not. They're
just a practice, which I don't think anybody
thinks that anymore. You can clearly see the
weird overlaps.
But my point is that by pointing to
that, it shouldn't mean that we know this
was COVID nineteen, which is what some people
are doing, or that we know it was
something malicious, but we should certainly ask that.
And with everything else in this point about
neurotechnology
as weapons, neuroscience, health, digital control, and then
it's a strain pandemic simulation,
doesn't that seem a little bit strange?
A little bit too specific? I mean, you
can decide for yourself. But here is, as
always, these are not screenshots. This is a
link to the actual file in the Epstein
files. This is crazy. Now, we're gonna get
into in a second a point about,
let me see where that was actually.
Okay. Right there. Maybe I should play that
first. We'll see.
About what this is really about. That's the
this one a couple of clips I was
gonna play or one clip and something I
wanna read about that idea. He's a former
FBI agent basically saying, is this this is
is accountability, or is this just awareness?
And why are they different? You know? And
and how it is used to pacify, which
is very much what I think. But so
stuff like this is crazy. Like, this one
thing, if this one or I should let's
just even take this one aside since it's
nothing here can be proven to be other
than they're working on technology. But there's plenty
of examples of emails. I just find this
to be very relevant. I think you know
why, and I think it is when you
know what's going on. But you take the
examples of different things we've seen about people
being ordered to be killed, for example.
And
if that was alone, the one thing that
got leaked by somebody to the media, that
got this would be a huge story. But
because it's buried
alongside or rather now put up, but was
buried alongside, like, a 100,000 different
claims and and emails that are just as
crazy, it seems like no one knows what
to do. No one's doing anything. There's no
charges being performed. There's no investigations happening. So
it's like they go, here is everything, and
now just drift into the background.
Something like this should be more important.
Let me see if I wanna play that
FBI clip first.
Oh, this is just the highlighted parts.
And, you know, like, the the opening clip
is my my point is I wanna make
sure we consider this. I know you guys
all do, but for those that are new,
Trump and the Zionist globalist technocrats are building
your new society whether you like it or
not. The Epstein type, the Thiel type, these
are people behind the scenes who are literally
coordinating this change. And I don't mean that
by opinion. Whether they're all working together is
opinion, but the reality is you can see
them at the highest levels of power. You
can prove Epstein was making these different changes
at these high levels with this is not
a secret.
Now the overlapping point of Bitcoin, that's where
I will we'll do that and then overlap
with Israel and then get to the larger
point of the transition.
There's interesting points of Bitcoin that I wanted
to share as well that I do think
relate to this larger transition point. The idea
of how Bitcoin has been used by this
administration, how it's clearly being used to sort
of, I think, like, a bait and switch
into a CBDC stablecoin kind of dynamic. So
I'll include Derek's article, the co opting of
Bitcoin, which I really think is a major
part of this.
But I'll give you a couple of different
points people made. And you can decide for
yourself. I think this is pretty much up
in the air for the most part. But
Jacob King here has to say this. Epstein
files reveal, and you can decide if he's
correct about this, that Israel hijacked control of
the Bitcoin,
excuse me, the Bitcoin network
over a decade ago,
which is an interesting claim. Right? Now
is it Israel or is Jeffrey Epstein? Is
that conflated? You know, there's a point to
be made here.
I'll read this first, and I'll tell you
what the other guy has to say about
it. And, you know, you can decide, but
I'll I'll give you my opinion after that.
Israel was paying the salaries of 60% of
Bitcoin's core co, core developers
and offered highly elusive
gifts behind the scenes. This is very suspicious.
Epstein and Israel were also major investors in
Blockstream,
a company that works for the for with
Tether and exerts significant influence over Bitcoin. They
can manipulate the price by issuing unbacked Tether,
control the network code because they hired most
of the developers and own a majority of
the nodes. Now that, I find interesting.
Specifically, the nodes or rather the CPU power
on top of that,
and we've talked about this, about the idea
of a of a,
what was it called again? Now I'm blanking
on the term. But just if you have
if you're able to control the majority of
the CPU power that arguably based on what
even Satoshi had said in the beginning in
the white paper, that this could end up
make creating, at the very least, double spending,
manipulation
of this. Now that goes back to the
white paper. So the question is, is it
possible when people dispute that or debate it?
And now it says, this suggests Israel likely
has direct access to and influence over Bitcoin,
which would make sense. I don't I don't
know if I agree with that framing, but
it makes sense if you think about the
way it's being used today and how the
transition was done very clearly.
The idea of decentralization is clearly illusory. I
agree with that. And it's deeply concerning that
the network could be manipulated by a single
state operating behind the scenes.
What was that?
Hold on.
Damn it. I've heard think of the term.
I I've brought it up so many times.
It's, a something percent attack or it's the
in the white in the Bitcoin white paper.
Let me just do this.
Here's the Bitcoin white paper. I'll include it
for you. That's
weird.
There it is. So what it says,
basically, if
where was it? Now see how much is
I'm gonna try to find it again. It's
gonna take too long. It's not long. This
is actually not that long.
I thought it was right at the beginning.
It was doubles let me just do that
real quick, and then if I can't find
it. Okay. Here we go. It says,
if a trusted third party is still required
preventable spending
where was that? Oh, well, I'm just gonna
skip it because I can't I I forget
where exactly was.
Look at the chat, see if you guys
remember what I was talking about.
Oh, well.
I brought it up so many times. I'm
just blanking on the term. If I remember
the term, I could look it up real
quick. It's basically that if if if you
can control over 50%, let me see if
that brings it up, of the CPU power.
Now
the argument being that you could manipulate
the the, you know, the blockchain. But I'll
I'll I'll I'll include what I need to
for if it comes up later. But either
way, the point wasn't to go into this
in-depth. I'll include this just for you to
look at.
But ultimately, that he's arguing that because of
the
influence on the coders and and everything else
he mentioned,
he says that they could manipulate it, which
is worth considering. Now here
is
one of these posts that I thought was
relevant overlapping with Bitcoin. Sorry. I'm still looking
at the chat to see if somebody brings
it up.
And this is from,
was it Joycey Joycey Ito?
And, basically, it goes over some of this
stuff. And this is the one he was
referencing, by the way. As always, I'm gonna
give you the actual source material. And I'll
read you what it says here and then
go the the parts that stood out to
me. And it says RE digital currency initiative.
And it simply says, used gift funds to
underwrite this, which allowed us to move quickly
and win this round. And it says, the
the way that Bitcoin is organized currently is
that there are five,
core developers and around a 100 contributors to
the core code. The five core developers are
like, Linus,
Provalds of Linux. They decide what changes are
made, the core code. One of the five
is the lead developer,
Vladimir, and one is the chief scientist, Gavin.
Gavin, Vladimir, and Corey, an important contributing developer,
were being paid out of the nonprofit
organization called Bitcoin Foundation. A few weeks ago,
it blew up in quotes when one of
the board members declared the foundation bankrupt.
And it gives links, and it says many
organizations scramble to step into the vacuum created
by the foundation and, quote, take control of
the developers. We moved quickly,
taking talking to all of the various stakeholders,
and the three developers decided to join the
Media Lab. This is a big win for
us.
It's interesting.
So that's how he's framing that. You can
decide if he's correct on framing it that
way. Here's the full email where he kind
of cut some parts out. This just stood
out. It says, I hired one of Megan's
former colleagues from the White House,
Brian Ford, who was in charge of figuring
out Bitcoin at the White House and briefed
the POTUS on Bitcoin to run the initiative,
and he is doing an amazing job for
us.
This is 2015.
I found that interesting. You're talking about you're
talking about,
Obama at this point. Right? So you're talking
the the point being that this is a
not a left right situation.
You have the administration before Trump's,
who at that time it was being discussed,
but it wasn't like the way we've seen
Trump going forward, even more so specifically this
administration.
But you have somebody tapped to the the
let the the Democrat administration
who was already working on how to, as
it says, to,
he worked for the White House and was
in charge of figuring out Bitcoin
at the White House and is doing an
amazing job for them. And it says to
brief him on Bitcoin to run the initiative.
So that shows you an in an in
an overlap of Epstein
and people around Bitcoin worked into the White
House, which shouldn't surprise anybody. But I think
it shows you whether or not it's all
just
benign involvement because they think Bitcoin will help
their agenda or that they're manipulating it, that
these people were involved all the way back
then. So it is a part of what
they're doing. I mean, it could vary at
the very least, could be that they don't
want Bitcoin to circumvent the dollar, which I
argue was how it was designed if you
believe the way it was first laid out.
And that's
right now, it's being used to bolster the
dollar. Certainly seems like a takeover to me,
a co opting to me.
God, this is driving me crazy. I can't
think. I'm I'm somehow a I've been sitting
here thinking the whole time talking about what
this point was. I'm gonna leave it alone
because it drives me bananas.
Damn. That drives me crazy.
Alright. I'm gonna leave it.
So continuing,
this is the person I I was I'll
just reference and you can watch the video.
It's about three and a half minutes long.
But he simply said, did they did Epstein
influence Bitcoin in their development? He says simply
no. That's not how Bitcoin works. I I
agree with that for the most part.
But what's interesting is that if you listen
to the argument,
it's sort of like, you know, that I
agree that the systems work that way, but
the question is could it be manipulated using
things like the CPU power or node control
or the the majority of investment. And the
argument is debated.
And so it the way he outlines this,
I agree with. But the question is not
whether they were doing this through the proper
channels or through the way it's supposed to
work, but rather using you know, manipulating as
through the channels that they could.
And I believe that's possible. I really do.
But I also think it's worth considering the
larger point that or rather just, I guess,
not the larger point, but just the more
abstract,
you know, that this is them just trying
to figure out how they can use this
to further benefit,
which, you know, this is seems interesting to
me because
we're talking about Jeffrey Epstein here.
So the fact that he's doing it makes
it a bad thing. Like, when you understand
what he's doing, not the Bitcoin side of
it or whatever they're dealing with, but the
fact that he clearly
like, I guess you could argue that even
though he's a whore is was a horrible
monster of a sexual predator and everything else,
that is he bad in every single part
of his life? Is he kind to people
down the street? You know, it's like, I
probably I'd hope I it's hard to think
of it like that. He's a terrible, disgusting
person no matter what. But my point in
saying all that is that maybe he's doing
this to benefit that or you know? But
I I see it in the bigger picture.
I think this is about building these blocks
for where this goes when you understand how
everything fits together.
I'll include two interviews I did about this
as I reference usually, Mark Goode and Mitch,
Mitch, Burkeham, Both of which are discussing this
is entitled how the government commandeered Bitcoin and
its centralized future. And we discussed this. Was
it a government operation account? Can it still
be used to fight back? Very I think
it's worth your time
to understand this and realize that I think
the Bitcoin part of it is a very
large part of this conversation. And then realize
how the to what the the people that
are involved in it more than anybody right
now.
But as Ryan Grim post about Palantir
and Peter Thiel and Jeffrey Epstein, Hamed, Hamed
simply points out the the the conversation you
heard happened in 2013.
Palantir signed its first contracts with the Israeli
government in 2014
and opened an office in Tel Aviv in
2015.
So you could make the very real argument
that because Jeffrey Epstein suggested it to the
prime minister of Israel, that that's why Palantir
became a central part of the Israel agenda.
Worth thinking about that.
Now we talk and this bringing it back
to the Epstein files in general, this is
the one that went around that's being used,
and I think I still think it's important,
as I said,
to argue that Trump is compromised by Israel.
But let's remember, which is what I said
when this first came out, even the ones
we showed you that were the and we're
talking about this the first day. The the
the horrible things about him and the 14
year old girl. Well, we have to be
honest about the reality that these are subjective.
Doesn't mean false.
Doesn't even mean inaccurate. It just simply means
that we don't we can't prove them. So
let's make sure we focus on what we
absolutely can prove. Now I'm still gonna point
to them in a broad sense of the
body of evidence. But there right now, you
get a lot of people out there who
are pointing to this going, We knew it.
We knew it. We don't I shouldn't say
it like that because they may be thinking
about the full body of evidence and this
on top makes it, you know, provable. But
if people are pointing to just this document
and saying, This proves it, then they're they
either don't understand that it's subjective or they're
trying to manipulate or somewhere in between.
I think that's important. Right? So there's a
ton of information in here that are things
that are simply like affidavits somebody gave
talking to the police.
And we all know that these people can
be wrong. They could be lying. There could
be an you know, the FBI could have
cut it. Any number of things could have
happened. I just think we have to be
honest about that. Otherwise, we're not being genuine
here. Now as I said, many have been
trying to draw attention to this for some
time now despite the censorship of suppression.
But this is hard to ignore the statement,
not that it's necessarily provable.
So what now watch as all the usual
suspects suddenly start telling you that they've always
seen it and even called it out, which
since I posted this, I think we've all
seen that start to happen. But the argument
or the the post simply says,
Trump told him that he was going to
f Amazon over their military contracts.
The human source advised that this was a
real collusion story, that Trump has been compromised
by Israel, and Kushner is the real brains
behind the organization. Now
they may be lying about that. They may
be telling the truth.
Oh, a third possibility or of many possibilities
is they really believe that, but they're wrong.
This is just what it looks like to
be objective, guys. And I know you all
agree with this. That's why you're here. Realizing,
though, that this person may 100%
believe that, but be basing it on some
show they watch from a partisan player. You
know what I mean? Like, you'd never know.
So that's why it behooves us to be
objective. But on the note of Israel, I'll
include this again as, obviously,
the many long thread before the selection process
where Trump was out there telling you he
would do what he's doing right now, tried
to show everybody.
On top of the fact that Caitlin Johnstone
is pointing back to those same kind of
conversations that are making the rounds again through
some of the somewhat mainstream alternative media. I'm
not talking about Caitlin. I think she does
great work.
Kath Woods, for example, pointing out these conversations
of him telling you how he well, just
what she says. Trump, I'm bought and owned
by the world's richest Israeli, Mary Madison. Doesn't
say it like that, but is, like, gushing
about how he does so much for them.
And they come to the White House asking
for things more than anybody. And, you know,
listen to the clips I share telling you
that Israel should control Congress. He literally said
that. Trump, I advance Israeli interest in exchange
for Zionist funding. That's what he's saying. Persons
reading the Epstein files, I'm beginning to suspect
some of our leaders may be covertly compromised
by Israeli operations.
People are starting to see the obvious. It's
been there the entire time. Dominic Trippi points
this out, and this is another overlap. There's
so much of this, and it's gonna keep
coming out. But by the way, check every
one of them because you'll I have some
examples today where somebody's sharing something that appears
to be altered, where somebody took a heading
claiming it was to somebody else and attach
it to a different email. This is and
they may not even know they were tricked
by that. Maybe they did it on purpose.
This one, Epstein documents reveal individuals involved in
investigation
believed Epstein and Maxwell
were Mossad agents trying to blackmail leaders throughout
the political world. Well, yes. It's exactly what
I believe is happening still to this day.
But, again,
Mark Iverson is it's from Mark Iverson to
unknown, which, as usual, question why.
And it says, it was nice talking to
you. I called the report
to report the following three items.
While going to meet political candidate Bill Richardson
in Albuquerque. I met Ghislaine. She was bright,
beautiful college girl who was graduating from Oxford,
invited to a ranch in Santa Fe, but
I refused because I was both married and
unable to afford the property. She pointed out
her boyfriend Jeffrey come into the room. I
left. '82, a a rough roughly a decade
before most people thought she was in The
United States, within a week, I was warned
that she was a spy and to stay
away from her. This
is '2, 2021.
This is being written.
And it says, years later, I also heard
that she's a a submarine pilot.
After no decade of abuse is possible. I
don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
A second black book was found on the
streets of New York and is now reported
to the Internet.
And, see, so you could argue this is
coming from him relaying what people are claiming
on the Internet, which could be true, could
be false. We know there's a ton of
misinformation out there. And it says it has
Usain's
siblings in England,
and, of course, she is one of the
daughters of Robert Maxwell, who was a Mossad
asset. Two of her sisters lead a company
for the US DOJ software.
See, think about just those kind of things.
Or Trump's cabinet right now who are all,
like,
just completely compromised by Israel, my opinion. And
you could prove this in tons of ways.
Like, walls and you waltz and using the
Israel TeleMessage app in the inner circle of
the White House. That is an Israeli intelligence
archive. That's what it is. So
there's tons of these examples. In this case,
that
the two two of her sisters
ran a company for the DOJ
for software
who had he's a facade asset asset. I
mean, it's just it's just so obvious when
you look at the bigger picture, and it's
been going on a long time. It says
a backdoor to the software is suspected.
Robert was given a state funeral in Israel
after his tragic death. And it says, I
suspect Robert, his Lane, and Jeffrey or all
of us odd agents. Well, even that is
just his suspecting that. Right? But it's still
relevant. I agree. That's an important
part of the database of evidence, but it
doesn't prove it. Other things do, by the
way, in my opinion. Like, for example well,
you I would say this isn't proof as
well, but it's far more valid evidence of
Acosta just blatantly saying that. You know, the
the the point is there has been more
than one example of, like, documented evidence on
top of the fact that they basically admitted
it in many ways.
Now
talking about
them possibly being manipulators to politically blackmail politicians.
Right?
Think about where we are right now. These
are just the two examples that came across
me today. I could show you all the
ones that Trump's saying it before. But right
now, you've got the Trump administration,
right, supporting the ongoing genocide, just like the
Biden administration did.
And I'm not wouldn't you have the Democrats
right now going, look at what he's doing?
No. You don't. In fact, what you have
is all of them almost entirely together when
it comes to one conversation.
Israel.
Far back as you can look, that's been
the reality.
Here's Schumer with what's going on, standing up
and saying this,
which by the way, at the exact same
moment, you can find the same sentiment coming
from Republicans who voted for the same thing,
who continue to send six what what was
it? Six, billion more?
6,500,000,000
more on top of what they already agreed
to. Nobody seems to gripe about this except
people like Massie.
All of them are fighting for the same
thing if you really pay attention.
Fight for aid to Israel, all the aid
that Israel needs.
I will continue to fight for it,
and we deliver more security assistance to Israel,
our allies.
Security assistance.
Right. Against again, I mean, let's just even
pretend it was actually against Thomas.
Couple years go by. Okay. So you're giving
him $6,500,000,000
to do what right now? Against whom? Who
are we talking about? Aren't you guys the
ones telling us you just got your final
hostage body? Aren't you guys the ones telling
us that you've decimated them and you wanna
make yourself sound like you're succeeding?
$6,500,000,000
on that small location? What do you what
do you mean security assistance? Okay. If it's
not about fighting Hamas, are you suggesting you're
giving them $6,500,000,000
to build their own security in a place
where they just got done genociding the enemy?
Who are we supposed to be worried about
right now? Oh, Iran, I guess. Well, why
wouldn't Israel worry about that? You know what
I mean? The idea that this is what
America first looks like from left or right
about any of these people actually fighting for
the rights of in Americans, for the interest
of Americans, which they all claim to do,
when all of them do is hand everything
over to people who seem
to do whatever they want with no consequences.
I just think this timing is interesting of
this coming from Democrats right now. Under my
leadership than ever, ever before.
We will keep doing that, everybody.
It is so important
to give Israel what it needs
and to protect itself from the many
in that difficult region who wanna wipe Israel
off the face of the map.
Right. So they just mean everybody else. All
by the way, most of the groups which
they're literally making deals with right now are
you know, what is I mean, think about
the absurdity of making that argument and then
all the different overlapping contradictions that take place
in there. This if you actually take a
second to look through almost anything connected to
Israel, you'll find how much dishonesty is wrapped
into it. Here's another example. My career could
end right now,
and I would identify
my
my supreme honor of service here in the
senate is is
unapologetically
standing with Israel after
that nightmare of 10 '7.
I want I mean, can you imagine still
making the point about that one day when
you can prove the amount people that have
died?
It just since then? You know, it's just
it's this is why people aren't buying this
anymore. You just there's just so many obvious
ridiculous statements. But this is why you only
get the idiots like this person stepping up
and making these statements. Because they just tell
him what to say, in my opinion, and
he just rambles it off. But I mean
this in particular, it's my opinion, but with
people like this, who I don't think we
have to debate is not the smartest bunny
in the in the forest. Right? At the
end of the day, he is going to
he's been he comes out and says the
thing that most of the rest of them
are trying to shy away from.
I think it speaks for itself. But plenty
of them are out there saying so. I
mean, okay. Is this for his constituents?
What's the interest of what he's doing? What
has he done that helps people in his
own all of them the same point?
I wanna thank and salute the idea of
what they've accomplished,
how remarkable
that is, to break
Hamas, to break Did did they? Aren't they
the ones telling you Hamas is not going
away? Didn't they just make a deal with
Hamas? But they sure broke them because what?
They've killed children?
Hezbollah
humiliated
Iran,
and now it's possible for a real path
for peace in that region ever. I can't
even listen to this clown anymore. I mean,
think about how embarrassing that is. Here's my
point. Does it those aren't even functionally like,
that's not even on the do they embarrass
Iran? What are you talking about? This is
just Israel goes, this is what we need
you to press into the minds of Americans.
You know? Sure. For you, that's what I
genuinely think whether he's aware of that or
not. Completely my opinion.
Saudi Agrist.
How crazy how mainstream media is pretending that
Epstein was a Russian asset. I've seen many
efforts to make that case. Even
when even a cursory glance at the Epstein
files,
reveals his close ties to Mossad and Israel.
But you know what they say. If you
repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the
truth. But it also stands back and shows
you that if the corporate media right, so
you're right now we're being told by these
same old, like, the probably the most embarrassing
group in the conversation right now, all of
these team sports screaming Republicans out there who
are just on display for how stupid they
are with everything that's happening. They're the ones
out there trying to tell you,
you know, well, hold on. I lost my
point there.
What was that?
That's frustrating. Well, the the, the point was
simply that the mainstream media, it's all one
thing. Oh, that that's what it was. That
they're trying to convince you that the Democrats,
the mainstream media are all the deep state.
We hate Trump, and they wanna do everything
they can to go out. Well, some of
them probably do.
But couldn't you argue that right now is,
like, just an open it is just a
free what do they call it?
For the free goal? I forget the term.
I'm not as I'm I'm not big on,
you know, the
soccer
football. The point being
I mean, technically, I enjoy it, but I'm
just not that into it. But what is
it called? Is it is it a a
free goal? What's the call what's the shot
when you got an open shot? Or rather
just want want to know what the goal
is, a goal shot? I mean, in the
chat, just so I don't remember it for
next time. But anyway, the point being that
you have this open open shot.
Like, you could nail him to the wall
right now with all of the things that
show his compromising for Israel. Why don't they
do that?
Well, I argue because they're also compromised by
Israel because it's your government that's compromised by
Israel. Is it a penalty shot? I thought
it was something else. Anyway
so, ultimately,
it just has to reveal to you that
these people are not
actually trying to hold them accountable. At the
very least, when it comes to Israel, which
I think shows you everything.
But here they are. It's a Russia thing.
Come on. I mean, that's just lazy. Like,
at least go for a different one. You
know what I mean? Like, we all clearly
see the game of the Russia, Russia. You
know, it's it's just it's sad where this
goes. Now, like I said, on top of
all that, while this is happening, another $6,500,000,000,
on top of the 8,600,000,000.0
for the new f fifteens approved last month,
which is itself an addition to the 3,800,000,000.0
that they were guaranteed every year.
Not a joke,
but America first. Hooray.
So here's what I wanted to point that
was to talk about earlier. It's an important
clip to think about. Now I'd like to
believe that most of you are already here
because I think that we share a certain
kind of skepticism. Right? It's probably why you're
at this show at you're engaging with TLAB.
But it's worth hearing this him lay this
out. Of course, I'm at who knows what
political side he's on. I think people are
in the comments calling him a Democrat because
of of the fact that he's saying this,
which I know plenty of Republicans who feel
exactly like this.
But the idea is that this is like
I was saying.
Just about putting it in front of you
so that we feel like something's happening. And
maybe even with the distant kind of, like,
ongoing investigation.
Right?
But that is really just about
letting you feel like something shifted
and the game continues.
And I mean, I I feel like it's
obvious.
Oh, it was open goal.
Well, look at that. I got it right.
I guess, unless he unless he's wrong.
But, you know, and I I just think
it's in it's really important to think about
how
much that like, with with a desperate moment
where right now, clearly, this was a situation
where they didn't have any options.
I mean, they just got caught lying, like,
five times in a row about no files.
It's a hoax, and now there's more. Now
it's, oh, wait. Now we got extra. And
you can't ignore that. Anybody that is not
a dishonest person is going like, what the
hell was that? Oh, maybe there's some deeper
meaning and it was all No, tomorrow it
comes out with a provable affidavit that shows
this is what we were doing and why
we caught them in there. Okay, maybe. Highly
unlikely. As it stands now, they lied to
you, got caught. Lied to you, got caught.
Lied to you, got caught. And then release
this as if we just did what we
told you we would do. And that's not
even the case. There's still 50% of it
left. I doubt that ever comes out. But
I think it's designed to flood the conversation
with, by the way, what seems seems to
be a lot of subjective information,
probably by design, and then
move forward.
And at the time, we already have documents
being removed right now, which maybe it's because
they made mistakes. Maybe who knows? But we'll
get to that in a second. Deleting information
about Donald Trump, probably along with a lot
of other stuff. So here's what he has
to say. I want you to really think
about this because I genuinely think this is
what's happening right now. Transparency.
It's a cover up, and here's how it
works. They show you flight logs, emails, PG
rated photos, fragments of conversations that have been
stripped of the meat. A few big names
get thrown under the bus. It's just enough
to feel disturbing, but never enough to prove
anything about the real players.
That's what you'll see in this massive document
dump. What you won't see is context.
You won't see corroboration, and you definitely won't
see accountability
because that's not the point. This is a
weaponized DOJ strategy of controlled confusion, and it's
working perfectly.
You see, they don't protect powerful people by
erasing evidence.
They protect them by releasing it slowly,
by delaying key documents,
by over redacting names, and by letting the
public fight over the scraps
if we're not too distracted by the latest
military invasion of a third world country or
a major US city.
Chaos becomes their cover. The goal isn't to
reveal the truth. It's to survive it. So
read the files, but don't confuse access with
justice
because sometimes the most effective cover up is
letting you see just enough. Right. But see,
the also important point is engage with it.
Right? Don't take the all or nothing stance
where it's all fake. Ignore it because it's
trying to trick you. Well, probably.
But look at it. Engage with it. Be
objective. Question everything. Consider all possibilities. It's always
the answer. And I think it's important to
see it like this because what he's saying
is right. You know? That this is this
is the effort to make you like, the
I would argue this only happens when there
is no other choice.
They're not buying it. We can't get past
this. So the option becomes, well, maybe we
just give them a lot.
And some of it can be damaging, but
we do it in a way that's hard
to prove, and we just dump it, and
we just try it, and we move forward.
And we bomber on next week, and everyone
forgets about it. You know? It's very
I think we've seen this happen more than
once. By the way, a lot of people
commenting about the the his head being smaller,
you think it's a fake thing. Like, certainly,
everything we should talk about like that today.
I I won't I don't think I'm gonna
get to it today, but there's an example
from,
the Minnesota conversation where there's this girl with
the red hair who's like, Sharia Law and
people in Burko's everywhere. What's going on? It's
an AI video. It's literally an AI created
content creator
who's making things up. It's an entire AI
video, everything you can see in it. But
it's got, like, 10,000,000 views. It's it's how
this tends to work. But consider all of
that with everything we're seeing. But what I
wanted to point out is, like, look at
my camera view. Right? Remember how this shifted?
Perspective does so much, and it's a good
point to make this in a even like
a philosophical or, like, perception based, you know,
rather a view based mindset, is that perception
is not reality.
Not always. Right? Or, right I mean, I
mean, it can over it can be. But,
like, when you first saw this clip or
the, when I had changed the camera, which
I still haven't found a way to correct,
it was further back. And so my computer
looked much smaller and I looked bigger. When
I first switched it, somebody was like, did
Brian just shrink?
Because the the view was different. So consider
that, right? Is that this may well be
made up or that it's just the camera
view makes his head look smaller. Maybe he's
got a tiny head. Who knows? But it's
worth noting that, you know,
perception, especially when it comes to cameras and
view, can be so easily altered even by
random, you know, flares or whatever else. But,
you know, question it. Alright. That's the point.
Question your perception. Question what you're looking at.
So next one, Brad Miller has a comment
that I I might have already read, but,
I I think there's another one. Either way,
it's worth reading again.
He is quoting one of something he he
said back in 2025.
Just showing you that it's his consistency,
right, in his
opinions and his stances. I respect Brad Miller
more than most. He says the Epstein files
aren't coming out despite the deep state's best
efforts to keep them hidden, but rather because
the deep state is intentionally releasing them. It's
always been an op. The the files aren't
a threat to the power structure. Those at
risk due to the files are puppets and
assets that can be or need to be
replaced.
Now you could you could just
think about this. You you could argue
it's more broad than that. And, you know,
what about Trump? Right? Well, I think his
point would be that Trump is one of
these puppets.
A lot of us feel that way whether
he knows that or not. That the the
bigger game that I'm highlighting in the beginning,
Trump is a player on this. He is
a piece being moved around.
Maybe not. But
consider that. It's I think it's very important
to see through that lens. Consider that because
it it makes things look quite different. So
that's what he argues. Right? These these are
people that are willing to be or rather,
that they're willing to throw under the bus.
To think the Epstein files represent a threat
to the deep state, whatever that you think
that is, is to misunderstand the status of
the deep state and the deep global empire
of which The US Deep State is merely
a colony.
I'm sure people disagree with that, but I
think it's a good way to think about
it. This doesn't mean the files aren't important.
But things that appear on the surface to
be victories against the deep state are often
deliberate,
operational
maneuvers by the Deep State. Again,
just think about that.
At the very least, be like, okay. That's
a valid point. Right? That maybe we're we
want the win so bad that we're gonna
take what they hand us, and it's really
them playing us whatever them is in your
mind.
Obviously, a valid point to be made, and
I I think it happens all the time.
So to the actual file discussion, let's get
into the the Todd Blanch point about what
they're not releasing yet, as well as the
fact that they just, I mean, didn't state
absolute,
but insinuated
more than just the second time now that
there will be no more charges.
Not Maxwell,
not anybody,
despite what we've seen,
which that speaks for itself, but I'll come
back to that. So here's Brian Allen sharing
what,
Todd Blanche had to say about the
death and physical abuse and all the things
they claim they're not showing you, which I
don't think any of us are going, we
demand to see that. But recognize that this
is important information
about you're telling us death and abuse and
injury, and then and then no more charges?
Okay, but wait a minute. Epstein's dead, you're
telling us. Maxwell's in jail.
Didn't and and Bondi and
Cash Patel told you that there was no
trafficking to any of because so, whose death?
Who's physical injury? Who's physical abuse?
What are we talking about here? Because you
have to realize that many of these cases
are things that are not connected directly to
one of those people, but people in the
larger network, which is the point of trafficking.
Meaning, they did have clients, and that's the
whole thing that they're keeping from you right
now. Here's what he had to say.
Any depiction
of CSAM or child pornography was obviously excluded.
Anything that would jeopardize an active federal investigation.
And finally, anything that depicts or contain images
of death, physical abuse, or injury, also not
produced. Okay. Well, even even the first one,
child pornography.
That's illegal to even possess. And you're telling
us that this is being exchanged between whom?
Who are we talking about?
I mean, there's no way this is what
anybody
who like, largely the Epstein investigating type people
that are like, this is what they're focused
on. That's the right now, that's everywhere.
We have enough evidence to prove right now
and did before this when they said it
last time that there are people that we're
not be who you're blocking out, who are
involved in this transaction that are not Maxwell
and are not Epstein.
So how can you argue that there's no
more charges? How can you argue that this
is a Democrat hoax or any number of
things? And let's not forget that Bondi and
Cash and Bongino, who's trying to side sidestep
very clearly,
they all had access to all of this,
and they told you there was nothing there.
I mean, how do you even walk away
from that?
Here's the next one.
Oh, actually, first, this is some this is
a couple comments.
Natalie said, I just think this is what
I'm hoping most Americans are beginning to come
to.
You know what I've been talking about my
entire career. Right?
She says, DOJ, the Epstein files are a
horror. Sure. But that doesn't mean that somebody
should be prosecuted.
Okay?
I mean, paraphrasing is kind of what he
said. And she goes, me. I think it's
time to rethink our social contract with the
government.
About time.
We've been sitting on these for over a
decade when the bad guys could have been
prosecuted.
I mean, that's the other point to be
made, guys. Left, right, Trump.
This has been there.
All of this information and nothing happened? Do
you realize they knew a lot of this
way back before this?
And they this is Elon Musk, for example.
I mean, every one of them are being
they're they're using their little clicks and groups
and propaganda machines to try to keep this
moving and direct and re and deflect.
But my god, guy, they they knew all
of this, and you can't hide from that.
Just objective view shows you that they had
insight, the things that they, one, acted like
weren't there, and two, kept from your view
until now. And on top of that, half
of it is still being covered up.
It's insane.
And as the patriotic blonde who is, a
was a major supporter of MAGA and Trump
and has now been calling it out, says
the FBI admitted this week that the photos
and videos of children being tortured and murdered
in ritualistic
sacrifice were not released due to their sensitive
nature. And Trump just said we should forget
about it and let the Epstein thing go,
which he's probably said 10 times in my
from what I've seen over the however many
years.
We are governed by demons, she writes. I
mean, you the this is my point. These
are
self evident things.
We I I can show you the emails
saying those things. I'm not even referring to
the subjective points, and we'll get into some
of the ones I think are pretty standout.
But at the end of the day, the
information that's there,
forget about it, is the last thing that
anybody should be doing, especially since this in
sick this points to suggests a much larger
thing.
This is one guy of an apparatus,
and they want you to forget about it?
I mean, did didn't they just tell you
that? Cash and Bongino and Trump and Vance,
that everything was coming down. This was the
deep state. We knew it. This was their
big thing. And now they're like, what are
you talking about? Move on.
How does anybody not see that? And again,
I think they do. I think they've lost
control completely.
Here's Blanche,
on the first, lying,
saying, apparently Massey and others wrote a letter
to come and review the unredacted materials. I
didn't get that letter yet. They leaked to
the press before they actually sent it to
me. And, yeah, that's absolutely totally fine. We
have nothing to hide. And then got fact
checked because Massey proved that he was lying
And not just with the screenshot. He has
the receipts. He put it out, and that's
what it's saying. Nope. Lied.
So they're lying to you. From from the
most basic sense here, or or you could
argue this is Massey and him playing a
game. That's possible too. But real realize that
he's
being told he can't we didn't get an
email. We you know, so stopping him from
seeing the unredacted material.
So he's caught. Okay.
Now they say, hey. Okay. Now come look.
Few days later. It says, if any mem
a member of congress wishes to review any
portions of the response,
re responsive production in any unredacted form, they're
welcome to make arrangements in the department
to do so, and we're happy to do
that. And Massey simply says, which docs would
you review unredacted?
So what explain this for me. So first
of all, you hid from the fact that
he asked to come see it beforehand. Now
you're saying, okay. Well, now you can come
out after we've done this. Doesn't that feel
weird to you?
The idea being that ultimately now, well, maybe
what he wanted to see is no longer
there. Like, look. They're the ones arguing Democrats
added or took away. Now they just kind
of dropped that argument. I think because there's
no evidence for any of it. It wouldn't
surprise me if it happened. But the same
points you made now. I don't it wouldn't
surprise me for a second the Democrats would
pull out their own information
and hide their names from so and so.
Right? But even though we can see plenty
of them in there right now, the same
point, if you're not a partisan blind follower,
should be made now because that's the government.
So couldn't they be right now covering up
the worst things? Couldn't they right now be
putting things in to blame other people? Of
course they could. If you can't consider that
being a possibility now, then you're a one-sided
follower.
I think it's important to rec ask the
question of why now and after the fact
and what happened in between.
Now this is the clip of Blanche basically
insinuating that no charges will be coming.
Department of Justice considering bringing any additional charges
here? Well, look. I I can't talk about
any investigations, but I will say the following,
which is that in July, the Department of
Justice said that we had reviewed the files,
the the, quote, Epstein files, and there was
nothing in there that allowed us to prosecute
anybody. We then released over three and a
half million pieces of paper, which the entire
world can look at now and and see
if we got it wrong. And and so
it's not performative, and I I respectfully disagree
with that statement. We were ordered to do
so by by Congress and then by by
the president of The United States, and and
that's what we did. And and let me
you know, I said it on Friday.
This this
Before he keeps going, things statements like that
bother the hell out of me. I mean,
it shouldn't anymore because I know they just
lie like they're breathing, but, you know, that's
not what you did. You drag your feet
in every possible conceivable way. You lied about
what was happening. You said it was fake.
Then we put some out. Now that's it.
Oh, wait. I've got a truckload. Oh, we
can't do any more because it's all bad
stuff. Oh, wait. Here's 3,000,000 more pages.
It's just embarrassing.
So you didn't do that, Blanche. You lied
about it. You tried not to do it,
and then you grudgingly did it with all
sorts of lies and redactions, and now you're
deleting things. You know? But my point is
always is what else are you gonna do?
They're not gonna stand up there and admit
they're lying, take me to jail. They're gonna
lie as long as they can.
Department, the FBI,
DHS,
we have gone after more
sex traffickers, more, child pornographers, more men who
have done harm to children and and young
women than any administration in history.
That seems like a blatant lie to me.
Let me know if you could find some
evidence to suggest otherwise. I I could point
to the examples where they sure as hell
did go after certain people. But realize, when
you look at the larger numbers, I don't
think that's true at all. It's the same
way they're lying about damn near everything else
they're doing. And on top of that, what
are we really talking about? Are you going
after people that you're, you know like, when
you go after a network, for example, I've
talked about this my entire career, and and
they arrest some random nameless people that you've
never seen, and nobody who seems to have
been possibly in control is arrested? Now sometimes
that's the way it goes. But historically, you'll
tend to find that they go after the
underlings and not and Epstein, by the way,
would be an underling in this conversation as
much as it may not fear that way.
So, you know, I just don't I don't
buy that. And I think what you're seeing,
even if that is the case, is fine.
Then you're going after them, but you're letting
these pedophiles go then. Right? You can't play
that game.
And so we need to separate those two
ideas. The fact that there's the Epstein files
and whether there's anybody there that we can
go after, and the work that we are
doing every day, which is extraordinary,
and and we will continue to do that.
Yeah. Go ahead and call yourself extraordinary. That
always works well. But realize
that you do you what you what he
just said. Listen to that again.
Epstein files and whether there's anybody there that
we can go after.
Even saying it like that, what do you
mean whether or not? The entire case is
built on the idea that there was trafficking.
That's why that's why Maxwell was in is
in jail and Jeffrey was in was you
know, is in Israel right now for all
we know. But, I mean, you they're framing
that that we have to keep finding out.
It just blows my mind. And I agree
with I'm gonna I'll read the guy's statement
in a second. It really clearly shows you
a it's a strong signal that
they're either refusing or have nothing to go
on in regard to actual accountability. And I
think it speaks to refusing. And the work
that we are doing every day, which is
extraordinary, and and we will continue to do
that. You you just said that now these
documents are out for the world to see
and maybe something could come up. Are you
suggesting that if somebody if a sort of
civilian sees something that you should prosecute,
that that could open an investigation?
Well, look, the way that we start many
of our federal cases is because we hear
tips from from civilians or from others in
the community. But my my point in saying
that was was was slightly different. It was
that the review that we had done before,
concluded that there was no such information. And
and that's that's where we remain for what
we've seen and what we've released from from
the Epstein files. Now there's a lot of
correspondence. There's a lot of emails. There's a
lot of photograph. I'm gonna show you at
least two examples of something coming up next
that are not in remotely subjective.
There's a lot of of of horrible photographs
that appear to be taken by mister Epstein
or or people around him. And by the
way, as I was or I was just
we're just discussing,
there are numerous examples of basically pornography that
was released
of victims who are naked in these pictures.
How in the world is that? I mean,
think about how incredible that is. There's a
break for a second and think, I mean,
think about that. They've been telling you the
entire time they're trying to they they're gonna
cut you know, we can't release the imageries
and the names, and then actual release a
name of victim in the release before last.
We talked about it. Very provable. Redacted names
of child predators, as Massey called out himself.
And then and then you release all this,
and you make mistakes, and leave out you
know, you redact their name here, but leave
it open over here, or, you know, and
and all these mistakes, and you release images
of people.
So you the only way to take that
is this is one of the most shockingly
incompetent administrations in history. I I think that
regardless.
Or
this was,
I I guess, deliberate. I mean, how can
you sit there and argue that you're doing
this to protect them and then let that
slip through? That means that that was not
your focus. Clearly, I think we're seeing that.
Your focus was covering up for your team.
But that doesn't allow us necessarily
to prosecute somebody, and that's what that's what's
important for for the American people. And the
victims want to be made whole. And and
so The victims who are calling you all
corrupt right now and and screaming that you're
covering this up and not listening to them
and not responding to them over and over
and over, but this is this is what
they do. This is like this is about
as insulting as when they stand up and
and the government the US government praises Martin
Luther King on his on on, you know,
on his birthday despite them killing him, which
is a very provable conversation.
Or many examples like that where they use
these things even though they're the culprit. Right?
It's just it kills me. We we want
that. The attorney general wants that more than
anything, but but that doesn't mean we can
just create evidence or that we can just
kind of,
come up with a case that doesn't that
that isn't there. Okay. So he's very clearly
more than one suggesting that there's not enough
to go on unless I'm somehow misunderstanding the
the very basic words he was using. So
here's what Laszlo
says. Deputy attorney attorney general Todd Blanch, who
I do point out that it seems
he's been doing this, but Bondi used to
be playing a lot of it too. I
I get the sense, unless I'm missing it,
that she's been pulled off the main stage.
We'll see.
And I just mean that sense of, like,
not because she because she's bad at this,
and she makes them all look stupid. But
it says, in the interview on CNN, State
of the Union, Blanche stated clearly the justice
department has no plans to bring additional charges.
He acknowledged the material was deeply disturbing. Quote,
there's a lot of horrible photographs that appear
to be taken by Epstein and people around
him, but emphasized that disturbing content alone does
not meet legal threshold for criminal prosecution.
Well, hold on though. If you're talking about
a child pornography thing, which we have seen
in there, Right? Or rather the the point
that are that they're releasing.
You're talking about
a provable crime.
So
if it wasn't Maxwell and Epstein, then you
and the point being, these are being shared
between people, guys.
And this isn't Maxwell and Epstein emailing the
entire time. You have proof. You just redacted
the name of somebody who was on the
receiving discussion and giving end of those photographs.
This is my point, guys. This is just
a small example. There's tons of those in
there. They know that. They don't care. But,
I mean, we could be objective and argue
that they have more information around these that
then suggest that they're not. But then why
would you release it in the first place?
Unredacted.
There there's a lot of vips and up
in the air. But at the end of
the day, I think we all know there's
enough evidence to do something. That's why those
people were in jail in the first place.
Blanche revealed the department conducted a comprehensive review
of the files and last summer.
And last summer
concluded there's nothing there to allow to pro
prosecute anybody.
Last summer.
Still have half of the information they haven't
put out. So we know anyway.
Of course, the entire world can look and
see if we got it wrong. Well, too
late. It's already done. Statement marks the clearest
official sign signal that yet yet that despite
years of speculation, unsealed documents, and persistent questions,
the DOJ has found no prosecutable evidence
of additional crimes beyond what was already addressed,
or at least that's what they want you
to think, surely.
And just the report, the the not planning
not to
signals no new charges.
James Lee highlights an interesting point, and this
is the one that a lot of people
are pointing to, and I agree.
First, just the email.
No one will lie to you and get
away with it
from me. No one. Whoops. It's it's correct.
And it says,
I gave well, the response was, I give
you permission to kill him. He's apparently with
Olga. He lied to you and he lied
to me. The response,
no one will lie to you and get
away with it for me.
Jeffrey Epstein is the one that wrote whoops
or back and forth on this.
So engaging with this, saying,
you know, no one's will get away with
it.
So bottom line here, if somebody is saying
I give you a person to kill somebody.
Now you you could argue they followed up
on this.
Weirdly enough, it's you could almost make out
what it is down there.
But the argument that you killed somebody or
offered to
write a conversation about it
with a prolific sexual predator probably speaks to
some kind of crime.
But that's not being investigated, but maybe they
did. You know, these are things that people
probably wanna know.
But the name, as James Lee says,
is it is Susan Hamblin,
which I agree. That that's my point. That's
the incompetence. It does look like that
pretty clearly, but you can decide. Now here's
what's interesting. It says the sender of the
email give it giving Epstein permission to kill
the person they're talking about appears to be
Susan Hamblin, a financial advisor and founder of
the adoption agency killed kids to families. As
far as I can tell, no relation to
David Hamblin.
Now it says here, Susan Hamblin also appears
here, and they show this email where it
says, I'll be sending fresh muffins down with
carneon and you currently have only two steaks
left from the island, which I agree. Sounds
strange. And I will go into the actual
emails, except when you look for this as
best I can find, unless I'm missing something,
it does not appear to be from Susan
Hamlin. But you see how it says right
here, sixteenth Susan Hamlin wrote this and all
that? You're getting a lot of these screenshots
that go around
that don't appear to be accurate. Just wanna
show you. This one appears to be
a different time and date and everything as
well. Jeffrey Epstein to Jeffrey Epstein, cc Jeffrey
Epstein. You don't see you don't see who
it's, alright. You know, you're right there. It's
from Kanya Schulak to Jeffrey Epstein.
And it says, I am getting oh, the
the response was here. I will be sending
fresh muffins down with Kanya. So it's the
same email. Right? You currently have two steaks
left on the island. Would you like new
ones? And then ice cream question mark. So
it could be weird. Back to the point
we're gonna get into at the the pretty
soon here with the Pizzagate overlap.
But just to show, this is not Susan
Hamblin. Unless the identical email went out, I
couldn't find it on the database, which is
possible. But I think it's worth knowing, as
I'm sure you all do, that there are
people deliberately lying with this stuff to muddy
the waters, to hide the reality. And there
are people that just don't know any better
and they're grabbing screenshots and they just assume
it's real. But just know that it is
out there. But but what's the weird part?
What this is the response. I find this
weird. So remember, the the thing is, I
will be sending fresh muffins with this person.
You currently have two steaks left on the
islands. Would you like new ones? Ice cream.
The response is, I am getting more ice
creams.
Like I said before, could be a typo.
Maybe that's exactly what they're talking about. But
I agree with what we know about the
exchanges and the and the bigger conversation of
the emails around the
the Alefantis discussion.
There are code words being used. But that
alone is not proof.
The evidence, and you could be wrong about
it. But I think it's worth pointing out
one that it wasn't Hamlin, but also that
is seems weird.
But it's subjective.
Here's another one.
Oh, just the same redacted one and not
the other. It's just funny.
Now this is another example of an email
that I thought was interesting. And this one
is,
let's see.
Subject was Jeffrey Epstein. From, don't see, to,
don't see.
Now watch listen to what this says and
then ask yourself why in the world they
would redact to and from.
Edward, it says, this is sensitive. So it
will be the first and last email depending
on your discretion. This is in the Epstein
files.
You can choose to take it or trash
it, but this comes from a person that
has been there and seen it all as
a former staff at Zorro, Zorro Ranch.
The material below was taken from Epstein Jeffrey
Epstein's home as my insurance
in case of future litigation against Epstein. Sorry.
No questions.
Damning.
What is damning about Jeffrey Epstein is yet
to be written. Did you know somewhere in
the hills outside Zorro, two foreign girls were
buried on orders of Jeffrey and Madame G?
Both died in the strangulation during rough fetish
sex. This was put out in 2019.
Now here's what I found interesting.
Because this is in the Epstein files, which
means the FBI and everybody else went through
this. They have
links
to allegedly
the videos he's referencing.
Says here are the video footages of of
Epstein.
Link, link, link, and it shows, you know,
sex with a minor, threesome video, underage girl.
All of these included in the email. Now,
of course, this person could have been lying
about that. Sent these with nothing there, but
why?
But certainly could be for any number of
reasons that we can't think of. But it's
also just as likely that this was actually
sent, and that's why they removed the names
of everybody involved.
Did they follow-up on this? Did they research
it? What are the videos? Are they find
is there information there? And if this guy
actually sent child pornography, either he should be
in jail for it, or it should be
showing somebody else's crime.
But listen to Todd Blanche and Gautau Bongino
and Cash Patel. There's nothing there. Ignore it.
I find that impossible.
And on top of that,
check this out.
Please arrange for a 1 Bitcoin,
1 Bitcoin by 6PM.
So and it looks almost like he's, blackmailing
them because of the information.
So what happened to this guy? Is he
still around?
I just find that insane.
But my point is this, just like everything
else, you don't know who, maybe those links
go to nothing and it's all a lie.
Because that's being objective. But you see and
these are just plucking these out. There's so
many of these in there,
and we're being told there's nothing there.
This one's even crazier.
And I agree with this because this one's
actually an an affidavit. This is real. This
is this is something that was done under
risk of perjury.
Says this isn't some anonymous tip. Sworn testimony
under the penalty of perjury from someone who
said Trump threatened to kill her if she
exposed Epstein's sexual abuse. Now still,
couldn't it could be an art it could
be lying. Maybe somebody's paying her to do
it. Right? There's always the always things we
have to consider. And I'm always gonna say
that as much as it gets frustrating for
people that are know that and are here
every day. Right? It's all we're we're not
all we're not here to high five about
seeing these things. We're all we're here to
reach new people. Right? That's what my job
is. To do this every day to reach
the one person in the chat who's never
heard of us before, not to frame it
in a way that's more conducive to everybody
who's already known. I mean, even even if
that ends up being
almost redundant and frustrating to some people that
are here every day. My my goal is
not to be the most popular or make
the best. It's about the best flow of
information to reach the people that need to
see it.
That's why we are where we are because
it's not about maximizing the regions or, you
know, whatever else. The the information is what
matters, and I swear we can prove we
made a difference in these conversations.
Here's the actual point. I'm gonna go through
more than what he points to.
Oh, wait. There's much that's much longer than
I thought it was, I almost wanna read
all of it because it's pretty crazy. Let
me just start, and then I'll go back
to this if it's taking too long. Because
they're it's really gross what this what they're
being
what's being stated.
So it's and the the whole thing is
Jane Doe
versus Donald Trump and Epstein.
As this is a file document,
and this was
20 oh, wait. Yeah. 2016.
Complaint for rape, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts,
sexual abuse, forcible touching, assault, battery, intentional and
reckless
infliction of emotional distress, duress, false imprisonment, and
defamation.
Jane
Doe brings the case against Trump and Epstein.
Alleges that plaintiff
is an individual residing in and a citizen
of the state of California. Upon information and
belief, defendants Trump and Epstein each reside in
these air in the district and are citizens
of the state of New York of New
York. Now it says jurisdiction and venue. Plaintiff
is a citizen of the state of California,
which kinda gets the the meat of it.
The court has original,
subjects.
Where is the party? Here we go.
Same thing. So this is what I wanna
I wanna get to the actual stated listing
of it.
Sexual misconduct, rape,
sexual acts, forcible touching.
Okay.
Plaintiff was enticed by promises of money and
modeling career to attend a series of parties
with other similarly situated minor females.
So many of these out there, these patents
he's involved in, held in New York. I
mean, some of these, by the way, that
you could prove. There's been documentaries about these
pageants themselves
being sort of a pathway for these billionaire
millionaires to abuse these women. Now, of course,
Trump's been involved with some where he says
I wasn't involved in that. Well, then we
have to take his word for it. But
the reality is the entire thing was shown
to be that kind of pipeline.
Now it says at least four of the
parties were attended by Trump.
Defendant Trump initiated sexual contact with the plaintiff
at four different parties. On the fourth and
final sexual encounter with Trump, defendant Trump tied
plaintiff to a bed, exposed himself to plaintiff,
and then proceeded to forcibly rape her. During
the course of the savage sexual attack, plaintiff
loudly pleaded with Trump to stop for no
effect. Defendant Trump responded to plaintiff's pleas by
violently striking plaintiff from the face with his
open hand and screaming that he would do
whatever he wanted. Now you could argue that
this is being made up. And even even
with the political
world the way it is, that she might
even be willing to face the charges of
crim of, you know, criminal charges to make
this case, or maybe somebody was paying her
too. But you should just as easily be
willing to consider that she's telling you the
truth, and they're lying about it. With With
everything we know, it shouldn't be that hard
to wrap your mind around. If you're just
if you're not a partisan player one way
or the other.
Immediately following this rape, defendant Trump threatened plaintiff
that were if she ever revealed the details
about what happened, that her family her family
would be physically harmed if and if and
killed.
Epstein had sexual contact with the plaintiff at
two depart two of the parties. The sexual
the second sexual encounter with defendant Epstein took
place after plaintiff had been raped by by
Trump.
He, Epstein forced himself upon her. You know?
You you get the gist of this, and
it continues.
Angrily screams at her. Now this was the
one he was referencing here. Oh, that's the
whole that's further down.
It it it goes on and on and
on. As a direct approximate result of her
sexual assault and rapes,
she suffered stress and emotional consequence.
The points that he was referencing are down
here.
So this is the actual declaration,
like this is I, Jane Doe,
state the following.
As opposed to the document that states that
refers to that, but this is what was
actually stated.
I am a competent adult over 18.
The facts of this declaration are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge under
the threat of perjury.
I was subject to extreme sexual and physical
abuse by the defendants, including forcible rape as
we showed you above, and she was only
13 years old at the time.
More particularly, I traveled to but to by
bus to New York
starting a modeling career.
Yeah. Yeah. There, I met a woman, introduced
herself as Tiffany. She told me that the
part the about the parties and said that
if I were to join at the parties,
I would be introduced to people who could
get me into the modeling profession. It's so
common how this goes.
The parties were held in New York City
residents being used by Jeffrey Epstein.
And it says, I understood both Trump and
Epstein knew that I was 13 years old.
Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at
four different parties,
Tied her to bed, the one we read
earlier. Immediately following this yeah. That that's just
repeating what was up there. Cut it to
the point that what he was referencing.
Number 14 was the one that stood out
to him more than anything from down here.
Yeah. So this is the individual examples.
I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the
plaintiff was forced to have with mister Trump
during this period. These so these these are
other examples of people that apparently saw the
same, including the fourth of these counters when
mister Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas
to
stop. So, I guess, secondary witnesses, I personally
witnessed the one occasion where Trump forced the
plaintiff and a 12 year old girl female
named Maria to perform oral sex on mister
Trump and witness his physical abuse of both
minors. Now look. All of this, as I
said, could be arguably, you know, that they
lie or whatever else. Just being objective. But
you realize that this is a huge allegation.
And
maybe they invested all they investigated all this.
There's nothing there. But
it doesn't seem like that's the case from
what you can see. But there's so much
more of this.
This is just one example. And this is
a on the record. So if this is
the case, then, you know, this woman should
be charged with perjury or somebody should investigate
this. If neither one of those things have
happened, then we should be asking why nothing's
happening around this.
I personally witnessed or was made to immediately
be aware of the two occasions where my
boss, mister Epstein, attempted to rape and sodomize
the plaintiff.
Just cut to the chase. I'm tired of
reading this. 14. I personally witnessed defendant Trump
telling the plaintiff that she shouldn't ever say
anything if she didn't want to disappear like
the 12 year old female Maria, and that
he was capable of having her whole family
killed.
After leaving the employment in 2,000 of of
Epstein, I was personally threatened by mister Epstein
that I would be killed and my family
would be killed if I was ever to
disclose any of the physical and sexual abuse.
I'm coming forward to swear to the truthfulness
of the physical and sexual abuse that I
personally witnessed of a minor females at the
hands of
mister Trump and mister Epstein, including the plaintiff,
during the time of my employment and and
years there. So you have an employee that
spoke up about this on top of the
fact that she said the same. Now, behind
the scenes, if there's no collaboration between them
and these are independent testimony, well, that sure
as hell makes it a lot more strong.
But see, we're we're forced to kinda read
between the lines here because they don't wanna
give us all the information. I swear to
the facts, these are under penalty perjury.
I find that crazy, guys. Now if somebody
asks, like, why lie? Right? I I don't
know. It's not my job to decide why
somebody might do something.
I mean, some cases, you can it's worth
considering and discussing. The point, though, is that
it did happen
under the threat of perjury.
So what happened?
I mean, right now, they're willing to give
people thirty years for throwing a sandwich, but
you're not gonna go after the person who
lied about Donald Trump, if that's what you
think happened? I'd like to know. And if
not, then this better be investigated. And right
now, we better be, you know, willing to
consider these from all partisan perspectives because it
is out there. There's a lot of information.
Now Ed Krasenstein, again, somebody very clearly with
a partisan,
agenda. So, as always, take everything whether or
not they have that agenda with a grain
of salt, question everything, consider it, but this
is a real point. He says no one
found this horrific Donald Trump mention in the
Epstein files because it was a handwritten letter
that he argues wasn't properly indexed. You know?
And I that wouldn't surprise me very deliberately
or because they're incompetent either way. And he
says, the woman alleges Donald Trump was involved
with Epstein in the sale of young women
to the sex trafficking ring of Epstein and
the Saudis.
She also claims that Trump forced forced her
to miscarriage after she got pregnant.
Here's the actual post.
These are all in there, guys. These are
and that's that's why it's important and why
our show is they're never gonna be seen
for money because we give you everything you
need to actually prove it for yourself as
far as you can anyway. Not the screenshots,
not the subjective one. I mean, right now
there are people out there sharing, like, just
that image. Trump was compromised by Israel and
it's a screenshot with nothing but what they
think and pointing to it, getting, like, a
100,000 views and they've got 20,000 followers. It's
like,
what the hell is I mean, this is
clearly the way the system is supposed to
work.
You prove something like Whitney and I pointed
out around COVID, that's when you get censored.
So the point here, though, is that this
is a a letter, which, again, like everything
else, consider that it's subjective. And And look
at the time, it says 2025,
unless that was changed, which looks like it
was scribbled over. So it's it's hard to
know some of this stuff right now. But
it simply says, Jeffrey Epstein, my testimony
places Donald j Trump as a person involved
in the selling of a young woman to
a sex trafficking ring like they said up
there.
Take it for what you will. The bio
evidence seems to be pretty damning right now.
And their point is that this was misattributed.
No one's really seeing it.
And it backs up a lot of other
stuff that's happening.
He also points this out, which I also
agree whether or not he's the one pointing
to it. Proof that the DOJ is scrubbing
Epstein files. Now, first, you got response from
the MAGA side of it going, no. The
server went down, you Democrat liar. So I
I took a beat. I was like, maybe.
As far as I could tell, it's not
down. You can check for yourself. And what
you will find out, as he says, that
there were a lot of results. I wish
I remember what it showed when I looked.
I think it was, like, 1,700 something
When he posted it,
the Donald Trump results went down to five
fifteen 1,513.
Well, look at it now.
1,492.
Guys, that's cold, hard facts.
I don't know how you pretend that's not
the most obvious thing in the world if
you're trying to do that. They've removed information
that pertains to Trump. Now, remember, when this
first came out, they really they deleted a
whole bunch of it until people were like,
woah, we saw that, and they put it
right back.
It's just it's so painful to watch this
right now and then to watch people try
to grapple with this like it's not obvious.
Then
they deleted more
and have slowly been deleting it. Since he
posted this, it went down from five 1,513
to 1,492.
Let's let's do it again and see if
it changed since we've done this.
Nope. Same right now. One thousand four ninety
two. We'll keep an eye on it, though.
But that's
I personally can attest. I don't remember the
exact number, but that it was more than
that. And you could you should be doing
this with all of them. Who knows? There's
no accountability for this right now. So they
are straight up deleting information about Trump, whether
or not it's benign, whether or not it's
important. It's information that was in the files,
and you have a right to see that
they're claiming the most transparent. Right?
What a joke. I mean, just it's worth
laughing about stupid that is. Well, that's why
I use that picture with their binders.
I'll get to that in a second.
All most of them are borderline radio silent
right now, and that's so damn telling.
Crazy.
Now, Aaron here points out oh, that's right.
I wanted that up for that.
I was right there. Oh, it's right there.
Okay. Aaron points this out.
The Trump DOJ has deleted these two files
referring to Donald Trump having parties at Mar
A Lago called calendar girls.
Here are the originals.
So just note, 679
and 651.
Well, they aren't there anymore.
That was the only three you see. And
just for just to be clear, let's be
safe. Let's make sure it didn't get added
back for some reason.
Nope. Same ones. So you can literally prove
right now that there's information that they put
out,
I mean, in particular related to Trump that
they have now removed.
Nobody's make no one's out there going, here's
why. They're acting like they're ignoring it. I
don't even think anybody's engaged with this point.
Leave it in anybody else. They haven't come
up and like, here's why it's a mistake,
and the server nope. They're just pretending it's
not happening because that will be a crime.
It's already a crime seeing as how they've
broken the law by not releasing it by
the time they're supposed to, but now they're
pulling stuff back.
Couldn't get more clear than this, guys.
So here's Elon Musk. Of course, we have
to mention him in this conversation. And here
he is responding to this.
Sorry. Maybe a dumb question. But if there
are Epstein files,
videos, and names tied to serious crimes, why
hasn't anyone been arrested yet? That's a very
good obviously, it's what everyone is pointing out,
but it's still a good thing to consider.
55,000,000
views. You know why? Because Elon Musk did
this.
It's just it's just funny to me how
this works. You know, prop probably went up
like a 100,000 in that, but the point
is simply saying the obvious.
And I agree with him though. Why should
people should be arrested right now? And they
should have been arrested
when Trump had those files. They should have
been arrested when Biden had those files. I
mean, think about how crazy this is. He
realized that by Trump, right before this, was
saying they're all gonna go down. We have
all the evidence, and now it's like, no.
You're all lying. It wasn't even real or
it wasn't but regardless of what it is,
no one's been arrested the entire time, even
though they've had this the entire time. I
mean, you you cannot ignore this.
But so he says, wow. It's so crazy.
Epstein, quote, killed himself before realizing he was,
quote, innocent. I don't even know what he
means by that with this conversation. And Maxwell
was in prison for ex what exactly? Twenty
years? I mean, the point is that, like,
saying no. He's in a weird, almost confusing
way trying to argue that, you know, like
a joking way that obviously they are, so
somebody should be in jail. But it's kind
of like
doth protest too much kind of an idea.
Then he goes, Epstein client arrest counter is
zero.
I mean,
it is
it's cringey what he's doing right now.
He's just acting like you know, it's the
same thing they always do, but like I
said, you're not gonna come out and be
like, okay. You got me. I'm a liar.
Yes. I knew him. And, yes, I party.
Yeah. No. You're gonna lie and lie and
lie and use your overwhelmingly
insane influence on this platform to just drive
the conversation the way you want it. But
as Murder by Kranz Riley points out, why'd
you delete this one? Time to drop the
really big bomb. Donald Trump is in the
Epstein files. Elon Musk posted That is the
real reason they have not been made public.
I mean, come on, guys.
How do you you post this, and even
if you were joking, you know what I
mean, or, like, trying to use it as
a coercive point, you guys are all very
dishonest
and all actively trying to hide this. Yes,
there's been zero arrests, but the point is
you knew this. You knew the information. You
already had access to the information, and then
you just left it up in the air.
You said Trump's in the files, then deleted
it. Now you're acting like it's no big
deal. Or now you're saying no one's been
arrested yet. So now are you back to
calling out Trump?
You know what I mean? And Elon is
complete is named in these files many times.
Here, he says, legacy media lies relentlessly. And
guess what he's pointing to? Things that are
true. Elon Musk discussed plans to party with
Jeffrey Epstein on his island. Yep. More than
once, by the way. I just showed you
last time. Elon Musk had more extensive ties
to Epstein than previously known. Completely true. Okay?
And they say lies, lies because what? You
put a stamp on it? Bill Gates, Elon
Musk, Howard Lutnick face new scrutiny. 100% what's
happening. E Epstein files show Elon Musk apparently
discussed plans to visit the island. 100%, guys.
And host him at SpaceX, which he did,
and he's got caught lying about that now.
He did give him a tour, and he
lied about that. So all he does is
legacy media laws. Why? Because all of his
blind followers are like, yes. Mainstream media, bad.
And they're only thinking Democrats.
It's just sad where we're at right now.
Scott Santos, Santine says, you were asking for
two straight years to party on his island
despite already knowing everything he was guilty of.
Yes. You can prove it. The dates on
the emails where he's going, what's the craziest
day to come party?
He was a convicted pedophile, guys. They knew
that already.
We can read emails, he says. They are
right there. But the point, they're just drowning
in this, but they're his effort on this
plot reach on this platform can just bury
the reality. But I the point is, even
on this platform doing that, the majority of
people in the world, I am convinced, are
very much aware of this. That cat is
out of the bag. Now, as David Ick
points out, here's even Tucker Carlson promoting the
Melania movie. Well, let's not forget, the director
of Melania, Brett Ratner, is in the Epstein
files.
It posing with lewd pictures of women and
and Jean Luc Brunel. And this overlap with
the same thing we're just talking about. Of
these modeling overlap. I mean, it's it's this
disgusting inner circle. But here's Tucker. Partnerships with
Melania.
Now who's to say he knows that or
not? I'd like to believe it's journalist. You
could probably piece that together, but I think
there's more compromising connections here than we realize.
Here's what Massey said,
not recently. I don't think, but this was
still a point he made now with where
we're at. The right now, unless we see
what he's describing here,
then we don't we we have to keep
pushing
because I have not seen a single person,
not one,
since this has come out or even before
that.
But this is what we need to wait
for.
That is wrong. Do not let the senate
muck this bill up.
And if you are if you're a party
to that in the senate, you are part
of this cover up that we are trying
to expose. I am sorry if one of
your
billionaire donors is gonna get embarrassed because he
went to Rape Island.
That is what
they have coming. In fact, they need to
be on the other side of bars, a
lot of them. Some of them will be
embarrassed,
but some of them need to go to
prison, and the survivors know that. So how
will we know if this bill has been
successful? We will know when there are men,
rich men, in handcuffs being perp walked
to the jail.
And until then,
this is still a cover up. I mean,
think about the the obviousness of this. Right?
We've been told this entire time by the
current administration before they were in power that
this was a sprawling deep state sexual manipulate,
the whole thing. Right?
And you've been telling us that it's, like,
high level elitists.
And now it finally comes to the moment,
fine. Go after Democrats then, if that's what
you're saying. And nothing happens. And so his
point is this is not over until we
see not some random guy on the corner
by a prostitute, but rich,
influential men who you told us were involved
going to prison,
or women for that matter.
I we that this is what I think
is that they've set themselves up to fail
here, Probably because they didn't expect their own
side to continue to demand what they promised.
Go figure.
But now here we are, and I think
most people are like, no. No. We're not
going past this. We demand what you told
us you would deliver, and they've
paid themselves into a corner.
Liam,
McCollum says, we need a select a new
select committee,
like a church committee, to handle these Epstein
investigations and force more disclosures. Call it the
Massey Committee or something.
Now, maybe you think that I mean, maybe
that's the best way to go. Frankly, I
don't have a lot of good I don't
have good experience in my life or past
or ever with these, you know, nine eleven
commission. And, you know, they they whether Massey's
evolved or not, he'll be at least, so
has he's been for a while. He'll be
the voice, and they're going, you know, if
they let him in that in the in
that capacity, saying that we're being this is
a cover up. We should be calling this
out.
It almost always ends up not there's no
reason not to do it. Do it. You
know, start it up. I think it's good
to have the conversation. Make it draw attention
to it. But it almost always ends up
in this just exercise in futility where they
have these, you know, the roundabout conversations.
Even new evidence comes out. And then it's
almost like they act like that conversation
is in lieu of any accountability. Kind of
the point we're making about the release of
all this information. Like, that's enough. Right? Not
saying that, but that seems to feel like
what they're hoping carries the day. That's what
they hope with those ridiculous binders that were
all blacked out. Is that enough? Are they
gonna let it go? That's what they're hoping
for right now. So, I like the idea
of something.
Keep the conversation going. But let's make sure
this is not the only direction it goes
in if this happens. That we just put
our hopes in the government
to expose the government.
Think about
how ridiculous that really is at the end
of the day. But I but I'm not
disputing it. I like the idea of having
that go forward so we can force the
conversation.
But we need to keep demanding accountability until
there's accountability,
like Massey was saying.
Simple.
So pretty much lastly, and we'll have a
couple points toward the end. I wanna play
this clip from Ben Swan
because it is really interesting to me the
arc of all of this. You guys know
this, especially those of you who've been following
us before I even started doing daily wrap
up. You know, we did a lot of
long I'll show you all these articles that
connect back to larger points if you wanna
go through it all. Then we've been discussing
the reality of the Pizzagate conversation or whatever
you called it, the reality of the sexual
this like he says, like like
Ben Swan starts with right here.
It is Epstein.
Right? This is the same conversation.
The whole thing and even the name that
it was given, Pizzagate, was designed to distract
from the real conversation.
And we're gonna go through this. I'm I'm
not gonna go like like I have in
the past. It'll take four hours to go
through the real picture, but I'll include all
the pieces if you wanna step back and
take the time when you have it to
dive into this. You'll find that this is
this has been clear since the moment this
started,
just like it is now, by the way.
And guess what's happening again?
The whole partisan tap dance.
And if we allow it to go the
way it's always gone, we'll end up where
we've all we've gotten to always gotten
to, which is nothing changes. So check this
clip out. Oh, I'm gonna pause it and
make comments as we go through. As Ben
writes, ten years ago, Pizzagate was by far
the number one trending topic on Twitter. But
the claim of pedophile elites who preyed on
children was so insane that Pizzagate was shrugged
off as some wild fever dream of a
conspiracy theory. But then, just days ago,
the Epstein files,
which changes our perspective a little bit.
Is
Pizzagate.
Let that sink in for a minute. Jeffrey
Epstein
is Pizzagate.
Ten years ago, Pizzagate was by far the
number one trending topic on Twitter. But the
claim of pedophile elites who preyed on children
was it was so insane
that Pizzagate was shrugged off as a wild
fever dream of a conspiracy theory.
I was the first mainstream reporter to dare
give the facts surrounding Pizzagate.
My corporate career was destroyed over it. So
what? My professional reputation was obliterated. That wasn't
fun. And I wasn't the only one. Anyone
who dared to suggest that this might be
true was blacklisted,
shadow banned, or thrown off of social media.
But then just days ago,
the largest dump of Epstein files revealed what
some of us have been telling you for
a decade,
that Pizzagate
is
real. Not that there is a pizza parlor
at the center of a child trafficking ring,
but that child trafficking rings run by some
of the most powerful people in the world
do exist.
Tonight, I wanna remind you of what I
told you then and compare that to what
we have now learned.
Pizzagate,
it became a major story weeks ago. For
the podcast, they're now switched back to his
original reporting. And I I'll include the articles
we did about at the time where which
reference this original coverage and his follow-up. But
so now this has jumped back to what
was it? 2000
let me double check.
It would have been
oh, sorry. Where is it? Here we go.
2017.
Yeah. So January 2017 is when these reports
were coming out.
When an armed man decided to investigate a
DC area pizza place for himself.
This man right here, he carried a rifle
into a pizza parlor and then fired it
at the floor.
Media is telling you the entire story is
a hoax or fake news. But what does
that even mean? Interesting use of that. Right?
At a at a at a moment when
this this, in a large way, kicked off
part of that part of that conversation.
But it was the guy who existed. He
had a gun.
So what was fake news about it? Well,
the argument that he was going there well,
no. You can make the argument that he
believed that there was something in there or
maybe not. Maybe it was all organized psychological
operation. The interesting part though is what's fake
about it?
What what they wanted you to think was
fake about it was the under
underbelly
of the story, which is a weird way
to frame that, isn't it? But what I
what's important to remember, guys, is that before
any of this happened with this shooting,
there was a very real ongoing growing awareness
about
far more than Comet Pizza and the conversation
of the of the of the symbols and
everything else. There was a very real conversation,
which I'm gonna show you again in a
second, about trafficking, about the the state department,
about the government, about what was going on
cross national lines, war zones, and abuse
and exploitation and selling and trafficking of children.
And, again, this is a story that that
very premise, anyone out there right now that
dismisses the very idea of those things, at
one point, and still to this day, that
does still happen, needs to be I mean,
that's insane. There isn't a a global industry
that you can prove. So the idea that
we dismissed this in the first place was
crazy when it first came out because it
does exist. The question is, is this a
part of it? And I don't mean pizza
place.
This example with this guy, I was right
when it happened, first thing I thought was
this is designed to distract from the larger
point.
And what we talked about going forward was
that it very well could have been a
real guy who thought this, but the way
that they immediately jumped in the story was
meant to drive it into the subjective
while ignoring the facts in front of us.
And how long have I talked about this?
Missing the forest for the trees, Lahaina, East
Palestine, where you jump at the larger story
that isn't provable, even though it is relevant
and probably maybe even more important. But by
doing that, we missed the forest for the
trees. We missed the provable crimes, the usually
benign average crimes, but you can prove that
we're right in front of you. That's part
of what this was.
I spent the last month investigating. So what
exactly is Pizzagate?
Well, the story that came to be known
as Pizzagate did not begin with a rumor,
nor was it created by Macedonian
sheep farmers as CNN actually once claimed. That's
crazy. It began with WikiLeaks, authentic verified emails
taken from the phone of the chairman of
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign,
John Podesta.
As I remember correctly, he was the victim
of, like, a ridiculous phishing scam. Like, literally,
like like the the, you know, enter your
we forgot your password. Enter it here. Like,
some really basic stuff.
But overall,
WikiLeaks,
as far as I can tell, have never
been shown to release something that's not accurate.
At the very least, genuine.
Whether the information within the emails are minute
lies or whatever, the point is that they
are they are genuine emails.
So you can't deny that those existed. That's
why this became so important. But the emails
themselves were largely subjective. That doesn't mean unimportant.
It just means that they you could argue
that they meant one thing or meant the
other. When taken in conjunction with everything else
we know, which what Ben's gonna go over
here, which is why he's he's important his
report was so important because he made sure
to make that clear, and he leaned in
to what you can prove. And he got
ostracized for it. Same way we are. And
you know why? Because it was relevant. You
could prove it, and he was not taking
a partisan side.
Those emails were real. In all these years,
by the way, no one has actually disputed
that.
Inside those emails were communications that struck a
lot of people, not just online commentators,
but researchers
and former law enforcement
as unusual to say the least. References to
pizza and to pizza handkerchiefs
and to maps, to private gatherings involving powerful
people, some very bizarre stuff. In fact, the
first people to draw attention to those emails
were a group of self proclaimed
pedophiles on 4 Chan and 8 Chan who
claimed the Podesta was using the same terminology
that they use to speak encoded language.
And in researching those emails, I found a
2010 entry into urban dictionary. It's still there,
by the way. It confirms that cheese pizza
is a commonly coded term for child pornography,
CP.
And remember that most of these terms, they
are also overlap with, like, FBA databases, but
they weren't provable examples. They were simply, this
can be you know, this symbol
has been used like this and so on.
So So even that, you can't say every
time you see it, therefore, this is what
it is. But they were at at that
moment, they was relevant,
especially with everything else you were gonna see.
And I'm not gonna get into it all
in-depth, but I'm gonna give you a quick
glance of some of the stuff that was
going on at Comet Pizza. And there's just
there's if you haven't seen it, it'll blow
your mind. It's not and I'm not gonna
get into lewd stuff other than, like, blurred
out parts of it. But it's stuff that
is so shockingly sexualized in a child's pizza
place, it it should make you uncomfortable.
And this got dismissed. That alone should have
been enough to be concerned about what this
was. The symbols did matter, but they weren't
provable. They were important.
I want you to see these I mean,
again, provable in the sense that they prove
that that's what they meant when they used
them. But like he's showing you here, this
was real. This was an FBI report.
Here. These are the images. Notice this one
on the end, the triangle.
That image signifies something called boy love.
The pizza place next door to Comet Ping
Pong Pizza, Besta Pizza,
well,
this was their logo until only a few
weeks ago. Clearly, you can see that the
Besta logo actually contains
the same image, I'm gonna show you again,
as that boy lover image. And so you
can see why the average people were like,
what the f is this? You know? Like,
boy, love. What are you guys doing to
say? But it's just because it's it's just
so out there.
Just because something's out there and not usually
discussed, does not make it in inherently false.
It's just a weird thing to have so
much evidence and have people just go, that's
crazy because it just doesn't fit in my
worldview, which is what happened with most people,
it feels like.
Interestingly,
after Pizzagate investigators pointed this out, Best of
Pizza changed their logo,
and there it is now. Mhmm. They removed
the triangle.
Yeah. Ten years ago, I was called a
dangerous conspiracy theorist and a madman
for claiming that pedophiles and possibly even pedophile
elites
might use coded language even though it was
online pedophiles who said
that's exactly what they do, which brings us
back to this new Epstein release. Because in
it, the word pizza
is mentioned
911
times. That's right. 911
times adults are emailing back and forth about
slices of pizza and about pizza parties. And
the word pizza is often paired with grape
soda. In bizarre context within emails addressed to
Epstein by individuals
whose names have been mostly redacted. So here's
one. Quote, this is better than a Chinese
cookie. Let's go for pizza and grape soda
again
no one else can understand.
Or this one, mister Epstein would like to
see the menu from the pizza place. Could
someone send it, please? Or this one from
2014. Sit down because I know you won't
believe this. Are you sitting?
Jeffrey says he wants to go out to
a pizza place with you. He did not
mention a particular pizza place, but he knows
you are in the know on this with
a little winking emoji.
All of the emails that I just shared
with you were from 2014,
right about the same time period of the
John Podesta emails that WikiLeaks published and started
the entire Pizzagate saga.
Now let's talk about the Podesta brothers because
remember it was John Podesta's email that was
hacked in those leaked Podesta emails. John Podesta
talks of individuals
back to this new Epstein release because in
it, the word pizza
is mentioned
911
times. That's Okay. Check this out.
So first of all, just very quickly while
this was happening, because I was looking at
this before, this there whatever they're doing right
now, they're rapidly trying to change and evolve
what's going on. So first of all, this
site doesn't show up the way it did
a second ago, which
could just be that it's being over being
bombed with, you know, a lot of traffic.
But just so you can see, this is
what it now looks like. It is the
same one.
But if and so that may be the
reason just to make an objective why this
is not showing up accurately.
But if you search Pete's on here,
which he just showed you,
you get no results.
Okay? Well, they're there. I mean, he I've
seen these myself. He showed you those emails.
He showed you the search. Why is there
none there now? Now, again, this may be
because there's a site the site's acting funny.
They keep using that as the argument that,
you know, they're not deleting stuff. They are,
though. You can prove it once it comes
back up. They're missing information. It's not like
if a server was down, it'd be down.
You wouldn't be able to act some. The
clear point is they they've been removing information.
And they did it. They got caught doing
it right at the beginning.
So right now, it may just be some
intermittent flimsy, you know, then we'll come back
up later today. Keep an eye on this.
Right now, it appears as if they're let
me do this actually really quickly.
Try a different, different,
browser. See if that changes anything. You can't
see it right now, but I'm gonna check
here. Okay. This does look different. Hold on.
I'll take a picture for you. Here. I'll
just do this.
We'll do it live.
So you guys can see what I see.
Let's see.
Screen share.
Alright. Which one is it?
Not that
one. There it is.
Okay. So I wonder why the browsers look
different depending on
so let's see what it says.
And this will be good. If it does
show them, then we'll recognize that there's a
discrepancy between the browsers.
Okay. Yeah. Look. And there okay. But wait.
861.
I find that just as relevant. Isn't this
strange, though? Why would it be different? So
this is Firefox versus Brave.
You know?
Probably by design, frankly, in my honest opinion.
That's it's when you have discrepancy, it's easy
to act like things are falling through the
cracks. But, okay, with the same point, Epstein
Library, you've got 861.
Alright. Let's go back to the video. So
that shows right there that there's, what, 40
plus I mean, that's 40 something that are
deleted.
Probably the most important ones, if we're gonna
be honest about this.
Oh, how to do that? Hold on. Oh,
shoot.
I have to find my place again. I
accidentally deleted or removed the video.
Thing.
Where were we?
Well, this I was called slices of pizza.
Yeah. And about Good. Perfect. 911.
I mean, I don't know about you guys.
I find that to be very, very, very
important. Tell me what you think. I mean,
that's that's they're removing things. There's really no
way around that unless this is some kind
of a glitchy thing. But if it was,
it wouldn't be going on for days intermittently
back and forth with numbers changing. Like, that's
not how that works, guys. It would be
up or it would be down. They're deleting
stuff. Let's keep going.
Of pizza parties.
And the word pizza is often paired with
grape soda. In bizarre context within emails addressed
to Ebsa and grape soda again,
no one else can understand.
Or this one, mister Epstein would like to
see the menu from the pizza place. Could
you someone send it, please? Or this one
from 2014. Sit down because I know you
won't believe this. Are you sitting?
Jeffrey says he wants to go out to
a pizza place with you. He did not
mention a particular pizza place, but he knows
you are in the know on this with
a little winking emoji.
All of the emails that I just shared
with you were from 2014,
right about the same time period of the
John Podesta emails that WikiLeaks published and started
the entire
Pizzagate saga.
Now let's talk about the Podesta brothers because
remember, it was John Podesta's email that was
hacked in those leaked Podesta emails. John Podesta
talks about his close relationship with Dennis Hastert,
the former speaker of the house who was
recently sentenced to fifteen months in prison for
abusing boys years ago.
Yeah. Well, speaking of the Bethesda brothers, again,
there was Before that, though, let's not skip
past Hastert. Remember, this guy was third in
line, the president or, you know, however I
always do that every time. He was, you
know, speaker. So you the vice president, then
you got the president. So third or second,
depending how you make that frame that statement.
The but he was the speaker. And the
the the judge literally called him a serial
child molester,
a Republican. That's but it's all of it.
It's this is it's and that's so important.
And there's Liddy, and there's plenty of other
examples that we've shown you. Right? But it's
just it's it's an obvious long term, you
know, kind
of it's it is the blackmail network.
The way I look at it is it
doesn't mean that everybody in government is necessarily
like that. It means that it's cultivated that
way so that outside forces can use this
mechanism to control the policy in this country,
which, oh my gosh, look over there in
a totally separate conversation. Everyone's noticing Israel controlling
policy. I wonder if those stories connect.
No direct evidence of them being involved in
child sex trafficking from those emails. But as
we pointed out at the time, there ship
with Dennis Hastert, the former speaker of the
house who was recently sentenced to fifteen months
in prison for abusing boys years ago.
Yeah. Well, speaking of the Podesta brothers, again,
there was no direct evidence of them being
involved in child sex trafficking
from those emails. But as we pointed out
at the time, there was a lot of
bizarre communication, including an email from John Podesta
to his brother Tony, the subject line,
last night was fun, and the first line
reads,
still in torture chamber.
That email got really no attention ten years
ago. But today,
a 2009 email from Jeffrey Epstein is getting
a lot of attention
as it asks, where are you? You okay?
I love the torture video.
To the fallout from the latest release of
the Jeffrey Epstein documents, they include communications between
the rich and powerful, from the co owner
of an NFL team to billionaires like Elon
Musk.
CNN teams are carefully sifting through the largest
and what the justice department says is the
last
batch of Jeffrey Epstein files. Friday's release of
millions of pages related to Jeffrey Epstein provided
a closer look at his connection
to world elites from Hollywood to Washington, Wall
Street to Buckingham Palace, and beyond.
Yeah. Well, all those so called news anchors
and their newsrooms for a decade
blacklisted this topic. Right. They conditioned you to
live in ignorance. They called it a conspiracy.
They called me and so many others
dangerous for even looking.
For all that is here, there has not
been one single public investigation
of any of this. Not from local police,
not from the FBI,
no one.
And that has to be the big question.
Not for Podesta or for pizza parlor owners,
but for law enforcement.
Based on what may be or may not
be here, the big question is why hasn't
any investigation
taken place?
Well, ten years later,
no investigation ever took place. And think about
the relevance of that to what we're dealing
right now. We're We're dealing with right now
with the Epstein files. It's the same kind
of point. Right? You're getting all this information.
A lot of it's subjective, but more than
enough of it is clearly indicative of some
kind of a crime. Much of it is
actually, like we showed you the affidavit, like,
things that would legally be required to be
followed up on it. Maybe they did elsewhere.
The point, though, is that what we're calling
for out here, most of us, is accountability,
some kind of actual follow-up.
But as we've seen, this kind of stuff
can be so shockingly obvious to the point
where it's now being reopened up because people
are you know, that we're connecting it to
this, but people out there don't wanna see
the connection to the what he's talking about
now.
But that we're likely, if we do the
same thing, is gonna get the same thing.
A lot of narrative, a lot of deflection,
a lot of finger pointing, and no accountability.
We,
you and I,
we can change this.
People like Ben doing this work, we can
change this.
It's a failure of a complicit government
and also of a corporate media that didn't
just ignore this evil.
They helped to cover it up and keep
it operating in the shadows. See, by refusing
to engage honestly in 2016,
by choosing mockery
over investigation,
by silencing questions instead of asking them,
they created the very environment
where this evil could thrive. Right. They didn't
kill bad information as they pretended.
They guaranteed it would survive. Mhmm. See, I
wasn't
censored the way that I was because my
reporting was false.
I was censored because it was dangerous.
Dangerous Think about that. Right?
I I know you guys are familiar with
this. And if somebody's asking in the chat,
what would be the purpose of dropping the
files with nothing to come? Well, like I
said before, to make it simple,
to to bury people in enough ongoing, subjective,
and verifiable information
to where there there's,
I mean, depending on what you wanna search
for in those files, you can find a
100,000 stories. And so people are out there
talking about all these different things, and everyone's
scattered amongst a lot of very real things,
but no real
coordinated direction, which we could change.
At least, I would I'd say in that
in a larger way, which some people are.
But the point being, it's about designing this
in a way that we all get scattered.
We all act we act like just the
embarrassment is enough. It is a last ditch
effort to put this to bed.
Acting like they showed everything didn't work more
than once. So now maybe giving us more
than they're supposed to might be enough. I
mean, it's like a it's desperation. Genuinely think
that, but consider that I'm wrong.
To narratives, dangerous to reputations,
dangerous to a media culture that had grown
comfortable
acting as a gatekeeper
rather than a watchdog.
See, the unspoken rule was simple. Some questions
are not
allowed, not because they're wrong. No. No.
But because they lead to the truth.
And the truth?
Pizzagate.
At least in the form of a cabal
of elites and powerful people who delight
in the physical and sexual abuse of children
is real.
Remember how we started. Epstein
is
Pizzagate.
But the other reality, it's time to accept,
Pizzagate
is much more
and much bigger
than just Jeffrey Epstein.
Well done.
100% agree. And you you could you could
get
a if you if the word Pizzagate is
somehow the reason that's stopping you from considering
it, just recognize that Epstein
is one part of a large
international
sexual blackmail network and far more than that.
You I would even argue that the sexual
blackmail network is one aspect of a much
larger global control structure.
We need to recognize
that that has always been there, like Ben
is trying to highlight. You know, I I
could've
what he did stands for itself right there.
There's no it's so shockingly clear what he
just laid out. And the way they're dealing
with it right now shows you that they're
drowning in that. We are on the precipice.
We can nudge this over the edge if
we really want to, but we have to
work through all the screaming partisans out there
to make it happen. But it's just so
clear. This was a real conversation. It did
get buried in the partisan hyperbolic
part, you know, which today is more so
the mainstream alternative media. But at that point,
the mainstream media, the same way they did
this, the same way they're doing it now.
We just need to recognize how clear that
was. And the shooter and the pizza place
and the info and the symbols, yes, that
was a part of it. But was the
subjective part that only really comes into focus
when you go into the stuff we're gonna
talk about, well, really what we already did,
but some of the parts we're gonna show
now.
The the real picture, the actual trafficking, the
actual government involvement, the awareness of that. And
when you make it into a cartoon, well,
people can dismiss it as a cartoon. So
let's check there's a couple of things I
wanna show you. One
oh, that's what I did too. Let me
bring up the screen share. One
is this story.
Oops.
Bumped something there. Here we go.
This this goes back to 2017,
and it's written then, but it goes back
to before this. And the title was the
Clinton Silsbee trafficking scandal and the media cover
up, the true origin of Pizzagate.
And it just and it's well worth your
time. The simple point is to recognize that
the the killer Clinton I'll play this clip
that I started with next
on corporate media. Not that that ever makes
it true necessarily, but it means that it
was so known and seen that they were
forced to address it. Now Laura Silsbee,
who got caught
trafficking children out of Haiti.
Of course, Haiti. We understand the timing of
that, what the Clintons were doing, the profiteering,
all that was happening.
They caught this woman trafficking children out of
the country. They arrested her in Haiti for
child trafficking.
Clinton personally stepped up and got her off
the hook.
Brought her home, as I understand it, under
the argument that they were gonna be held
accountable in The United States.
Nothing happened.
Nothing
so so much so. Nothing happened to such
a degree that she came back,
changed her name to lawyer Laura Gaylor,
and at the time this was written was
working for AlertSense.
A child
alert.
I mean, you can't make think about that.
And here's the clip that was even at
on it was NBC at the time. Somebody
gets caught trafficking children, gets let off by
the state department of the United States government,
and then gets changed their name and works
for a a system that alerts you about
missing children.
I mean, that's just it's it's
unnerving.
The state
over here, and we are following this breaking
news out of Washington. Some serious allegations this
morning facing the state department. That's right. According
to internal state department memos, the agency might
have called off or intervened an investigation into
into possibly illegal and inappropriate behavior within its
ranks,
allegedly to protect jobs and avoid scandals. This
concerns the time that Hillary Clinton was secretary
of state. We wanna get right to NBC's
chief White House correspondent, Chuck Todd.
So you could obviously argue right out of
the gate that this was them just simply
covering up for one of their people.
Not that the entire government's involved in some
large thing or that they're all compromised by
despite the evidence showing this. You could make
the argument this is simply them covering up
for a disgusting person that works for them
or that they work for.
It doesn't change the reality though that they
covered up for allegations of pedophilia and sex
trafficking and realized that we can prove today
that these things were happening and are.
So ask yourself, was this that? I mean,
I'm making the case that this is the
not the beginning,
but the moment that started the ball rolling
of the average awareness I mean, like, average
of what this was.
And then once Pizzagate or rather once this
thing became something that was getting far too
much attention, that's when the Pizzagate
umbrella went over the top of it to
make it what it ultimately became. And you
get the likes of the the crazy
people like David Seaman and others that made
their entire career, which quickly collapsed after they
got seen for what they were, around the
idea of subjective things while ignoring all approvable
evidence. I'm convinced they were either working for
somebody at a level or didn't realize they
were being used by them.
The latest, Chuck, good morning to you. Good
morning, Savannah. You know, there's an old saying
in Washington that the cover up is worse
than the crime. But in this case, both
parts of it are disturbing. Allegations of prostitution
and pedophilia and allegations
that those crimes were somehow covered up or
not looked into. So the state department this
morning is having to respond to those claims
and those investigations,
of misconduct by state department officials, including by
an ambassador
and security agents attached to then secretary of
state Hillary Clinton. And the allegations are that
these investigations were whitewashed,
quashed altogether,
and that those orders came from high up.
NBC News has obtained documents related to ongoing
investigations
into some disturbing allegations involving state department personnel
and at least one ambassador.
A state department memo says the ambassador, quote,
routinely ditched his protective security detail in order
to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and
minor children.
So right there, you've got insider people telling
you that we have information about this guy
who, in my opinion, represents just one person
utilizing
this disgusting sexual network.
And and this is what starts to peep
and, apparently, somebody at some level was ongoing
investigating this.
And then you overlap this with the conversation
of Haiti and so like, you start to
see this some suddenly something we the network
starts to come into view a little bit.
And I think, again, that's what kind of
kicked this into gear. We need to create
a false construct to hide behind.
These are all my opinions, but there's a
lot of facts to this. The memo also
says a top state department official directed department
investigators
to, quote, cease the investigation
into the ambassador's conduct. It's just one of
what another document describes as, quote, several examples
of undue influence from top state officials.
On Monday, a state department spokesperson
will not confirm specific investigations. I'm not going
to talk about specific cases, but I can
say broadly that the notion that we would
not vigorously pursue
criminal misconduct,
in a case, in any case is preposterous.
A former investigator for the department's inspector And
they're lying. Surprise. Surprise. Right? I mean, that's
what their job is. Right? Whether it's,
Paskey. Right? Or whoever.
That's not true, and then you find that
as true. It's like clockwork.
General has complained to congress and the media
that the investigations have not been thorough because
of the pressure from those high level officials.
We take every allegation of misconduct seriously, and
we look into it. It was less than
six months ago that another major internal investigation
painted Hillary Clinton's state department in a negative
light. That scathing report
on the failed diplomatic security procedures in the
aftermath of the Benghazi attack. What difference at
this point does it make? It is our
job to figure out what happened and do
everything we can. As we noted, the whistleblower
in this case, a member of the inspector
general investigative team at the state department,
She's gone to congress demanding an investigation,
and it's our understanding congressman Ed Royce, the
leading Republican in house foreign relations says he
does plan on having an investigation, and no
doubt hearings are probably gonna come soon. Nope.
Didn't happen. As well, Savannah. But Chuck, where
are we on this? Is it this point
just allegations from one whistleblower? Have they been
substantiated in any way? Well, what here here's
what it is. The the the whistleblower says
that this report that the internal investigation having
to do with how diplomatic security even investigated
these allegations,
that's where this scathing report came from. It's
how the investigators
somehow dropped the investigations, including into this ambassador
and onto some other deal, including on on
folks that were part of security detail. Now,
doesn't that sound familiar?
Doesn't that sort of sound like Tom Abramovich,
the Israeli government asset that came and wanted
to rape children and your government let him
go back home and nothing ever happened? Or
any number of following examples that we could
make that has happened over and over. The
many different Saudi Arabian nationals that come and
rape and steal and they let them go
back home. Not a joke. It's a very
real story. I've covered it for years. It's
not a secret. Your government covers this up.
Whether it's because of their personal foreign policy
interests or because that's who they are. I
I think it's probably both.
So quickly back to the article.
This it's, Hillary Clinton intervened politically. Laura Silsbee
is the former director of the New Life
Children's Refuge. Emails from her organization can be
found in the WikiLeaks files
discussing the NGO before her arrest. Silsbee organization,
the organ her organization also appears in Clinton's
emails soliciting donations for their ministry.
There see, there's and knowing what they got
caught for,
it's important to recognize. They're clearly involved. The
refuge was founded by Silsbee and, Carissa Coulter,
both attendees of the Central Valley Baptist Church
in Meridian, Idaho. Silsbee was reported to have
a history of bad debts and unpaid wages.
Laura had claimed she planned to build an
orphanage in the Dominican Republic, But a state
department diplomatic cable, which linked to right there,
reveals the authorities in the country said she
never submitted an application for this purpose. They
instead located they they instead located to Haiti.
So they're lying, and they're getting caught lying,
and they're having they're traveling across state country,
national lines with children that nobody can, can,
document. On 01/29/2010,
Sylvia was arrested with nine other American nationals
attempting to steal 33 children from the country,
most of whom were not even orphans and
had families according to the reports. You can
read all this. CNN reported on 02/09/2010
that this was not the first time Silsbee
had attempted to traffic children out of Haiti.
Haitian police acted on a tip that they
that had intercepted Silsbee in an earlier separate
attempt to remove 40 children from the country.
She was turned back at the Haitian border.
So literally got caught with 40 children, turned
back, and tried again. For a brief period,
Haitian authorities were considering adding a new kidnapping
charge based on this evidence. Hillary and Bill
Clinton took an extraordinary interest in Silsbee's case,
and from the moment she was arrested, it
almost immediately stepped in on her behalf.
I mean, this is just my and this
is what we were talking about at the
time, what we were covering at the time,
like a lot of us were.
You would know about all of this stuff,
Epstein, whatever else, not every single part of
it, but the larger conversation had you been
following this platform.
Now this is the one we this is
a follow-up on it. NBC News report, like
we pointed to, Clinton covered up, elite pedophile
ring at the state department.
Now, just to quickly go through some of
these, we'll end with some statements of people
out there today. I'll include both our coverage,
their articles at the time with some video.
We'll also note, by the way, that so
much of the information in these doc in
these these shows are gone because YouTube deletes
channels or because I'll show you in a
second. The databases for the imagery, let's say,
from com comet and others have all been
removed systematically
over the years. I'll show you. It's wild.
But so check out Ben Swann exposing this
and follow-up what happened to Ben Swan after
the report.
I'll include this one. This is follow this
is he he kept the work up at
well after 2018. Ben Swan exposes the truth
about US foreign aid and the Clinton Foundation's
Haitian fraud. I'll also include this one, by
the way.
Same kind of conversation. There's a lot I've
covered a lot of these.
This is just one of the very, very
obvious ones, like many of them are. Doctor
who exposed the Clinton Foundation corruption in Haiti
who was found dead.
And it's like,
it's so obviously criminal activity.
So
some of these things, it's just incredible to
me that this people don't know this was
there. Comment ping pong website links lead to
more damning photos and connections. Now like I
said, if you wanna go through this, please
do. Don't take my word for it. If
you doubt that there's horrible things, you can
come look for yourself. I mean, just the
images like this that were on their material
in a children's pizza place should be overwhelming.
Should be shockingly uncomfortable.
But the point is, the video's gone. So
this one, you won't be able to access
because it was deleted on YouTube, and it
was a time when that's the only one
we had. But the point was, we were
following up on the information and showing that
it wasn't just symbols and unconnected points, but
that this place, on top of all of
it, was basically showing trial pornography, was basically
having weird sex shows, was all sorts of
weird I mean, stuff that in and of
itself, in some cases, were crimes.
This is a good one. 13 most essential
data points in the Pizzagate allegations.
And as I said here, images and certain
reference material, which would typically be included within
were omitted and replaced with a link, were
available for the reader to view because they
were trying to charge up with the crimes.
Right? Which I I that's important to point
out that we shouldn't be sharing this kind
of information. But realize that most of what
we were sharing was not actual criminal activity.
Anything like that, I never put on this
platform, obviously, because that would be wrong. It
was just suggestive stuff. But even that, they
were trying to hold you they were trying
to charge you for having.
But realize,
going through this, it goes through all of
these very
well it's I think this was well done.
The point was at the bottom, I added
tons of stuff that you could link to,
but almost all of it has now been
removed.
And a lot of them are for different
databases. So that means individual separate databases were
brought down, removed, and changed. Some of it
you may find here and there.
Now here's one of their posts on the
like, remember this? The comment pizza, Instagram, which,
I mean, was made my skin crawl. And
they deleted a lot of it very quickly.
Whip up a Haitian special, extra cheese.
My pizza party posted on this adult's Instagram.
You know, it's very weird stuff like that.
Like I said, subjective. But when taken in
the context of what we know, it's very
obvious there was some weird stuff going on.
But go to the links if you wanna
find more stuff. Again, none of it's gonna
be something that you can be legally held
accountable for. I would not freely share that
without letting you at all, but would do
so it'd say, there's don't, you know, access
this. But I would never do that.
When all viewed together, these Pizzagate facts cannot
be ignored. Now right here, you can see
some of these weird images.
I mean, good. This is the comet. This
is the people who are connected on the
site to the comet ping pong site to
their own accounts who are sharing weird sexualized
pizza stuff. Look at this one.
You know what I mean? Like, this is
weird. This is at the actual restaurant. This
is a picture in the restaurant and what
they're doing late night in the child's pizza
place.
But when you view it all, like I
said, there's just no way to disregard this
stuff.
Now we talk about the when yes. And
it begins. Police say conspiracy theory about Clinton
led to this pizza shop getting shot up.
You know, literally, the reality of what Clinton
was doing led to what you claim was
fake even though it actually happened. Like, they
literally bent themselves backwards trying to make this,
basically suggesting that you can't talk about the
real Clinton stuff because that drives crazy things
to happen. Doesn't that feel relevant to what
they're trying to do again today?
And this one, the Pizzagate time bomb, it's
a trap to discredit the alternative media. The
Pizzagate comment part of it and the way
it was being used, not that it was
unimportant.
We talk about the clearing up the half
truth of Pizzagate. And then we were we're
doing a lot of work on this, guys.
We're covering it for a long time and
doing it in a way that was subjective,
nonpartisan. This one was about Hastert and Liddy.
I said, from Hastert to Liddy, it's clear
that there's more to this story and and
stop calling it that.
Now this one was written by Anthony t
Tyler, an old writer for us. It was
really well done. It's called American Pedophilia,
prerequisite
prerequisite of a wealthy elitist.
So, again, just think about the conversation.
Twenty fifteen, we put this out and about
the deeper discussion about the, you know, a
wealthy elitist in this country
as his argument, a re a prerequisite of
a wealthy elitist would be pedophilia. Now he
didn't he's not arguing every wealthy elitist, but
it was simply making that point that there
is an overlap. The the Franklin cover up.
You know, all these different discussions, conspiracy of
silence is, the image he used.
And same thing. All the images you could
check for yourself.
And then really to stand back, and this
one was a 2016, understanding evil.
From globalism
to pizzagate.
Kind of wrapping this back around at the
beginning, there is a larger connection when you
think about what this was being used
to orchestrate, at least as I see it.
I think that's worth considering.
So lastly, just to highlight some of the
people out there, this one is so interesting
to me. Nicholas Fuentes was thirty seconds ago
telling you, Epstein's a cool guy.
You know, you're misrepresenting it. And then was
basically on the other side of it saying,
like, The US should just, oh, you know,
militarily control the world. Or I I'm I'm
just sentiment wise, he was saying something like,
just take over everything or whatever. I'm I'm
I'm not I don't wanna claim his words
exactly. It's paraphrasing.
But I I pointed to it. We saw
it. He was out there going, like, you
know, screw this. Let's just take over okay.
So let me understand this. One, you're saying
he Epstein was cool or whatever you were
doing.
Now that we have the information
about the lies, he comes out and goes,
never forget that Donald Trump and his Department
of Justice both said that the Epstein files
didn't exist. Okay.
And he goes, they lied, and they're hiding
stuff. Oh, well, I happen to agree, but
so what are you saying here? That you
want them to rule the world and militarily
take over everything? Or do you suddenly change
that opinion because they're lying to you, like
they have every other day of our lives?
Or the idea that you say he was
a cool guy, so why do you suddenly
care that they're hiding this from you? Like,
it just it's so obviously contrived, in my
opinion. These people are out there try I
mean, whatever you think it is, whether they're
being directed or whether they're just saying what
they think will get I don't know. But
you can't be this, like
I don't even like, just insanely hit,
inconsistent with your points. You know, it it's
just I think it's tapping into whatever they
can.
3,600,000
views. Right? I mean, that's what this is
about. But just recognize the hypocrisy in all
of this.
Or as this person I was pointing out,
I think this is actually pretty crazy. He
came out and said zero tweets from Libs
of TikTok on the new files.
Zero tweets from DC Drano. Now at the
time he posted this, as I said, that
was the case.
And and some of them are still to
this point. But the crazy thing was at
the point I showed this, there wasn't just
no comments on Epstein. Some of them hadn't
tweeted in, like, two or three days.
Like, prolific tweeters. I just think that's insane.
And this is lives of TikTok. You know,
most transparent.
And I think that how revealing that is.
The DC Drano and lives of TikTok and
Crokin and all the rest of them
Took, like, two some of them haven't even
yet really gotten in to talk about Epstein.
Major MAGA people are like, look over there
to UK, and, like, there's then you don't
have to talk about every story. But these
were people telling you this was the most
important story, and now that it goes the
direction they don't like, they're like,
I'm gonna look at anything else.
That's just incredibly sad.
And somebody was following up on this too.
Loves a TikTok.
Popular video game Minecraft is indoctrinating
children, they write on February 2. This person
goes, and Zionists are promoting the death of
innocent children in Gaza, yet you stay silent?
Epstein blank. Nothing?
I just said, that's a good question. Like,
why are you not you know, clearly,
these people are pulling their punches. You just
can't ignore that. Hopefully, that influences people to
recognize what they really are.
DC Draino finally says something about Epstein and
says every new release of the Epstein files
keeps proving Trump was never involved.
Okay.
That's just insane, the level of insanity. Right?
But he goes, accounts that try to make
this about left or right are misleading or
deceiving you. It's us first, the elite. Jeff
says, I agree. Accounts that try to absolve
Trump after he fought release at every step,
and by the way, there's tons of evidence
that say the opposite,
are are even worse. I agree. Accounts that
minimize, normalize, or uncover
for this horror can f off, he writes.
I mean, come on, guys. DC, these people
should be embarrassed, but clearly, they have no
shame. They're they're gonna keep doubling down because
what else they gonna do? You know, what
else they gonna do? You could be honest.
That's a solution. Come out and be like,
I was wrong. He misled us. Yeah. And
then you probably get more support than ever.
But these people don't seem to be even
be capable of that, let alone want to
do that. But here's an example of somebody,
me and Joy, one of the typical supporters
out there, you know, oh my god, this
is this is as of what today, right?
Yesterday. The FBI says Adam Schiff had signed
off on the leaking of the information in
Russiagate. Lock him up, get him. Okay. First
of all, anything other than this big story
we're all not gonna talk about. But recognize
this.
When do you think he's gonna be arrested,
Mia?
After all the rest that you guys keep
pointing to? After Pelosi and and and Gates
and Schrock I mean, come on, guys. How
many times you guys keep jumping down the
line and going, here's a new crime. Oh,
we showed this. We did it. No one's
getting arrested.
They know that. I just think it's crazy
how that doesn't get acknowledged.
I think you should be arrested too, maybe
for different reasons. But at the end of
the day, how much you wanna bet Adam
or Pelosi or anybody else on any side
doesn't get arrested? And these people will continue
to go, yeah.
Our team, the thing. I don't know why.
I mean, I do, but here's to live
with TikTok today.
The feds just discovered an illegal biolab in
Las Vegas.
This is funny.
They're, hey. Look at the COVID stuff. Look,
prop probably even real. But the point like
last time is let's not forget that weird
China's lab they claim with a hose coming
out of the side of the wall. That
was not what we were told. The idea
that there wouldn't be some inside understanding, whether
because of
water flowing, because of,
I wanna say resources. That's not the word
I'm looking for.
Utilities
being used.
Remember the point was they nobody knew it
was anybody who was there. Well, that's impossible.
Somebody was providing services for the building. They
were things that were in frozen,
in freezers.
Anyway, the point was these people were like,
we knew it, China, and they're invading our
country, and they just lied about it. They
went along with the narrative it's supposed to
be. My point is, I I'm I wouldn't
be surprised right now if this is exactly
what's happening. But to me, that would suggest
more likely that Trump and his team are
involved with doing this, maybe in line with
China. At the end of the day, like
it started was the same point.
I'm gonna get into a point coming up
soon about the possibility of them using mRNA
to defend
this administration.
But I just think it's insane with no
post about Epstein that this is what you're
overly you know, the owner of property of
this Chinese national was previously arrested in connection
to a legal bio lab in California. They
found these pathogens.
I
thought it's not unimportant.
I just think it's an interesting time. And
if this becomes the point and how much
you wanna bet just because it's my gut,
this turns out to be something other than
what they're claiming. But I am gonna come
back to this because I'm interested in what
might be going on. But here's JD Vance,
and as Pedro points out, hey. Welcome back,
man. Can we get an update on this,
Epstein conversation?
He jumps back in yesterday.
This from after, like, basically no cut nothing
for a while even though he's pretty prolific.
This reminds me of when Margaret Brennan fact
checked me at the VP debate in our
bit. So not related at all to the
bigger conversation. Okay.
And here he is on the 20, 2021.
What's poss what possible interest would the US
government have in keeping Epstein's client secret?
Yeah. Good point, JD Vance, back when it
was aimed at the other side. And he
follows up and says, if you're a journalist
and you're not asking this question about the
case, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
Right. And so he says, hey. Welcome back.
Can we talk about Epstein? How much you
wanna bet? Or I can tell you he's
not. I mean, doesn't this in and of
itself
call this? Yes. It does.
Nobody can't see that. Everybody can see what
that shows you.
That I'm not who knows what he's covering,
but he's not engaging with it, so he's
covering something.
And here's Wall Street Apes on the first.
Donald Trump just posted evidence the Democrats are
stealing our elections for 2020.
Yeah. That they're going back there. Look at
this old video from OAN about machines and
stuff. Look over there.
No. I'm I'm I've always pointed out that
there is criminal activity going around these elections.
Every time. Both sides, really, if you're gonna
be honest. But now? If you're now? Wall
Street aid? Now you're gonna go lookin' over
the hood in 2020.
I mean, come on, guys. I'm also gonna
follow-up on a story about Gabbard and the
the election stealing conversation, probably tomorrow, if not
if not the next day. But come on,
guys. There this is so clearly
anything other than this massive story that should
change the very fabric of our government understanding.
But they don't want that to happen.
So call it out. Push it out there.
We're gonna keep doing the same. The information's
gonna keep coming. Now I'm not I can't
promise that it's only I mean, I can
almost guarantee that it's not gonna just be
more Epstein things coming out because even right
now, I'm already kinda like, okay. Like, if
it's important enough and it's I will make
sure you see it. But it's right now,
I started to get to the point to
where past this,
you're gonna get you know, let's just say
there's another email that says, I accused Trump
of being a rapist. Okay. That's important. It's
all of it's important.
But it no longer becomes like a day
to day reporting for me when it's just
like the thing we already reported the other
day. So, well, if my reporting going forward
will be about whether they do anything
and anything that's left that I think is
relevant, then maybe that'll continue to be the
case. Maybe day by day, we're gonna get
bombshells that need to be shown. But we
need to be calling for accountability now, not
once this all tapers down or once they
release more. Now. If they really cared, if
they were honest, there would already be people
investigating and looking into these things right now,
and maybe they are. I don't believe that.
I think they've already told you that there's
not any more investigation the last time and
followed up again with Blanche.
But we're gonna keep calling it out. We're
also gonna follow-up on the network state agenda
on ongoing mRNA manipulations that have never stopped.
We're gonna continue to follow-up on any health
related conversations of dioxins and PFAS and whatever
else is happening, other foreign policy conversations,
the reality of what happens with Iran, the
ongoing genocide that's taking place, the reality of
what Syria ends up to be. We'll keep
following these stories for you because that's what
we do. And as I said, by the
way, you know, there's we've been going through
tons of different things, but my goal right
now is to ramp up output, which I'm
there's different things happening that caused that to
be an issue, but I promise you, you're
gonna see more content coming as a consistent
ongoing force going forward. That's just working that
forward right now with these different factors, including
some of the stuff I still do it
back here. But that's coming, guys. I mean,
already, I'm going to you'll see by the
end of this month, we'll probably increased output
by
just my show. I don't know. A quarter?
I'm aiming for anyway, and then more from
there. And hopefully, more content, more articles,
more work in general.
So thank you for being here. Thank you
for supporting this platform. We couldn't do this
without you.
I love you all. As always,
question everything. Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.