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.
Thursday, 02/12/2026.
Thank you for joining me today. For those
in the chat, that was Greg from Hireside
Chat. He made that song about the last
American vagabond the last time we connected, and
I'm looking forward to the next time we
connect. I think he's a good guy.
Now, of course, limited time today. I'll explain
why. Started early because I felt like I
wanted to get more time and then felt
guilty because people wouldn't be here for another
two minutes. So I don't think I've ever
actually started the podcast
before,
you know, even minutes before the time that
was set. So even though technically the song
didn't take long enough. So we're we're getting
started anyway. So sorry for those who are
gonna be joining in two minutes.
I was invited,
just, like, so many hours ago to join
Ben Swan today. And so ultimately,
just truncated what I was gonna do today,
but I wanted to make sure I got
something out for you guys.
Put out two really good articles today from
one from Robert, one from Derek, I'll point
to in a moment. But today, we're really
gonna focus on the one main topic in
the title and a few other things that
I wanna include, but I'll leave it there
just in case we don't get to certain
things for
time. But it's an interesting connection to the
story we've been covering.
The melting down of the Trump administration around
these files, the
kind of I don't even know what the
right word would be for the people out
there acting like, you know, it is literally
the living embodiment of that meme of the
person of the dog in the burning house
going, this is fine, where people are coming
out going, Bondi did great today. It's just
it's very strange to watch this reaction. But
that's one part of this obvious awareness that's
changing. But the bigger point around the Epstein
conversation is that it's just exposing,
hopefully, for most people outside of partisanship or
anywhere, really, that it's exposing some some uncomfortable
The the entirety of our government feels like
it's acting different than usual. At least that's
my experience. The way that they're conducting themselves,
it speaks to something. And I think what
we're gonna highlight around Donald Trump, his administration,
spying, monitoring
congressional activity through the Epstein files, it just
adds another layer to what this might be.
And I don't think we're talking about good
versus bad. I think all of our government
entities are in one way or another kinda
wrapped up in all of this. But that
doesn't mean that they're not at odds about
how they want this to end up. And
I don't think any of it is in
our interest. Call me a pessimist. I think
they've shown that to us. But there's a
few other things we'll get into that connect
to that. I wanna start with some points
around ICE before we get into everything else
that I thought was really I mean, it
follows up on a story we've been covering.
Body foot, cam body,
camera footage has come out about the the
one that bragged about five shot seven shots,
five holes.
I we told you this when it first
happened. The evidence was clear. Just like the
rest of these stories, it's self evident if
you look at it. And now the body
cameras come out showing that they discussed running
into her, then ran into her, then literally
told the world that she ran into them,
and that's why they had to defend themselves.
You know, if if this is one group,
but we have seen how much this is
happening. But just think about it. They're willing
to lie. Like, that's a group of them
in the car discussing this. I'll show you.
If they're of the mind that they can
just decide to lie knowing they're being recorded,
you have to understand
they're being told by somebody in the administration
that they can do these things, that they
can get away with whatever they want. And
that is what we're seeing. That's my opinion.
But I don't know how else you rationalize
what we're gonna show. The decision to break
the law and then to blame her, and
even knowing that's the way it's setting up,
using lethal force or what they thought would
amount to that. It's insane. We're gonna talk
about how incredibly important that is and how
that's this enforcement arm around what appears to
be shifting in this country. And
I wanna make sure we start with one
point I'll highlight around,
Whitney Webb, this a save act point I
wanna make if we get to it in
time, and some other Epstein points we'll we'll
discuss and possibly some foreign policy. But before
we get into all of that, one quick
thing I wanna highlight, and, Derek brought this
to my attention.
So he's spoken to Whitney today, actually, and
and, asked about this.
It's just it's just the strangest thing to
me. I mean, I shouldn't even say this
is not strange. You just think it's odd
that it it's the way that it was
just done is clearly meant to represent as
if Whitney Webb is involved. So it appears
Ian Carroll, or at least him along with
whoever else, or maybe he's just promoting it,
I haven't gone too deep on it just
yet, it was only recently brought to my
attention, have started something called,
the the program called Webb with two b's,
and it's literally an AI
that is supposed to be combing through the
Epstein files. Now, yes, that can clearly be
helpful, but the idea that it's an AI
and all everything else with this and then
using her name,
it just feels weird. And it feels, I
don't know. I mean, it's not like the
unless I missed unless I unless it's there
and I don't see it, I'm not seeing
something that's like this is in conjunction with
Whitney Webb, but it's a very weird thing
to happen. And, you know, I have my
skepticism about everybody in that sphere.
And so United States of Zog pointed this
out. Nice semantic manipulation by Ian Carroll to
call his Epstein AI program Webb, with two
b's, when it was Whitney Webb that has
the most volume,
voluminous or however you pronounce that correctly, and
most thoroughly researched on the Epstein crime syndicate.
Just volumes and volumes of her research has
been going on a long time. Other fun
factoids about this historical
negotiationism
include the fact that Ian Carroll is a
TikTok researcher who dismisses the scope of Whitney
Webb's work. Now I don't know if I
agree with entirely. It is
dismissive in some cases, but yet often points
to her work. So it's I think that
speaks for itself. Ian Carroll himself, he writes,
this is his opinion, is the gatekeeper whose
personal connections to people in the Epstein list,
one to three degree separation. Now you decide
if you think that's relevant. And the most
fascinating personality,
personally, is Epstein's own interest in neural networks
AI and how making an Epstein AI, in
a sense, memorializes him in a way and
promotes his works. It's a very good point,
I think. And simply the idea that it's
I don't know. You guys can take it
for what you will. I just wanted it
to be on your radar because it feels
odd and this and I'm just I'm hearing
from her directly that this is not something
she's involved in and and, you know, like,
I just think that's worth noting. So keep
an eye on that. I honestly don't think
the AI part of this is it feels
wrong to me, especially since how do you
confirm that that's even giving you the right
results? You know? The whole thing is that,
like with grok or anything else, the point
should be that you don't rely on that,
that you look. And then if that's something
that helps you get a leg up or
whatever else that you still secondarily confirm with
your own work,
then then it's up to you to decide
if you think that's beneficial. I but just
like with Grok and this, you're gonna get
people that only use that and then
don't even realize something's being boxed out or
maybe it made a mistake or however it
works out. Don't rely on these things, guys.
Now great article from Derek today. Oh, and
just so you guys know, I'm probably looking
at maybe forty minutes, so so this is
gonna be a short show. So just don't
expect it. It'll it'll feel feel short for
those that are used to the shows that
we do.
From leaks to files and undeniable for the
undeniable proof, Jeffrey Epstein served Israeli interest and
why the press blames everyone else. Robert did
a great job on this, and it really
is breaking down the,
you know, the reality of the obvious it
is, first of all, which you all know,
how clear it is. The and and he
makes the point as well that we showed
that this was clear before. But do you
I mean, there's it's not saying that he's
a Assad agent. I I argue that's val
a valid consideration.
But simply saying that we can prove, not
just with evidence, but prove he worked in
the interest of Israel and for Israeli interest,
if not for Israel, which is not even
a very that's an accurate way to frame
that based on what we can prove from
before and now with the files. And then
how you get the Lumers of the world
that go with the Qataris, you know, the
Muslims, the Russians, and all of them with
the interest, in my opinion, as he writes
in here, to deflect from the most obvious
connection.
That's that's I mean, it is obvious. It's
very interesting how this is going down. And
it's people are willing to destroy their own,
I guess, the whatever
crumbling
what I'm not, blanking on the word. You
know, their credibility that is left,
willing to sacrifice that to lie about this
when everyone know when they know their team
is it's it's odd, which shows you that
there's a different agenda than their credibility. You
probably know what that is. This is from
Derek today. Can Maha Movement overcome the influence
of big wireless?
Now this is an interesting article that really
gets into, one, the contra the the hypocrisy
of Maha and not people that believed
in the objectives that Maha stated or that
still believed to make America healthy again is
the right path. But the political thing that
called itself Maha from the government that took
advantage of those people, that's what I'm talking
about and he's talking about when you make
this point. And, well, I guess, in the
title, he's referring to the honest part of
it. You know, will that movement, the people
that care about these things, be able to
overcome the government side of the manipulation?
And if you read into this, it's interesting
because the studies and the you're getting positive
steps. But I get the sense where this
will lead, and please read this because I'm
not gonna do it justice by briefly talking
about it. But I will I'm I might
even have Derek on to talk about this.
It's for another interview. We'll be doing that
soon enough anyway. But that this is more
about, in my mind, sort of a like
we've seen with everything else. Creating a you
know, taking a good step objectively. Like saying,
well, we're gonna reevaluate
the dangers, which nobody else has been doing.
That's what it's saying. We're gonna kinda disregard
some of the ones that say it's all
safe. We know that's not true. Everyone knows
that there's EMF radiation. But so now the
Trump administration is saying we're gonna put it
aside and we're gonna reevaluate.
Why do you assume that means that with
their dishonest track record just thus far with
RFK and everything else, it's probably going to
be reevaluate and then even worse, or at
the very least, maintaining the industry narrative that
it's all safe for you. I hope not.
But history shows that's where we should will
likely be. But as we're at now, they're
reevaluating.
So my my belief is this will be
another sort of setup where the reality becomes,
you know, where you re the the issues
that we describe are then solved by what
they want to do anyway.
It's a great article. And the worry is
that Big Wireless will, as always, or whatever
the entity is that's
either being used through government or controlling government,
will they be able to overcome that kind
of influence on the conversation? Five g, six
g, Trump's very proud about all of that.
Personally, I I find it highly unlikely.
Good article to read. Now, let's get into
some ICE conversation. This is the one I
was discussing. And here's what's interesting, by the
way. I've shown you this directly from his
own statements,
but the cop obviously could have been lying,
blust like, bragging about this and was even
lying about it, which is even more insane.
But I showed you myself where he said,
sub seven shots,
five holes. That was reported broadly by, like,
the Wall Street plenty of mainstream media. And
that he did say that, and that was
in a text communication. But, of course, how
grotesque it is, he might have just been
bragging about two extra shots and lying about
that. My point in saying all that is
that ever since then, the reporting has been
she was shot five times. Now, likely because
if she was shot seven times with five
holes, it would appear five shots. But they
all can look that up. I find that
a weird discrepancy, but maybe it only ended
up being five and the guy lied about
it. But that's important to know what I
think. Now, we've talked about this numerous times.
The argument goes,
check out all my past coverage, check out
their own statements, look at what Bondi and
Noem and everybody else probably still says, by
the way, that they were ran into by
this woman,
and they had to get out and defend
themselves. And that's when they shot her.
And then made up the story that she
had a gun that she was using, and
that was actually a lie, and that came
out in court. So this is simply just
their own camera footage.
And if it matters to you that CNN's
showing it, therefore, you dismiss the footage, then
you're a child. And I know that's not
how our audience works, but I always find
that funny.
Doubt their intentions, but don't ignore the facts,
and that's always how that should work. And
here is a report showing you their body
cam foot camera footage. Now take with a
grain of salt what CNN's reporting. You always
should. But the what you see on the
video and them discussing planning to hit her
cannot be dis disregarded.
Camera's on.
This is newly released body camera video. A
team of three border patrol agents is driving
through a South Side Chicago neighborhood. Two have
guns drawn.
Marimar Martinez, an American citizen and school teacher,
is driving next to them, honking her horn,
warning people to the presence of federal immigration
enforcement.
Another vehicle is behind the agents also honking
the horn. Alright. It's time to get aggressive
and get the out because they're trying to
box this in. It all happens in seconds.
Alright. You're fine now.
Alright. Out of car. Be advised. We've been
struck. We've been struck. Get down.
Martinez was shot five times and survived.
In this survey It does sound like five
shots right there. So it appears to me
and I should I should I it was
short time today. Had I had more time,
I I can go back and I'll do
it for another show and bring up his
own text message in that exchange.
So the fact that he lied about more
shots just kinda shows you the kind of
people we're dealing with. Video, you can see
the front of the agent's SUV come to
a stop. Four seconds later, Martinez's silver Nissan
drives off, she says, fearing for her life.
The Department of Homeland Security was quick to
accuse her of attacking federal law enforcement,
saying border patrol agents were, quote, ambushed by
domestic terrorists that rammed federal agents with their
vehicles.
FBI director Kash Patel posted on social media
about the incident, quote, attack our law enforcement,
and this FBI will find you and bring
you to justice.
The post also included a link to video
of a car ramming, but it had no
connection to Martinez.
But it also include And note included a
link to video of a It the in
the tweet he's sharing, it very clearly says,
this is the video where Martinez x y
and z. That's not true.
The FBI head shared this, claiming that was
her and we're gonna go after you, and
that wasn't even true. I honestly don't even
think they know that or even care, but
know that is the most important one. I
don't think he was even aware of that.
This is the these are the people in
charge of the most important positions in the
like, the attorney general looking like a child.
This is alarming for so many other reasons
than that they're dishonest.
But realize that what they're showing you is
about to get into what they said in
the car, that they had to manufacture all
of this, the ramming, the whole damn thing.
And on and on top of that, as
has come out since then, there's been clear
reports of the fact that they've discussed the
way that they
basically gained this out by standing in front
of the cars, by circling them and pushing
one into the other and then causing that
conflict to be they they're engineering
their responses. That's in no way unique to
Trump and you and ice. They've just done
it to a degree that is,
I mean, unprecedented in my opinion.
Car ramming, but it had no connection to
Martinez's
case.
And the body camera video tells a different
story.
In the lead up to the collision, you
hear agents say they are going to collide
with Martinez.
We're gonna make contact where it's boxed in.
And just before the moment of impact, it's
agent Charles Exum who sharply turns his steering
wheel in the direction of Martinez. Now if
you're gonna play the whole mission creep game
and you can say, well, they were boxing
them in. Okay. Fair enough. If that's actually
what happened. And the videos we see show
that that's not really what was going on.
But irrelevant for the conversational point. Let's say,
hypothetically, that your point is, well, they're boxing
in. That's illegal. Okay. Then why'd they lie
about it? Right? Why did they then say
they rammed into us and we had to
defend ourselves when that's not what happened? Because
this is what keeps going on with the
partisan players. It mean the mission creep is
to jump to the next point. Well, she
shouldn't have been fleeing about Renee Goode. Well,
but you told us that she was trying
to hit him. If that's the case, then
let's first establish that you were wrong about
that, then let's go on to the way
that that new point changes everything. You know?
And that's just not what's happening.
They chose to run into her and then
lied about it and then tried to kill
her. Luckily, she didn't die. Proof according to
her attorney that they hit her vehicle,
not the other way around. By the way,
you can see it on video for crying
out loud. I mean, there's tons of things.
We went over this in-depth.
And as for the claim of being boxed
in, this surveillance video calls that comment into
question with nothing in the path ahead of
the border agent's vehicle. Exactly. The court also
released text messages and emails from after the
shooting, including one message from border patrol commander
Gregory Bovino
just hours after the incident, offering to delay
the retirement of agent Exum who shot Martinez.
In light of your excellent service in Chicago,
you have much left to do. And then
a text message exchange between agent Exum and
someone whose name was redacted.
Are they supportive? Someone asked.
Big time. Everyone has been, including chief Bovino
See? Chief banks, secretary Noem, and El Jefe
himself. That's Trump. And the point is that
they are being told you can get away.
Now, I mean, who knows how they're saying
it? But they're saying no matter what happens,
we'll we'll defend you. And then after what
they keep seeing,
after we keep seeing people get shot and
killed in in detention, I mean, and they
just keep backing them. And that only bolsters
their belief that they can get away with
whatever they do. And Bovino clearly was of
that mind. They just shuffled him off the
stage because he was being caught.
In various texts to and from fellow agents,
the mood was celebratory.
Good job, brother. You are a legend among
agents. You better effing know that. And remember,
this guy was like some kind of marksman,
and that's why he was bragging about that.
Or at least he claimed to be. Here's
on me when I see you at training.
That's awesome. You did real good.
Damn it, man. Good shooting. The day after
the shooting Is it weird? Like, I don't
know why they wouldn't go in Martinez was
indicted. According to the complaint, she, quote, forcibly
assaulted,
resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, and interfered with an
officer of The United States. How much you
wanna bet if you take that exact line,
you'll probably find it repeated in almost every
one of their documents because that's just what
they know to say even though none of
that was true.
After her attorney viewed the body camera footage
and other evidence emerged that Which they have
been dragging their feet desperately trying to keep
from your view. So think of Tulsi Gabbard
and that complaint and everything else they're trying
to keep from view. Epstein files. That's who
we're dealing with. Undermine the government's version of
events. Prosecutors
made an extraordinary move and asked the judge
to drop their own
case. See how this works? Because they knew
it was becoming exposed. If you're telling me
that this woman attacked police officers, you're gonna
tell you're gonna actually want us to believe
that this administration would just drop the case?
You you try to put a guy that
threw a sandwich at a guy for in
prison for thirty years and you're going, oh,
well, it's the same thing we keep seeing.
Like, when they left that guy in the
house, they said, oh, Sanctuary City. You told
us he attacked the cop, but you're just
gonna give up because he's in his home?
There's no Sanctuary City law about you arresting
somebody at their own home. It's crazy that
they're lying so obviously,
and everyone just keeps marching forward. The judge
agreed, but not long after, she told me
the shooting still haunts her. I don't wanna
remember that day. You're laying there at night,
and you're just thinking about it. Like, what's
gonna happen? Like, it's really emotional to me.
Five times.
I'm gonna go over this again. I just
think that's weird. Why would they choose to
ignore that part? I guess it's not as
it's not important really to the larger story.
Anyway, more for more another day for more
with more time. So here we are,
clearly lying, and nothing will happen, guys. And
on top of that, they're not even identifying
who they were. They've been caught breaking the
law, not only trying to kill a US
citizen, but being caught in the crime of
trying to cover it up, lying about what
they did, lying to courts.
Nobody's doing anything. Here's another example, which I'm
gonna go into another show, status quo's covering
this. Basically, the same situation.
Being asked if you have your ID, they're
going, what did you hit us for? Like,
asking they're engaging with this as if it
was something we're it's a traffic thing. You
bought you rammed their car. We want your
insurance. And basically ICE dealing with them as
if they're criminals.
We've seen ICE stealing cars or be being
caught with the vehicles of people they've deported
or, you know, just insane
levels of criminality. These are organized crime situations,
guys. Now here is a report, something that
Jason Basso's been covering ex more before anybody,
it seems, the extensive reality of them building
this ecosystem of FEMA or rather just camps
that we used to discuss under the conversation
of FEMA and the people that used to
be screaming about that every day seem to
be not caring about it right now. Well,
here's a the Tennessee holler are showing a
report from Wired about what they're doing. Federal
records showing them secretly expanding a 150 plus
facilities across
almost every single state in the country.
This I mean, I don't care what political
stance you are. This should be terrifying. This
is insane. This is this goes so far
beyond what even they claim they're trying to
do. This is something you think these sit
these buildings, they're gonna this ecosystem is gonna
vanish?
This is the future enforcement of this state.
The United State, you know, whatever you wanna
call it in the new globalist picture that
Trump is building.
EHS have carried out a secret campaign to
expand their physical presence across The US, federal
records obtained by Wired show. The documents reveal
more than a 150
leases and office expansions, placing facilities in nearly
every state. Many of them in or just
outside of the country's largest metropolitan areas. In
many cases, these facilities, which are to be
used by street level agents and ICE attorneys,
are located near elementary schools, medical offices, places
of worship, and other sensitive locations. In El
Paso, Texas, for example, the agency is moving
into a large campus of buildings right off
of Interstate 10 near multiple local health providers
and other businesses.
Interesting how we just started talking about El
Paso, Fort Bliss, and all of that. You
know? There's
overlap. Philadelphia, ICE plans to share office space
with one of the city's central DMV locations.
In a wealthy community near Houston, ICE appears
poised to move into an office building blocks
away from a preschool. Why
this rapid expansion?
Since president Donald Trump took office in 2025,
ICE has more than doubled in size. DHS
claims the
And don't forget, they now have a,
like, funding more than
than many countries in the world.
Agency now has 22,000
officers and agents across the country, and they
need office space. The General Services Administration,
which manages federal buildings and functions as the
government's internal IT department, is playing a critical
role in this aggressive expansion. In numerous emails
and memorandums viewed by Wired, DHS asked the
General Services Administration
explicitly to disregard usual government lease procurement procedures
and even hide lease listings due to national
security concerns. Altogether
The security?
Okay. Look. You have to understand what this
means. If if their argument is you have,
you know, radical leftist out there trying to
to to expose what you're doing, that's not
a national security threat. So they're all that
may well be just what they use because
that's what they know they can get away
with. What are you gonna do? Top c
first. You know, top classified. Shut up.
But realize that we're talking about the foreign
overlap, the element that that's
you're literally making about national security for why
people I mean, every single part of this,
what we know about it. I mean,
I just can't stop seeing this obvious slippery
slope where we are just
being, you know, kinda shouted down by the
minority about what this is. I I we
are going to wake up in the midst
of whatever this is they're building.
I mean, if it matters to you, how
what when the next Democrat administration's in power
and they turn it right back on on
you or, you know, the reality of the
picture that it's aimed at everybody. You know?
This is an an alarming step. The General
Services Administration
explicitly to disregard usual government lease procurement procedures
and even hide lease listings. Do They don't
want you to know they're there.
Don't we have a right to know what
they're doing? Like, at what point when the
government is hiding its own actions from the
American people, whatever the narrative is or the
guise of why they're doing it? I mean,
this is the
despotic country beginning of every I mean, it's
history, guys. We're going step by step. We
are goose stepping into
every fascist history. I mean, it's just so
frustrating how clear all of this is. We've
this is as always, we can't learn from
our own history, or at the very least
that all of us that can are being
overshadowed and shouted down and algorithmically
ignored
by what we pretend is the full conversation.
That's really not. The national security concerns. Altogether,
the leasing plans we uncovered give a clear
picture of where ICE is going next in
The US
everywhere. If Mhmm.
Everywhere.
Now as Truth three Media points out
oh, and by the way, for those playing
along at home, Pam Bondi was a lobbyist
for the very private prison company that stands
to break in billions off of the new
concentration camps being built all over the country,
one of many conflicts of interest that she
failed to disclose. But no big deal, seeing
as how every one of them are somehow
wildly profiting from the very things they're using
to suppress your rights.
That is quite literally illegal in every possible
set. These conflicts of interest listen. I mean,
we can go back again for the thousandth
time to the ethics pledges that were not
signed that nobody cared about. I mean, it's
just it's confounding.
Been calling it out the entire time. So
now I think actually for time, I was
gonna briefly point to this and we'll come
back to it. I want them to get
to the the large point or, you know,
of,
right here.
Where are we? Yeah. Right here. The the
tracking part of it. But just the the
there's an interesting conversation to be had about
the Save Act. Now right now, it's only
it's only passed the house. Right? It moved
to the senate, but it passed. And I
think it's important to highlight this, and I
am gonna go into this more because I
think this needs to be fleshed out, especially
when if and when I think it will
pass the house. Here, I'll include my show
about this, about the Save Act real ID,
ID twenty twenty, basically, tricking people into digital
IDs.
And what's important is as this highlights and
this is just the, like, Save Act kind
of, like,
overview. It says even licenses that meet the
real ID requirements generally do not indicate citizenship.
So the one point is we keep seeing
this, don't we? Where people who are Americans,
who even have the real ID, are being
taken to custody because they're being told that
does not confirm their citizenship. You know why?
Because it doesn't actually indicate it. Even though
how insane it is that you have to
go through extra stuff to be able to
get that, they'll argue that that doesn't prove
it. So what it needs to show you
is it's not even about what they claim
it's about. And on top of that, when
you get into the bigger picture of this,
that ultimately, what this seems to be doing
to me, as I was saying earlier, is
create a situation that's almost untenable. Like, it's
not almost
not only will it box out plenty of
Americans who deserve to have the right just
because they don't have all three of these
things they need, which will create the call
from those people
to make it just the one quick easy
digital ID version. That's the whole point. Because
right now, the main block, even from this
article, is that not every person out here
has their birth certificate or has their passport.
That's included. And so the real ID, as
the as the document shows from the Save
Act, becomes the one that will work. That's
the one that you can use instead of
the things you might not have. It's this
feels like a problem reaction solution setup. Either
way, we'll go over it again, and I'm
convinced about where this is going.
So let's get into the Epstein stuff to
to kinda finish up for the next twenty
minutes here. And I wanna make sure that
this is this is just one extra clip
that we're gonna include from yesterday's kind of
overlap
that is it's funny. I just stuck my
head.
I just am continually
baffled by not only how the like I
said in the beginning, the engagement with this
embarrassing display,
but,
I mean, I what is your opinion? I
have personally never seen this obvious of a
case confronted like this. Usually, there's some level
of disagreement. There's some evidence. I mean, this
is just, like, profoundly obvious. And all she's
doing is going, but you didn't ask Garland.
And that seems to be the only thing
she can say right now. But the evidence
is astoundingly clear. And then we'll go into
the fact that they're as they're gaslighting us
all, they're essentially tracking what people are looking
at. And I bet you that's applying to
all of us as well. So here is
Lou asking her another question.
The July 2025 memo from your Department of
Justice stated, quote,
we did not uncover evidence that could predicate
an investigation against uncharged third parties.
These two photos please put the photos back
up.
These two photos staring you in the face
are evidence of a crime
and more than enough evidence to predicate an
investigation
against former Prince Andrew.
So I ask you, attorney general Pam Bondi,
why did you shut down this investigation last
July, and why have you not prosecuted
former prince Andrew?
I don't believe you asked Merrick Garland these
questions
when he was, attorney general general and I
mean, I don't I don't know why she
thinks it's such a gotcha.
He responds well, actually. Despite I but, you
know, I you know my opinion. I don't
feel like these people are genuine across the
board. At least, I think that's in our
interest to feel that way and, you know,
to consider that.
But this is the same response she gives
to all of these questions. Even I mean,
like I said the other day, the only
people that are, like, going, yeah. Say it
again, are the people that have no interest
in the truth. It's really just about their
team sport politics. And I'm on her side,
so
not answering is, you know, sticking it in
their eye. Yeah. Screw you. But the truth
is that that's an important question regardless of
who's asking it. Why have you not investigated
these crimes? Isn't the Republican party the one
that said it was most important? Like his
base, that's what they were fighting for.
I I don't I I what I'm trying
to say is I don't think this is
even working for the people that she thinks
it's aimed for.
I think everybody's tired of this.
So before I agree with you. You twice.
Time. No worries. I agree with you. I
agree with you. You. During the Biden hearing?
The Biden administration,
I call This is actually really telling. I'm
gonna play this one little part again, then
we'll finish it. She said, are you not
hearing me?
Because she apparently was completely not expecting him
to go, you're right, and I agree. That
just shows you how binary she is. She's
not she is one of the I mean,
honestly, I even over, like, a KJP, I
don't think I've ever seen somebody so out
of place in this situation, so completely out
of their depth.
You tell me. I'm actually it's blowing me
away with the way like, she could almost
not answering would have been a better strategy
for her. Genuinely mean that. But so when
he says, I agree with you. This is
the right way to go about this. Even
if you don't agree with this, if you're
Ted. Because I don't I doubt he does
because he's the they should have asked these
questions. Right? You damn well should have asked
these at any time it's been going on.
But he goes, you're right. They all failed.
We should have. Now what's your answer?
Right? I mean, and that's it just it
that's where she's going. Did y'all hear me?
Because I don't think she ever thought in
a million years, because she wouldn't do that,
that they would give him that.
Former prince Andrew.
I don't believe you asked Merrick Garland these
questions
when he was, attorney general and set before
I agree with you. You twice. Claim night
time. No worries. Agree with you. I agree
with you. During the Biden hearing the Biden
administration,
I called for people to look into Epstein
files. Merrick Garland dropped the ball
as did attorney general Bill Barr, as did
Alex Acosta, a whole string of failures, but
you are in charge. You have the power
to change things and hold these men accountable,
and you're doing the opposite. You're protecting them.
Okay. So let's let's use this moment to
make a point, then we'll we'll get into
the the last pretty much the last segment.
So as as in the chat being pointed
out and, you know, you guys hopefully saying
this because I always point this out, and
that's what we say in this conversation. But
that this you know, we're saying it's all
show. Right? Well,
let's just even say 100% provable, even though
it's debatable. Right? That every part of it.
I agree. I like, my whole point is
that these people are,
in many ways, collectively
criminal
and aware that this is not in the
interest of what they're being. That doesn't mean
every one of them. Maybe some who knows?
Maybe some of them aren't. Maybe some of
them you see an opportunity. Maybe that one
of them is not innocent. I I don't
believe that, but who knows? My point, though,
is that even if it is, like, mapped
out where they go, I'm gonna ask this
and you're gonna respond like this, so they
think that we care.
Fine. It does not change what we're doing
here. Right? The point is to use what's
happening
to reach people that need to see these
things. Like, this is my whole point about
opportunism. I don't believe any of these people
actually wanna help you or actually care about
what your interests are, even though I'm well
aware that it's possible that that's not the
full picture that some of them might. My
point is that history shows us that we
should be coming at it like, you're probably
deceiving me. You're probably not in the good
intention, but I'm gonna hope for it and
wait for the evidence. Right? But what if
we know that, that's why I keep pointing
out the idea of opportunism. Well, if let's
let's give the newer politicians the the impression
that it's in their interest to point to
the truth, whether or not they care about
the truth or believe in it. Because how
do we ever know that for sure? So
it needs to be based on met merit,
metrics, what they're doing, not just what they
say. So back to the point is that
it is all a show, and and they're
all just doing this to key so what
we should never do is expect
think this is enough.
Oh, they got embarrassed. Oh, they quit their
job. This is what we're always saying. Absolutely
not. Criminal accountability.
And, yes, as he's pointing out, there is
very
there's a lot of evidence that very much
could amount to proof if this was done
the right way. So we should be demanding
that. Even if it's a show, even if
they're putting this forward, and if we all
do that, then this show or not, you're
giving us things to go on. Whether Ted's
playing a role or not. Like, I I'd
like to think that's very clear. So if
we can all get on the same page
with this and just use what's in front
of us to point to the truth, no
matter what's co whoever's saying it, no matter
what in you know, that's it can't
be this dismissal game based on what side
it comes from or based on what we
think they're trying to accomplish. Because even if
their intent is to manipulate us, there's still
value in highlighting these things if we go
into knowing that. I'd like to think that's
important. Right? Now so let let's get to
the the surveillance.
This is I've never I haven't seen this
count before. I just wanted to show the
picture circulating.
Bondi and GeoJ caught saving search history of
congressmen and women when reviewing the Epstein files.
Now, it it was in Bondi's thing. So
for all we know, she's using this to
try to trap them in some kind of
a gotcha moment. Really, clearly, it's not about
answering questions. Right?
Nothing says transparency and nothing to see here
by writing, like keeping track, and printing out
the documents they search to keep tabs and
use them against them. This just keeps getting
shadier.
Here is a a clip of speaker Johnson
talking about this and about Jay Paul. Now
she's one of the people that they were,
I guess, watching, but it appears it's probably
it seems to have been, like, anybody engaging
with the files, but it's not just the
Democrat side. But I think that's very relevant.
This is Jay Paul. He's a syndicated
backing research history. Is that appropriate conduct?
I'm not gonna comment on an allegation that
is unsubstantiated. I don't know anything about that.
And
I'm trying So just give is is it
pretty low? Basically saying the allegation is that
you're monitoring search history. You know? What what
and he goes, I don't think about that.
I'm not coming commenting on it. Well, they
we know what they do, and it's now
coming out. General Bundy testified
that she had a piece of paper that
had a search history in her mind
of the Absa file. I don't know anything
about that. I'm not commenting on it. I
haven't seen or heard anything about that.
Would that would be inappropriate if it happened.
Oh, it'd be inappropriate. Well, watch as he
now defends it because it comes out and
it's provable.
But that's him
engaging with it. So here
is
Owen Shroyer sharing a a a just a
post about Nancy Mace and and audio. I'll
just go right right to what she says.
But he writes, the the, first, this is
what, a c y n says, Mace on
Epstein files. I'm pretty tech savvy. I've played
around with the system. They're tracking every file
that we open.
Where we when we open it, they are
tracking everything. They can see the way we
are tracking if you know where to look
like I do. It's like Microsoft product from
'95.
Windows '95? Yeah.
Windows she's tech savvy. But
Owen says things are weird at the DOJ.
Mace, right, who is a Republican ally,
at least on surface,
insinuates the DOJ is spying on committee members'
activities with Epstein files.
We saw AG Bondi had a search history
of committee members at the hearing. I showed
you the picture. We also saw Epstein had
access to Israeli spyware in some leaked photos.
Well, I just we keep talking about this.
It's not some small thing. It's so weird
how people this is a massive deal. Paragon.
Right? NSO Group. This is what this this
is where Trump made an agreement with this
company for ICE. It's happening right now in
this country. This is a company that has
been caught.
Like, I mean,
off the top of my head, at least
three major times where they're they're being caught,
spying on journalists, on governments,
but way more than that when you understand
the breadth of this. But, you know, WhatsApp
was a recent one. There was multiple other
examples. I forget what country it was that
called them out for it, and it was
exposed. And this is Israel doing this, and
Trump makes a deal with this group.
But so what the what we're highlighting here
is first that it's happening, but the idea
that this is not just some small passing
point. Like, this is a massive thing that
Epstein was overlapped with, that was involved with
Israel, that is now immersed within this government
that's currently covering up the Epstein files. So
we just note that. But the hurtful point
is that even she is saying they're being
monitored. Here's what she wrote. Yes. I will
confirm. This is yesterday. DOJ is tracking the
Epstein document, member documents members of Congress search
for. Open and review.
I was able to navigate the system today,
and I won't disclose how or the nature
of how, but confirmed that DOJ is tagging
all documents members of Congress search. Well, guys,
look at this. If they're tagging what members
of congress search, you can damn well bet
they're tagging what you look at, which we
know this by now, but that's invasive. That's
not that's not something that we should just
dismiss.
Based on how I confirm this, there are
time stamps associated with this tracking. Now to
be clear, that's my opinion, obviously. But it's
I mean, there'd be a much bigger deal.
Right? They they they're I mean, I think
our government is quite literally,
you know, in a passive way, collecting every
single thing they possibly can in all of
us all the time. That's the reality of
the surveillance network that we're in. Passively meaning
that they're not there's not a man looking,
but it's just a database that they can
tack in. You know? That's where you get
the whole digital twin overlap, different conversation.
But to me, guys, this is wild. What
you're seeing is this this is the US
government
spying on Congress and even members of the
Republican Party, which, again, if you wanna stand
back and I agree. Look at the what
I think is the big picture that this
is one entity. Right? We're talking about the
US government largely working in the same unified
direction when it comes to most things, but
it there's always
nuance and and multi there's multi there's lots
of different facets.
I do agree with that first statement. I
think that's the reality. But within that, there
are people who hate each other or have
different political agendas or state to state or,
you know, whatever we're talking about. So my
point in saying all that is that even
if we do wanna look at it, which
I agree is the fact the case that
these people are in line with the Epstein
cover up, whatever else, that there are still
individuals on both sides that are being spied
on by the republic by the Republican administration.
I mean, to me, that can neither mean
that this is an entity that is,
I don't know,
independent of all of it in its own
way, like, doing it, like, maybe the technocratic
direction, what they're trying to revamp the world
into,
or it's something like Israel
literally holding the reins and dictating who's getting
this is you they're they're just basically using
the US government as some kind of middleman
spy apparatus.
I mean,
I think the evidence speaks for itself, but
I'll end with a couple of points here
that I think are important
in regard to, well, all I forgot about
that. I had some Israel points too. We'll
do this quickly. So this is just the
point about Bondi.
This is what senator Banks point out. This
is today. I mean, doesn't this just I
mean, this I I wanna do this real
quickly, actually.
Since it's funny to me. But this is
you are the living embodiment
of this meme.
This is for those that haven't seen this,
the podcast, I'm using the this is fine
meme,
and it's just what he's doing. He says,
Pam Bondi was very strong yesterday and is
doing a great do a good job. I
mean, what's the point of even writing that?
You know why? Because they know that nobody
thinks that. The re the reason you write
that is because you're trying to con you're
going, this is the truth. You're trying to
guide people's you know, the feeble minded out
there,
here's what you're supposed to be saying. It's
just nobody I mean, not even Republican.
Large peep like, major MAGA Republicans were going,
god. That was embarrassing.
Just find it funny. The Trump comes out
and says, AG Pam Bondi under intense fire
from Trump derangement radical left lunatics.
Add another adjective to that. It just gets
so ridiculous.
Was fantastic at yesterday's hearing. Oh, what was
she? I mean, guys, nobody really thinks that.
This is just why this gets so dishonest
and embarrassing.
Whether you're left or right, it was objectively
bad. She didn't she didn't answer. She just
deflected away and didn't even do it in
a tactful way. And it says, where one
thing has been proven
conclusively, much to their chagrin, that Trump has
been a 100% exonerated.
What are you talking about? Like, this is
just so embarrassing.
But he goes up there, Russia, Russia, Russia
type charges, meaning he's comparing the Epstein files
to the Russia hoax.
Actually, it was the slimeball Democrats,
Olive apparently, in you in in unison, even
though he works with plenty of them and
often said they're on the same side. Oh,
well, I just did this yesterday. What's his
name? The new New York.
Why am I forgetting his name?
Mamdani.
You know? Oh, he's a great guy. We're
working well together. Oh, Bill Clinton. He's a
good friend. We know each other. No. I
feel bad for him. Yeah. But all of
them are disgusting, evil, deep straight, pedophile you
know, you can't keep doing that. And then
all it shows you is you have no
respect for anybody.
None of your own followers. Nobody. Because you
just lie blatantly to their faces, and then
two days later, a second later, just go
now the other way. And they're just supposed
to follow suit. That's embarrassing.
And he goes,
have they been proven guilty?
Republican loser, sanctimonious,
rhino congressman Thomas Massie. God. You'd think he
would learn by now that that's not working
for him. Made a total fool of himself
yesterday. Oh, he did. Did he? By proving
that you're covering up obvious criminal activity? I
mean, point out one thing he said that
was not exactly accurate. That's not to say
that I blindly trust Massey. Of course, I
don't. But it's just crazy how people go
along with this. This is desperate narrative control.
And, you know, I do I even need
to read more? It's all the same kind
of stuff.
What I think is most important for time
is what he says in another version.
Was it oh, wait. I think this is
the one.
Oh, no. Is it this one right here?
So, of course, Nick's order, just, you know,
I cheer for whatever trumpsaid.com,
should be called his website. It says Trump,
shreds those who are counter, counting, continuing to
push for the release of the files.
What? I I mean, you'd think this person
has no shame.
Shreds those who continue to push for what
you guys told us was absolutely
monumentally
important?
I mean, no shame. And he goes, my
past supporters, in all capitals, that's what Trump
said, have bought into this BS. He's doing
this again after everything that's come out that
his if you believe this is important, you'll
no longer support Trump. Well,
welcome to the team, because if you recognize
what this shows you, you shouldn't support left
or right.
Let these weaklings continue forward and do the
Democrats' work.
Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Lastly,
yesterday, of course, Netanyahu
arrived in his colony known as the US
government. Today, The United States is preparing for
war against Iran. Blackmail doesn't get more obvious
than that. And now they're sending more aircraft
carrier or carrier groups because
Netanyahu just came.
That's seriously. That's just insane. Trump's approval rating,
by the way, is higher in Israel than
it is in The United States. But nothing
to see there, folks. Doesn't speak for itself.
And I think I'll leave it there in
general just for time. But, you know, really,
overall, here's Bannon trying to act like Netanyahu
coming in through the side door of the
White House speaks to how he's
embarrassed.
But, I mean, come on. Like, this is
literally like saying like, Netanyahu's got his own
key to the White House. That's how that's
how much you can prove that no one
likes him. It's wait. Wait.
Wait. So Netanyahu shows up, and he's able
to basically
walk in the back door of the White
House. And that's him
being not having special access?
I mean, people are losing it. I mean,
we've already heard from many people, Wilkerson and
plenty of others, that basically Netanyahu or whoever
the Israeli president or prime minister was at
the time, they just get they basically run
the Pentagon. They can walk in the oval
I mean, they've made these comments, and here
we are showing it again.
I'll go into more of this in the
future, the next show. But, right, lastly, here's
Trump threatening Iran again after Netanyahu told them
what to do. Basically saying they should have
made a deal the first time. Well, how
do we need to do this every time?
You mean the deal that you pulled out
of which gave them the legal right to
do what they did, and then you act
like they broke something, and now you're claiming
they shouldn't have left I mean, it's just
a childish example. I don't even I bet
you Trump doesn't even know that he's wrong.
That's how embarrassing all this is. Oh, and
by the way, like we thought, Venezuela seems
to very much be just bowing to US
interests. And now Trump's like, Delsey Rodriguez is
the best. And it just shows
you, first, as Glenn points out, that US
foreign policy is not about liberating anybody. It's
just a pretext.
We should know this by now.
But as I said, short today, guys, I
gotta get ready for for the next,
going on with Ben. So appreciate y'all being
here, and I'll
most likely see you tomorrow. That is the
plan.
And please support the, you know, article work
we just put out. Get that out there.
Share it. Talk about it. Make clips of
the shows. Tag me in it. Continue to
support The Last American Vagabond and any independent
media out there that you think is objective
and nonpartisan,
doing what they believe is right. But thank
you for being here. I love you all.
As always, question everything. Come to your own
conclusions.
Sorry. I lost my button there.
Stay vigilant.