Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

July 14, 2025 - The Culture War - Tim Pool

26:14

MAGA Civil War EURUPTS Over EPSTEIN Files, Trump Says ENOUGH, BACKS Bondi ft. Kyle Seraphin

BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guest: Kyle Seraphin @KyleSeraphin (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL MAGA Civil War EURUPTS Over EPSTEIN Files, Trump Says ENOUGH, BACKS Bondi ft. Kyle Seraphin

Participants

Main voices

kyle seraphin

17:23

tim pool

08:20

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		From CNN.com, Epstein Fallout poses a loyalty test.
		Trump or MAGA?
		CNN writes, In the days since the Trump admin released a memo about Epstein directly at odds with conspiracy theories pushed by the president and some of his top lieutenants, Trump's movement and most ardent supporters are in revolt.
		The Justice Department and the FBI released a memo last week concluding there was no evidence that Epstein had a list of powerful men who participated in his alleged underworld of sex trafficking and pedophilia.
		It is also said the disgraced former financier died by suicide and was not murdered in his New York jail cell.
		Yet after years of big promises to the president's base, the memo failed to produce a smoking gun, undercutting Trump and his team's own words.
		And MAGA world isn't happy, pitting the president's closest allies against one another.
		With Trump defending the findings, situation has set up an unprecedented loyalty test between the president and the movement he created.
		Now, I want to pause with these conspiracy theories.
		You can see already CNN front-loading the story, poisoning the well.
		It is not a conspiracy theory that Epstein was engaged in these behaviors because, well, Pam Bondi said he was.
		Gheelain Maxwell was charged for it, and so was Epstein.
		We know that Virginia Jufre was a witness and made claims about Prince Andrew, who was also accused.
		None of that is a conspiracy theory.
		That is a pattern of behavior factually reported in the press far and wide.
		The question is to what extent?
		Recently, I should say in recent history, Cash Patel, before entering as FBI director, stated that the FBI has Epstein's black book.
		Definitively, he stated it.
		Bongino wasn't as definitive, though.
		People try to drag him.
		He said, you're not being told the truth about the Epstein storm.
		We got to keep pressure up.
		Now there seems to be tumult.
		Who actually has the black book?
		What's really going on?
		According to an unsigned, undated memo, which everybody saw in the past week or so, Epstein kept no client list, and the trafficking only went to him.
		It's possible, but you see, there was a butler that had been criminally charged with trying to sell the information on Epstein's clients.
		There's a photo of Ghilaine Maxwell, a 17-year-old girl, and Prince Andrew.
		Is the client list just one guy?
		I find that hard to believe.
		So what is really going on?
		Would the FBI have this information?
		And I don't know, my friends.
		Are you going to trust the plan, as it were?
		We're going to be joined by someone who actually worked in the FBI and knows how this stuff works right now.
		Now, the interesting thing is, I trust Cash Patel.
		I do.
		But he's inside right now, and there's some questions.
		So we're going to pull in Kyle Serafer.
		There's a video where Cash says that the black book for Epstein is in possession, that the FBI has got it.
		What do you think changed?
		And does the FBI have this Epstein information?
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so it's a complicated question.
		But at the end of the day, I think people are looking at it in kind of a simple way.
		And they've been kind of doing this Fox News boomer routine where they've been kind of talking about truckloads of files, which is absurd.
		The files would be on a computer, just like everybody would expect a file to be done.
		They were talking about it being at the Southern District of New York.
		The FBI holds on to its own evidence.
		It would bring it to trial, but it's not hanging out at like some United States attorney's office.
		That's not reasonable.
		So these things all seem kind of nonsensical.
		To talk about the black book, everybody has this idea.
		The black book is all the contacts that he would have and all of the nefarious actors.
		And that would be the list of clients and the people he was doing shady stuff with.
		And that may exist.
		There may be some book.
		Like, I don't know that Jeffrey Epstein was the guy who ran around with a black book, but that is something that people used to have.
		The same thing as saying, you know, who's in your Rolodex.
		However, the list of clients would not be something that like Jeffrey Epstein had on a file that was like client list.
		That's not what you would do.
		What you would have is, is an investigator saying these are the people that are implicated in either conspiracy or implicated in child sex trafficking or implicated in the child sexual abuse scandal that was the concern.
		Now, none of that could be real.
		That could be, it could be absolutely realistic that there is none of that there and this was all hype.
		But the real scandal, and I think the reason that there's fallout for MAGA people, I think the reason that there's fallout for people that feel like they are betrayed is that it was an issue in the campaign.
		Donald Trump brought it up himself.
		He was on Lex Friedman.
		He brought it up.
		Donald Trump Jr. brought it up in front of large crowds talking about how they went after his father, but they didn't go after people that were on the Epstein list, whatever that is.
		JD Vance brought it up on Theo Vaughan.
		Dan Bongino did whole podcasts about it.
		Cash Patel did multiple appearances, whether it be on Glenn Beck or with you or others.
		He went out there and talked about it regularly, repeatedly, and didn't ever explain.
		The difference is, is we have a cognitive dissonance of people said one thing and they didn't do anything that showed us that what they said previously was wrong.
		This morning, I mentioned on my own program that like one of my proudest moments in the FBI was actually being able to show exculpatory information based on a false allegation that was brought to me that we investigated in all good conscience.
		And it looked really damning up front.
		And it was specifically about a guy who supposedly was a child sex offender or was a sex offender and was hanging out with kids and in a way that was against the law.
		He was using a fake name.
		He was traveling illicitly.
		He was leaving down to Mexico and he was hanging out with a bunch of poor kids in the colonias outside of Juarez and bringing them bicycles by the hundreds, which seems super scandalous if you have a guy that is supposedly on the sex offender registry, which he was.
		But then you find out the details of it.
		You find out that his conviction was actually really sketchy.
		And if it was done today, it probably wouldn't have happened.
		And it was about 15 different items of child sexual material that was in a huge folder that he downloaded from Napster and he may have never even seen.
		There's no implication that he was actually targeting that, that he wasn't interested in children.
		It just happened to be on something he downloaded back in the day when file sharing was a thing and people used to take him down, you know, by the by the megabytes because we didn't have gigabytes back then.
		Nobody had that kind of bandwidth.
		So that was the thing.
		And I was able to show through unsealed court records that this guy probably wasn't the guy that we thought he was, but all of this, all of the smoke looked like there would be fire and the fire was actually not there.
		This could be the same thing.
		It could be that they've been talking about this, that he's been kind of a right-wing boogeyman and we were all wrong about it.
		I wasn't on the case.
		I don't know.
		But I know all the things that look intense.
		We saw that there was a United States attorney that said that he was Intel's property, that he was working with intelligence agencies, that he was an asset.
		We know from 2008 filings that the FBI actually did go out and lean on him when he was convicted, and they were able to go get information from him of what value, we don't know because that's not declassified.
		But we do know that he had contact with the FBI and so probably got signed up as a CHS.
		So there's a lot of smoke.
		The only way that you clear that smoke is a full, transparent, mea culpa.
		We said a bunch of stuff and we were wrong.
		And what you saw instead was, and this is why there's all this turmoil, you saw a leaked memo to Axios on a Sunday evening, in my opinion, hiding behind the tragedies that happened down the street from me in Texas.
		I live in central Texas in the Hill Country.
		So we just had people washed away with floods.
		We had torrential rains yesterday, more flooding again.
		And it looked like they tried to sneak this thing out.
		And when I was talking to Alex Jones, he called it trying to drop a fart in church.
		Sometimes you get a silent bed dead when it gets out there.
	Sometimes it squeaks and everybody looks at you.
	This was a squeak.
	Everyone looked and went, wait a minute, what?
	You just going to drop this memo on us that says that there are no co-conspirators.
	He killed himself.
	No one else is going to be indicted.
	And by the way, there's no evidence that he was doing anything wrong.
	He killed himself for no reason.
	You're going to have to explain it a little bit better than a two-page unsigned memo, which the deputy attorney general came out and said, Dan Bongino signed on to it.
	Cash Patel signed on to it.
	And he, Todd Blanche, signed out on it.
	Like there's no daylight between them.
	That was his official statement on X from his official account representing the government's position with both of their seals on it.
	So then we started seeing the other chaos.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let me try some eyes on your own.
		So what do we have?
		I think we have monitors on our monitor.
		Anyway, this is really hard to do with the echo.
		I'm fighting through it.
		But let's do this.
		Where was it?
		Do you think that there is something big behind Epstein?
		I hear what you're saying that they basically hyped it up.
		They made this really, really big story.
		And it may be a big story, but they're not finding the evidence that they thought they were going to have it.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼		That's exactly.
		Yeah.
		That's what I think is the possibility.
		Now, there's also a possibility that it's a problem.
		And, you know, the problem is we're not in a position to actually assess that evidence.
		And for me, the scandal is actually not Epstein specifically, although the idea of letting child sex traffickers get away with it is abhorrent to me.
		I'm a father.
		And so that makes me want to puke.
		It's something that I think Americans on the left and the right are going to get on.
		I think the folks that are in the left-wing media that are taking this up are seeing an opportunity to drive a wedge between folks.
		So that's awful.
		But listen, for me, this is the same sort of unforced error that the Biden administration withdraw from Afghanistan was.
		Like no one made you do it.
		No one made you come out and message it poorly.
		There was a way to do it right.
		They got either bad information or it was being, you know, some subterfuge was happening.
		We're talking about a group of people from the FBI that are in mid-level management that are giving the worst advice possible and want to see Cash Patel and Dan Boggino fail.
		That is their mission set.
		They want to continue the status quo.
		That's what a quote unquote deep state does.
		That's what an administrative state will do.
		Everything we hear about is that Dan Bogino is miserable there because these people keep telling him that if he doesn't do everything that they want and sign off on all the programs and stay in the office late hours, that New York is going to explode or California is going to have a bio attack or some other crazy thing, cyber attack will take down the grid.
		So he's the man standing there in the gap.
		And in reality, at some point, he'll realize that they're just hammering him with the same stuff they do to agents at Quantico.
		It's this tactic of just getting cortisol overload and stressing you out to the point where you make bad decisions.
		But it doesn't take away from the fact that there was a right decision, which was either coming out in full transparency.
		They could have just not talked about it for a while and said, we're still working on it.
		We haven't heard anything about the J6 pipe bomber.
		We haven't heard anything about the cocaine case, the Dobbs leaker, all the other things they said we were going to get transparency on haven't materialized either.
		So they didn't have to drop it this way.
		That's probably not their best move.
		But the big real problem is that Pam Bondi went out and said there is this material.
		It does exist, that there is evidence of something horrific.
		We had Alina Haba say the same thing.
		And again, these guys who were not in the government at the time said it.
		What you also will, for evidence, those two ladies on the DOJ side have been hyping this up.
		What you've actually seen is an undersell from Cash Patel and Dan Bongino over the last, let's say, three months.
		They've gone out on Fox, looked like they were sitting on kind of like thumbtacks, like really uncomfortably, trying to kind of let this thing out slowly saying, hey, listen, by the way, like he didn't kill himself.
		And everyone went like, wait, wait, what?
		That may be the case.
		It may be 100% accurate.
		But then you've got this other undermining thing where the video came out the other day and it was edited in Adobe Premiere and it was spliced together from multiple takes.
		And, you know, there's possibility of a timeline sync and some things like that.
		And you go like, this is not how you look transparent and genuine and honest.
		It's not the way that you do a rollout where you go out and you show all your cards, which is what needed to happen for people to feel like if you're going to change it 100%, if you're going to do a 360 from what you said last year, you have to actually say, I was wrong and I'm totally comfortable with knowing that I did it wrong.
		Like I said, when I was in the bureau and I did that, it was a really relieving moment because nobody wants to go after somebody who's innocent.
		Nobody wants to go out and make a claim and then have to retract it, but it's better to retract it than to lie about it and try to cover it up.
		And I think they tried to get away with the best of both worlds, which was that maybe if we say it quietly, nobody will hear us.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Why not just lie better?
		The lies have been poor.
		It's a jumbled mess.
		They could have come out.
		Dan Bangino could have winked on camera and done nothing else.
unidentified		And this story would not be happening at all.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, all true.
		No, this is like the worst possible outcome.
		Mike Howell, who's over at the Oversight Project, they're a spin-off from Heritage Foundation.
		He said, if you were going to teach a class on the worst possible way to do a government rollout of information, this would be one of the top lessons on not how to do it.
		You did it with nobody signing it.
		So nobody put their name to it.
		So you've got no sort of credibility behind the original memo.
		Then it turns out that memo is legit.
		Because if you remember, the Sunday question was all the MAGA influencer types were out there going like, well, it's coming from Axios.
		We don't trust Axios.
		And rightly so.
		Axios is a mouthpiece for a couple of things.
		One, people on the political left and sort of the, you know, the murky, swampy administrative state, but it's also a mouthpiece for the intelligence community, which means they are favorable to doing a leak and they will take that access and they're happy to be the exclusive provider of this.
		And something that people are not going to know because if you Don't, well, they weren't party to this conversation, but I had a private conversation with Cash Patel before he was sworn in.
		One of his big concerns was media leaks, which is something that plagued Ray's administration.
		You know, it was an issue for the last DOJ and the last FBI, mostly because they were doing things that were nefarious and unseemly.
		And a longtime retired FBI agent and a whistleblower attorney brought the following information to Cash's awareness, which I guess he wasn't aware of.
		It makes sense.
		He said leaks to the media are a tool of the FBI director.
		They've been going back as long as probably, you know, since before 9-11, but definitely in the post-9-11 world, Mueller used them effectively.
		Comey used them effectively.
		McCabe did as well when he was in the interim role.
		And of course, Chris Ray did as well.
		So they could go out and you can share and turn the narrative.
		Not only do you choose the information you're going to share and when you're going to share it and how you're going to share it, but you also choose the outlet that you're going to go to.
		And if you go to a newsweek, it's going to hit differently than if you go to a Fox News or if you go to an independent media source.
		And if you go to Axios, it has a certain hit.
		And so he got, I think they made a strategic move.
		I just think it was the worst possible one.
		So whoever is advising them, and that fits with my theory that the folks that are inside the Bureau that want to see bad outcomes, they're cheering right now because you're never going to hear the advisors who briefed Cash or Dan.
		You're never going to hear those people's names.
		They're not going to be someone that you're aware of.
		Maybe I might hear about them from people inside the Bureau that reach out and say, hey, by the way, this is the person that was the last one to touch this.
		But other than that, it's not going to be transparent.
		The people who are going to be left with egg on their face, the two guys that are at the top of the agency, and used to be only one person would get it.
		It used to be just Chris Ray.
		Like most people don't know who Paula Bate was.
		They don't know who David Bowdich was, the previous deputy directors.
		These are not people that are in their sphere because the deputy director is kind of a low-key role that runs the bureau, executes the policy, and the director is the one that's kind of the PR face.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There was another story, and that's the Biden Autopen pardons.
		So he didn't sign off on these.
		He had a general meeting.
		Someone claims he offered these pardons.
		You know, there's a question of how would the FBI handle something if someone is pardoned?
		Can you guys go after them?
		And then I'm just curious, your general thoughts on the pardons themselves, if they're legit and what should be done.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼		So this is a novel problem, right?
		So you're using an executive power that probably cannot be delegated, although I guess there's some question on whether or not you can delegate that under Article II.
		Can you delegate it to a subordinate in the same way, you know, law enforcement authorities are delegated to the attorney general?
		The ability to either investigate and or prosecute are all delegated to the FBI and so on and so forth.
		So the way that it would play out is an FBI director would decide, you know, it would obviously probably be the deputy and then somebody who's actually running, let's say, criminal investigation, counterterrorism investigations.
		It would be below that.
		They would decide, we are going to do an investigation to fill in the blank person for the following allegations.
		They have to be, you know, for criminal aspects, it has to be a allegation that some federal crime took place and that this person is the alleged perpetrator of it.
		And they would investigate it.
		You can investigate anybody for anything as long as you have that authorized purpose.
		There are different levels of FBI investigations.
		They go from preliminary to full.
		They have a thing called an assessment, which is another animal.
		But at the end of the day, allegation or information that a federal crime took place is good enough for you to open that investigation and sign off and you get the resources to go along with it.
		So the investigation is easy, no problem.
		You can investigate anybody, even if they've been pardoned.
		Then comes the questions whether or not you can indict them.
		That's going to be a question of political will more than anything else.
		You bring it over to DOJ and somebody, either United States attorney or a subordinate there, what's called an assistant United States attorney, a line prosecutor, will accept it and say, yeah, I am willing to prosecute this case.
		They're going to have a whole bunch of different questions.
		There's a process of vetting out the person that is called the subject through what's called the sim, the sensitive investigative manner.
		So they've got all these policies that'll come into play.
		But at the end of the day, if they want to do it, yes, they could totally do that.
		Then they could bring that information in front of a grand jury and get the indictment.
		The grand jury is going to say, yes, we believe that it's, there's probable cause to believe that this person committed this federal crime.
		And so we're going to indict them.
		And they're either going to surrender themselves or there's going to be an arrest warrant issued.
		Take your pick.
		And then they go forward.
		And then comes the question on whether or not that indictment can stand and whether or not that prosecution can continue.
		And that would happen from the defense end.
		They would raise motions saying, hey, by the way, this person was already pardoned.
		And then you probably have not a question of whether or not the law was broken.
		You'd have a question of the procedures.
		That would go, as far as I understand it, would go to the appeals courts.
		And they would actually question whether or not the law was followed.
		And that's where you start having these constitutional issues.
		Maybe even the Supreme Court probably would have to weigh in on, can you delegate the power of pardon to a subordinate?
		And if the president's not aware of it, and can you prove that he was aware of it or that he wasn't or that he was cognizant or not?
		That might come into play then.
		So they could march it forward and they could push that moment to a crisis where you would find out whether or not they could ever get away with this thing again.
		That might be a good move.
		Find a really good example of someone who's absolutely committed a crime and then push forward against them against an auto pen pardon and really put it to the test.
		And then you're going to basically create precedent that's going to invalidate or substantiate the validity of that pardon.
		I think it's a great option.
		I think it's going to, we'll see.
		We'll see.
		Stephen Miller seems aggressive on that kind of stuff.
		It seems like he would advise that that's the way to go done, get it done.
		And I think the MAGA base in general is going to want to see that because we can't have unnamed bureaucrats who no one's ever going to hold accountable and didn't get voted in.
		We can't have those people deciding whether or not American citizens or criminal actors are able to go free in this country.
		That seems completely absurd.
		It's totally anti-American.
		You'd think the left would want that as well because it could be abused on either side.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It looks like from the New York Times, some staffer told some aides, Biden approved this, use the auto-cut.
		It's not even that it's delegated.
		We don't even know Biden ordered it.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		Again, and so then the question is, because now you're coming into an area of executive privilege, too.
		So you've got some other concerns in there.
		I could see why this would be dicey, only because you can't pull certain records.
		The judiciary doesn't have the ability to order it.
		But we're now talking about a new administration that might want to undermine the previous administration and they theoretically could actually offer it out.
		In fact, it kind of goes along with what Biden was doing where they were going after Trump, right?
		And he was the former chief executive.
		Is it great for America?
		I think at the end of the day, it starts getting kind of banana Republicly when you start having one executive, You know, supplant the other and then going after them, but they've already started down this path.
		I don't think we can avoid the fact that some wrongs were done, they probably should be righted.
		I don't think regular people, including now the left-wing media, they're selling books on it.
		Jake Tapper's done a whole book tour.
		They all kind of realize that the guy that was occupying the White House for the last four years wasn't sentient.
		My buddy Steve Friend calls him the human Roomba.
		And once you see him on stage towards the end of that, that four years where he's just kind of like doing 30-degree turns and looking for the dock station, it kind of lines up with what he looks like and how he operated.
		So was that guy really making any decisions at all?
		And can we adjudicate it?
		Like I said, I think if the executive is on board, the current one, I think he can.
		And I think we probably need to because we can't have it happen again.
		Not if America wants to continue and have legitimacy.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Maybe ban auto-compton.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼		What was that?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Banned auto-compton.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼		I hate it.
		Yeah, I don't like that at all.
		Like, really?
		Is it something that is totally necessary?
		Also, I didn't realize, and who knows what we pay for these stupid things?
		Look, DocuSign is feasible.
		Can we not really just print things off and have a president actually sign them?
		Can we not do some version of a DocuSign?
		When you're in the law enforcement realm, where I was at the FBI, if you want to sign off on and certify a document, so you'd certify your time card, you'd certify statements you made.
		They're evidentiary, they are testimonial, and they hold the full weight of you actually doing it.
		What you would do is you would insert a card, which has your name and it's called a cat card, I think, when you're in the DOD.
		We had a different name for it, but it's a very similar type of thing.
		SACS badge is what it was called.
		You'd push it into a card reader that would authenticate that it was you.
		And then you would have like a code that you would authenticate who you were.
		And it would automatically sign things digitally the same way that you've signed real estate documents and everybody else has signed contracts or you sign with advertisers.
		Americans have gone digital.
		We accept that that's a thing.
		Why we have a machine that has a mechanized arm that duplicates your signature with a physical wet signature is beyond me.
		It doesn't, it doesn't happen for all kinds of other things, subpoenas and legal process.
		You can swear out on a Zoom call to a judge now and have somebody have their freedom taken.
		Why we need a mechanical arm signing the president's signature is, it's really bizarre.
		It seems like a throwback.
		And when you see the machine, it looks like they made them probably in the 60s or 70s.
		So why are we still doing that?
		Probably because they cost a lot of money and somebody gets a maintenance contract.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Indeed.
unidentified		Well, I apologize for the academic, but where can people find more from you?
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼		People can find me on Rumble right now.
		It's rumble.com slash Kyle Seraphin, or they can find me on X if you want to mix it up and say things that are nice or mean.
		I'll do it too.
		It's at Kyle Seraphin.
		It's always my name.
		Easy to find me there.
		Same thing on YouTube.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right on.
		Thanks for hanging out, man.
		We'll see you next time.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼		Thanks, Tim.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We'll get this one for 66.
		All right.
		So we had an echo problem, and now the echo problem is gone.
		So I'll grab some of your guys's rumble rants while we're here.
		And, you know, looks like we only got a couple.
		We only got a couple.
		Copium Poppy says Tim should start singing with the echo on.
		So here's the thing.
		The echo delay at the right modulation is actually a weapon.
		So they do this.
		They have the capability with protests and what's called an LRAD.
		This is the brief thing I mentioned at the beginning.
		The long-range acoustic device.
		One of the tactics they've used, it's not very common, but it's possible.
		They will capture the sound of the protests and then delay it by a half second and repeat it.
		And it creates, it makes it very difficult for you to talk.
		When you talk, you're hearing yourself in your own head.
		When we have monitors, so like right now when I'm talking, my headphones are playing back my own voice to me, real time with no delay.
		So I can hear myself.
		It's also how singers do it.
		They wear the earpiece when they're singing.
		They can hear their own voice because otherwise too loud.
		By creating a delay, your brain is hearing back itself, causing you to stutter, and it becomes very difficult to speak.
		And you've got to focus really hard on what you're saying while ignoring yourself saying something out of sync with what you're saying.
		So it's actually a mentally disruptive thing.
		But you guys know that you've probably experienced before with like monitors and feedback.
		All right.
		Nazi Revival says, DOJ Bondi blocked HHS RFK Jr. from taking Florida out of the water nationally.
		I had seen something like that.
		I haven't confirmed it yet, but that's crazy.
		Amtru says, doesn't matter if the pardons are null because the DOJ won't prosecute anyone.
unidentified		Watch.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yup.
		Dude, I don't even know anymore.
		With the Epstein stuff, there's a lot I wanted to say to Kyle and actually ask him to follow up on, but because of the echo, we weren't able to get there.
		I think he actually makes a lot of really great points.
		It's not, it's a middle ground and we're not getting that middle ground.
		And that middle ground is the Epstein stuff is really bad.
		It's not as bad as everyone assumed it was going to be.
		That is, yeah, he was trafficking.
		There's probably some people involved.
		It's probably not going to be this massive list of hundreds of world leaders, but he was a diddler and they were bringing in underage girls.
		And there are some people who are probably implicated.
		That is, they hyped up this thing so much that when they get in, I do think they're covering up for people.
		And I'm not saying this theory is correct.
		I'm saying it's plausible.
		That the reality is, if they did drop the client list, it's going to be a dozen people, maybe like Prince Andrew.
		And then they're going to be like, no one's going to be satisfied by this.
		They're going to call it a cover-up no matter what we do.
		It still sounds to me that if that were the case, Trump's using the blackmail.
		So we will see.
		But I'm going to wrap it up there, my friends.
		We're going to get you ready for a raid on our good friend Russell Brand, who is gearing up.
		He is actually, I believe he might be live now.
		So we'll send that raid on its way, my friends.
		Make sure you go Timcast.com, join Timcast.com's Discord.
		You'll get access to these live events we do.
		We have 30 designated tickets for our members, plus a members-only after-show.
		It's going to be a lot of fun.
		Now, as for the event itself, we actually are going to have, if you show up on the spot and tickets are available, you can come in because we're trying to figure out how we can get more liberals to come up and join these debates.
		And so we did last time and it was really, really great.
		We're going to encourage that this time around as well.
		So it will be silly, but the point of the event is, although politics can be contentious, we're wanting it to be laugh, like a laugh, right?
		You know, like have fun, joke.
		Everybody disagrees, but we leave laughing though we disagree.
		That's the hope.
		I hope we get there.
		Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast and my friends.
		Stay tuned.
		We got more coming up 8 p.m. tonight at Timcast IRL.

▲