Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more ETH - 0x90b9288AF0E40F8C90604460973743dBC91dA680
Watch My Documentaries:
https://rokfin.com/stack/1339/Documentaries--Jason-Bermas
Subscribe on Rokfin
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
Subscribe on Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/TheInfoWarrior
Subscribe on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior
Follow me on X
https://x.com/JasonBermas
PayPal: [email protected]
Patriot TV - https://patriot.tv/bermas/
#BermasBrigade #TruthOverTreason #BreakingNews #InfoWarrior Show less
Hey, everybody, Jason Burmes here, and you know the Epstein story is going nowhere.
I ended up on another lively panel via Mario Nafal and that network.
And this time I got to do some sparring with a CIA lawyer.
I think that overall, this is the best debate so far.
It's going to be a two-parter.
And I would also say the second part is a bit stronger on the Burmese end, but you're not going to want to miss it.
So buckle up and get ready to make sense of the madness.
Good morning, good afternoon, good evening to all our viewers.
Today we're having another panelist, a full one, as you can see, where we have a full room for this episode.
And as again, as the last couple of live streams we've done and Twitter spaces or X spaces, we are going to continue to cover the Epstein files.
This is something that Mario's team has done multiple live streams, multiple spaces, multiple posts, trying to be on top of it.
Because every time we try to move on to a different subject, another set of breaking news comes in about this case.
The reason why we originally scheduled this was a report from the Daily Mail indicating that Jacine Maxwell was willing to testify in front of Congress about the Epstein files, right?
And the cases in the very five-minute claimant list to try to get into a plea agreement, that she was more than willing to testify in front of Congress about that.
And right before we hit record, you know, I kind of gave some news for our panelists to kind of digest.
Crazy Weekend Developments00:09:02
Laura Trump, who again is important to highlight, does not hold any government position.
She is not either associated with the FBI, the Trump administration, the DOJ, has stated that apparently the Trump administration will release more files related to the Epstein case.
She said that in the Betty Johnson show.
And so that's something that we wanted to bring up.
But, you know, this breaking news from Justine Maxwell follows what we saw earlier in the weekend on Friday and now, in which there was a lot of tensions within the Department of Justice and the FBI leadership, right?
There was conversations that Dan Bongino was going to resign if Pam Bondi still stays in the AG's office.
The Attorney General, President Trump, made it clear that he has full faith in Pambondi.
And then he even went on Truth Social to make a post basically saying, why are people continuing to talk about the Epstein files?
There is no additional information.
And if anything, this is a Democratic plot to split MAGA.
We saw in Turning Point USA, actually during our last live stream, I remember showing it here to our panelists where I think it was Laura Ingram was saying, you know, to the audience, to the, you know, a lot of MAGA as Turning Point is a key component of that, highlighted, you know, if you're upset about this, please, you know, applaud and or boo if you're and the room was heavily against it.
And there was clearly a split on that.
So with that actual point, David, let me go to you, my fellow co-host for this episode and say, you know, what are you, you know, what are you, are you seeing the same?
It does look like MAGA is not pretty happy right now.
Well, you know, I was at the turning point event this weekend in Tampa, Florida, the Student Action Summit.
Great event.
But yeah, the thing everybody was talking about this weekend.
I mean, look, when you're at the conservative event, you have all the big pundits, you have a lot of the politicians, and you can kind of get a feel for what's kind of trending, you know?
And I did a bunch of shows and the number everyone, Epstein, I mean, it was non-stop.
And so this definitely is consuming MAGA at the moment.
That being said, let me kind of back up and go forward because the news has been crazy over the weekend.
Don't forget, over the weekend was when the news dropped that or just before the weekend that Dan Bongino had this big fight with somebody in the White House.
They thought initially it was Pam Bondi, but then it turned out to be Susie Wiles, apparently, according to some reporting.
He storms out, basically is like Pam or me.
Then we get additional information.
This Maxwell supposedly willing to talk to Congress.
And then, of course, a few minutes ago, the Lara Trump thing.
It's almost like this story won't die.
And you say, why?
You know, is it the Democrats trying to keep it?
The Democrats are talking about Medicaid still.
I don't know.
This story is going to have legs, I think, because the messaging has been sort of inconsistent.
So when you play that game, you remember Mad Libs that, you know, you pick up the little book and it has blanks in it and you put in the funny words and at the end, you have a totally different story.
I think what we're seeing is a real life Mad Libs play out where they're not really sure what the messaging is on this.
I think eventually the messaging will become a little bit more consistent and we'll have a better understanding about what's going on.
But here's the reality: a lot of people are suggesting we should have a press conference with Pam Bondi.
My answer to that is: if you have no answers, what's the point of holding a press conference?
And I do think this weekend, when Trump doubled down on his support for Pam Bondi, and I do believe his support is authentic.
I don't think his support for Pam Bondi is because he's engaged in some sort of cover-up.
It's possible that if these files existed, they're probably gone.
But nevertheless, Trump has wanted to move on from this because it's distracting from so many big wins.
And so to kind of bring it a full circle and to get it over to the panel, you do have to wonder, you know, what is these Epstein files?
What is Lara Trump now out there saying?
Because you know somebody's making a phone call around.
What are you talking about, Laura?
What are the files she's referring to?
And even Maxwell, she was talking about client lists.
She's suggesting that she will testify to Congress who was on the quote-unquote client lists, right?
If she does, by the way, that'll probably be in a closed door session.
Nobody will find out what it is because of the prejudicial nature of the testimony that can come out of that without any actual investigations or indictments.
But that being said, man, I don't know.
I think this Epstein thing won't die.
I think the people that don't want it to die don't want it to die for very specific reasons.
And with that, let's see what the panel says.
Actually, David, let me let me because in the last episode we had, actually, I know we had Josiah, and I think that that is a perfect point in how you did it because let me direct the first for his initial reactions to Josiah.
Because when you look at the Trump Truth Social post that happened, it was the first time he was quote ratioed where there was basically more comments than, I don't know what they call it, reposts, truth posts, whatever, or likes.
Retruths.
On truths, it's retruths and comments and likes.
Yeah.
Retruth.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And if you look at it, it was people were furious.
And so, Josiah, I think, let me ask you this: David's point: you know, this won't die.
Let's be real.
There was major news today in the geopolitical sense.
Trump's with NATO Secretary General Mark Murdo, basically more aid to Ukraine, saying 50 days, if not secondary sanctions against Russia, endorsing Lindsey Graham's sanction package.
Like in the international geopolitical sense, now the U.S. is doubling, if not tripling, down, but that is not carrying any weight.
And it looks like one of the main reasons the Epstein case is not over is, if anything, I would argue, much more on the conservative media and the MAGA base than really anywhere else.
So, Josiah, how can Trump move on from this if his base and the Republicans, conservatives, turning point USA are saying Epstein, Epstein, Epstein?
He can just wait them out.
I mean, the reality is that there's a whole influencer grift economy, which is really heavily rooted in pitching this sort of Gnostic online cult.
I have secret knowledge about the doings of the elites and the pedophiles, and I'm going to pitch that to you.
Sign up for my sub stack for $10 a month.
And these people to have come turn out that the documents they claimed existed for all these years actually either were tampered with, destroyed, some sort of corruption happened.
I honestly think if Epstein really was a member of an elite global cabal and they were able to murder that guy inside of a Bureau of Prisons, you know, maximum security holding center, the idea that those people could then delete files and get rid of stuff they didn't want, very plausible.
So, you know, I think right now this is, it just reveals there's a lack of seriousness among much of the commentariat.
It's not a real issue.
It doesn't, it's not going to be a 2026 campaign issue, I don't believe.
I think right now what you're seeing is there are big political things happening.
Trump is right to be mad that it's distracting from wins that he's delivering on his agenda.
And ultimately, Epstein isn't about Epstein.
It's about the faith that the American people have in institutions and their leadership.
Under Biden, we saw a massive decline in legitimacy among major institutions.
Now that Biden is out, the way to recover that legitimacy is by delivering results for the American people.
Donald Trump has done that in the Big Beautiful Bill.
He's doing it on immigration.
There are ongoing fights in foreign policy and law and order, which will continue to draw attention.
But if Trump delivers on those promises, then this story is going to die.
And let me tell you this right now.
If Pam Bondi wants to save her skin, she should go and arrest Anthony Fauci today.
And I guarantee you, we'll be talking about something else.
And I think that would be better for the country as a whole.
David, I think that's, that's, I was, I was interested when I saw this because I saw a lot of people reacting, some eyebrows.
And if it's okay with you, I want to go to the first one that I think had a more visceral reaction to that.
Jason.
Well, real quick, Stefano, if I may, I want to comment on that because it was actually a brilliant point, the waiting it out thing and the other topics that come up because that is exactly, I think, why the administration has been kind of quiet on this.
People will get, it's almost like you can't undo if you make a mistake.
Now, I think mistakes were made again, that phase one release.
I think certain things weren't handled the best way.
I think the smartest thing you could do now is not make any more mistakes and simply wait it out because I agree.
The only thing that becomes a 2026 issue is further mistakes relating to this issue.
But yeah, Anthony Fauci, that was discussed today that they're looking into him now.
And that really would pivot the conversation.
But with that, yeah, let's go over.
Who did you want to go to, Stefano?
I feel like Jason had the most visceral disagreement with that statement.
So I'll go to Jason for his initial comments.
First of all, let me agree with a portion of what he said.
Conspiracy Claims Unveiled00:15:20
I think the reason that this story isn't going away is because a lot of his base, this was their first taste of, you know, a reality conspiracy amongst billionaires and their associates and high political figures, Holly Weirdos and pedophiles.
Okay.
And through that, a lot of them bought into the QA nonsense.
They think white hats are coming, fairy tales and unicorns, and Trump is Superman.
That's not reality.
What really actually happened was it was through the outcry that an intelligence asset and his team basically after being caught in Miami, an arms dealer, all right, they tried to bifurcate it with just Ghelane Maxwell and him.
And now there are all these other distractions.
We've talked about how, you know, the Diddy case is not the same, but they've tried to make it the same.
You know, people want to talk about things that they cannot prove.
There are a ton of documents right now on Court Listener that anybody can look into.
And I would say this, if you want to understand how these networks work and one in which Epstein was more than likely a part of in the 80s, look into the BCCI banking scandal because it encompassed all of this.
And a lot of people don't understand that the current Epstein victims fund is mainly through JP Morgan Stanley and their internal emails.
And furthermore, you know, Nick will probably talk about this.
If you wanted that money, if you were good enough to actually be a victim of Epstein, that they deemed that you could get this, you have to sign non-disclosure agreements.
Okay.
So you ask why people can't talk about that.
Remember, we haven't had any criminal investigations, let alone successful prosecutions into any high-level government figures or those assets in the past four plus decades.
And if the people find out that the last time we did Iran-Contra, Epstein was an integral part of that with his buddy Adnan Khashoggi, who mentored him and was a part of that, who was doing business with Epstein in the 80s, that will be a huge scandal amongst the blackmail and the foreign intelligence.
Again, when you look at Iran-Contra, it was Israel that was getting the weapons from Eastern Europe and then shipping them down.
It's a proxy network.
And I'll leave it at that because I don't think they can wait this one out.
They can pivot, like David said, to something else people are very upset about, Anthony Fauci.
But this story will continue to live on because forget about the FBI documents or other intelligence documents.
There's a paper trail on this guy that's out there.
And it's only because of that paper trail and people like Nick who got the black book published and the flight logs published back in 2015 that we've even gotten this far, gentlemen.
But let's talk about that, right?
So 2015 flight logs are published, right?
The black, but the information from the black book or whatever.
So there's information out there.
There's been investigations.
Two people sit in jail.
At what point, though, is it enough?
Like, I understand that they want names and they want people to pay.
But the thing is, what this administration has told you, and we've talked about this on so many shows, is that this administration said, we have given you everything we have.
We don't have anything else.
This investigation is closed at this point.
And then from here, though, it's not that nothing can be done.
Congress has the power to investigate.
They can create evidence.
There's a suggestion that evidence was created and possibly destroyed by previous administrations.
I don't know if that's true or not.
But what I'm suggesting is if the evidence doesn't exist to put anybody else in jail, well, now you have to find the evidence.
And that means Congress can investigate.
That means people can do FOIA requests if they think the government is holding information and not releasing it.
There's other ways to go and try to find information.
But the problem is, at the end of the day, is you have people begging and screaming for something that's impossible to get at this point.
And if they're never going to move past it until they get something that at the moment is impossible to get, I just don't understand where the energy is going.
Yeah, I'm not sure who said I. Can I jump in on this?
But yeah, Brian.
Yeah, go ahead, Brian.
Thanks, David.
So a couple of things on what you specifically said, but I kind of try to divide this up into three buckets.
There's the conspiracy Intel bucket.
There's the this case bucket, and then there's the victims bucket.
And I just, I'm kind of sad that I'm the fifth person to speak and I'm the first person to mention that these victims have a stake in this too, dead and alive.
And the idea that we're going to just look away and move on with no accountability for those victims, I think that's wrong.
But here's a fact, okay?
We know there's information that the administration has that they haven't made public.
And the reason we know, there's many reasons.
One reason we know is that they handed out binders to influencers that had documents that Biden had released that still had redactions in them.
So at a minimum, they could release those documents unredacted.
Now, I will tell you, as a constitutional lawyer and a prosecutor, there's a lot of reasons why you might not want to do that.
But the one thing they cannot honestly say is there's not more information because we know there is.
Well, that's true.
And that's a good point, but you're exactly right.
The information that's there, and I agree with you, the accountability for the victims, that's what everybody wants.
Obviously, there's a lot, a lot of people, that's exactly what this is about.
There was kids, there was minors, and people want justice.
There's probably no more offensive thing that you can do in society than do something like this to a child.
And it is the really the ultimate sin.
But that being said, people do want accountability.
But is it on Trump if he doesn't have the ability to deliver that accountability?
Does it all fall on him?
Remember, Jeffrey Epstein's been doing this for decades.
And so it almost seems unfair in a sense that the buck is somehow stopping with Trump.
And I think though, and I understand the counterargument to that is going to be, well, why did he say he was going to release it if he didn't have it to release?
Maybe he thought he had something he didn't.
But to release the unredacted things, John and I, or Brian, and I agree with you, who knows what names are in there that can't be released for the various reasons that people can take it upon themselves to assume that just because something appears in those files that suggest that they've done the worst thing in the entire world.
And that might not be the conclusion that you can lead to in there.
So, but it's an excellent.
I understand your point.
Can I ask also another follow-on question to Brian, though, because it's something I wanted to ask you.
I think I heard you in a space yesterday, but you said it right now.
You kind of alluded to kind of the Intel conspiracy, right?
And you kind of alluded, and I think this is kind of what Jason was saying about this aspect of Jeffrey Epstein being an Intel asset.
You know, I've been in a live stream.
I've been very skeptical of that claim and that that's the reason why there's kind of been a cover-up or something's hidden.
From your experience, you know, would you believe that Jeffrey Epstein would fit the mold of an intelligence asset, even for blackmail purposes?
Like, why did you say that to you feels more of that's like more of a conspiracy theory when a lot of people would say, I think this is the reason why they haven't released more because he was a CIA Mossad or whatever plant and they're trying to cover that up.
So I think you want to separate U.S. intelligence agencies and foreign intelligence agencies.
And I'm not commenting on what a foreign intelligence agency might do.
I'm not saying they're guilty.
I'm not saying they're innocent.
But what I know for sure, having served in the CIA under Reagan and Clinton and Bush 43, is that one, and first of all, there is absolutely no history since the Church Pike Committee hearings in the 70s of the CIA or any other U.S. intelligence agency ever extorting or blackmailing anyone, period, full stop.
No evidence.
I'm not saying it's impossible.
I see your eyes roll, Jason.
I'm not saying it's impossible.
I'm saying there's no evidence, number one.
Number two, I have both written presidential findings on intelligence operations and I've received them when I was working for Condi Rice.
Any operation like this, where you are going to recruit a U.S. citizen to be a covert agent for decades, would have been reported not once, not twice.
If you go back to the 80s, eight times to eight different administrations and eight different Congresses.
And this is the United States.
This is a partisan environment.
No chance that doesn't leak.
You have to imagine a conspiracy of eight presidents and eight times eight, 64 members of Congress at least.
I don't buy it.
Number three, if this was a thing and if there was this conspiracy that could reach into a federal prison and have an inmate murdered, they certainly would have murdered Ghelan as well.
And here's one last thing.
And I'll ask, and you can ask me anything about the, oh, here's another thing, too.
Sorry.
The Southern District of Florida, like all federal courts, has the ability to run criminal trials when there is CIA or other classified information involved.
There's a federal law that does this.
It's called the Class Information Procedures Act.
I litigated three cases in the Southern District of Florida under this law.
So the idea that even suppose he was an intelligence asset, which I, again, I don't think he was, all these cases still could have been tried.
And Acosta's bullshit that intelligence told him not to do it doesn't work that way.
Last point.
If a member of Congress or the Senate wants to conduct what we in the intelligence business call an ops test today, they could go, Marjorie Taylor Greene or Hakeem Jeffries could go to the federal penitentiary in Tennessee or send a staffer, ask to visit her.
And if the government blocks that, you're going to know a lot.
So with that, let me go to somebody that might, I assume, because I know there's a lot, so we want to go.
So let me go to Dave.
I think you might disagree with that based on some of the reactions and all that.
And look, I'm all for it, man.
So take it.
So I can't categorically say that Epstein was Mossad, but I think the most plausible explanation was that he was either a Mossad asset or connected to Mossad in some way.
And that's just from his associations with Ehud Barak, who lived on his property, visited about 30 times.
His connection with Robert Maxwell, the most prominent spy in Israeli history, was given a state funeral on it.
And Alex Acosta's famous statement.
I don't have to go into that.
A lot of us know that.
But I'll just say this cover-up seems to be a bipartisan affair.
For all the theatrics brought about by the Trump administration and supporters saying that Trump would be the white knight to bring prosperity and transparency into Washington, it doesn't look to be the case.
This is a rift in MAGA.
You're seeing it play out right now, more so, I think, than the schism with Musk and the Iran strike, actually.
And David was so right, David, when you said that the Democrats' response to this is to talk about Medicaid.
They have the silver bullet against the Trump administration right now, and it's to talk about a sex trafficking ring that involved the most prominent people in government.
And they had it in Trump's first term too at the beginning, but instead they relied on the Russiagate hoax and all the absurdity that came with that.
So here's what I'll say to round this out.
Dan Bongino, if you have a problem with Bondi and how she's handling this or wiles, be a hero, be a whistleblower and tell us.
Because if Bondi goes down and we still don't have answers, nothing changes.
People are going to clamor about this.
I think Bondi is something of a red herring in this.
And last thing I'll say is that the client list and the death information, things regarding that that are still ambiguous are important.
But the real elephant in the room, the thing that everyone wants to know, that's probably the most important is which intelligence service or services did Epstein work for?
They didn't even address that in the memo.
So that's where I'll end.
Thank you guys.
You know, there was a great interview that we conducted on Mario's channel with John, I think you pronounced the name Kiriaku.
He was a former CIA analyst.
And I know Brian's like, no, but it was actually a really intelligent discussion about how he could have been an asset from Assad and the reason for it.
And it was a very interesting discussion.
I recommend you going and checking out on Arrow's channel.
It was a great interview.
It was on, I believe it was Friday.
But to your point, just real quick.
Sorry.
People can go to my timeline.
John Kiriaku himself said that what he did in exposing his fellow agents was immoral and lies.
He swore to that when he got sent to prison.
So believe him if you like, but I don't.
Well, I'm not saying believe him or no.
I'm just saying if you want to hear his take on it, it's an interesting interview.
But that being said, I want to pivot back to your point, Dave.
I think the reason why the Democrats are talking about Medicaid, though, and not using this quote-unquote silver bullet is twofold.
One, as I think it might have been Brian who made the point early on, or it might have been Jason.
And it was a good point.
They're not going to be talking about this in 2026.
And so they're really pivoting for the 2026 and by hitting that Medicaid thing over the head and trying to get people to believe something that's not true.
That is really why they're not touching this.
The second reason is Biden would be just as implicated, and Democrats are just as implicated as Trump if you try to suggest that there's a cover-up.
So there's no value here either.
Everybody's like, no, no, no, no, I don't want anything to do with this.
Look, Trump just even mentioned trying to get to the bottom of it.
And now this is squarely on his desk.
Nobody wants to touch this thing because of the frustration around exactly what we're talking about.
You're talking about cover-ups, if it's intelligence or not intelligence.
Everybody has an opinion on it.
It's dealing with very graphic subject matters.
Nobody wants to touch this anymore.
It's the thing that won't go away, like Trump said.
Why is everyone still talking about this?
People are going to be talking about this forever.
But I don't think the Democrats even want to touch it because they don't want fingers pointed their way either.
But excellent point.
Cricket, I want to bring a female voice into this.
What say you in everything you've heard so far?
All the what we have, what we don't have, what you're expecting, what are your disappointments?
What do you think?
Honestly, David, I'm having difficulty controlling my face when you talk because I just can't believe the takes that you have when you look at the Epstein case and you're like, oh, it's about messaging or it's about the like, you know, people don't care.
Everyone cares.
And I don't say people didn't care.
I did not say it was a messaging problem.
I didn't say people didn't care.
But Democrats are talking about it.
The leadership and the people in Congress who honestly are probably implicated, they're not talking about it.
And that's a problem.
That is a problem that the American people care about and should still be talking about.
And this is the one issue that the like, this is where Trump has actually united the country because I have been in MAGA spaces.
I've been in liberal spaces.
And everyone cares about the Epstein case.
Everyone wants to know because, unlike what you're saying, where, oh, there's just nothing to see here.
Hold on.
Don't put words in my mouth, Cricket.
I didn't say there's nothing to see.
I didn't say I think everybody should be upset about what I said is very specifically, and it's recorded.
What I said was, there might not be any evidence.
They've given what they had to give.
Lack Of Trust In The Epstein Case00:15:24
What more can he do?
Is what I said.
And I said, if anybody wants, it is true.
It's recorded.
Don't look at this anymore.
No, that's not what I said.
Let me go to you, though, to that point, though, because I think there's two ways to analyze.
Because I would disagree.
We have seen Democrats really push this against Donald Trump.
We have seen Democratic members.
We have seen, I even think the DNC created a bot on Twitter that literally tracks the case files ever.
And I think that that is what's missing.
But I think there's two ways to analyze.
When this first broke, when the AG Bondi released that memo that was leaked by Axios in the first space we had here in the live stream, I said there's two explanations.
It's either a cover-up, number one, which I think everybody agrees one way or another, the reasoning went, or number two, which I think is kind of what, in a way, just and David are alluding to, was they over-promised.
They leveraged this political crisis, this lack of trust in the American people, because it's important to remember Trump was president during the first term, like when this happened.
This all happened under President Trump the first term, right?
This didn't happen under Biden.
It was Trump.
I think the problem is he would have known he leveraged this for political reasoning.
A lot of the people that are now in, especially the leadership of the FBI, really ran on this.
And I think when they got into the positions they're at and they looked at it, they're like, oh my God, we've been played and we played our base.
How do we escape from this?
How do we escape from overpromising, saying there's all this going on, the list and blah, blah, blah.
And now they just have nothing else to do to say there's nothing more.
And either there's, so it's either a cover-up or they basically played their political voters in their base and now they don't know how to cover up for it or not cover up.
That's a very tough.
They don't know how to pivot away from it because their base is the ones who are going to be the most adamant that there's definitely much more there because they created that after six years.
They created this notion of this deep secret and now they can't walk away from that.
I think you bring up a great point, Sit Rep. And in addition to that, what we see is Trump did not say we over promised after looking into it.
This is what we have.
This is what he we don't.
What he said is, why are we still talking about it?
It was dismissive.
It completely undermined what was happening in the country.
And it made it seem like, all right, why are we trying?
Why is there a distraction here?
So if there was some forthrightness, then maybe we could get past it.
But at this point, people want answers.
They want accountability and they want to know where that's going.
And honestly, I'm seeing, I consider myself a moderate.
I am seeing that from both sides of the aisle, at least from the people, the politicians, I'd like to see more outrage vocally and publicly.
Let me ask you, though, Cricket, and I'll throw it over to sorry, I can't see names here.
Let me ask you a follow-up on it real quick because, and I agree with you, and I want to be very clear.
I don't think this is an issue that we should just simply move on to.
I would like to see accountability.
There are real victims that deserve justice.
And I said this earlier.
The issue is we found ourselves in a very frustrating situation that we don't have any more information.
Now, this wasn't information the Biden administration put out.
It wasn't the administration, the Trump first administration put out.
It wasn't the information the Obama administration put out or Clinton.
I mean, this has been going on for 20 years, right?
20 years, there hasn't been justice for these victims.
So the issue is, how can we, quote unquote, give people answers if we don't have them?
So yes, maybe Trump can go out and say, I'm sorry, I wanted to release information.
I just don't have it.
And maybe that would have been the right approach.
I don't know.
But the reality is this is an impossible situation unless we get more information.
And as of right now, Donald Trump's Justice Department has says this is all we have.
So people can be upset and want justice, but where is it going to come from unless people take it upon themselves to request FOIA information?
Do the research.
Do like Jason does.
Do a deep dive and connect the strings.
Jason probably has a corkboard in his house with strings attached to it and pictures on it and markers and highlighters, like things hanging from the ceiling.
People can do that.
And then if you find something credible, take that information, give it to the media.
We have X now.
They're not going to hide it and say, here's what I found.
Look into these people, Justice Department.
We don't have that other than what Jason has produced.
What we need is Congress, a bipartisan congressional committee.
Why not?
Congress can do this.
They don't need Trump, by the way.
Congress does not need Trump to put together a commission to investigate why we never arrested anybody other than Maxwell and Epstein.
They can do that.
And the information that, look, we did a 9-11 commission.
We did a January 6th commission.
We did a who does President Trump's laundry commission.
We could do an Epstein commission, but nobody's doing anything.
And to say Trump is, it's just all on Trump because he doesn't have anything.
I agree that there's probably a better way we could have messaged it.
But at the end of the day, we need more that we don't have.
And Stephen, let me ask you.
I mean, what's your take?
What can we give to people?
It's a follow-up question.
Oh, oh, yeah, go ahead, Cricket.
And then I'll go over to I'll go over to Steve.
So the follow-up, the question to you then, Cricket, is what can we give people to make?
Is anybody going to be happy no matter what with what we have?
Absolutely.
I don't think that people are being unreasonable or overly demanding at all with this.
Like, are we ever going to make it okay for the victims?
No, of course.
It's a terrible thing that happened and it happened over decades, like you said.
It is, but there were a lot of people involved.
And the thing is, we were told that this was being investigated.
We have investigated Cricket, though.
It was investigated.
We gave it two people.
We have people.
Correct.
So in there, we have victims.
We have names.
We have flight logs.
We have places where like they're the strength of the FBI that should have been thrown at this to investigate.
There's forensic accounting.
To think that we don't have people descriptions, that we don't have the ability to look into it at all or have any sort of, you know, joint.
I agree.
We could do a Congress joint session, but Trump campaigned on this.
This was his thing.
He said, I'm going to release this.
And he did.
I'm promising you.
So now he has to be held accountable for that promise.
But that's not fair, Cricket.
Tucking his tail between his legs and saying, then that's fine.
Let us then choose to accept it or not.
But to just say, not my problem or look the other way.
He didn't say, look the other way.
He says, I'm giving you how I'm interpreting Trump.
I understand.
But the thing is, but to answer your question, and then I will pass it on to Stephen.
Yeah.
I don't think people are being unreasonable.
And I think if they were given any sort of actual information in a clear way and some transparency, I think people would be a lot more satisfied than they are right now.
But that, but to be clear, again, it wasn't just Trump.
Trump's been office six months.
It wasn't just Trump's DOJ.
Epstein is in jail, not from Trump's DOJ.
When Epstein was unalive.
Okay.
But the point is, there have been multiple DOJs that have been involved in this, right?
Not just Trump's.
Trump said he would be transparent and deliver the Epstein document, the files.
He put out what he had and he said, sorry, guys, I don't have anything else.
And a lot of people are like, well, you do.
You have the redacted, you have the redacted information.
The documents that they gave those influencers were documents that had already been released by Biden, and they've released nothing more, not even the redactions to those documents.
So it's just not true to say he's given out everything he has.
No, I'm not saying it.
I'm not saying it's it could be.
If he's given everything he has, he may have purported to have something that he didn't have because he didn't know what he didn't have.
That's possible.
David, can I just jump in on that point quick?
Even his own lawyer, his own lawyer, Dershowitz, who's seen the documents and represented Epstein, says all the documents are not out.
I mean, that's within the, and I'm no Dershowitz fan, but he also says he knows people in the video that have not been named.
I mean, again, this idea, see, Biden didn't even quote unquote release anything.
He just unredacted some things that had already been released in 2017 and 2019 that were part of civil cases in the prior criminal case.
So I just want to clarify that.
And just because I have the floor.
Getting rid of redactions is releasing information.
So can I, can I actually, let me go to Stephen with this then, though.
I think this is the point.
I think this is the problem.
And we've, I mean, this has been a consistent narrative.
And again, whatever initial take you want to give, run with it.
Please give me your initial take on whatever topic because you still haven't spoken.
So I apologize for that.
But like, I think I want to just leverage something that Cricket said.
And I think everybody, it's there's a lack of trust in the Trump administration.
There's a severe lack of trust.
And the lack of trust in this, though, is not coming from the Democrats, the liberals, with the Russia gate, or whatever, however you want to frame it.
This is coming from his base.
I mean, we have Steve Bannon during with the panel, one of the speakers that he asked a question who identified as America First, who identified as MAGA, basically said, if Trump can't protect our children, I'm paraphrasing more or less, but he basically then said, Trump is the deep state.
And I think that's the problem.
It's that he might lose.
And it's like this, if you ran on this, you bring the people in who leverage this in their podcasts.
And now you're in power and you're not delivering.
You have a lack of trust.
And I think I've talked about this in a previous stream we did with, I mean, this is where Elon Musk can just come right in and say, see, people, you cannot trust Donald Trump or whoever it may be.
And that might resonate with voters within America First who might say, you know what?
You're right.
I can't trust Donald Trump because of this case, which for me is the, you know, the straw that broke the camo's back.
Stephen?
Well, I think from a libertarian perspective, if the FBI can't protect life, liberty, and property, it's unfit to exist and should be abolished.
The level of trust in the intelligence community is at an all-time low.
Look back in the 60s.
We discovered that the FBI sent a suicide package to Martin Luther King to try to get him to kill himself.
Of course, you had MKUltra experiments.
You had just many, many, many examples of the CIA and all these black budget programs and cover-ups, the NSA cover-ups and everything Snowden came out with.
I mean, trust in institutions is at an all-time low.
And I think a lot of Americans are picking up on that with this whole Epstein thing.
For Trump to come out and essentially gaslight his base and saying that, well, this was a DNC fabrication from the Biden administration, the Clinton administration, it's just so crazy.
It's like we were always at war with Eurasia.
It's trying to change people's minds, something that he was very vocal about.
And now they're turning around and saying, well, we have the files on our desk.
Just kidding.
Actually, we don't have the files.
You've had the files all along.
There are no files.
Jedi mind trick.
It's just, it's created so much confusion, I think, in Trump's core base and the whole MAGA sphere.
And I can tell you, I know a lot of libertarians who voted for Trump on the promise of, you know, we would stop the war within 24 hours with Ukraine.
You know, we would decrease the size and scope of government, tackle the debt, no more foreign wars, et cetera, et cetera, release the Epstein files.
And over the past five or six months, every single one of those promises has turned null and void.
And I'll tell you, as far as Epstein goes, between Bank of America, or excuse me, JP Morgan Chase and the Epstein's Victim Compensation Fund, they paid out a third of a billion dollars to victims.
So to say that Ghislaine, Maxwell, and Epstein were the only ones that imparted a quarter of a third of a billion dollars in damages just doesn't make any sense.
There's something much more to this story.
I think that, quite frankly, there's so much distrust in the entire government apparatus, whether it's intelligence agencies, congressmen, the presidency itself, that, I mean, Americans just don't trust any part of it.
And to turn around and say, you know, there's nothing to see here, it just further increases that distrust in government.
And I think we're seeing a big schism in MAGA space.
And I think for a lot of people who supported Trump, we're only an eighth of the way through his term.
A lot of them are turning his back on him, especially over this.
I think this is where a lot of people draw the line.
Hey, quick breaking news thing, Sit Rep. The Department of Justice has now filed their response in the U.S. Supreme Court to Ghelane's request for a retrial.
And perhaps not surprisingly, but just to have it in the public record, they are opposed to the Supreme Court even taking her case, much less considering a retrial.
So just, sorry, if I may, for those who, because we have a lot of people from around the world, a lot of people who don't know about American judiciary, can you kind of give like layman terms from the DOG's language?
What are they trying to say, Brian, to everybody?
Basically, they're not trying to release anything.
They want this case shut, done, never to move on.
What does that mean to the American, like to people who don't know Supreme Court language and all that?
Yeah, it's a good question, especially from people from Western Europe, because in Western Europe, in a lot of cases, the prosecutors and the judges are in the same branch of government.
Not true here.
The judiciary, which the Supreme Court is the head of, is entirely separate from the executive who runs the Justice Department who filed these pleadings.
Another important thing to know here is that this particular thing that she is asking the Supreme Court about has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about today, and it predates everything we're talking about.
Her claim is that the non-prosecution plea agreement that Epstein made that names four or five unnamed co-conspirators actually was meant to apply to her.
And therefore, she was not constitutionally tried.
For all people that don't know this, it really is not unusual at all.
It sounds like it would be unusual, but for a case to go from whatever she was sentenced to now getting to the Supreme Court is not slow.
That's unfortunately, that's the process.
So the really interesting thing about this, though, is that the government is opposed to the Supreme Court even hearing the case.
This was not about deciding anything today.
Why Epstein Dominates Politics00:08:07
They are asking the Supreme Court to deny what's called a writ of sertiori, which is her lawyers asking the Supreme Court to hear evidence to give her a new trial, and the government doesn't even want that.
That, I guess, is interesting.
Let me go to Josiah because I know you were shaking your head a lot.
Yeah.
Again, though, I mean, I know you're saying, but I just kind of go, okay, let's be real.
Like, you can just look at MAGA on X. You can look at Truth Social.
You can look at Turning Point USA, what happened there with all the speakers.
You can look at any conservative news outlet that has been covering this for years and years and years.
You know, to say that we even have people saying flat out, I don't, if I'd rather, if I can't have a government that can protect children, again, I'm paraphrasing a little bit, I don't care about deportations because this to them is the top issue.
Now, you can argue, maybe it's a small minority, but I think, you know, the reason why we continue to have this conversation and we're going to continue to have it is because it's being driven by that conservative media that has been so important for Donald Trump in his 2024 election.
I don't know if you can just ignore it.
Well, I don't know if you can just ignore it simply, but I think the reality is we, MAGA has won.
It's accomplished real political aims.
We got Donald Trump back in office.
We've gotten deportation funding through Congress.
We are implementing policies that are aligned with Donald Trump's vision.
And I understand there's a lot of complaining, right?
And I was personally, I didn't love the Iran strikes, but it's not a wider war.
And we're lucky that it's not happening, right?
I don't love what's happening in Ukraine.
But the reality is reformulating the world order is an enormous task.
And it's going to take time to do that.
I think Donald Trump is a pragmatist.
He's trying to figure out how to maneuver his way through all these really complex issues.
Having a bunch of influencers get up in arms about this Epstein case doesn't assist that when there are attainable ways of doing the things they ostensibly care about, right?
You don't like Israeli influence in our government?
There are tons of people who represent the Israeli government.
Mark Levin on Fox News is de facto an agent of the Israeli government.
If you don't want those kinds of people exerting foreign policy influence, then you can attack them right there.
If you don't like politicians being corrupt, then demand that Anthony Fauci get arrested.
Jeffrey Epstein is no longer with us.
That dude's been dead for six freaking years.
And there is no evidence I see that Yelene Maxwell is going to be brought before Congress is going to tell the truth.
She could just make shit up.
And that's probably what's going to happen.
So I think right now, the influencer class, the mega class, the people who are talking about Epstein because of these political reasons, they need to get more serious about policy.
That's separate from the things that we're talking about in regards to the actual mechanics of the case, the victims, the things Epstein did, getting justice for those individuals.
There's just two totally different things going on here.
One of which is very political.
It's oriented toward policy, and one of which is this actual case.
And my focus is on policy.
Donald Trump has delivered real wins.
He can deliver more.
The influencers who have spent a lot of time and interest on this case need to lock in in terms of accomplishing real political objectives.
That should be the focus.
Josiah.
If I could, sit rep, real quick.
I promise I'll go right over to you.
I just want to comment on what Josiah said because it's a really important point.
Sometimes the things that become your biggest assets can also become your biggest threats.
And with respect to MAGA, we have seen how very powerful that influencer base can be.
I mean, we obviously saw during the campaign Trump doing a lot of media with podcasters and alternative media.
We have seats in the White House now for alternative media.
There have been a lot of credibility given to people who form opinions, very strong ones, and have a very big audience to deliver those opinions.
And we saw, especially during the primary, in the presidential primary, how powerful influencers can be.
But just on that same vein, you're seeing also how destructive those emotions can be.
And Josiah's point is a very well-taken one.
The difference between people who are in the political world who understand that we need to be celebrating the wins and preparing for the 2026 midterm election so that we can continue to deliver on the promises of the campaign versus the people that might even be new to politics, like we saw with Elon Musk, who just get very upset about one issue.
And that one issue causes them to go completely, that is it.
They came to Trump on one issue and they can leave Trump on one issue.
And so that is the problem when you're playing with dynamite a little too.
And we're seeing that now.
I agree with you though, Josiah.
I think we need to be more universal with respect to considering everything that's going on and not just singular issue voters.
You have to look at everything else and all the other things we've been able to accomplish in six months.
The wars that are not starting, the tax breaks that are coming, the immigration that's controlled.
I mean, there's other things the influencer should be happy about.
But for some reason, this Epstein thing is just taking over.
And again, I think it's just the way the weapons have been sharpened.
And now, unfortunately, we're falling on our own blades.
And let me jump in real quick on there in terms of campaign promise.
Donald Trump didn't spend much time talking about Epstein at all.
This is something that Pam Bondi and Dan Bongino and Kash Patel are talking about.
That's a different set of individuals.
Trump was focused on immigration and trade and foreign war from the beginning.
So pitching this on Trump seems bizarre when the messaging failure was initially from his subordinates.
Trump is deciding to cover for them for whatever reason.
But I don't want that to get lost in here.
If you go and look at Donald Trump's public appearances, I just don't see much about Epstein at all during the campaign.
This is something that's like as a Trump supporter, and I'm getting criticism for it online all the time.
I have to push back even on that, though.
And this is probably the most consistent criticism of Trump from all of his supporters is that, yes, you're right, Pam Bondi is his subordinate.
And why does Trump always have to answer for the failures of his subordinates?
We saw this in the 2016 term.
And if it is, and this is the most consistent thing, is if Pam Bondi did screw up the messaging, why isn't she being held accountable?
And I think, you know, I think Trump could have avoided a lot of this if he would have just said, sorry, Pam, that wasn't the right message.
And we're going to have to move on, sort of like what happened after the Signal Gate controversy.
So I do think doubling down on your, I understand why he's doing it.
She's done a good job.
And there's other things she's working on that are much bigger than Epstein.
But at the same time, is sometimes you have to kind of sacrifice somebody for the good of the family.
And, you know, I think that that is probably sticky wicket on that one is a lot of people are saying, well, fine, if Pam lied to people or if she didn't understand what she had, or she screwed up the messaging, why isn't she paying the price?
And all of that combined is creating this symphony of frustration by MAGA.
And I think we need to figure out if there's a responsibility, who's responsible for it, and at least give answers to people in order for them to move on.
And I really think that is what people are looking for: accountability.
And if it's not going to be Epstein's accountability, we want the accountability for why people have been told we'd have accountability if accountability wasn't achievable.
But other than that, I agree with what you're saying, but the Pam Bonnie thing, you made the point that, you know, it's not his issue, it's hers.
Well, why isn't she being held responsible?
And then you'll see Stephen and Dave on this.
I do have a follow-up question for Josiah as well.
So before let me do this.
Let me just have this.
Let me have this and then I'll go to you.
I just want to, because I think, Crick, maybe if I maybe I'm going in the direction you're going, hopefully.
And if not, I'm trying.
I'm going influencer.
Okay, because what I'm hearing is, and this kind of ties a little bit in the previous space we had others of like emotion and policies, emotion, policies, emotion, policies.
What I think people need to understand is, and I'm going to go to Steven for this.
You can have, you know, you ran on all this, right?
Let's like, here's a key example, right?
And I know, Stephen, we had this space with you.
Emotion and Policies Clash00:02:10
Reducing government.
And the big beautiful bill had not really doge, not like, okay, it's okay.
The deportation, like the one, and that's why a lot of conservatives like, that's why we support this because of the deportations.
Okay.
But regardless, let's make an argument that all this is true, but don't undercut the importance this had in the voters that voted for Donald Trump and a significant portion of it.
And I think how we see this is everybody has their own information space.
Liberals have it.
You can call us the mainstream media.
You can call it blue sky.
Conservatives have it.
True social, acts, ONN, whatever.
But for Republicans, this is a main, or maybe rephrase that, for a lot of MAGA voters, this is a major issue.
And to them, this is policy.
This goes to the heart of our judicial system.
This goes to the heart of the two-tier justice system.
This goes to the heart of the deep state, of the elite.
All of the things that they've been fed for years, they believe wholeheartedly in this.
And they put this, and it's almost like getting a liberal, let's say, you know, it's kind of like saying you shouldn't support renewable energies.
And it's like, what do you mean?
That's the like, that's a whole component of, you know, during the Biden administration, the Green New Deal, green energy.
And to let's say, have a Democrat run and say, oh, I have a law of this, but let's build coal plants.
It kind of runs counter to that.
And whatever the policy that they might have that had gone through, you lost that voter because of a core issue.
And I think, Steven, that's something that I'm noticing is that, yes, you can talk about emotions and policies, but in this construct and this specific set of voters, to me, it does feel like it's a policy because it goes into our deeper heart of how they view the government.
And this case is the embodiment of all that.
And there it is, guys.
That is the end of part one, part two, coming up later on.
I want to say again, it's not about left or right.