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 we are going to get into the second part of the forum held by Mario Nafal on the latest Epstein news, including the fact that Ghelain Maxwell is now offering to testify.
If you watch the first part, you saw it got a little spicy with the CIA guy in the corner.
Only gets a little bit more spicy.
As we go on, I want to remind everybody that I do need your support.
Please consider not only subscribing, thumbs up, but supporting the broadcast in the links down below.
Buying a coffee, $5, $10, $15 means the world to me.
Buckle up and get ready to make sense of the madness.
Well, I think to your point, Sit Rip, there's these different silos of electorate and the MAGA silo, which, you know, there's some Venn diagram between, you know, libertarian, conservative, MAGA, Maha, you know, fear.
And I think the lowest common denominator there is a mistrust in government.
And if we look at COVID-19 and the pandemic response that we had in the United States around the world, the lies, the propaganda, the government coming down, you know, hard on people, locking people down into their homes, you know, forcing them to see their families, et cetera, et cetera.
There's so much packed up anger.
And of course, you have this Epstein thing that's been brewing for years and this idea that the government's lying to us.
There's these cabals.
There's these unelected bureaucrats.
And that essentially the government is this duopoly that pretends to fight in front of their constituents, but ultimately agrees behind closed doors.
And, you know, if you're a MAGA person and you see someone like a Thomas Massey be persecuted for voting against the Big Beautiful Bill because he's a true libertarian leading conservative, then your whole illusion of we're a part of this MAGA movement to take back America and make us prosperous again is being shattered.
When you see Trump back Thomas Massey's primary opponent, I mean, there has to be something there that wrenches at the gut of somebody who's really of a hardcore constitutionalist, conservative, libertarian that says, you know what, maybe these aren't my people.
Maybe this isn't my team.
You know, if we're going to go bomb Iran or we're going to give mRNA vaccines to children, then all the rhetoric that's been stacked up in the last eight years of Trump running for office and totally combating the deep state and everything else, all that goes out the window.
And I think it just increases this disillusionment in government.
And I think there's a real political risk to the GOP now and the midterms coming up because I think they're going to see a lot of dissatisfied voters that are probably going to go libertarian, NPA, or simply stay home.
And I think they better be careful because this is a pretty big single issue for a lot of folks.
And the way that it's being handled, I think, is very reckless.
Can I jump in there?
I want to go there for a second.
You know, these threats that come from these different parts of the coalition, like, oh, you're going to lose us if you don't do X, you don't do Y.
This is not how you have a meaningful political movement.
And I'm sorry, as much as I agree with much of what the libertarians like, I'm anti-COVID lockdown.
I'm anti-mRNA vaccine.
I'm anti-foreign influencing government.
I'm anti-intervention.
I'm all of these things.
But how do you accomplish your goals?
You have to have a coherent strategy.
You need to work together.
And then you have these different groups that want to split off and make some principle higher than winning.
I'm sorry, but the left is the enemy.
They are outright devoted to destroying this country, destroying our heritage, splitting off votes to do nonsense and then end up losing is a mistake.
Donald Trump has delivered real, credible gains.
We are not at war in the Middle East right now.
That's a good thing, right?
And Biden was insane.
That guy wasn't even president.
We can't have them back.
So pro-lifers, sometimes Second Amendment people, libertarians, look, stop grandstanding and stay on message.
Stay focused on delivering results.
The best way to accomplish what you want is to stick with Trump in the long run.
Cricket.
I mean, I can't.
So I think we should bring it back.
And then I'll go to Dave.
Sorry, go ahead, Rickett.
I mean, obviously, Josiah is getting a little emotional here when he's talking about this idea that people, half the country is un-American.
I don't think you can love this country and hate half of it.
I don't think you can hate whole states.
I don't think you can hate all of our cities.
You have to love this country and the people in it and work to make it better.
And there are plenty of liberals and Democratic voters who absolutely love this country.
I haven't seen that.
I couldn't let that one go.
But my question initially to Josiah was, you mentioned this idea of an influencer grift and the fact that you think that there are people keeping this Epstein story in the media because of some sort of clout or internet gain.
When how do you respond to people like Charlie Kirk, who said outright that he was contacted by the Trump administration to not talk about this anymore when you have someone there trying to control that narrative and actually taking money in order to not talk about it?
How is that not a problem?
Well, I can just say two things real quick.
You know, I love America and I hate her enemies.
And we have a lot of enemies in this country who want to destroy my way of life.
And I'm not okay with that.
And we're shattering our sense of national cohesion and identity.
And I find that to be a huge problem.
And the Democratic Party is simply behind that.
So I love this country.
I want to preserve it.
And that's why I'm opposed to the left and what they're doing.
As to your second point, what I mean by influencers is I'm talking about people who've built an audience around pitching a story or an idea.
Like I'm a truth teller and everyone else is a liar.
These are people who are not fundamentally oriented toward accomplishing political aims.
Their goal is to be online, to have an audience, to get subscribers, to sell advertising.
And sometimes that model works is inimical toward accomplishing real change because actually it's better for those people when they're losing.
It's in those moments where people turn to them for support.
You know, when Democrats come into office, the National Rifle Association receives way more funding.
That's just the reality of how some of these models works.
You get perverse incentives.
And I'm not saying that everyone who cares about the story is bad or they're not paying attention.
I'm saying there's an incentive structure here for people to make a story out of something where there are real concrete things that can be accomplished, but they're not really interested in that.
What they're interested in is boosting their own aggrandizing themselves in the public sphere.
Wait, can I ask you something just quickly?
When you got somebody like Steve Bannon who kind of crosses that barrier between influencer and someone who's been in the administration, he's out there saying that you're going to lose 30 to 40 seats if he doesn't address this.
Yet at the same time, you have the paradox, and I get things wrong, folks.
I've been talking about Bannon sitting on eight hours of Epstein interviews, went back, did research.
Supposedly, it's 15 hours of interviews with Epstein.
Why isn't he releasing that?
You know, isn't that a bit of a grift?
You know, I'm not playing team baseball here, everybody.
You know, for instance, you talked about how Trump stayed away from the messaging on Epstein.
You're right, but he always leaned into Epstein.
When he was running in 2015, he made it about the Clintons.
When he was even asked about QAnon, he said he didn't know what was going on, but they sure like him.
Do you think he had no idea what the QAnon phenomenon was?
Do you think people like Bongino and Kash Patel that talked about Epstein literally hundreds of times over the last three to four years on podcasts didn't know that their constituents expected this?
Listen, I was on the Reawaken America tour by chance.
I think I did about 10 of them.
Not a Christian conservative.
I didn't talk about Epstein or right or left issues.
I went there for transhumanism and really to critique Musk on real issues like his defense contracting and military-industrial complex ties.
I will tell you right now, a quarter to half of those people were in total fantasy land telling me stories about how John McCain was tried at Guantanamo Bay for crimes against humanity.
I mean, they don't live in reality.
They really thought superheroes were coming.
So I understand.
when the messaging isn't there, but at the same time, a guy like me that now voted for Trump three times because he was the best choice three times, he came in there and said he was going to stop this conflict in the Middle East.
You say that we're not war in the Middle East?
We're help running what's going on in Israel and Palestine.
That's imagination land, bro.
Yemen is still going on.
I don't even know where people come from when they don't understand these things.
And then on top of that, you look at how he said he was going to stop the war day one, actually beforehand in Russia-Ukraine.
It is a kick in the balls of people like myself that he just gave them $400 million more in Patriot missiles.
And let me end on this.
At the very top, it is a uniparty.
And let me give an example.
For somebody like myself, who's been talking about Julian Assange for years, that guy was released under the Biden administration.
No one said a word.
Trump didn't say anything.
The Democrats didn't say anything.
It didn't come up in the debates.
I mean, think to yourself, there are still third rails out there that these people who are politicians who constantly on both sides over promise and under deliver refuse to address.
I'll leave it there.
Yeah, and if I could jump in very quickly.
For one, there's a generational divide that's going on here, which we need to be aware of.
Donald Trump is almost 80 years old.
He might actually his birthday thing.
It just happened.
He's 80.
He watches television.
He's not online.
He's not reading Twitter.
He's not listening to podcasts.
He's in a different media environment than the rest of us.
And though he uses those social media platforms, it's monodirectional.
That's how he communicates out there.
So some of these things, I don't know how much he's tracking on how important this was to elements of the base.
That aside, as to Trump's actual policies, look, Trump is bringing in people.
I know he's bringing people into his administration like Tulsi Gabbard and many others who are very skeptical of foreign intervention.
Trump also wants to bring peace to places like Russia and Ukraine and wants to put pressure on Putin and others.
Is it going to work?
I have no idea.
What I'm saying is there's a lot of complexity here.
And to be political, to have a movement, you can't just get scope locked on singular issues like Trump's getting all this money here.
Well, you have to look at the totality of the situation and you have to make that case.
Brother, I gave you four issues in two minutes.
I gave you four issues and I could have given you two dozen more.
I'm not a singular issue guy.
All of those issues, whether it be war, arms dealing, accountability, these are, again, multi-administration and multi-generational.
It's not just, I'm not a millennial.
You know, I get offended.
I'm almost 50.
I'm 46, man.
I mean, I'm not, I haven't been happy.
And again, it's a low bar.
Trump has been the best president of my lifetime.
Yes, because of some of the policy.
I liked when he got us out of the Paris Accords, the WHO.
But you got to keep running this train.
He came in hot, telling everybody it was going to be small government.
And then he attacks a guy like Massey.
I wanted Massey in the administration.
I want Mike Lee in the administration.
I want Rand Paul in the administration.
I want people that are actually trying to get accountability.
Listen, Tulsi Gabbard's great.
I like RFK Jr.
We need results, okay?
That's the bottom line.
I don't care who it is, what side it is.
I'm not on any side.
I'm Team America, Team Constitutional Republic, Team Accountability.
We need more of that.
Look, I do want to, I do kind of want to just, because I do want to bring it back a little bit to more of this, because I hear everything you say, Jason.
I, you know, I'm the same team, America, and all that.
I just have a fundamental different view on foreign policy, domestic policy.
But, you know, just again, I think it's kind of what Crick is saying is just fundamental disagreements and then overall.
But, Dave, to you, because I was kind of alluding to this, and again, it goes back to policy and emotions.
And then, Jason, I think we know that I think we've all seen those crowds.
Obviously, when you're saying John McCain is starting Bonton, I was like, okay, all right.
But Dave, I think, but I think what, but one of the things that I think I find interesting in this, right?
And I think that that is kind of was really propelled in the Trump administration, right?
Both in his first and now here and then in between during the Biden administration, was that, again, it goes back to this Jeffrey Epstein as the embodiment of this of this deep distrust in government, which hasn't historically had a lot of influence within U.S. government as a policy, as a movement within the political spectrum, right?
Politics and Tribal Influence00:06:05
I mean, let's look before Donald Trump, who did we have?
Mitt, Romney, Obama, the Bushes, Cheney, Clintons, right?
Like we would say, traditional conservatives, traditional Democrats, you had your liberals.
And then with Trump, there was this new political idea that really, not new, it was there, but came to the forefront of American politics, right?
And I think you can talk about policies, but it becomes a little bit difficult because what I'm hearing from Jason is, I had to stomach the bombing of Iran.
I had to stomach more government spending and rising deficit with the big beautiful bill.
You know, obviously we're moving, you know, the deportation side.
Trump made a comment, then walked it back about maybe giving amnesty to farmers and hospitality workers, then he walked it back.
But what I'm hearing, though, and I think this is what's happening, is like this idea that they have to stomach this.
What I would say, I don't know, again, I'm just going to share this.
Benny Johnson, who is a very influential conservative, right, just tweeted out that he had a conversation with somebody close to the administration.
And what he's saying is there might actually be more, following what Lara Trump said, he had a conversation.
And what it looks like is they're going to release more files and even possibly appoint a special prosecutor because of the pushback they received from Turning Point USA.
So clearly, what this is telling me is that the administration over the weekend tried to bury this under the rug.
And the reason why they can't is not because of the Democrats.
It's the base.
And the base will not swallow this pill and they will demand change.
So I'll go to Dave and then Brian, I'll go to you and then we'll bring in Nate.
A lot of it is it.
Jason mentioned Steve Bannon.
You're also seeing this from Tucker Carlson.
These are some of the biggest voices in that movement questioning this.
And yeah, it's not just about Epstein and the transparency conversation, but it's also the peripheral issues that they wrapped into this on the campaign trail, including, you know, talking about the exploitation of women, like males competing in women's sports.
You know, the Republicans were on the side against exploited women and Epstein was part of that.
So this was a big issue.
And I think the comment that a lot of people are ignoring that is more revelationary than the turn faced by Bondi is when Alina Haba talked about how we would be shocked to see the names that they would produce here.
This was a big part of the campaign.
We're seeing stunning continuity here.
And yeah, we're still at war in the Middle East.
The Yemen blockade, a third of Syria is still occupied.
We're fighting ISIS ostensibly there on the side of the Iranians against the Sunni regime, but now we negotiate with them on Iran.
All this stuff is kind of wrapped up in the duplicity that we've seen from this administration.
And to talk about, you know, standing on principle over issues, like, you know, Josiah was making kind of a pragmatist argument, I feel like, I think fairly so in some regard, that, you know, to take some of the losses, you have to take the successes you're given.
But no, you can compartmentalize issue by issue, single-issue coalitions, nullifying the bad crap and just completely abhorring the other libertarian.
You don't have to be tribe red or tribe blue.
We can be against all forms of perversion.
The last thing I want to say is there's no chance that Americans will just swallow another Warren Commission or 9-11 commission, like opposing Alan Dulles, who JFK dismissed, will head that.
Who's going to head an Epstein commission?
Pompeo or Comey or Clapper?
It's freaking ridiculous.
That will not fly.
Can we?
Also, there's already a committee in Congress that the Republicans set up to investigate this.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is on it, I think.
Let me make a couple of points.
I try really hard to stay away from politics these days for lots of good reasons, but I do have to make a few comments.
Okay.
First of all, since I haven't been on screen with you guys before, I assume it's a rule that just because we're on screen when someone says something we completely disagree with, we don't agree with it, right?
Okay.
So just want that on the record.
Second thing is the Justice Department is the largest law firm in the world.
Okay.
They have tens of thousands of lawyers.
The government of the United States can walk and chew gum at the same time.
We could have the Justice Department trying to get justice for all these victims and also pursue all the other objectives that you guys want the president to pursue.
Second thing is every president, including all three that I work for since Harry Truman 100 years ago, almost 80 years ago, has said the buck stops here.
This is the first time I've ever seen such a systematic effort to claim president has nothing to do with the government that he runs.
He could pick up the phone today and he could say, Pam and Cash, bring me every document that exists on Epstein.
He could have them all reviewed.
He could have them all released.
And it's no coincidence that when Pam Bondi wanted to answer a question in the cabinet room about Epstein, the president shushed her.
Last thing I'll say, two more things.
One, it is just a fact now that other material exists.
You got the redacted documents.
You have these influencers being told by the White House that they're reconsidering releasing documents, which means there are documents.
So I think we can get rid of that trope here.
Last thing is, and this is the closest I'm going to get to politics, I hope.
We heard a huge outcry, and I'm a privacy and civil liberties lawyer.
So some of this was justified in the last administration and even during Trump won that the government was censoring people because they were sending out declassified intelligence warnings about foreign efforts to influence the United States.
I'm not saying whether that was right or wrong, that conclusion, but if that was wrong, it's certainly wrong for the commander in chief of the United States to pick up the phone and tell a self-proclaimed journalist like Charlie Kirk to stop talking about a story.
At least we can be consistent.
I think one other thing we can acknowledge, at least in all of this, that for the accusation that MAGA is a cult, it's clear that they are not.
Statute of Limitations Concerns00:03:19
So let's move on.
I think we wanted to bring in.
Silver lining.
Yeah, silver lining.
I think we wanted to bring Nate into the conversation.
Welcome to the stage.
And you haven't had a voice to say in this yet.
What is your take?
Now, Nate, I'm going to assume because your handle is Nate, the lawyer, you're a lawyer.
There's been a lot of discussion before you got here is, you know, people want things.
They want evidence.
They want people to be arrested.
They want accountability.
Some of the back and forth we had before is I was suggesting that, look, they said they don't have anything else.
This is all they have.
And there have been a couple of trials.
And the fact that nobody else has been arrested means there may not be enough evidence.
And there's been redacted things released.
And people said somebody suggested that they can unredact it.
That's releasing new info.
But then there's legal challenges with unredacting things that might have been redacted for legal purposes.
So nobody's implicated that didn't deserve to be, et cetera, et cetera.
Nate, what is your take on everything?
Let's get you up to speed on the panel and then we'll continue our conversation.
All right.
So first, I want to take this just from the legal perspective in terms of prosecuting unindicted co-conspirators, people who we believe may be on this list who may have done these things with children.
There's a statute of limitations that may come into play with this.
Now, the statute of limitations was changed in 2003 to remove it from things like child porn and other child sex acts.
And then there was a more broader removal of the statute of limitations in 2006, which is known as a John Walsh Act.
So a lot of the crimes that occurred allegedly with Jeffrey Epstein occurred between 2000 and we're talking about 2005.
So some of those co-conspirators who may have committed some crimes with these children may be subject to the statute of limitations.
I think we just lost them.
Yeah, we lost them on there.
All right, let's get back to the conversation.
Now, Brian, I'll ask you, you're a lawyer.
Is there a statute of limitations issue?
Can you pick up where he was saying?
Well, I haven't researched this today, so I don't want to be too absolute about it.
That is the perfect lawyer answer, but yes.
But there have been statutory changes that extend the statute of limitations.
Also, in every statute of limitations, there's what's called a discovery rule.
So if you don't know about a certain thing at a certain time, that can toll the statute of limitations.
But he's right.
There might be some perpetrators who just wouldn't be prosecutable now for various reasons.
Doesn't mean they couldn't still be subjected to accountability, though, including suits if the information goes out there.
Yes, yes, no, definitely.
But so I'm thinking on one end, the statute of limitations problem, if you're a prosecutor, because I was a prosecutor in the Bronx, New York, which was hell.
I'm just going to tell you guys it was hell.
Yeah, yeah, and it's the worst county in New York.
But when you're a prosecutor, you have to think about something like that.
And then if I can't charge you legitimately with the crime because the statute of limitations run out, I shouldn't accuse you because that's unfair to you.
You can't defend yourself because it's like, I believe he did it, statute of limitations, and that essentially accuses you without any type of recourse.
So when it comes to statute limitations, that may be an issue.
Now, I think when it comes to just knowing the names, because that's what we're talking about, right?
Knowing who else was involved.
Focusing on Legitimacy00:13:10
I think you do have the foreign entity piece of it because let's just be honest, the prime minister of Israel going to the island 12 times to meet with Epstein.
We can pretend that that has nothing to do with it.
But if you say it has something to do with it, you're an anti-Semite.
I'm not an anti-Semite, but it's very weird that the Prime Minister of Israel traveled to the islands so many times.
And we have pictures of Bill Clinton getting massages from people of the Epstein.
And, you know, and we have now Epstein's own attorney who represented both Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein out there saying, there is a list.
I know there's a list.
I know whose names are on the list, but I can't say anything about the list.
So I think the issue isn't, and this may be a radical opinion, but I don't think the issue is the list per se.
I think it's the lead up to the list.
I think it's Trump who was president when Jeffrey Epstein was arrested and when Jeffrey Epstein died.
He was privy to all of that information.
What happened in the jail cell?
What happened here?
What happened there?
And then when he lost the election or if the election was stolen, whichever view you want to take, for those four years that he was running for president, it's not like he said there's nothing there.
He was telling people, hey, I'm going to release it.
There's craziness.
He started making fun of these people.
And if anyone knew what were in those files, the president of the United States who was there at that time he was arrested would absolutely know.
And then he runs.
We all believe him.
He gets back in office.
And on top of that, he goes and hires people who were saying the same thing.
Jeffrey Epstein didn't commit suicide.
This, this, this.
There's a list.
There's a list, right?
He hired all those people.
He hired Pam Bondi.
She's up.
The list is on my desk.
So I personally was absolutely convinced the guy who was in office and know the stuff was there.
He hired all these people to put the stuff out.
And then when they started saying there's nothing here, I was skeptical.
And then the thing that flipped me, because I will say straight up, I supported Trump.
And I still think even today with Epstein, President Trump is better than President Harris.
If you disagree with that, then I'm sorry.
You just don't live in reality.
President Trump today is still better than President Harris.
Anybody else is saying that, I think it's just a lunatic.
But President Trump lost me with that statement because that statement that he put out over the weekend blamed Obama, Clinton, and all these other people for the list.
And at that point, I knew he was trying to cover.
Now, I don't know if he's covering for himself.
I don't know if he's covering somebody else, but that didn't ring true.
And then he had the nerve to say, well, let's not look into this old stuff, but then talk about we're investigating a 2020 election.
Well, guess what happened back during the 2020 election?
Epstein had killed himself back then.
So I think the only way he can actually make this right is he should do it like they buried the 9-11 stuff.
You do it like they buried the JFK stuff.
And you know how they did it?
You have this committee, the special prosecutor, they look at this stuff for five or six years, and then 10 years down the line, they say, hey, we got nothing.
I think Trump just miscalculated the base.
He miscalculated that people would actually believe him and would actually take what he was saying as truth.
And we did.
And this was the point where we were like, hold on, we believed you.
And it seems like you're lying to us because all the evidence says you're lying to us.
Now, I think the way you clean it up is exactly what they're proposing doing.
Special prosecutors is just bury it in the process.
That's the way you bury it.
But you don't just tell us that we are all dummies and don't understand what's going on because we do.
We do.
Everybody in this room is hyper intelligent.
And we all know when we just, when this is BS.
And if anybody here, this is not BS.
I'm sorry.
I just, you know, I think you're being unreasonable.
I mean, I think one thing I would throw out there is that, you know, politicians say a bunch of stuff and Trump more than others will just, it's a beautiful list.
It has all of my enemies on there.
It's going to be amazing.
And then you get it and you're thinking, oh, you know what I mean?
I never put that much stock in this case.
I mean, the striking thing to me is I'm, of course, able to believe that there are foreign infiltrators in our government.
I'm able to believe that powerful people do all kinds of bad stuff.
I see it every single day.
So to me, the hard part is to say, we'll go after that stuff.
I mean, that's how you get the legitimacy back.
And that's separate from this particular case, but I think it's just the overarching problem.
Why are people so bad?
Joseph, listen, listen.
First of all, he never said beautiful list, but what he did just say is all the documents are Democrat documents.
That's imagination land, bro.
Like, again, the vast majority of the public documents that we now have are documents that were filed in lawsuits in civil court from the victims.
And much of that has still been kept from the public.
We do have the 2008 case.
But again, just like the CIA lawyer was talking about, that's a non-prosecution deal where literally four or five other people, Sarah Kalin, maybe.
Leslie Groff, maybe.
I mean, names that we know from other reports were protected in.
And then when you look at that, and let's just show people really quickly.
I mean, you're talking about people.
Like Jess Staley, that after Epstein was convicted, hanging out in the hot tub with them, and later on is part of what?
The outcry that they were joking about him with young girls in Disney dresses, and then they pay the $290 million, but they only pay it if they can be protected.
How do they protect themselves?
Mrs. George's office has also reached out to some of Mr. Epstein's former employees in the Virgin Islands.
She said her office was trying to navigate around non-disclosure agreements that Mr. Epstein had signed with many of his team.
She said that the estate should commit to releasing the employees from those agreements, which they did not.
And then just the existence of the NDAs casts a shadow of a doubt.
They did that with the victims.
Again, some of the victims didn't even get to get in on the compensation fund.
In fact, I wish Nick Bryant had stuck it out.
He talks about two very credible victims that could discuss what it looked like inside of Epstein's home, and they weren't 14.
They claimed to be 10.
Now, again, I stick to what I can prove, but to say that there's not documentation that this stuff does not exist.
Here's the deal.
If they wanted to be honest about this, they could have kept things secret and then gone prosecution style and actually gone after maybe a few others.
And that maybe would have satiated people.
With no other prosecutions, right now there's a reason Glene Maxwell says she's going to talk behind the scenes because she can.
She kept her mouth shut because she thought she was maybe going to get off on appeal and she knew what she was charged with.
Even if she didn't get off on appeal, she would eventually be released.
So right now, you know, if we do get a 9-11 commission style, that's, I mean, that's bogus.
In fact, one of the things that Trump has played into that we were lied to about 9-11, which we were.
You want to talk about a corrupt FBI.
I mean, I've been reporting for years.
I mean, they talk about that Al Biyumi case with the CIA.
We've known since 2002 that these guys lived with and rented from an FBI informant.
You know, we know that there were reports prior to 9-11 that Flight 11, in particular by James Wood, this is also reported by Seymour Hirsch.
They had four of the hijackers, nothing done.
Walid Al-Shieri had the CIA called on him by his neighbor, Deborah Albriton.
Nothing.
A bunch of these people trained at U.S. bases.
Brian's laughing.
Everything I said is factual.
I think I know why Brian is laughing is because, I'm sorry, Seymour Hirsch.
Like, I got it.
But, like, well, when's Hirsch lost in court?
Has he lost in court?
Okay, let's be real how the U.S. justices work to defamation and stuff like that compared to other countries.
And here it's a lot.
But I like what I would say is, and I think this goes to kind of the problem.
And Brian, I'll let you answer anything you want to, but let me just, I think this is the issue.
I personally believe, even if there's more lists, like more information, right?
I'm not convinced that it's enough maybe for prosecution.
I'm not a lawyer.
I think that's a problem that is happening, right?
Can I jump in here?
Because I was a prosecutor.
Let me just point with your date.
Let me finish my point here just very quickly.
And I think that this is the problem that I think Donald Trump is running into.
Because again, there's two options.
It's either a cover-up or it was over, or people were played to.
And they leverage this for political support and votes.
The problem is, I don't think there's never going to be enough evidence presented to show, oh, see, there's nothing else there.
There's nothing else.
So the segment that was played to is never going to accept that answer, even though that's the truth.
The outrage is never going to be, I was played, you touched my emotions and my feelings about Jeffrey Repstein and all this and the conspiracies and blah, blah, blah.
It's always going to fall back to you're covering up.
It's like the JFK.
No matter how many times, like, here's everything, literally everything.
There's just, here's all the information.
Exactly.
Like, it's never enough.
And I think what, and I think that's the thing about the American political system is that.
You might run into an issue where somebody else tries to get into power and say, I can give you more.
And it's just because it's playing into people's emotions for political reasonings rather to just be brutally honest and say, guys, sorry, there's nothing here, but that's, but you fed, you created that.
But Stefano, let me just ask you something because you just said, I kind of get the feeling when you say there's nothing else left or there's nothing else here for JFK, for example, right?
You're just taking the authoritative source of the day's word.
Let me give you an example on what I'm waiting for for JFK.
Warren C. Debru, who was the FBI station chief in New Orleans, who followed Oswald to Texas, okay?
In one of those FBI, wasn't his obituary.
They basically give a small run of the things that they've done.
And one of the things Debru did was the initial 800-page report on the scene for the FBI on JFK.
It's on the record.
That's an authoritative source.
Did we get that?
They told us they gave us everything.
That's my point.
You're taking the state as the arbiter of truth here.
Okay, here's a perfect example.
I understand what you're getting at, but this is what I get at, for example.
And I know Brian might understand this.
Brian has much more experience than I do in the intelligence world.
I did military intelligence.
I have a separate, but not as long as Brian, and definitely not in the position he was at.
But here's a perfect example where there were JFK files that were released, right?
That were declassified.
And people were focusing on the text.
Let's, I don't remember because I remember this was something in the Mario thing.
It's like something insane.
It was an incredible, but like everybody was focusing, and then nobody was focusing on the top, which basically said, this comes from a first-time unverified source.
And as Brian can attest to, how many times in the Intel world you get information and it's unverifiable or the source is unreal and you just, if you don't understand, it's like it's like legal limbo, linguo, right?
There's legal terms that lawyers understand fluently and perfectly, but for the rest of us, we're like, we have no idea what the hell this means.
It's very similar in the intelligence side of the house, where there's lingo that is said, but you're missing the important context of, is this a reliable source?
What's the source rating?
What is it saying?
And I think that's the thing.
Now, in the law enforcement side, in the investigation side, I can't talk to you about it.
I've never been a prosecutor.
I've never been an investigator.
I've never done any investigation.
So I can't attest to that specifically.
But you're proving my point, though, Jason.
You're proving exactly what I'm arguing, which isn't, is there a cover-up or people were played to?
It's regardless of what the answer is, there is this sense, there is this.
And I think this is something that Josiah is trying to get at, right?
Or David even.
It's no matter what you give, it's never going to be enough.
But the question then becomes, who's at fault for that?
And I think the problem is, is maybe not Donald Trump, because I would agree with you.
Donald Trump didn't run Eft as much as others, because again, he was the president.
But you can't tell that about Bondi.
You can't say that about Kash Patel.
And you sure tell Ken St. Don Bondino.
Witnesses and Plea Deals00:05:08
They were going at it.
You brought them into the you put them.
This is your court.
This is your responsibility.
So either all three have to go, but even if they all three of them go, you're never going to satisfy the crowd of people that you created by saying there is this grand conspiracy.
Because again, the Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy did not come unlike Russia game or the Russia scandal or whatever, which came from the Democrats or John McCain or the establishment, how Republicans want to say it.
This came internal to the MAGA movement.
This was a MAGA movement.
That was what was created.
You have to deal with it.
And I think the problem is the Trump administration doesn't know how to deal with it.
And whatever they do, it's never going to be enough.
Well, Senator, can I make a point?
We'll go to others.
Go ahead, Nate.
Yeah, I just wanted to make a point about the evidence for criminal prosecutions.
Just real quick, let's, if we just go with what we've heard over the years, we have Ghelaine Maxwell, who is there, right?
She can obviously testify about what she did.
She was the madam, for instance, right?
She knows.
We got the playing logs.
We have, what did Pambody said?
Hours and hours and hours of video of children having intimate relations with other people.
Who's on those tapes, right?
Who is there?
And also, we have something pretty shocking.
We have the 200-plus live victims who were alive at that time who can also tell us.
We have the court records.
We have the depositions.
We have all of this beautiful evidence to tell us who was doing these things with children, enough for at least an indictment or at least a real inquiry into the situation.
Now, if you're telling me videotapes, witnesses, and live witnesses saying you did is not enough to get a conviction, I think it's enough to at least go to trial, right?
Because the standard to go to trial is so.
Let me ask you this as a lawyer.
So here's the thing.
I mean, we've had two trials, right?
There has been evidence that's in the with 300 gigabytes, according to the memo that went out that started all of this a couple of weeks ago at this point.
There is evidence.
There is testimony.
There are quote unquote victims.
So it's not like this doesn't exist.
So how come then nobody else has been named or prosecuted?
As a lawyer, I mean, what would you think the reason is?
Is it a cover-up or is it the fact that there's not just not enough evidence?
There's civil lawsuits, by the way.
There have been civil lawsuits, which has a lower burden of proof.
So if the evidence is there and there's civil lawsuits with separate people, why not the criminal ones?
Well, I would say this.
If you tell me you have video of men and children having relations on U.S. soil, that seems like enough evidence to me to put that person in the room doing that particular thing.
So the odds are it doesn't exist then, right?
She says, unless they don't exist, but then she tells us it exists.
So the odds are either they don't exist or don't forget prosecutors also have.
So there are some witnesses, like even in a Diddy trial.
Like for instance, I always like to say this, Cassie Ventura was an unindicted co-conspirator.
She admitted to having, to paying prostitutes and travel and bringing people over and even sometimes even some trafficking.
She even admitted to some light trafficking, but she was an unindicted co-conspirator because they really wanted to get Diddy.
Now, I'm thinking there could be some CIA or some motive in saying it's just not worth it for us prosecuting these people at this time because they're still helpful to the government overall.
And by exposing anyone on the list, we could destroy what we have built.
It's essentially moving up the chain or still trying to keep sources and methods quiet.
So again, I don't know what their issues are, but I assume the American people are smart enough that if there's evidence and the victims are alive.
But I think one of the things, I think one of the things, because I hear this a lot, and I know there are cases of like, especially like intelligence reported, that cannot be used in criminal cases, right?
So that's why a lot of times they're too separate.
Yes, of course.
I wish Brian was and he can kind of go in.
But what I would say, for example, but I think what you're high going up the ladder, like, I mean, here's a clear example recently during the Trump administration, right?
And I think this is just standard practice in any, right?
One of El Chaco's sons, the famous El Chaco, his son is in U.S. prison.
He entered into a plea deal with the U.S. government.
They even brought 17 members, El Chaco's family, were granted asylum in the United States as part of this plea deal during the Trump administration, right?
And Ovidio Muzman specifically, they were brought in and he, now Ovidio Muzman entered into a plea guilty deal likely to target either a more senior Sinaloa cartel member that is in current U.S. prison or for future prosecutions against corrupt Mexican officials.
So I think a lot of times the answer is more clear, which is, as you alluded to, going up.
And our best way of getting there is to enter into plea deals or maybe, you know, immunity agreements.
We see that all the time.
And I think that's what's going on.
But, you know, Stephen, I'll go to you and then Dave.
Decades Of Government Lies00:06:46
Again, it goes back to, let me ask you this, Tim.
And then I want to ask this also to Dave.
What would be enough?
What would be enough to satisfy what you think is left?
Because let's say there's no videos.
Is there any, like, if that's the case, is that then mean I don't believe the government?
I mean, how can they prove to you there's no videos?
And if you believe it, then is the argument, Pam Bondi's got to go up because she lied to all of us in her face.
Well, I think one of the things you have to think about is the all-time low in trust of government.
After 9-11, the government said that the air was safe to breathe in New York.
And we found out decades later that it was not.
So that doesn't mean that holograms flew into the World Trade Centers, but it certainly begs the question, what else we don't know about the events that transpired?
Even leading up to the 28 redacted pages of the 9-11 Commission report that were released a few years ago.
That was actually the initial congressional investigation.
I just got to correct you.
So those 28 pages, and they were eventually released, but not the 9-11 Commission report.
Right.
Gotcha.
So, you know, if you look back to the decades, the many lies in regards to a lot of things the government's told us, I think that people want some kind of assurance that, you know, this is it.
There's nobody else in on it.
I don't know what it's going to take, but I think the flip-flopping of the Trump administration certainly makes people understandably uncomfortable, especially since COVID, especially, you know, just in the 20th century alone.
How many years did it take for us to find out about Operation Northwoods?
The government almost hijacked a, was it a Cuban, an American airliner or blew up a boat in the port of Miami and blamed it on the Cubans as a false flag operation to go to war in Cuba?
So, you know, these things happen.
The government at one point, Operation Mockingbird, went in and during, I believe it was the early 20th century, was in control of the media, actually infiltrated as editors in the media.
It's a real thing.
So what else don't we know?
What else are we going to find out 20, 30, 40 years from now?
So it begs the question.
I think people like Jason, who, you know, may be proven right tomorrow or a decade from now as more and more eventually trickles out as more lawsuits, as more victims come out, as perhaps future administrations or future movements to find out more about what happened on Epstein's Island.
But I'll never forget when I was down in St. John, passing Epstein's Island, and I asked one of the locals what goes on there.
And he says, evil things, evil things happened there.
And they had some choice stories for me.
The locals knew.
This is an open secret.
So, of course, we don't know.
We don't know.
I don't know what it's going to take to satisfy the American people, but I think some modicum of sincerity from the administration would probably go a long way, but they just have not been sincere.
And, you know, to turn around and say, don't even think about it.
Why are you talking about this?
It just seems to me like gaslighting the MAGA base and the American people and people like myself who want to see justice and want to see something come out of this.
But it's not clear to me that they're interested in addressing it.
So I don't think it's going to go away.
Well, look, I'll say this.
There's news cycles have a tendency to change very rapidly.
And I know this is an issue now.
MAGA base, if we're going to basically put this on them, if the MAGA base, if we think they're concerned about Epstein, they're equally concerned about COVID.
They're equally concerned about January 6th.
They're equally concerned about the 2020 election.
And there's a litany of things that could definitely come out.
Pam Bondi could announce something tomorrow and all of a sudden people will forget about this.
I certainly think maybe it's just slow news.
I don't know.
But we've had a lot of valid points.
David, can I just make one last point about documentation just really quickly?
Just really quickly.
Edward Snowden, probably his biggest revelation, it was not that we were being spied on by our own government.
That actually came out via Hepting versus AT ⁇ T, where Norris Insight systems were put into all of our telecommunication office.
And essentially every communication went to the NSA.
It was thrown out of court twice.
The thing that was very important that Edward Snowden talked about is that he had went to a document that was classified.
And sometimes we were talking about redactions here, right?
He would have something redaction.
He talked, and I believe he said this on Rogan, so anyone can go check it out, that he saw a document that was totally fake that they had planned in case they had to release something.
So now we're not talking about redactions.
We're talking about a government at the highest levels with one of the biggest whistleblowers that has covered their tracks in some regards so much that they are going to be willing to release and probably have released fake documentation, David.
That's really, I think, an important thing to say.
I want to answer Citrap's question about what would satisfy people that are skeptical on this, cynical on this, the American people questioning this.
I can speak for myself, not all dissidents, but for me, it's complete releases of all documentation within the deep state about conversations that Epstein had with intelligence assets, not only in the U.S., but foreign ones.
Complete interviews with Leslie Wexner, who no one pretends even exists anymore and is just hiding in a cave somewhere over this.
Complete interviews with Ehud Barak, all completely transcribed and released unedited.
And let's dispose of this notion that nothing else exists or no videos exist because even mainstream media reported that in his house contained a safe with discs that said young X plus Y.
We know that exists and they're covering it up.
Also, Epstein told a New York Times reporter, and this was revealed just days after his death, his suicide, right?
The New York Times reporter said off the record, Epstein said he had compromising information on these prominent people and what their sexual proclivities were and what their illicit drug use was.
And also, by the way, an itemized list of all the videos Pam Bondi referred to.
We never asked for that to be released, by the way.
We don't want child porn released, but we do want people to take a look at that, itemize a list of who the culprits were involved in those crimes and show that to the American people so that we can tell for ourselves whether there were no connections to Epstein there.
Epstein's Revelations00:13:08
So that's just kind of an amalgam of what I think regarding that.
But, you know, but to your point, I mean, this is the important part.
And look, and we're going to have to wrap, but we're going to be talking about this more this week as more information comes.
Here's the thing, though.
People want justice, right?
And there's a couple of lawyers here, and I think all the lawyers at least will agree with me that just because people want justice, we don't destroy justice in pursuit of it.
And by that, being like, well, we want answers.
We want people to go just let's just go and release names and put people on.
And we can't do that because when you start going and trying to find ways to hold people accountable, you're losing your objectivity.
And we really don't want to use the justice system in that way, regardless if you're a Democrat or Republican.
Nobody feels good when we're like, well, I know we should be responsible, but this case is heinous and we should really go out of our way to make sure the public is happy with the outcome of the case.
So on that point, but the other thing is, I mean, look, and this is where we're at: is we have to kind of see how this progresses.
If there is enough public outcry, the government does belong to the people.
And if the people don't trust the government or people disappointing the government, there are elections.
Elections do have consequences.
But you know what?
A lot of things happen before elections too.
And we have Congress.
Congress is there.
I've seen there's reports.
I don't know how accurate the reports are that they're seriously considering the special investigator.
Maybe things will change and maybe we'll come out of this.
Maybe we'll get more information as time goes on.
And maybe that was the point of the Lara Trump interview today on Benny.
I don't know, Stefano Sitrap.
I'll send it back over to you.
What are your final thoughts on all this?
No, what I would say is, you know, I kind of played along all the sides and everything on this.
And I know sometimes I'm going to get TED Tag, but as I say, I'm always more open for debate.
What I think the problem here for the Trump administration, because if they release more files, maybe the special prosecutors is a way to bury this further.
But if they start releasing more, then I think it gives ammunition to the people who've been critical to Trump, saying, you lied to us again.
You say there's not.
There's political pressure with your base.
And now you give us more.
And again, and it continues.
You see, it just continues and continues.
And I think the problem that the Trump, I don't know, again, this is not a case that I track intimately as much as, let's say, Jason or others and all the Brian and all that.
I just hear more for the debate.
But what I think the underlying issue for the Trump administration is you created this.
And not only, maybe not necessarily President Trump, Dan Bargino, Kash Patel, AG Bonnie.
Without a doubt.
You're leaving out Roger Stone.
He's helped us along too.
And he's just made some commentary on Maxwell.
I mean, he was a big part of that too.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And so, and I think, and I think that's the thing.
And so you created an image of distrust in the Biden government, you know, the Biden administration.
President Trump ran on this deep state, the swamp, and all this.
And I think, in a way, Epstein embodied that, embodied this image, maybe outside of the government, but of this of this elite, especially unelected elite.
And I think this case is it because it had all the symbols of just horrendous crimes.
And they ran on it.
And now, for whatever reason, because there isn't or there is, and they don't want to release it, they have made the situation worse.
And they have created a crisis within their own political movement that is opening others to criticize it.
And I think the problem is this is causing a lot of people who would believe Donald Trump to lose confidence in him.
And I think they need to address this quickly.
But the problem they're going to run into is if they start releasing more information, why wouldn't people say, you lied to us again?
And I think this is where this political, look, outside of the overarching criminal investigation, civil lawsuits, et cetera, from that angle.
I think that is going to be a fundamental problem from the Trump administration.
Because if they start to release more, there's always going to be that underlying question.
I would even ask myself, wait a minute, if you said there was none and now you released more.
You got to be at that point.
I'm like, okay, you're hiding something.
There's got to always be more.
Either stick to it and say, if this is, there's nothing more, this is it.
Like, I'm sorry, guys, we apologize.
We promised you the earth and the moon and all this.
And we lied.
We don't have it.
We entered government.
We didn't know.
We thought Biden was lying.
Sorry, you know, this is all we got.
If they release more information to me at that point, I'm jumping into the thought process.
Like, you're hiding a lot more and you're trying to give crumbs to satisfy a voter block or the American people that at this point, I don't think will ever be satisfied.
And now the conversations will be, why isn't President Trump releasing the entire thing?
And is it because there's something on him in these files?
I don't know.
I just think this is an unmitigated disaster one way or another.
That is distracting, as this guy was alluding to earlier, other priorities.
And I think Bondi should be held accountable for releasing this memo that Axus got access to, excuse me, shortly after passing the One Big Beautiful Bill.
I think people could have waited.
Coincidence.
Well, okay.
So if it's a coincidence, maybe, maybe they thought it would have been a bit buried.
I don't think it's a coincidence for the record.
So maybe Bondi hate, I don't know why she would hate it because it's like literally everything they wanted from a judicial point of view and an immigration deportation point of view.
But like she should just be fired on that alone.
I don't think there was, correct me if I'm wrong, the panelists here, there was no congressional law saying by this time you have to release it.
There was no campaign promises.
And if even there was like, oh, we're gathering more embedded evidence.
We're a little bit delayed.
Sorry, guys.
Just give us a second.
Why did she release it then?
And I just think they have to stick to it from a political sense.
They have to stick to that.
Because if not, forget it.
I mean, to your point, Stefano, when it was released, none of us thought it was real.
Like, that's how out of the, like, out of the blue it was.
You got everything else out of it.
There's no way this is real.
Why would it come out on a Sunday night?
And also, you know, considering all the, and again, I don't know if it's conspiracy, but giving all the talk, like the conversations around Israel being involved, it also comes out the night before Netanyahu comes to the United States.
I'm like, this can't be real.
They tried.
They tried so hard to muddy the waters even more.
He just acknowledged that, and look, again, it goes back to the street because I think a lot of people here were talking about the media.
A lot of the information that we got from the FC came from mainstream media, came from news organizations.
The memo came from Axios.
And I think this is kind of the irony of the situation where people have always blasted it.
It's like, no, these are like, we would not have known about all this if it wasn't for the Miami Herald.
Full stop in the first Trump administration.
I mean, I mean, Jason, I mean, I know there's more.
Well, let me just say this.
I wish Nick had stuck around.
Obviously, he had, you know, connection issues, but Bryant, who was here very briefly in the beginning, he tried to go to the mainstream media with the flight logs, with the Black Book.
And remember, it was Gawker.
Okay.
That's my point.
It's the tabloids.
It's the tabloids.
TMZ, 20 plus years later, doing stuff on 9-11, showing that United 23 was another target.
And there were other co-conspirators that we've never heard about.
Meanwhile, we got guys down in Guantanamo Bay that his base seems to love and thinks that the super secret squirrel force is down there doing good stuff.
They're not.
Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, who's never had a real trial, is in military tribunals.
And we just accept, you know, that's one of the bad guys.
That's one of the bad guys.
Look, when we talk about this being the most transparent administration, it doesn't help their case when they say they want to put illegals down in Guantanamo.
There was a time in this country in 2008 when every Democrat up there, the Barack star, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, along with real people like Dennis Kucinich and Mike Revelle, said, we're going to close Guantanamo.
Why?
Because we had a more educated populace that wasn't just celebritarded out and social media up.
And they were like, hey, this is bad news.
We don't want to be in the Middle East.
We don't want unaccountable military facilities that are, I mean, that CIA guy took just talk crap about John Keriaku, the one decent human being in the Central Intelligence Agency when there were many reports that we were torturing these people, that we were waterboarding them.
And you look at Abu Ghraib, waterboarding would have been a picnic.
Just see what was published there.
Thank God for people like Keriaku.
Okay.
So I think Abu Ghraib, though, I do want to highlight because one of my units was there.
I was part of a military police battalion.
I was an activity.
And I think what I know people talk about the CIA and all that, and I got it.
That it was a prison that was on interrogation.
That was a new, the torture and all that was 100% a military police unit that went absolutely nuts.
And I would say the fact that more people were not held accountable and then just kind of ended at those, like that should have gone all the way up to chain of command.
Because I know, I actually know, I believe it was a colonel who led the investigation there.
And he laid it out in one of our classes in the briefing he said.
And he laid out this was a failure.
Again, I know people are saying of absolute the chain of command.
And he even said more people should have been held accountable.
And I think to your point, they just wanted this to move on, even though there was a clear understanding that this was unacceptable.
And they tried to not release the images.
They tried to get, look, no, that had to be released to the American public because that is it.
But it goes to my point.
I think that's where we realize that a lot of this sometimes we're not going to know unless we have, you know, we have our influencer, we have our Twitter, we have that.
But look, you know, mainstream media plays a role.
And a lot of the information we have here is because of these investigative reporters.
I could have done better in the past, 100%.
But I think that's what the, we're not going to know more until more of that happens.
And I just think to end this out, David, I think the Trump administration has to do something, either stick to it or figure something out.
Because at this point, maybe the solution is firing Bondi.
Because I can tell you right now, if Dan Bongino goes, what you thought was a crisis within MAGA, if Don Bongino goes and Bondi stays, that would be bigger than this story.
100% bigger than this story.
If you think we're doing a lot of spaces on this, we just rename Mario's channel the Bongino coverage channel.
I just feel if people are fired, but there's still no answers.
It doesn't solve anything for the dissidents that are already upset about this.
If heads don't roll and there's no explanation.
If Bongino becomes a hero, he can be a Snowden.
You know, say the truth about what problem you have with Bondi, be a whistleblower, and then you're our new Snowden or Assange.
That's what I would like to do.
Yeah, but then still nobody goes to jail.
And let me just make the point to Stefano.
I totally agree with him that the mainstream media has a place.
In fact, a lot of my reporting, the vast majority of it, is from mainstream reports.
How else would I back up what I'm saying unless I was on the road for the last hundred plus years gathering this information?
Problem is that you get these little tiny morsels of truth here and there, and it's a buffet of lives on the narrative bin.
Okay.
And there's constantly a narrative out there that doesn't fit with the facts, just these convenient things that they want to focus on or misrepresent purposely.
That's my biggest point.
And I would just say this, if people want to see that, all my docs are free.
Fabled Enemies, Loose Change Final Cut, Invisible Empire, and Shade.
They're free.
My channel on YouTube, Jason Burmes, go check them out.
Find out whether or not I told you the truth about the FBI and the military-industrial complex on 9-11.
Find out that Joe Biden met with the money man in Pakistan behind 9-11.
You talk about the congressional investigation?
That was Porter Goss and Bob Graham.
Porter Goss and Bob Graham also having breakfast with that same gentleman in D.C. that morning.
I've got Bob Graham in the movie talking about that meeting with General Mahmoud Ahmed, who gave him that money.
What does Porter Goss do after that?
Becomes the head of the Central Intelligence Agency.
There is a tier that goes beyond left, right, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal.
And we have to find a way to pierce that tier.
Piercing the Tier00:02:35
Atorus, I do want to ask you one question because you mentioned that they have to pick a lane and stay in it.
But at this point in time, which lane do you pick?
Because whatever they say, you could play opposite.
There is no more files.
But then Trump just did this long post saying, guess what?
There are more files, but they're created by the Democrats.
So it doesn't seem like there's really anywhere to go from here because whatever you say, they're nothing else or there's more stuff.
You have them on the other side.
So to me, this just seems like a total disaster.
And there's really no way out except just, you know, bury it in some type of long, drawn-out investigation because you can't make anybody satisfied.
I think on that note, what do you think, Stefano?
Yeah, I think it's time we do have to wrap.
I mean, look, it's been almost two hours.
We had a long list of guests.
David, as always, thank you very much for being a fellow co-host with me in this.
Great conversation.
Thank you.
And but we're going to have a lot.
So to all our listeners and viewers here, please make sure you follow everybody here.
David, Josiah, Dave, Stephen, Nate, the lawyer, Jason, and then we had Brian Cricket.
And I think I'm missing somebody.
And if I am, I apologize.
But with that being said, again, thank you so much for joining us.
We are definitely going to have another one this week.
So make sure you're following Mario's account to track it and always stay in the loop because we definitely always have breaking news spaces or the live streams coming in because the news is 24-7 and we always cover it 24-7.
And with that, thank you, everybody, and have a great rest of your day.
Thanks for watching.
Peace out.
Thanks, guys.
Thanks, everybody.
It's been great meeting everybody here.
I have not seen most of you guys before, but my name is Dave Bloy.
I'm big on YouTube, but it's great seeing you guys.
And I'm going to be, I'm going to look, I'm going to look you guys up, but it's just great to finally have a space with people who are knowledgeable about these issues.
Yeah, likewise, Nate, I tried to, I think I added about all of you on Twitter, but thank you guys for the discussion for sure.
Perfect.
Yeah, I'm looking you guys up and finding.
And there you go, guys.
Once again, I hope that you enjoyed that debate.
Those forums are a gravy train with biscuit wheels for a guy like this because I get to really try to dispel myths on all sides and take on all comers.
If you like what you see, please consider that donation.
$5, $10, $15 means the world to me.
We need those big donors.
More than ever, I want to thank everybody that tunes in, shares, and all the new watchers and listeners out there.