All Episodes
Previous Next
July 23, 2025 - Lionel Nation
19:22
Redacted EXCLUSIVE: Lionel Exposes Elite Protection Network Behind Epstein

Redacted EXCLUSIVE: Lionel Exposes Elite Protection Network Behind Epstein

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right.
Well, things are heating up in the Epstein case again.
Are you going to get excited, Clayton?
I'll give you a second to get excited again.
Yeah, that's what that looks like?
Yeah, I'm sure we'll get a lot of answers this time.
Yeah.
Okay, you hold your breath.
I will continue to explain.
Attorney General Pam Bondi now says she's open to interviewing Ghelane Maxwell, despite claiming that she hadn't heard before about Epstein's ties to intelligence.
Okay.
Meanwhile, Congress, in order to avoid voting on Epstein disclosure, is just going to go to break.
They're going to take the whole week off because they cannot vote on Epstein disclosure that Democrats tack to the bills that they already wanted.
Now, in court, a judge is holding up the unsealed documents of grand jury testimonies because the defendant might object, they say, but Epstein is dead.
Who can object on his behalf?
So the layers of protection around this man persist long after his death.
Joining us to discuss is Lionel from the Lionel Nation YouTube channel, a New York lawyer and prosecutor.
Lionel, thank you for coming.
You know that I have so many questions that I put together a lightning round because I don't think we can get to them.
And Lionel, you know, I love you, can give long answers, and I appreciate that.
Give lawyer answers.
Lawyer answers.
Yeah.
So shall we do the lightning round first?
And then we're going to get to your in-depth questions.
Okay.
Go, go.
Try and answer these in one sentence or two sentences, Max, and we'll see what we can do.
Okay.
Attorney General Bondi says she hadn't heard about Epstein's links to intelligence.
Is that plausible?
Absolutely.
Okay.
Maxwell being revisited.
How'd they convict her with so many unanswered questions?
Is that possible?
He was charged with conspiring with Epstein.
Hers was not with anybody else.
Hers was not.
She was charged with about three or four different victims regarding transporting them, luring them in for particular sexual trafficking.
Hers was a different.
It wasn't human trafficking.
Yes, the jury heard her, heard the case, and found her guilty.
I think she was acquitted of just one.
So yes, there was nothing wrong with that statute.
They believed victims.
Now, to unseal the grand jury testimony, the court's asking if the defendant objects.
Since Epstein is dead, who could object on his behalf?
That's a misnomer.
The defendant objects because it doesn't really matter because it doesn't belong to the defendant.
It's the subject of the investigation.
She's also the defendant because in that particular case, she would have to say and other people as well.
Because remember, there were victims of this.
There were victims whose testimony, very, very sensitive testimonies were revealed.
And if you look at the criteria of the courts, it's not just objection of the defendant, but the totality of the possible objections and the sensitivity of the matters.
That could be a problem.
I don't think they're going to release it at all.
Okay.
All right.
So then that's a fun little monkey exercise we're doing.
How is Epstein's lawyer allowed to write an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal?
Isn't he still bound by confidentiality?
What lawyer are we talking about, Mr. Dershowitz?
Yes, in the Wall Street Journal piece where he said, there's no clients.
I've seen it.
I would have known, he said over the weekend.
First, I don't know why anybody just doesn't tell him, just shut up.
You're not, you're, you're, every time he says anything, it makes it worse.
That's number one.
Number two, the question you should ask, the legal question is, does the attorney client privilege survive the death of the client?
And the answer is yes.
We saw that during the Vince Foster case.
So you're right.
Just because a client has died doesn't necessarily mean, but he would be saying he's saying nothing that in any way violates or deals with matters that were held in confidence, but matters around the case.
But I still go back to what I said originally.
Alan, please shut up.
Right.
Okay.
Now, one more question in a lightning round.
The federal prosecutor Acosta said that he was told to go easy on Epstein.
Who would have the authority to tell him that?
Who could have the Department of Justice.
And the fact that he would say that is mind-boggling.
And the fact that they would intervene regarding a state case, memory was the Palm Beach authorities who brought this to the attention.
How they intervene.
But it goes to show you, Natalie, the idea at the time, the federal government was just with impunity.
They didn't care how it looked.
They didn't care what you thought.
They just bulldozed.
And Acosta, by the way, by saying that it was other higher pay grade who told him to do this.
The fact that he said that shows the mindlessness of him.
If you do do that, you keep shut.
Well, I believe in the context he said it was when he was being interviewed for the incoming Trump administration this time around, as in this could come back to bite us.
Why did you do that?
That is, it's still, and then he's sort of walked it back since, but the fact that it's been reported that he said it is damning enough for us to want answers.
Okay, so let's go into some in-depth questions.
I want to talk about what we could learn from the grand jury testimony because we had one in 2008 and one in 2019.
The 2019 one was about the 2008 one, where it was just Epstein abusing young girls.
There were no clients in that first case.
So what's the most we could learn from the 2019 grand jury testimony, which seems to be the one they're trying to give us?
First, let's get rid of this term client because that's incorrect.
He's not a pimp.
These weren't his clients and that sort of thing.
Also, these words, I heard you find folks using the word treason.
There was no aiding and abetting another foreign enemy.
Treason's not the word.
Client's not the word.
List is not the word.
Black book is not the word.
Client logs.
It's a very simple thing.
What was your entire, of the 1,000, roughly 1,000 women, women who were considered victims of the 1,000, who were they?
Number one, not to be revealed to the public, number One.
Number two, how many of them want this case to be brought out again?
This is sometimes 20 years old.
Some people have settled, some have moved on, some have families.
So you have to consider what they want.
Number three, how many of them actually identified individuals who had sex with them when they were months?
This is what I want to know.
Next, how were those cases not prosecuted?
And let me also say something to you.
This is going to burst your bubble, so to speak.
Is there anyone on the planet today who has ever said that he ever had anything happen to him or her because of some type of extortion information that was threatened to be revealed?
Is there anyone who's ever made that claim?
No.
We anticipate it.
We think that's what it was.
I submit to you that this is a limited hangout, that the real issue, the real nuts and bolts of the Wexner, the Epstein cabal, the settlements with the JPMorgan and the Deutsche Bank had to do with the most complex money laundering machinations you can imagine.
This is trifling.
The other issue was, what about his French counterpart, who was also found dead in a cell, in a French jail?
That's the one that's completely forgotten.
Focus on that.
These are red herrings.
Everybody thinks that somehow you're going to have some list somewhere that's going to reveal, let's say, just Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, something that you're going to say, aha, look at the list of these predators and look how they got away.
That doesn't exist.
The FBI has lists of the 1,000 roughly 600, 900 victims, they have each said, can you identify somebody who violated you?
Remember, if you're not underage, it doesn't matter.
I don't think trafficking is going to work in this forced fraud or coercion.
We're looking for minors.
How many of them actually involved minors?
That's what we want.
Not clientless who flew on a plane.
Ethel Kennedy was on a plane, for God's sake.
Stephen Hawking, that's not what we want.
We want to know, was there some type of a sex trafficking network specifically involving minors?
If they're not minors, if it was consensual, as crude as this might sound, we're not interested.
I'm suggesting that list is so small, but it's available, not through grand juries.
That's not what you want.
It's the investigative notes, the investigation that the FBI has had since day one.
They've got it right there.
And the fact that Pam Bondi can't pick up the phone and say, tell me what you've got.
She's the attorney general.
And finally, let me just get this out.
My rule, if I was a president, nobody goes on funds ever again unless you're announcing the arrest and hopefully the conviction of somebody.
Stop telling everybody what you're doing.
Stop telling about how we've referred this case to the Department of Justice, how we're looking at Comey and Brennan.
Stop it.
I tell Chelsea Gabbard, shut up.
Why are you going on Maria Bardaromo?
You're not a podcaster anymore.
You work for the federal government.
You keep it quiet.
You don't say anything.
You make these people scared.
Rudy Giuliani never announced until the indictments were made when he indicted the commission.
Why do we know every single step?
We're alerting them.
We're getting them ready.
And the only way we're going to get anything done is if you go back in time and try to extricate and unravel this inherent entrenched corruption that goes from the top to the bottom of the entire federal system.
Federal judges, clerks, people in the DOJ, people who are actually in the federal deep state.
You can talk about this all day long.
This is critical.
There is no way you're going to be able to change this unless you go back and undo and clean house and basically remove the virus that has infected the entire justice system.
Good luck, Pam Bondi.
Right.
Okay.
So a lot like what you told us about the Diddy case is no one was held there without their consent.
A lot of these people were overage.
It was dirty and gross, but it was not illegal.
So what you're saying we could see, because there was accusations that Epstein had girls as young as 12, but a lot of times he used Lex Wesner's connections to Victoria's Secret.
Those girls were not minors, and he could have tangentially invited Bill Clinton around to hang out with girls in their underwear.
But since they were of age...
Go.
I'm sorry.
Look.
My daughter just walked in here and I cannot let her hear this.
Because they were of age, then it's possible there were compromising situations, but not you overtly.
Go back to the modeling in France, the Brunel connection.
Those models.
Right.
Modeling is that's where I would look.
But let me tell you something.
The question I would ask right now, if I were Pam Bondi, who wants to testify now?
Who wants to come forward and go and testify before a grand jury or anybody and explain how you were mistreated, how you did not deserve or receive justice?
That's where we start with people who are ready, willing, and able to speak now, who are underage.
You've got, believe me, more than you can deal with.
You don't need to go back and put out binders and lists.
Stop telling people what you're doing.
It looks clumsy.
It looks like you don't know what you're doing.
And by the way, is Pam Bondi, and I think the world of her, is Pam Bondi hiding?
Why are these minions speaking on behalf of her?
And finally, Natalie, why is everybody announcing everything on Fox News?
I've never seen anything like this.
Why are you telling people what you're doing?
And why are you changing perhaps you're poisoning the water for a potential jury?
You're basically setting up motions for change of venue.
Why are you doing this?
And going back to what you said about Ghelane Maxwell, what are you going to offer her?
Get me out of here.
Compassionate release?
Why do I speak to you?
Are you going to reverse this?
I'm not going to say anything to you.
And if you think the real reason what she's concerned about is her parents or her family, that's what, and nobody's going to protect her on that.
She would probably say, no way.
Look, for all we know, she's got millions in some Cayman Island account somewhere.
She's going to do her time, keep her mouth shut, and that's it.
And I'm going to come and open this up again.
I'm going to unravel this again.
And remember one thing.
This would have never happened had Pambody not gone on TV and said, I have on my desk or whatever it is, a file or a document.
All of that.
Nothing would have happened.
Nobody thought about this.
We forgot it.
It was in bed.
This was an unforced error.
This is an old goal.
What's the point of this?
Just let it go.
Or if you're going to investigate it, don't announce it.
Do it quietly behind the scenes.
And then surprise them with an indictment.
Surprise them with an arrest.
Don't tell people what you're doing.
Don't alert everybody because if you don't follow through with a conviction, you look like you failed again.
Right.
And so even if we put aside the perversion, the sexual perversion, the young girls, all the assault, can we get answers about the money?
Right.
And so in the Daryl Cooper interview with Tucker Carlson last week, he made it quite clear that Epstein knew how to track weapons, how to traffic secrets for multiple governments.
And so that explains what I wrote here is these irregularities, how the FBA raided his island after his death.
The plea deal was structured to block future prosecutions and Coast's conspirators.
Fiscal records still remaining, victims not being noticed.
So it's the money here.
And let's address this last.
How in the heck has the Justice Department failed to interview Lex Wesner?
Is there any excuse for that?
Because clearly the money behind the sex is just as important.
We're very interested in protecting the girls.
I cannot believe that no one has not interviewed him or talked to him.
But let me leave with this question.
What do you think the chances are of somebody saying, okay, we want to send some agents to Israel and find out what the connection was there regarding Intel?
Good luck.
What do you think that's going to do?
You think that's going to come through?
You think anybody's going to be chopping at the bed?
You think President Trump is going to say, nobody, let no stone unturned.
Baby, come clean.
What did you?
Look, let's be real.
We're all adults.
We know what's going on right now.
We know the climate.
We know what you can and can't say.
It's going to hit a point and then stop.
You know and I know what this is all about or what it was then.
Final question.
If this really were the Mossad, like everybody was saying, do you think that they would allow 20 years worth of hard drives and data to sit around collecting dust before it was seized by the FBI?
Don't you think you would seize this as they were accrued?
This stuff, that story doesn't even make sense.
I'm not even sure if they had any tapes, had any files, terabytes of data.
You might have had a lot of surveillance video and ring camera stuff or whatever the equivalent was then.
I think if you really get down to it, this story is so simple.
It's made to sound complicated.
Talk to the victims right now who want to come forward, have them testify before Congress about what happened.
Have them tell the world how they were shunned or ignored, about how they were minors and how they have been forgotten.
Start with that.
Don't worry about a grand jury and logs.
Talk to the victims who want to speak now, who have been ignored here.
Simple.
Okay.
I mean, again, that's one part of it, but it will not help us understand the funding bit.
It will not, and you're right.
You never, never, never, never.
That is what the government's protecting more than the sex crimes is the money, the intelligence.
Not so much that they're protecting.
They're just not interested because with that comes other people saying, if I speak about this, do you want me to talk about Intel connections?
Do you want us, do you really want to?
Well, you do, but ask the people.
Ask if President Trump or DOJ or Cash Patel or whoever's in charge this week goes to CIA and says, are you folks willing to come clean with us?
They'll say, hell no.
What are you doing?
We're an intelligence agency, too.
But that's what we do.
It's like, do you understand that?
Listen, it's nice to have these podcasters playing, you know, law and order here, but I don't think they understand how this thing goes.
This is deadly business.
This is James Bond to the nth degree.
This is serious stuff.
This is life and death.
And one minute they're walking around on, you know, Joe Rogan, and the next thing they're making Intel secrets with Dan Bongino threatening to quit.
By the way, did he ever quit?
I'd have canned his ass a long time ago.
Everybody trying to get their Fox News, trying to burnish their resume so that when they leave office, they'll have a gig later on.
I hate to be so cynical, but if you're in the government and you swear allegiance to the Constitution of this Republic, you also to keep your freaking mouth shut and go home and do your job and be quiet.
You're in hell.
You're secret.
This is what you're supposed to do.
Omartha, keep your mouth shut.
All right.
Well, we're going to stick on this.
Thank you so much, Lionel.
We got a lot covered in a short period of time.
The lightning round worked.
So it's always a pleasure to see you.
And who called Diddy?
Who called Diddy?
You did.
Victory lap.
All right.
Victory lap on that, too.
He was 100% correct.
Yeah.
Lionel, great to see you.
Great to see you.
Thank you, my friend.
All the best.
People are like, no, that's impossible.
Really?
Is that going to happen?
Diddy's going to walk free?
Oh, no.
Yeah, he got that one.
Lionel nailed it.
He nailed it.
He nailed it when everyone's calling him crazy.
No, he's going to go to prison for life.
Nope.
Nope.
▲
Export Selection