Megan Kelly and Ben Shapiro dissect the Jeffrey Epstein controversy, analyzing Attorney General Pam Bondi's credibility crisis after overpromising unreleased files and debating theories that Epstein was a Mossad asset or blackmailer. They scrutinize conflicting autopsy reports, edited prison cell videos, and the $160 million Leon Black check while addressing the "Auto Pen" scandal where Joe Biden allegedly granted pardons without physical signatures. Ultimately, the hosts argue that the administration's opacity and lack of evidence for cover-up claims necessitate urgent congressional subpoenas to restore public trust and ensure full transparency regarding these sensitive matters. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at Noon East.
Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show and happy Monday.
There is so much going on.
I feel like we start every week that way, but it's true.
I was down in Florida this weekend speaking to the future of the conservative movement at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit.
We'll play you a clip from that later.
But one of the big topics of the weekend, not just from my conversation with Charlie Kirk, but from the young people in that audience and virtually every presenter was Jeffrey Epstein.
It was one week ago today we were talking about that leaked DOJ FBI memo that was dropped in an Axios report.
And here we are a week later.
This story's far from over.
I think the DOJ hoped they would put this thing to bed with that memo.
Clearly, it hasn't happened.
Conservatives are up in arms over this thing.
Not all, but most, I'd say, and certainly all the young people at that turning point event.
And now the liberals have kind of finally looked over at the other side of the aisle and said, maybe we're into Epstein too.
You know, we're into Epstein.
After for years just dismissing it as a conspiracy theory, now that they think it can hurt Trump, suddenly they're expressing interest.
It's such bullshit.
It's like, look, this has never been my main story.
As you know, we've covered it over the years as news has been made.
But like, let's not be so nakedly political over the molestation of little girls.
Fuck these Johnny come lately's who just want to use it as a battering ram over Trump politically.
It's such bullshit.
All right, we'll get into that.
Plus some wild new details about former President Biden's use of the auto pen.
He doesn't, he wasn't there.
I'm sorry.
It was like an oral authorization, maybe, that his staff then put into writing that went through like a game of telephone before it actually got entered into the auto pen.
Seems like even some of his staffers were feeling a little sketchy about whether in fact he had authorized it and were asking for more proof.
We've got two great guests for all of this today.
Joining me later, Substack journalist Michael Schellenberger.
But we begin with my friend Ben Shapiro, who's hosted the Ben Shapiro show on the Daily Wire and author of the forthcoming book, Lions and Scavengers, out in September.
Since President Trump was sworn in, his administration has made enormous progress at a breakneck pace.
But don't forget, while they're moving mountains for the good of the nation, you've got your own personal savings to worry about.
And one of the best ways to look after your savings is through diversification, particularly with gold, like from Birch Gold Group.
In the past 12 months, the value of gold has increased by 40%.
OMG.
Central banks continue to bolster demand for gold by buying in record quantities.
Global instability and tension is high, and Birch Gold makes owning physical gold extremely easy.
Easily convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical gold or buy some to store in your home safe.
Just text MK to the number 989898 and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold.
There's no obligation, just useful information.
With an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers, take control of your savings today.
Text MK to the number 989898.
Ben, you're exactly who I want to discuss this with because there's so many angles on Epstein.
The Epstein Cover-Up Theory00:15:43
Let's just talk about what happened in terms of the facts within the administration over the past 72 hours.
And then we'll get to whether he was an agent for us, for Israel, for somebody else, not at all.
We don't know.
Okay.
As we went to, I don't know, off air on Friday, we found out that it was either she goes or I go situation between Bongino, deputy director of the FBI and Pam Bondi.
And I confirmed that with my own reporting, that they had had a massive blowup on Monday, a week ago today, in the wake of that memo, that it had resulted in shouting, that it culminated in a second meeting at the White House on Wednesday.
And Susie Wiles, who's the chief of staff for Trump, but a Florida native and I think reportedly close with Pam Bondi, seemed to be trying to put it to bed and see if, you know, Dan could calm down and Pam could calm down, both of whom had been screaming at each other.
And it didn't go very well.
And the next thing we hear is Bongino saying, I'm leaving unless she leaves or does something more to come clean or be more transparent about the whole Epstein thing.
That was on Friday.
And then over the weekend, I will say my own sources said there'd been a softening because the president got involved in some way.
And as of today at noon Monday, Bongino has not resigned, but we don't know.
We don't know exactly where it stands.
She's clearly fighting back too.
She's dropped, obviously, I mean, this is my supposition, some hit pieces on him in various places, including Axio saying he's just having a hissy fit because he was behind the minute before midnight that's missing in the Epstein tapes from that cell block, which don't show his cell, but show an area near his cell.
And that he was caught embarrassed because he didn't highlight that minute before midnight that was missing, but it soon came out.
And now he's scrambling to sort of look like he's been tougher on this issue than he actually has been.
And Todd Blanche, who's her deputy at DOJ and President Trump's former personal lawyer, has come out with a statement on X saying there is no daylight between the FBI and DOJ at all on that memo that came out last Sunday.
I will tell you, my own reporting suggests that's not true.
But Blanche trying to put on a united front between DOJ and FBI.
That's where it stands today.
What do you make of that piece of the story?
So first of all, I'm hearing many of the same things that you're hearing, Megan.
I'm talking, I'm sure, to many of the same people that you're talking to here.
And my take on the story is pretty simple.
I think that Pam Bondi botched this eight ways from Sunday.
I have not seen a bigger botchery of a rollout of a story, maybe ever.
And that is really what you're looking at here.
I think that what you're looking at is Pam Bondi went on Fox News, at the very best, was unclear when she said the Epstein list is on my desk.
She didn't actually say the Epstein list is on my desk.
There's a reference to the Epstein list by the questioner, and then she returned and said it's on my desk.
The it, she claims, was like all the papers for Epstein.
Okay, fine.
But you were very, very not clear about that at best.
And then let me just, let me interject quickly.
The other piece of that that's problematic, her excuse is the Epstein file would fill a conference room, would fill a building.
There's no way she had the Epstein file like it's a discrete file on her desk, which makes her explanation.
I don't mean it's kind of Pam Bondi because I'm ripping the crap out of her right now, but it's fine.
You and I are factual.
Let's stay factual.
It's possible that it's possible to say on my desk as sort of a euphemism or meaning like it's in front of me.
But, you know, the one that was much more damning to me was the binder release, right?
When she had a bunch of influencers in the White House, she hands them a binder filled with old crap, all redacted.
And then they trot out and hold it up to the cameras like, hey, look, this is our big prize.
And then it turns out that there's nothing new there.
And then she sends a letter to Kash Patel at the FBI saying, why haven't you given me all these documents that I was supposed to be given?
And there is no evidence that there are all these documents that Kash Patel was hiding somewhere in the basement that he had not given Pam Bondi.
And then all we get is this two-page letter that basically is supposed to put everything to bed.
And so I'm not blaming anybody who is upset with the fact that they were told by Pam Bondi, at least by implication, that there was an Epstein list, that there were tens of thousands of hours of tapes, that there are a thousand victims, that there was more coming, and then nothing happens, right?
That seems to be on Pam Bondi.
And that's why I think Dan Bongino is extremely upset today, because the contention he's making, from what I understand from my own sources, is that it is not that Epstein is a foreign agent and that's being hidden or that Epstein was trafficking girls to third parties who remain hidden.
by the government or anything like that, or that even there was an Epstein list per se.
My understanding is that the actual outcome of the DOJ investigation is properly stated in that memo.
What he's upset about is if you oversell the story and you create a deliverable for the FBI and then the FBI doesn't deliver, then that falls on Kash Patel and Dan Bongino.
And so Pam Bondi basically did that.
She went out there and ran her mouth without the actual goods to back it up.
And then when it turns out that it's Geraldo Rivera's safe, then of course it makes Dan look bad, it makes Cash look bad, it makes the president look bad and all the rest.
That's my understanding of this dispute.
And if that's the nature of the dispute, then obviously I'm very much on Dan Bongino's side and Kash Patel's side, because again, I think that Pam Bondi pretty clearly to the public made a bunch of statements that were unrepresentative of the final DOJ FBI memo that was released.
Many people, including me, do not believe that they've released everything that's releasable in Epstein.
I think this is another piece of the problem that we're left asking why.
Now, maybe, maybe as Mike Davis, who's a serious person who's well connected to the administration was saying on X on Axe yesterday, maybe it really is because what's left is grand jury proceedings, which would be secret, not releasable, witness testimony, victim testimonials, which might reveal identities, which victims are not prepared to have revealed.
That's all possible.
But Pam Bondi hasn't answered any of those questions.
No one has.
No one's explained that.
Mike Davis, much as we love him, is not a spokesperson for the administration.
So we're still left in a position where at least I don't believe them that everything that can be released has been released.
So I do believe that that's the case, that they've released everything that can be released, but only because I trust Dan Bongino and Kash Patel and the president on this now.
Are those questions legit?
Absolutely.
And so I've been saying literally since the first day this memo broke that there's no way that Pam Bondi should not be doing a press conference where she at least answers that question.
At the very least, I need to hear it from their mouth that we're releasing everything that can be released.
However, I'm very hesitant to make the claim that there is evidence that exists that I have not seen because that's totally unfalsifiable.
I've only seen the same stuff that you've seen, Megan.
And I'm probably talking to many of the same sources that you're talking to.
People like Dan and Cash and Pam and the president and the vice president and everybody else in the administration, they have seen material that I have not seen because, again, they're the ones who are reviewing the material.
And so I am not prepared.
You put out a tweet earlier that I think is right.
Basically, there's two theories of this particular case.
One, Pam Bondi overpromised and underdelivered, which seems to me the most plausible.
Or two, there's an active cover-up that the Trump administration is engaging in of a child sex trafficking ring.
And I think that if people want to make that accusation, they should just come out and say it.
And if that's the case, if they want to make that accusation that President Trump and everybody who was elected to uncover this is actually now, they flipped 180 and now they're engaging in a full-scale cover-up of a child rape ring, then people should just have the balls to say it out loud and articulate it as opposed to sort of softly peddling the possibility that it's like, just say it, just say it, because it seems to me when you articulate these two possibilities out loud, one of them is significantly more plausible than the other.
Now, again, that does not relieve the responsibility on the administration to answer basic questions of fact publicly.
And that's where I think the great screw up is.
But I think there are a lot of people who are trafficking in unevidenced theory.
And again, I can speculate all day long.
You can too.
And speculation is fun.
But we now have a bunch of people who I trust.
I trust Dan Pongino.
I trust Kash Patel.
And I do trust the president of the United States that he is not covering up a child rape ring.
Can I say this?
My tweet was a little worded differently, which was either, you know, either Pam Bonnie is royally screwed up.
I mean, she deaf.
She has.
That's not into dispute.
She's royally screwed up.
And the president is just forgiving her because she's a loyal soldier and, you know, he likes her and he doesn't want to go through the messy confirmation process of getting somebody else in there.
So that's possible.
That's definitely a possible number one.
And there's no, they're there in the files anyway, right?
Like the way she screwed up was overpromising when she didn't have the goods and she genuinely doesn't have the goods.
And so the big mistake was overpromising and the president doesn't really care about that mistake.
Or there is something there and it's being covered up and the president blessed it, right?
Like that's, but I didn't say, or there's a child sex ring that he's actively covering up because the truth is, I think there's some middle ground between one and two, you're one and two, of there is something in there.
More could be disclosed.
And it's something short of there's a massive pedophile ring that they're covering up.
Like it would have some names.
Those men would have to defend themselves.
Maybe the administration doesn't think it's a fair position to put them in.
Maybe there are questions about the accusers.
Maybe there are like half-hearted allegations in there that, you know, normally a DOJ would not put out, but feels like it kind of might have to, given all the promises that have been made by Pam and prior to taking office, Cash and Dan rattling about this.
So I think there could be a middle ground.
And also, look, this may be complete bullshit, but I've heard it from a few different people.
So I just big asterisks on it.
But some have speculated that the Biden DOJ may have left the Epstein files in such a manner that it like leads directly with an arrow toward Donald Trump, just as a middle finger toward Trump.
Not that he did anything whatsoever, just that they're bastards and they knew he was coming in and they knew his people were interested in this story.
So something like that could be between your one and two, where it's less nefarious than full child sex ring.
And our government officials have said, let's just move on.
We're not going to release this stuff just because you overpromised Pam Bondi and because we have a top two officials at the FBI who were big saber rattles rattlers about this before they took office.
So I agree that there's a plausible idea somewhere in the in between, but the reason that we care about the Epstein case is because everybody thinks it was a giant child sex ring.
I mean, that's the reason we care about it.
That's one for sure.
But two is transparency.
Well, and I agree on the transparency point, I totally agree, right?
I mean, that's been the basis of this entire conversation.
But the real reason that people care about Epstein is because the story that was sold for years in retail by pretty much everybody who had a passing even reference to the case was that Jeffrey Epstein was running a child sex ring on behalf of third parties, right, who are unnamed, and that we needed to have the list, the Epstein list, of the third parties who are having sex with little girls and then were being blackmailed by Jeffrey Epstein, which is how he made his money or how he was serving a foreign intelligence service, right?
That is the theory.
And so we ought to at least fully publicly articulate that that is the theory that most people were operating under until this DOJ memo broke.
And that is why people are freaked out right now.
I mean, it's not just the transparency.
If it turns out, let's put it this way, Megan.
If it turns out that it's your middle of the road case and then those materials get released, that it turns out that there is some scurrilous reference to a third party and it ends up being unredacted, is anyone going to be satisfied?
I would say the answer is no, because the theory has been so wildly retailed at this point and widely retailed at this point that anything short of a full justification of the theory means that somebody is covering something up.
And this is where I start to get pretty yippy because if the idea, and this is why I go back to my original reference, if the idea is that the full-scale theory is the thing that is being covered up by President Trump, then people who are making that sort of charge, and that includes, by name, Tucker Carlson at TPUSA, they should actually just say it.
If you want to say it, then say it.
I mean, Tucker says that this, that Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad agent who's blackmailing people on behalf of the people.
We'll get to that next.
We're going to get to that.
We'll just table Mossad agent for two minutes.
You and I are definitely coming back to that, and we can talk about Tucker too.
I mean, that's logically.
The point I'm making about Tucker is a very simple one.
If you're going to retail that claim and say that you are very certain of that claim, then the claim is really not about Mossad.
It's about the United States government covering up for Mossad, which means the Trump administration covering up a sex ring.
And if you are going to say the Trump administration and President Trump is covering up a sex ring, you should just have the balls to say it publicly.
Okay.
It's true that if he were a Mossad spy and that's the reason we're not releasing more information, yes, then the theory would be that Trump lessed the cover up of that for his own reasons.
Middle East peace, world peace, a promise he made to somebody of who knows.
There is no good reason that you can cover up a child sex ring, period.
End of story.
It would be evil by President Trump and it would be evil by Mazad, obviously.
Well, okay.
I mean, look, I do want to table this because I very much want to get to that piece of the discussion.
I just want to stay on part one before we get it because logically it makes more sense to me just to stick with what actually is happening within the administration and what's happened and what might be getting withheld.
Here is the whole case is so convoluted.
I mean, I spent way more hours than I want to admit going back and looking at his plea deal, you know, when it first came out that he might be a pervert and the feds were involved and he, the Palm Beach district attorney was involved.
And the feds basically stepped in.
Alex Acosta was the U.S. attorney.
He later became Trump's labor secretary.
And he is the one who stepped in and basically gave Jeffrey Epstein what turned out to be a sweetheart deal, like two counts of soliciting prostitution, which is not what he did.
He was dealing with 14-year-old girls.
You cannot be a prostitute at age 14.
That is child rape.
That's what that is.
So he got a slap on the wrist that gave him like 13 months of the equivalent of house arrest.
He had to go sit in like the local jail for 10 hours a day.
And then he was back in his office with an ankle monitor.
I mean, it was just a complete slap on the wrist.
And it also got Epstein off the hook for any crimes he'd committed prior to 2008 toward any young girls for this slap on the wrist and prevented the government from coming back and prosecuting him for them and prevented a bunch of victims for suing him for certain things and from obtaining damages beyond a certain amount, all without getting the blessing of the victims.
A court leader overturned that saying, this is so damned illegal, this whole deal.
You cannot do this without alerting the victims.
But anyway, there was, and I want to make sure I say it correctly.
Okay.
There was an opinion by a court in this case that was deciding the dispute between a bunch of victims who came forward to say, this wasn't well handled.
This is bullshit and the government.
And the government in that case admitted a bunch of things to try to get rid of the case, which it did, including one, between or about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls at his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida and elsewhere.
Two, Epstein and his co-conspirators knowingly traveled in interstate and international commerce to sexually abuse them, and they committed violations of Florida law and federal law.
Three, in addition to personally abusing his victims, Epstein also directed other persons to sexually abuse the girls.
For example, Nadia Markanova sexually abused Jane Doe number one and other victims at the direction of Epstein.
Uncovering Hidden Sex Rings00:14:39
And then here's one of the other ones.
The FBI established, the government admits this, the FBI established that Epstein used paid employees to repeatedly find and bring minor girls to him.
Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain minor girls, not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others.
So I don't know exactly what that means, Ben, but I know that's our government admitting in court that Jeffrey Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain minor girls, not only for himself, but also for the sexual gratification of others.
Who?
Who are the others?
Who?
Who specifically that hasn't been answered?
We've heard names.
One obvious answer is Ghelane Maxwell, right?
Who's in prison right now for having engaged in the sexual abuse of children, right?
And one of the other people that you just mentioned is one of the others, right?
Nadia, whatever her name is.
So, you know, that is sort of the big open question that everyone was asking was, okay, who's that?
Like Stephen Hawking?
Right?
Because he was one of the names who was mentioned or Alan Dershowitz was one of the names who was mentioned.
Lex Wexner.
All these were.
And again, here's my thing.
I was open to every single one of these theories until the DOJ and FBI put out a memo saying we have looked at all the evidence and here is what we have come to.
You were persuaded by that memo without without more.
I mean, like, I wasn't persuaded.
No, I mean, I'm not persuaded by a memo.
What I'm persuaded by is the fact that I have not seen evidence that they have seen.
And so I'm not prepared to call Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, President Trump, J.D. Vans, and Pam Bonnie.
Their two-page memo says no credible evidence.
No credible evidence.
Well, somebody's made a judgment call there and there's a, you could drive a truck through that exception.
Well, I mean, if the idea is that they're supposed to release non-credible evidence, then I'd love to see them, you know, hand it over to a special investigator or to a court.
Okay, fine.
So then back to my scenario of what is a number of people.
I'm just trying to do it to a special investigator.
I don't care.
I mean, I think that'd be great.
Yes.
I mean, that's fine.
I think that would be fine.
But all of that is fine.
But the jump from there to the most extreme version of the theory, I don't find like if you're going to cite.
Okay, that's right.
I think that is speculation.
But if you don't want to be a good person, I've given you that.
I like to operate on the same thing.
But let's spend more time in my scenario, which is like 1A, you know, between one and two, you know, of like, they're not covering up a sex ring, but there's enough in there that they find troubling that sees, let's say, major Trump donors that they don't want to embarrass and that have been accused in some way, shape or form.
I mean, even Alan Dershowitz pointed out to me on episode 10 of this show that many others had been accused and he listed some of them.
He mentioned Ehud Barak.
He mentioned Bill Richardson.
He mentioned a couple of others saying not everybody.
Trump, right?
Everybody.
Yes, He said, not everybody who's been accused has come forward like I have to say, absolutely not.
This is bullshit.
Virginia Duffrey is lying.
And I'll show you all my records to prove that it's a lie.
And Alan said on this show, without specifying which of those names he was referring to, some of those men likely have something to hide.
And that's why they haven't been so forthcoming.
So those two things, all right.
So just take those two things.
Alan saying that, and he, he was Epstein's lawyer.
And then this, the government admitting that he worked to obtain minor girls for the sexual gratification of others.
And we don't know who those others are because the government hasn't told us.
So those are questions that we'd like answered.
You know, if I got Pam Bondi on this show or an oppressor, which I would travel to to ask her questions, I want that answered.
Her memo doesn't do it for me.
I agree.
You know, not non-credible evidence is not good enough, not good enough by far.
Well, I mean, again, I think that in the world of the DOJ and the FBI, for what they are, law enforcement agencies, it may not be good enough for public consumption, but that's sort of what we've been saying from the outset, right?
Is that more transparency with regard to the public is necessary.
That's not quite the same thing as do the DOJ and the FBI have the legal grounds to prosecute or release information that you want prosecuted or released.
That's kind of a different question.
Yeah.
I don't know if they do have the grounds to prosecute.
I don't either.
But I mean, I would suggest that they probably do not, given that they're not doing the prosecution.
That's a different question from informational release or answering questions on a straight up basis.
Again, that's the reason why Dan is pissed is because he's saying release the information that you can release or at least answer the questions that you can answer.
Right.
I think that's true because I do believe Dan is convinced there is no case to be brought and there's not some huge scandal behind the scenes.
And I think, yes, one of his frustrations is why doesn't Pam just as the spokesperson, she's his boss, effectively, go in front of the microphones and just answer all the questions so that you and I and Tucker and everybody else can be as convinced as he apparently now is that there's no there there.
I mean, the problem for the administration is, yes, those two top officials at FBI and many in the president's orbit.
You know, this is another thing I spent the weekend looking at.
Not so much Trump, but JD Vance, Don Jr., Alina Haba, many of the president's surrogates have been stirring the Epstein pot now for years, for years.
And so, you know, we are owed more than a two-page memo being like, there's no there.
Now move on.
I mean, again, I totally agree with you on this.
And I still think that there's a gap between that, which I agree with, and the most extreme form of the theory is true.
And now it's a giant Trump administration cover-up, but I won't actually name the members of the Trump administration because I'm a goward.
Okay.
Now let's talk about whether...
Oh, wait, no, I wanted to play this Julie Brown soundbite first.
Sorry, before we move on from like what's being withheld, what's potentially out there that they're not telling us, which led to the big dispute between Bondi and Bongino and all that.
Julie Kay Brown is probably the reporter who's done most on Epstein.
She's annoying because she hates conservatives in my viewpoint.
And I really can't stand people who report on big, important stories like this and make and draw those lines.
It's just bullshit.
You know, when you're talking about the protection of minors, like I asked her to come on the show in 2020, I asked her for help trying to figure out what's happening with Epstein.
Nope, wouldn't do it.
I'd love to put her on now.
She won't do it.
She goes on the lefty podcasts.
I think she was on with Jim Acosta.
She went on with Dan Lebatard, right?
But she's not going to do a conservative podcast because I guess in her mind, you only give a shit about little kids if you're a liberal, even though her side of the aisle has taken huge dumps on this story since the day it was broken.
No one had time for Julie Kay Brown and her reporting other than people on the right, as you know, Ben.
But having said all that, she's annoying, but I think she's honest.
And she did go on this Lebatard show on Saturday and spoke to what's likely still out there that could be releasable on Epstein.
Here's part of it in SAT6.
Is it six or seven?
I'll let Debbie figure that out.
Seven.
Are there more Epstein files?
Oh my God, yes.
There's tons of files, tons, tons of files.
There's, there's, when she said she had the files sitting on her desk, I was just stunned.
I'm like, those files wouldn't even fit in her office.
I mean, it's, it's, remember, they did an investigation way back in 2005.
All that stuff had to land at the Justice Department because, you know, they did a subsequent investigation in New York.
So they had to look at everything.
And remember, the Department of Homeland Security has records because he went in and out of all those airports with his private planes.
They kept track of who was on his planes.
They haven't released that.
The FAA has flight records that haven't been released.
There's been tons of material in different government departments that even hasn't been released.
And like I said, you can look on the vault.
There's like, I don't know, 20, 30 parts, Jeffrey Epstein part one, two, three, four.
And if you click on all those things, you'll see, you know, hundreds of pages.
So there's probably tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, you know, so that are still missing, that are ostensibly at this point being covered up.
Right, because they're all redacted.
It's the FBI's the vault.
So that's her saying there's more.
There's a lot more, Ben.
And then I'll just give you one more from her.
She also has serious doubts about the cell block tape showing not Jeffrey Epstein's cell, but the area outside of his cell, which she does not credit in any way, shape or form.
She completely rejects that as evidence he did not kill himself or that he did kill himself.
Sorry, I always screwed that up.
Here she is in, let's see, SOT 6, I think it is.
Yeah, they got it.
I covered prisons for about four years, and I can't even tell you some of the stuff that people get away with in those prisons.
They know exactly where the cameras are.
They know exactly how to commit crimes where nobody knows how to do them.
It is a science to them.
I mean, these prisons are full of corrupt people.
And it's just not a far-fetched idea and not a conspiracy theory to think that something else may have happened.
Now, I'm not saying he was murdered.
I just don't think we know the full story.
Okay, your thoughts on that.
Well, I mean, that last quote's about as vague as it's possible to be.
I mean, there have been autopsy.
She did go on.
She talked about how you can't see Jeffrey Epstein style.
You don't know whether another prisoner went in there.
That's fine.
But when she says she's not saying that he didn't commit suicide, but it's possible.
What I want to know is then who killed him.
So again, I'm only operating off the evidence that I can see in front of my eyes.
We can all speculate it's the evidence that we can't see, but now we're doing kind of God of the gap sort of stuff.
Okay, well, I mean, I don't have evidence of what the other two cameras that were broken or allegedly broken saw.
And I don't have that.
And you don't have that.
Nobody has that, right?
It doesn't exist, supposedly.
And as far as this camera, all I can see is what's on the footage that we were presented.
So I can speculate, but my speculation is not worth very much.
And I don't think hers is on that particular score either, considering we now have multiple autopsies.
So you can either believe it or you can't believe it.
But if you're going to provide two alternative theories, one is the medical examiner who said this is a suicide.
And one is Dr. Boden who said, no, it doesn't look like one.
Well, Dr. Baden, I don't credit for very much.
I mean, his prior history with autopsies is rather checkered.
And when it comes to the, the DOJ also did an autopsy and an investigation and found that he committed suicide as well.
And again, I've talked to without revealing sources, the people in the federal government who I have talked to who are familiar with the details of this case have said unanimously that it was a suicide.
Now, again, you can say that they're all lying.
I totally disagree.
Totally disagree.
I have my own sources high up in the law enforcement, let's say.
I'll just go that far, who say, not only do we believe he was an agent, but we don't believe he killed himself.
I mean, that's fine.
And then they should come out and they should say that.
And then they should say who's covering that up.
Okay, but this is why.
They can't.
I mean, there are a lot of people who say they can't, right?
They can't because let's look at what the administration is saying right now.
They don't want to be the one to cross Trump.
But my position is like, show us all the evidence so we can come to our own conclusions.
I have names of the people.
So I agree with you.
That's fine.
But in the absence of that, I have the names of the people who are making the claim that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself and that the most gross, you know, and sort of extreme of the conspiracy theories or theories, just don't even call them conspiracy theories, the most sort of extreme version of the theory is not true.
I have names of the people who are claiming that.
They are all in the administration.
And this is my point.
If other people want to make those claims that are counter to that, then they should provide evidence or at least put their names on it so we can question them about that as well, because otherwise we're just in the realm of pure speculation.
And frankly, I just don't find that useful.
I would love more useful information.
This is why I'm angry at Tom Bondi.
I think there should be all the useful information possible.
But the same thing holds true for people who are making claims on the other side.
Otherwise, I can claim that he was working for a cadre of space aliens who are blackmailing high-profile Americans in order to protect from a future invasion.
And there's just about as much evidence for that as many of the claims that are being made on the other side.
All right, well, let's talk about that.
It is made.
Requires evidence.
Any claim that's being made requires actual evidence.
And at the very least, in the absence of evidence, the credible names of the people that I can either trust or not trust, ranging from, again, the president of the United States and vice president to the head of the FBI, the AG, and the deputy head of the FBI.
Well, I think it's very hard to say those people need to come out and put their names on there on these claims when they're working for an administration, this one and the one before, that didn't want that to come out.
You're asking somebody to countermand the people they work for.
How am I supposed to falsify their claims?
Now we're working in the realm of the unfalse.
You're not, but you're look, Ben, you can't come to me and say, everybody I know says he killed himself.
And then I respond saying, I actually have my own sources who say he didn't.
And then you say, well, your sources are not valid because they won't put their names on it.
Okay.
Well, no, your sources are invalid.
Let's go down the list and then we'll talk about why they might be saying that.
My sources are the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States, Kash Patel, the head of the FBI, Dan Bongino, the deputy head of the FBI, and Pam Bondi, the attorney general.
And those aren't just my sources.
They're everybody's sources because they publicly came out and said this.
Okay.
Trump hasn't specifically weighed in on that specific aspect of it.
We've all seen the limited things that Trump has said and tweeted on this.
And JD Vance was calling for transparency and suggesting otherwise prior to taking office.
He hasn't commented on this so far.
So he's on the other side.
He's the vice president.
So you've got Cash.
You've got Dan and you've got Pam.
And we've already discussed that memo in full detail.
I'm talking about people behind the scenes who prior to this, to Trump taking office.
I'm not going to get too specific, but trust me, I have high-level sources who have said they don't believe any of that.
Any of that.
So I'm not going to out them for purposes of convincing you, but you're telling me name them.
No, I'm not going to.
I don't know.
I'm not saying that.
And then you say, well, I dismiss all of it because you won't name them.
Hold on, Megan.
I'm not saying you should name them.
I'm saying they should name themselves because otherwise they are being complicit in one of the greatest cover-ups in the history of the US.
That's easy for you to say, Ben.
That's very easy for you to say.
That's easy for me to say.
Why?
Because you'll have your job and you'll have your millions no matter what they do.
Megan, give me a break.
If somebody came out today and they were a whistleblower on the greatest scandal in the history of the American Republic, they would make more money tomorrow than in their entire life working for the FBI.
That's ridiculous.
Okay.
There are reasons not to cross the people who are in charge.
And that's all I'm going to say.
And I look, this is me not having drawn a conclusion.
Was Epstein a Mossad Asset00:15:17
I don't know what the truth is.
I've been reporting in a way.
I mean, I see you've taken a side that you've chosen to believe the story that's being offered.
And that's fine.
A lot of people have.
I'm not there yet.
I don't actively say that there's a pedophile ring.
I don't say any of that.
I'm just following the facts.
And we're not at the place where I can draw that conclusion.
Well, no, I can draw the conclusion that the evidence that I'm seeing and the people who are speaking about it lead me toward this particular conclusion.
And if counter evidence is presented that is not speculative, then I will change my conclusion because that's what I've done on this case.
Until this memo came out, I was weighing toward the more extreme version of this theory.
And you can look back at my tweets and what I've said about it.
And then this came out.
And now my perspective has changed.
When the facts change and the people who are speaking, I guess I'm just not that trusting of government.
There are other facts.
They said not credible.
There's no credible evidence.
They talked about no, what was the qualifier they used on the client list?
Something like no persuasive client list or something.
Megan, I'm not that trusting of government either, unless I know the exact people in government we're talking about.
Okay.
All I've said so far is I trust Dan.
But do you believe that Dan has all the information?
You believe Dan Bongino has everything?
You believe he's seen all the SDNY had?
You believe, what about Julie Brown's claims about the number of data, like the documents, the Department of Homeland Security flight logs on who was on his planes?
Do you believe he has all that in his purview?
And he's said, I've reviewed it all and none of it's persuasive.
I don't believe that.
I believe Dan's reviewed what's been made available to him by the pre-existing FBI.
And in there, he hasn't come up with anything that proves Epstein was murdered or found some child pedophile ring that's been covered up.
That's fine.
I'll accept his word and effectively cash his word and Pam's word to some extent on that.
But it doesn't explain all these other questions that existed prior to them taking office that have been raised by people like Julie Brown that have been raised by people like Pam Bondi before today.
And I'm not satisfied.
Again, I'm unsatisfied at the amount of information that we're getting.
But if the question is, is there information being hidden now from Dan or Cash or Pam?
then I would like evidence that there's information hidden from them in the same way that I want them to be more transparent.
Why is asking for evidence from all sides suddenly?
Well, are you not persuaded by this soundbite from Julie K. Brown, for example?
Like that DHS would have more information.
That FBI, just on their vault alone, has tons and tons of redacted information that you could see that they may or may not be able to see.
I don't know, but that there's lots of information still out there.
She's claiming that quote that the FBI does have all that information.
Okay.
So do you think she's lying?
I mean, do you think the redactions are not available to the FBI?
I think the redactions are available to the FBI.
So what?
You were making the claim a moment ago that they actually are not available to Pam or Dan.
Well, that's my point.
So why don't they put them out?
So like, why wouldn't they come out and say, here are the documents that we have?
We've redacted the following information.
This is a child's name.
This is a victim's name.
But where's the DHS account of who was on the Epstein plane?
Where's the Alan Dershowitz account of those names that I gave you and what role, if any, they played in this matter?
None of that's been provided.
I agree with you.
Right.
And we've taken away different conclusions.
Right.
Your conclusion is that they're covering something up.
And my conclusion is that there's wild incompetence happening at the level of the attorney general.
And that's the reason why Dan is upset.
I don't think, I don't think you're, I think you're trusting the conclusions of that memo and a decision made by our administration to move past this far too much.
I mean, I'm pro-Trump.
I'm a Trump supporter, but I think they've made a decision that they want to put this in the rear view.
You think it's because there's absolutely no there there and you're crediting that claim.
And I have doubts about whether that's true.
I mean, that's fine.
And again, I'm open to doubts about whether that's true, but I think that once you have the doubts about whether they are lying to you, that's a different thing.
Is it incompetence or lying?
I mean, that really is the question, is it not?
You don't think even the Trump administration is capable of lying to the public because they think it's for the greater good?
They think there's a solid reason to do it.
I mean, I'm wondering what they are lying about and what the lies would be.
So again, I think in your middle scenario.
But you just answered my question.
Do you think they're capable of doing it if they think it's for the greater good?
I think anybody is capable of lying if they think that it's for the greater good, of course.
But I think that in order to answer the question of whether they are doing that, we would have to determine what greater good is being pursued and what the lie is.
I think all this is a little bit.
Well, that's why some of us are still asking questions.
I mean, I'm not in the business of covering for anything.
Not all the questions are not.
Megan, not all the questions are the same.
Asking a question about whether all the information has been released because there are figures who would be publicly humiliated because they were riding on Epstein's plane, but there's no evidence the person was raping a child is not quite the same thing as some of the more outstanding claims, which is that the administration is covering up full scale for a child sex operation, right?
Not all questions are.
Okay, that's fine.
That's what you make.
You need to have somebody else because no one on this set is claiming that.
All right, let's move on to point two, which is whether he was some sort of an agent.
And that's a possible reason why he got a sweetheart plea deal and or why to this day, people aren't that interested in digging deep under the Jeffrey Epstein story.
So there's a lot of speculation about this.
You mentioned Tucker.
I'll just play what he said at turning point and we can take it from there.
What the hell is this?
You have the former Israeli prime minister living in your house.
You have had all this contact with the foreign government.
Were you working on behalf of Mossad?
Were you running a blackmail operation on behalf of foreign government?
And there's another one.
So three, play that, follow up.
And I think the truth for whatever it's worth, in case you're interested, is that the DOJ didn't release lots of incriminating sex videos with Epstein and his billionaire pals because they don't have them.
They don't have them because when the original search warrant was served 2007, I think, it was basically designed to protect Epstein.
The search warrant was written in such a way to make sure that the feds never got their hands on the actually incriminating evidence.
The real question is, why was he doing this on whose behalf and where did the money come from?
And I think the real answer is Jeffrey Epstein was working on behalf of Intel services, probably not American.
And no one has ever gotten to the bottom of that because no one has ever tried.
It's extremely obvious to anyone who watches that this guy had direct connections to a foreign government.
Now, no one's allowed to say that that foreign government is Israel because we have been somehow cowed into thinking that that's naughty.
There is nothing wrong with saying that.
There's nothing anti-Semitic about saying there's nothing even anti-Israel about saying that.
I've spent my entire life pretty much in Washington where I knew and loved a number of people, including one very close person who worked at CIA.
That has never prohibited me from saying, I think the CIA has done some horrible things.
That doesn't make me a disloyal American.
It doesn't make me anti-American in any sense.
Okay.
So many people believe that you could hear the cheers in the audience when he said he believes Epstein was working for Mossad.
I, on my Twitter feed today, laid out some of the evidence why people believe he was an agent.
I don't know whether that's true.
And if he was an agent, I don't know whether he was ours or he was Mossad or he was something else.
But I know there's enough to sniff around on whether he was an agent, the most persuasive piece of which is where'd he get all that money?
I mean, nobody's been able to answer the question in following the money of how Jeffrey Epstein earned all that dough.
Why is it problematic for Tucker to say, I think he was an agent.
I think he worked for Mossad?
I mean, Tucker can say whatever he wants.
It's free country.
I think that if he's saying that he worked for Mossad and that no one has looked into it and that he was running a child sex ring on behalf of Mossad and the evidence should exist for that to happen, then just say the administration is covering for Mossad.
I mean, if you're that certain of it and you believe that that's the case, then presumably the case that you're making is that the administration is now working for Mossad and covering up the child sex ring.
So he can say that.
That's fine.
But I think you should then have the balls to say what Dave Smith said, which is that the Trump administration was covering for a child sex ring that was a blackmail scheme run by Mossad.
If you want to actually say that, then say it.
Okay.
And then provide evidence to that effect.
Because the only evidence that I've seen related to Jeffrey Epstein and Mossad, so far as I am aware, is a secondhand quote from Vicki Ward at the Daily Beast, who I do not consider a verifiable source about Alex Azar, the original process.
She was on Epstein from the beginning, though.
I mean, her being on Epstein from the beginning doesn't mean she's a credible source.
She ran for the Daily Beast and she was arguing about a person who said she was secondhand.
Yes.
So what?
Vanny Fair is a shitty publication.
Okay, I'm just saying, like, that's fine.
You can dislike Vicki Ward.
I'm not running a defense for her.
No, but the point is that the Alex Azar quote that she is making is not even from Alex Azar.
It is a second-hand anonymous quote.
Thank you.
Sorry.
Alex Acosta, the prosecutor who ended up being labor secretary.
Alex Acosta, that quote was not from Alex Acosta.
It was from a secondhand source.
And that said that he was told to shut down the investigation, especially because he was working for an intelligence agency.
That was that quote.
And then exactly.
I'll just give it exactly because we need to be precise.
So he, she reported in Vanity Fair, she reported for Vanity Fair, like a definitive Epstein article.
And then she updated it in the Daily Beast in 2019 when I think it was after Epstein died, or it could have been when Trump nominated him.
It was probably when they did the investigation into the idea.
No, it had to be.
Yeah, yeah.
Exactly.
So she updated, he was already in office, Acosta at this point.
So she Reported that, standby.
I tweeted out now.
I'm looking to find it.
Okay.
That she had spoken with a member of the Trump transition team when Trump was taking office, who told her that when they talked to Acosta about possibly becoming the labor secretary, they said, is this Epstein thing, this settlement that you oversaw going to be a problem for us?
You know, because you're the guy who basically gave him that slap on the wrist.
And that Acosta had told the Trump transition team that Epstein, quote, belonged to intelligence, end quote, and that he'd been ordered to, quote, leave it alone, end quote, and that he'd, quote, been told to back off.
He later was on the record, Ben, as saying Maine Justice was the one who told him to settle that case and that they had approved of the Epstein plea deal.
So that's him.
We know that Maine Justice did tell Alex Acosta to settle that case.
But we don't know whether he in fact said all that stuff to the Trump transition team.
Well, he was asked about this at a hearing, I believe, a congressional hearing.
And he said that there are a lot of rumors out there and you shouldn't believe everything you read, I believe, was something close to the direct quote from the congressional.
We have it.
We have it, right, Deb?
Do we have?
Sorry, standby.
We have it on camera.
It was first asked, it was a press conference on July 10th, 2019.
This is the first we know of that he was asked about Vicki Ward's report.
Watch.
Mr. Secretary, were you ever made aware at any point in your handling of this case that Mr. Epstein was an intelligence asset of some sort?
So there has been reporting to that effect.
And let me say, there's been reporting to a lot of effects in this case, not just now, but over the years.
And again, I would, you know, I would hesitate to take this reporting as fact.
This was a case that was brought by our office.
It was brought based on the facts.
And I look at that reporting and others.
I can't address it directly because of our guidelines.
But I can tell you that a lot of reporting is just going down rabbit holes.
I'm sorry, but that's a non-denial denial.
And he never came out to deny it in any other way after Vicki Ward reported it.
I'm not persuaded by his denial at all.
He did later tell the Office of Professional Responsibility within the DOJ when he was asked during an investigation that he did not say that to the Trump transition team.
So later outside of the public setting, he reportedly did deny Vicki Ward's reporting.
But I have questions about that too, because that's the Department of Justice investigating itself.
And under this theory that Epstein was compromised and the DOJ knew it, the DOJ would have been the one to tell Alex Acosta to drop it.
And then the DOJ would have been sitting down with Alex Acosta saying, did we tell you to drop it or didn't we?
So I can see why people have doubts about that later testimony.
Again, I don't know what's true, but that's a very weasel answer he just gave at that presser.
I mean, that's fair to say it's a weasel answer.
It's also fair to say that the original quote was never confirmed by anybody on the record, correct?
So, I mean, like, at the very best, that one is dicey.
I mean, like, I think the best you can say about that particular claim is dicey, both for and against, right?
And I see why you can take away either conclusion.
There's also, yes, yes.
Look, there's also the matter, like I said, of the money.
And there's also the question.
The money's super suspicious, but I think that's really more about Leon Black signing him a check for like $160 million for unspecified financial services, right?
And then Leon Black didn't claim that he had right, exactly.
But let me just make this other point.
Then I'll give you the floor.
You know, there's this former Israeli intel guy named Ari Ben Minash.
Well, he claims he is.
The Israelis say he's not, correct?
Well, that was litigated.
And actually, if you look up this guy's Wikipedia, it's actually quite interesting.
It's wild.
But it appears he was.
It appears he was.
And there was this whole long trial in which they tried to disown him and it failed.
They failed.
So I think he is former in Israeli intel.
And this guy has come out to say Epstein was a Mossad agent and that he, this Ari Ben Minash, was the agent who handled him.
Others, including Danny Yatom, who ran the Mossad for three years, say that's not true.
And this morning we had Naftali Bennett. come out publicly as a former Israeli prime minister saying, I was with the Mossad.
And I mean, the Mossad reported directly to me.
And I say to you with 100% certainty, the accusation that Epstein worked for Israel or the Mossad running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false.
Well, I mean, I actually followed up with Bennett to ask for more clarification on that.
And what he actually told me is that Mossad has not run an operative against the United States or in the United States since Jonathan Pollard was convicted in 1987 because Israel really wants to steer clear of pissing off the United States.
There's some speculation about whether Epstein wasn't an agent, but was like an asset.
Right.
So asset is a really weird word in terms of intel because he was also accused of being an asset for both the Saudis and MI6, right?
So there are multiple intelligence agencies for whom he could theoretically have been considered an asset.
Asset is not necessarily, by the legal definition, somebody who is like working for a foreign government.
It could be somebody who is giving information to a foreign government under a wide variety of auspices.
And so, you know, that's a lot vaguer.
What we do know from, well, what we do know from the public statements is that he was not working for an American intelligence agency.
The Israelis say he wasn't working for them.
Now, one of the weird sort of unfalsifiable aspects of this case is that if Mossad says somebody's not working for them, are they or are they not?
So usually.
Well, same with our intel.
Intelligence Agency Confusion00:02:46
Well, right, exactly.
And so this is kind of my problem with this case and why I keep begging for more, same as you, more transparency, more evidence.
I tend to believe that the DOJ and FBI are correct in their evidentiary presentation.
You tend to not.
But I think that we're coming to the same conclusion, which is release everything you got, because I don't think anybody should be afraid of the answers.
I just think there's a way in which it's not some, they're not covering up for pedophiles that Jeffrey Epstein was the disgusting dirtbag that was referenced in that settlement agreement I read to you part of.
And that the DOJ at the time started sniffing around him and then quickly was pulled off of the Epstein matter.
And I believe Acosta might have been told by DOJ, no, stop.
Don't go there.
There's a reason.
I mean, there was a, by the way, not for nothing, but I did find this interesting in my in my research.
The local, the Palm Geach County state attorney at the time, Barry Krishner, wrote the assistant U.S. attorney at the time when it was settled about the proposed agreement.
Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in writing.
After this is resolved, I would love to buy a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation.
There's just, there's so much smoke around it.
And I think there's, there, there could be a piece in what Tucker said that's true that they didn't investigate as hard as they wanted to or could have.
So they got pulled off of it.
And from that point forward, they never got all the evidence that we would like to see.
Anyway, my mind is wide open.
Ben Shapiro, I love debating the facts with you.
Thank you for coming on.
Thanks, Maine.
All right, to be continuing with Michael Schellenberger right after this break.
Afternoons can be rough.
Energy fades, cravings kick in, and focus goes out the window.
The quick fix, another coffee.
But that can lead to jitters or a crash leader or bad night's sleep.
Peak's sun goddess matcha is another option.
It can give steady energy and help you focus without the ups and downs.
This isn't just any matcha.
It's organic, ceremonial grade, and grown in Japan's pure volcanic soil, far away from pollution.
It's harvested by tea masters and screened for toxins not once, but four times.
That's how serious they are about quality.
The taste is smooth, creamy, and rich, not bitter like lower quality matcha.
It's packed with antioxidants to keep you sharp and steady.
Whether it's how the day starts or how it gets back on track, this matcha is not just a drink.
It can be a better daily habit.
Right now, you can get up to 20% off for life, plus a free rechargeable frother and glass beaker.
That's nice.
It's backed by a 90-day money-back guarantee.
So go to peaklife.com slash Megan.
That's spelled P-I-Q-U-Elife.com slash Megan to try it for yourself.
Again, that's P-I-Q-U-E-Life.com slash Megan.
FBI Video Release Claims00:15:52
Here for more on the Epstein discussion is journalist Michael Schellenberger.
He feels strongly, as strongly as we do, about the importance of the Epstein case, writing this weekend, quote, this failure to follow through seriously undermines Trump's explicit commitments to reform and shine light on the deep state.
Michael is the founder of Public News on Substack and CBR chair of politics, censorship, and free speech at the University of Austin.
Michael, welcome back.
Great to see you.
So I understand, you know, Ben's position, which is I trust these guys and without direct evidence to contradict what they're saying, I'm choosing to move on.
That's exactly what Trump would like everyone to say.
And I'm a Trump supporter, but I'm just not there yet because my only goal is to follow the facts.
That's it.
I'm not trying to undermine Trump.
I'm not trying to help Trump.
I'm trying to just follow facts.
I feel like you're in my camp.
So where do you stand on all of this?
Yeah, well, first of all, it's great to be back with you, Megan.
And I'm really glad that you're continuing to cover this.
In fact, we just published a story really praising MAGA for standing up to Trump on this and continuing to push for answers.
Of course, the media has said for over a decade that MAGA is a cult of personality.
I think it's proven that it's not with this.
And I think it thus marks a pretty important watershed moment in the Trump administration.
I think it's a big blow to the legitimacy of the Trump administration and legitimacy is really essential for governing.
So I think it's a big ongoing problem.
But, you know, look, I'm with you.
I mean, look, part of the problem is that you have the director of the FBI, the deputy director of the FBI, the attorney general, all having made very strong claims.
You know, I mean, we have Pam Bondi said there was a truckload of evidence, thousands of pages of documents.
You had Deputy Director Dan Bongino say that he was told that Epstein was an intelligence asset for a country in the Middle East.
Director Kash Patel said that the FBI wasn't releasing the client list because of who's on that list.
And then I think kind of tragically, you know, Kash Patel has sort of positioned himself as a really loyal public servant for the president.
But Dan Bongino was a really trusted influencer, podcaster.
You know, he went on Fox and Friends and said that they were going to release the raw unedited video of Epstein's cell.
They did not do that.
That is not what happened.
And so they still have a lot of explaining to do.
I don't think the cover-up's worse than the crime, but clearly there's a cover-up that's ongoing.
And I just don't see how the Trump administration moves on without transparency.
Why do you say they did not do that about the prison cell video?
I mean, I know there's a missing minute before midnight.
And now there's a report out that the video itself has been, I don't want to say manipulated, which makes it sound nefarious, but that changes were made to it prior to it being released.
Dan admitted on Fox and Friends that they were cleaning it up so that it was more easy to see.
And that minute before midnight, I think his defenders would say, what kind of a ninja could get in and out of the cell in a minute and commit this murder?
Like, if you believe that, you know, I got a spaceship I want to sell you.
But I think there are people like Julie K. Brown who say, like her response to all that was, you're, you're debating what happened at a Starbucks in Austin instead of talking about JFK getting shot in the head in Dallas.
Her point has been that video doesn't show Epstein's cell.
It shows a common area down the hallway from Epstein's cell.
And we have no idea what prisoners may have had access to Epstein, what deal may have been struck with them, how easy it was for them to get to him.
Even in his cell alone, if you want to argue, there was that just allowing him to commit suicide was what was done as opposed to actual murder.
He was given two mattresses when most people had one.
He was given extra linens when that was forbidden.
You know, a couple of weeks after he had tried to kill himself.
So there's a couple of theories abounding, but I'm curious why you think Dan didn't live up to the promise on the tape.
Well, I mean, he said both he and Patel said that we would be getting the original prison video.
I mean, the exact quote from Patel was, we're going to give the original Epstein prison video so you don't think there were any shenanigans.
You know, I was joking with a friend of mine.
I was like, one of the most endearing quality of Republicans is that they're such bad liars.
You know, the Democrats are really good at it, but this is clear misinformation.
You know, you can see in the metadata that they were, that the video was assembled from two source clips, saved multiple times, exported and uploaded to the Department of Justice's website.
This was, you can see this both in the Wired report, also CoffeeZilla, a really underrated podcaster, did a really incredible investigation of it.
Moreover, it doesn't, as you said, it doesn't actually dispel suspicions in any way.
It doesn't, it contradicts the previous assertion that all the inmates were in their cells by 8 p.m.
Now, that was the previous assertion.
The new DOJ memo says Epstein was out of his cell around 1040 p.m., which is consistent with a distant orange image in the footage that appears near the staircase to the cell block.
But what's still unexplained is why the prison guards failed to complete their mandatory rounds and inmate counts that night, and then why they falsified their statements and records by claiming they had.
So there's just too many.
I mean, the other thing was that we also saw this huge escalation.
In 2019, the DOJ said that the Epstein indictment referred to dozens of victims.
Now they say it's 1,000 victims.
That's the new, the memo that the Trump administration just put out said there was 1,000 victims.
So there's just so many missing.
And Michael, just to go back, we talked about this in hour one.
We pulled up the old DOJ documents from right around the time Epstein cut that sweetheart plea deal in 08.
And in that, in one of the related documents in settling a civil case with the victims, the DOJ is on record as admitting he had approximately 30 victims as of 2008 from all around the country.
So in 2008, it was 30.
And then he cut a deal.
And from 2008 to 2020, 19 or to 2019, when he died, he amassed another 970 victims.
Obviously not, right?
I mean, they just, that was the part of the, part of the sweetheart deal was to cover up the full scale of the operation.
You know, I mean, I've heard it, there's a, there's a sort of a story going around now that this is all sort of a conspiracy theory, you know, that we don't know, you know, you know, what they got.
I mean, you know, this is the Miami Herald in 2019 reported that FBI agents found a cache of thick black binders, all labeled with names that contain hundreds of naked or semi-naked photographs on CDs that Epstein stored in various places.
The picture that Bondi was sort of presenting was, well, he just had some child porn that he had downloaded on his laptop.
That is just absolutely contradicted by all of the court cases, by what's been reported.
You know, the intelligence community ties are amazing.
I mean, I don't think you got to listen to my discussion with Ben, but Ben does not believe from the sound of it that he was an intelligence agent or asset, though we agreed asset is lesser charged, a lesser charged term than agent.
But still, for my purposes, I don't care because I think the government would have an interest in protecting him under either label.
And he doesn't put much stock into the reports about Alex Acosta, who was the U.S. attorney handling the case for the feds when they went after Epstein in 08, 07, 08.
Because the best thing we have against Acosta is a hearsay statement reported by Vicki Ward in the Daily Beast in 2019, in which she claimed that a Trump transition team official had told her that when they went to Acosta, when they were considering him for labor secretary, he said, like, this isn't going to come back to haunt us because Epstein was, I just, again, I don't want to say belong to intelligence.
Yeah, I don't want to have the wrong language, but I do have it written down in front of me that he, quote, belongs to intelligence and that he is, quote, above my pay grade.
I was told he was above my pay grade and that he was, yeah, that he, quote, belonged to intelligence and it told me to move off of the case, which, I mean, frankly, I believe.
I believe that.
And I know many people don't because then later Acosta gave that smarmy little on-camera statement at a 2019 presser when he was in trouble.
He was about to resign because he was part of the Trump administration.
Then Epstein died and Al Hel broke loose and he was on his heels.
And now he's like, oh, maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read in the press is essentially what he said.
But then when he got interviewed by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility, he reportedly behind closed doors said, it's not true that I said that to the Trump transition team.
Yeah.
I mean, you know, if that were all it was, but we also have, you know, I think you did mention to Ben, I heard the last part of it, you know, Ari Ben Manash, the former high-ranking Israeli intelligence officer who said.
He says he was a Zandler.
Yeah, he said he introduced Epstein to Israeli intelligence and that the higher-ups approved of Epstein, one of whom was the former prime minister Ehud Barak, who was also the head of Israeli military intelligence.
And how many times did Ehud Barack stay at Jeffrey Epstein's house?
I mean, what we report is that Epstein had planned 36 meetings with Barack without, I'm not sure how many of those meetings actually happened, but I mean, that's, that's a huge number of meetings.
I mean, the CIA, the former CIA director under, under, yeah, the former CIA director under Biden, Bill Burns, has already been, the Wall Street Journal reported that he had three unexplained meetings.
So, I mean, you kind of look at it, it looks like there was a sex blackmail operation being operated on U.S. soil that the CIA knew about.
I mean, I just kind of think, I think it's important for people to remember too that like honeypots or sex blackmail operations, we know that the CIA used those in the, you know, it starts in the 1960s.
According to Whitney Webb's reporting, the CIA actually got the idea for them or learned how to do them from the mafia.
But, you know, 1975, the CIA operated love traps in New York City and San Francisco where foreign diplomats were lured by prostitutes in the pay of the CIA.
They used one-way mirrors to fill to film the sexual adventures.
I'm quoting from Whitney Webb's two-volume book, One Nation Under Blackmail.
So this is, it's not like, it's certainly not outlandish that that was what was going on, that what was going on is what it appears to have been, which was a sex blackmail operation operated by intelligence.
And that's very serious, obviously, because we have a democracy that depends on the idea that we're electing people who are loyal to the citizens and not to some secret intelligence agencies.
And I should also Ben said that he, after Naftali Bennett put out this statement today saying he was never a Mossad agent, which I have to say, I credit not even a little, not even remotely.
I don't believe him.
I don't actively disbelieve him either, but I don't put any of what do you, what would, what would Naftali Bennett say?
What would Ehud Barak say?
Of course they're going to say no.
So it's like, okay, fine.
I get.
But anyway, Ben said he reached out to Naftali Bennett's office and that they told him for what it's worth that they haven't conducted any sort of spying operation on U.S. soil since 1987.
I also don't believe that.
And what's making me uncomfortable, Michael, is that I'm just trying to lay out the facts and I see you doing the same.
Tucker's saying what his opinion is, which is not outside of the mainstream at all, that he thinks Epstein worked for Mossad or was somehow an asset to them.
But this immediately, even if you're as staunch a defender of Israel in general, I haven't defended all the way they've conducted this war, but in general, their right to defend themselves after the horrific attack of 10.7.
And of American Jews who are facing overwhelming discrimination on college campuses.
Even if you're in my position, you get lunatics out there who accuse you of being like anti-Semitic because you are exploring this theory, which is such utter bullshit.
And honestly, like, I will just say this for the record.
If you think that those kind of smears are going to stop me from reporting, you haven't been paying attention to my career at all.
If anything, when you accuse me of shit like that, I will double, triple, and quadruple down.
It tells me that I'm onto something.
So nice try, but you've chosen the wrong person.
You know, I can hear Tucker's frustration when they do this to him.
He's much more controversial than I am because he's interviewing the president of Iran and things like, I'm like, I've been a defender of Israel.
So people who say I'm not going to fuck off, they don't know me at all.
I'm allowed to figure out what Jeffrey Epstein's actual connections were.
And if that leads me to our government or Israel's, too bad.
Your thoughts?
Well, no, absolutely.
I mean, we come to the exact same conclusion.
I think, first of all, we don't want any foreign intelligence.
We don't want any sex blackmail operations operated by intelligence.
We certainly don't want any foreign intelligence, whether it's France or Germany or Israel or anybody else.
I think the context is important here.
I mean, it's, I think if you're a defender, a strong defender of Israel right now, this is a difficult time.
You have to remember, a majority of Americans currently have an unfavorable view of Israel.
And the share of Americans with a very unfavorable view nearly doubled between 2022 and 2025.
Now, among Republicans ages 18 to 49, which was that audience that you were with on Friday night at Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA, 50% hold negative views of Israel up from 35% in 2022.
So I don't think that they're, I don't think that you're going to deal with that problem by trying to cancel, as you said, people that are really allies of Israel, defend the right of Israel to defend itself.
My co-author, by the way, the lead author of the piece that we just published, Daughter of an Israeli, certainly Israelis have no hesitation about criticizing the Israeli government.
It just appears to be a kind of, I mean, it's sad to see because I do see some people that engage in that idea that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.
I see some of those are people that were actually very good on this issue of cancel culture and kind of the woke reign of terror over the last 12 years.
So, no, I absolutely share your view.
You know, I think there's just this other thing that's going on, which is that MAGA, I mean, very impressed.
I mentioned before, I'm very impressed with MAGA.
I disagree with MAGA on a lot of things, including some of the stuff around free speech.
I'm not a huge fan of these attempts to do mass deportations and the way that they're doing it.
But I got to hand it to MAGA.
They are sticking with their principles on this.
They want reform of the intelligence community.
I put out one tweet on election night after Trump won, which was that we need serious intelligence community reform.
So, Megan, this Epstein cover-up, which it clearly is, that's just undeniably a cover-up, regardless of what we think it's covering up.
It's happening in a context where we're just not getting the transparency and disclosure of information that we were promised, much less the intelligence community reform that we were promised.
Deliberate Misdirection Tactics00:15:10
So, look, we have three branches of government.
Two are extremely strong, you know, the Supreme Court and the executive branch.
I don't think Congress is stepped up in the way that they need to, with some exceptions.
Representative Luna, for example, has been wonderful in getting the JFK files released.
But I think Congress now needs to step up and hold those hearings to get to the bottom of this.
I think whether or not there's a special prosecutor, as Steve Bannon has advocated, it's now time for Congress to do its job and do its Article II duties under the Constitution and provide oversight to the intelligence community.
There's not going to be a special prosecutor.
That's just not, there's zero chance that the executive branch is going to authorize that.
Zero.
I mean, they've already told us where they're going with it, which is move on, move on, no there there.
What do you make of Ben's claim?
Like, he says, so it's, it's one or the other.
It's either this is all on Pam Bondi as a communications failure, which 100% is in large part on Pam Bondi, the current crisis, because she definitely overpromised.
And then, when she under delivered, it was in the dark of night, skulked away with an unsigned memo that she just wanted to shove down our throats and then have us accept.
Or that this is an act of cover-up and Trump blessed it.
So, I said that.
I said that in a tweet, right?
That this is either Pam Bondi created this crisis and that the president is just standing by her because he thinks it's just a communication crisis.
He believes there's no there there and he's willing to forgive her for her stupid comms because she's a loyal soldier, or this actually is a cover-up and the president has authorized it.
But Ben took that to mean that I was saying a cover-up of an active pedophile ring that Trump and Bongino and Kash Patel and Pam Bondi all know about and are fine with.
That's not what I said.
I think there's an in-between there of there's a decision to move on made at the highest levels, and loyal soldiers are going along with it.
And that there are reasons other than like act girls are getting raped right now by pedophiles, foreign and domestic, and we're all just fine with it within the Trump administration.
I don't believe that.
No.
Well, no, and I think too, I also saw somebody go viral on X over the weekend who said something like, Hey, that's all in the past, and we need to really crack down on sex trafficking of minors that's happening in the present, which I totally, of course, agree with.
But I think you have to keep in mind if there's impunity for sex blackmail or sex trafficking operations in the past, that directly undermines your ability to crack down on them in the present.
Look, if it's not a cover-up, then release the truckloads of documents and thousands of documents.
I don't think this is just a communications problem.
If it is just a communications problem, then Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are equally guilty of it because they went on Rogan and on Fox and Friends and said that we were going to get the raw unedited file of Epstein's cell, and we didn't get that.
So I don't think that Bondi her communications were particularly worse.
But again, I just don't think it's a communications issue.
I think when she said there's truckloads of information that had come from the FBI to her, I think all these other information we've gotten shows that there's huge amounts of information.
You know, there was a whole, there's deception involved in the communications.
They said there's no Epstein list.
That could be true, but it's completely irrelevant.
If you have truckloads of documents and thousands of documents and hundreds of CDs with videos potentially shot through one-way mirrors of John's with, you know, minors, that's, we're in a totally different universe here.
So like, I, I think it's really good.
I think it's really important not to let it go.
I know the Trump administration is going to want to let it go.
I know a lot of folks that are Trump allies are going to want to move on.
We have a lot of things that we want to see the Trump administration do.
I mean, I just, I thanked President Trump on Friday for what he's been doing on Brazil because they're cracking down on free speech.
So I myself am in a situation where I'm like criticizing the administration.
I also am praising the administration.
It's requiring a level of complexity here, but I don't think we should let it go.
I don't think it's just a communications problem.
I think Congress needs to step up and do its job and provide oversight, even as uncomfortable as I make people, because I just think it's going to be a festering issue for months or years to come.
Better just to be transparent and get the information out there rather than let it fester.
I mean, not for nothing, but here's from a New York Times article dated July 8th, 2019.
In a detention memo submitted on Monday, federal prosecutors outlined some of the evidence seized from a search of Epstein's house on Saturday night.
It included hundreds, possibly thousands of sexually suggestive photographs of girls who appear underage, as well as hand-labeled compact discs with titles like Girl Pics Nude and with the names redacted young so-and-so plus so-and-so together.
Like that's just one example of the amount of data that's out there.
And you said that like Cash and Dan had promised release of all the unredacted files.
I think you meant video.
Sorry, the video, yes.
Yeah, no, I know, I know.
And just to be clear, and so like on the video front, I mean, FBI, I think, would say they have released the unredacted video, but then there is this Wired report today saying that it's been, that it actually has been edited.
But they released two.
You know that.
They released like one that looks cleaned up and one they say is the raw, but the wired report is saying that even the raw has gone through multiple modifications.
Hold on, I'm just trying to pull up my report here from Wired.
They say metadata shows the FBI's raw prison video was likely modified.
Metadata embedded in the video and analyzed by Wired and independent video forensics experts show that rather than being a direct export from the prison surveillance system, the footage was modified, likely using the professional editing tool Adobe Premiere Pro.
File appears to have been assembled from at least two source clips, saved multiple times, exported, then uploaded to DOJ's website where it was presented as raw.
Experts caution it's unclear what exactly was changed and that the metadata does not prove deceptive manipulation.
The video may have simply been processed for public release using available software with no modifications beyond stitching together two clips.
But the absence of a clear explanation is a problem, they go on to say.
Then they go to a professor at UC Berkeley whose research focuses on digital forensics and misinformation.
And he says, if a lawyer brought me this file and asked if it was suitable for court, I'd say no.
Go back to the source.
Do it right.
Do a direct export from the original system.
No monkey business.
He points to another anomaly.
The video's aspect ratio shifts noticeably at several points.
Why am I suddenly seeing a different aspect ratio? He asks.
He says, while the metadata clearly shows the video was modified, the changes could be benign.
For example, converting footage from a proprietary surveillance format to a standard MP4.
The FBI did not respond to specific questions about the files processing, instead referring wired to the DOJ.
The DOJ in turn referring inquiries back to the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons.
The Bureau of Prisons did not respond.
And round and round it goes.
By the way, here's that Julie Brown clip from the Dan Lebetard show on why, again, the whole debate about the metadata is like talking about the Starbucks in Austin instead of the president getting shot in the head in Dallas when it was JFK.
Turns out that might not even be video of his cell door.
It is in his cell.
The whole thing, again, is a big, big red herring.
And they think the people, and I guess there are some people that look at this because it's a frame of two cells.
Okay.
And then they point to them, him walking down below.
You can barely see him.
And now they're saying, oh, a minute is missing.
Well, it doesn't matter.
The video doesn't show Epstein's cell at all.
It doesn't even show where people are going in and out of his shell cell.
And if you read the report on his investigation, the guy who ran the cameras in the prison, the tech guy, says to investigators, none of the cameras were recording.
Okay.
They worked in real time.
There was one camera that was recording.
That is the camera that they showed you the footage of.
But that camera is of what they call the common area.
It doesn't show the walkways.
For example, let's just say another inmate wanted to go in his cell.
You would never know that because we don't have footage of his wing.
There is a camera at the end of his hallway, but it wasn't recording.
It wasn't working.
So somebody could have, you know, left one of the other inmates' cells unlocked.
The inmate could have gone in and done something to him.
I'm not saying this is what happened, but think about this.
They're showing you a camera that doesn't even show his cell.
Thoughts on that, Michael?
Yeah, I mean, look, and that's again, they promised that they were going to show, they were going to share the raw video of the cell.
And that's just not what we got.
And they were, I mean, when you watch the Patel on Rogan and Bongino on Fox and Friends, they were trying to just kind of go, look, no, no, it's just not true.
We've got the video.
It's going to absolutely prove this.
So for this to just, for to see that it was doctored, the video, and again, you could say, well, we didn't do anything misleading.
Well, then you need to release the raw video.
But again, as she was saying, great.
I mean, it's not even if they released the raw video, it wouldn't show anything because you're still missing the video of his cell.
So it just feels like a deliberate misdirection on the part of the administration.
And again, that's why I don't just think it's Bondi's fault.
I mean, you know, and not to mention the fact that, you know, the FBI is a department within DOJ and that both FBI and DOJ signed off on that memo.
So I, you know, I know you're friendly with Bongino.
I actually praised him last summer because he was absolutely right about the failures of the Secret Service.
He predicted that spot on.
I think he was right about a bunch of other stuff.
But, you know, he made a promise basically to be a truth teller, you know, for MAGA.
So for me, you know, I just kind of go, you got to come clean.
I mean, I'm not saying he needs to resign, but something needs to change here.
I don't think just getting a phone call from Trump telling him to calm down should be enough for him.
He's got made a promise to his listeners.
And I assume he wants to go back to Rumble and do his podcast after the administration.
This is just unfinished business for him.
And, you know, Patel might be more of a character that, you know, is just there to kind of do what the president wants.
But I mean, with Bongino, he sort of had this kind of dual identity.
And I think that makes this whole episode particularly problematic for him.
My own suspicion without knowing this firsthand is that the only way Dan's going to stay is if something happens, like she agrees to oppress her or she does an interview or she does something.
Because I do, I just know just having known him that transparency really is his big issue.
And even though I'm sure it took a lot for him to go on Fox and Friends and say, I think he killed himself.
You know, I know it's a reversal, but like I think that's what I think.
And somebody show me the evidence.
You got evidence.
I'll take a look at it, but we haven't seen it.
We haven't seen it.
I'm sure that took a lot for him because there's a difference between being, you know, in your seat and my seat and then actually getting to the FBI and getting actual data or the lack of it and having to say, look, we have it or we don't.
So I, for me, I believe he wasn't lying on Fox and Friends about the murder-suicide thing because I think it took a lot for him to say that.
But I know he's pro-transparency on everything.
And we're just not getting that at all.
And like, you know, I'm all over the board on this in a way, Michael, because like, I don't know what to believe other than ever since that memo and Trump's cabinet meeting the day after that memo, I'm more suspicious than ever.
Like that did exactly the opposite for me than I think was intended.
Yeah, I'll tell you something else that I think is really interesting, Megan, is that, you know, Trump is sort of famously gregarious, you know, talks a lot.
One of the criticisms, of course, is that he shares, you know, information he shouldn't share.
That's been one of the constant criticisms of him.
But here you have everybody around him, his closest people are all saying, we're going to release, you know, Epstein lists.
We're going to release the Epstein files.
I mean, the AG says it, the director of the FBI before he comes into office, the deputy director.
JD Vance goes on Theo Vaughan, I think it was about a week before the election and said, yeah, seriously, we need to release the Epstein list.
That is an important thing.
You see Donald Trump Jr., the president's son, getting up there and saying we need to release the Epstein list.
Look, I think one of the best arguments that there's nothing there that implicates Trump is the fact the Democrats didn't use it.
They were trying to put Trump in prison, trying to prevent him from running for office.
Why didn't they use it?
But it was a weird thing.
I'll say, when you watch, Trump was on Lex Friedman as well.
And there's an interesting moment where Lex, to his credit, because Lex has a reputation as a bit of a soft interviewer, he was really pressing the president on the Epstein files.
And you just see it in, you don't have to be one of those body language experts.
You know, you just see Trump becoming really uncomfortable and he kind of hems and haws around the Epstein files.
And then he goes, well, the JFK files, you know, we're going to release that.
And you kind of get a sense that at least in the president's mind, he was going to release the JFK files and that that would be sort of, that would kind of cover the transparency that they wanted to do.
But he was kind of like the Epstein files are a little bit more tricky.
It was like, well, but have you talked to everybody around you to not create expectations?
Because I mean, it's, I mean, you could say it's a communications problem, but it's like, like they didn't get the memo.
I mean, Bondi, you know, I mean, it sounded like Cash and, you know, it sounded like Patel and maybe Bongino kind of got the memo.
And that's why they went on Rogan and Fox and Friends.
But like the AG is just up there talking freely about truckloads of evidence and thousands of pages.
Which sounded more like Bongino and Cash prior to them joining the administration, which sounded more like virtually every Trump surrogate when he was running, right?
All the things that they had been saying.
And then what, you know, Pam Bondi's statements prior to actually assuming the role as DOJ, as AG, sounded totally consistent with what most of MAGA had believed.
Not to mention, we're letting Alina Haba off the hook, but she was probably more provocative than anyone on Piers Morgan.
And it's not like she had no connections to the administration.
She was at that time counselor to the president.
And within three weeks, she was working for DOJ and didn't dial any of it back and made, you know, much bigger promises.
So look, I don't know.
Balancing Integrity and Reporting00:06:16
I don't care.
I have zero desire to like hurt Trump as an electoral matter.
I'm on his side.
I've been very open about that.
But I also prize honesty with the audience and just honesty, period, first.
So this, you're right.
This is an awkward moment because you really have to make sure you have your integrity, you have your commitment to honest reporting, and you're not letting your fondness for the administration drive the way you cover it.
Nor like, as soon as I see the left jumping on, I'm like, ew, that's, that makes me want to leave this, this little lily pot, you know, like I don't want to be the same side of Jamie as Jamie Raskin on anything, but I kind of would like to see a hearing or a congressional subpoena.
Yeah, well, no, I'm with you.
I certainly don't want to help, I mean, the left bring back, you know, all the awfulness they brought back.
You know, at the same time, intelligence community reform is something that had been bipartisan.
The last time we had significant intelligence community reform was in 1975 when you had the church committee hearings.
And then there was a whole set of reforms that were passed into law with bipartisan majorities in Congress.
And so, yeah, I mean, I don't trust Jamie Raskin and the folks that have been really, you know, were promoting various hoaxes and conspiracies around the president.
But I do feel like there, I wish there were this were an opportunity.
Like if even if you couldn't get the transparency under the Epstein files, can we get intelligence community reform?
You know, and that's not just putting, you know, Trump's picks as the head of those agencies.
It's real reform.
And you saw Tulsi Gabbard, the president's director of national intelligence at the turning point USA conference that you were at on Friday night, get up there and say that just openly that they're dealing with deep state operatives that are preventing them from releasing information.
And so you have this clear.
Oh, and it's happening in FBI too.
Yeah, you have this clear cry for help.
And I understand the challenge of it because often those people that are the problem of blocking information are also, you know, valuable for doing other things.
They have all this institutional memory.
They have all this, you know, they have strings that they're pulling in all sorts of ways.
So I get that.
It's hard, but that's why I'm like, you got to bring Congress into it somehow.
You got to get some dynamic set up where there's something going on to get more information released, to get intelligence community reformed.
If there really is, if all that's left in the so-called files is stuff that could potentially be problematic for like an individual wrongly accused or, you know, nobody's interested in seeing actual victims' names of, you know, like that's not, that's actually not appropriate to release or secret grand jury testimony that we have no legal right to.
If you get a congressional subpoena, all that can be handled.
The administration might want that, right?
So it's like, here, take it all, right?
If they're not interested in covering anything up, then they should welcome a congressional speaker.
Great.
You guys take it.
Let this be your problem and not ours.
I think some people, at least in the administration, may want that.
I have to take a break, but I've got to ask you something quickly about the piece you just dropped that as you came on.
And it's called Why MAGA Isn't Dropping Epstein.
This is interesting on the question of whether Epstein was an agent possibly for Israel.
You write about this guy, Ben Minash, who we discussed in brief.
He asserted that he introduced Epstein to Israeli intelligence and that his higher-ups approved of Epstein.
One such higher-up was Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, who was the head of Israeli military intelligence when Ben Minash met Epstein.
Between 13 and 17, Epstein planned 36 meetings with Ehud Barak.
In the 1980s, according to reports, Epstein developed relationships with British arms dealers and often traveled from the Middle East to London.
Ben Minosh alleged that Epstein was then contracted to act as a professional blackmailer on behalf of Israeli military intelligence.
This is the part that's interesting to me.
Due to fears that a new American president would push for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.
Now, that is actually quite interesting.
Like that actually gives a motive to Israel potentially for why it would do this.
Like, because, you know, it seems somewhat incredulous.
I'm incredulous to think Israel just wanted to see a bunch of little girls molested and sat idly by while they watched.
And again, I don't think we're talking about little girls.
It doesn't make it better that they're 14.
I'm just, there is a somewhat of a difference just in terms of the crime when you talk about six versus 14, 15.
You know what I'm saying?
I'm not blessing either.
Anyway, this actually puts a potential motive behind why they thought it was worth it.
That's right.
And potentially, I mean, a really disturbing one when you consider that this is potentially an effort to control or influence U.S. foreign policy.
You know, whatever you think of the bombing of those uranium enrichment facilities in Iran, there's a legitimate debate about whether that's in the U.S. interest.
You know, clearly it was started, instigated by Israel.
There's real questions about why that's in the U.S. interest.
It was, I mean, just to be, you know, open about, I mean, look, to be honest about it, Iran was complying with international law.
I mean, it had inspectors in there.
It had not kicked the inspectors out.
Under the Nonproliferation Treaty, it has a right to enrich uranium.
Again, I'm not defending Iran.
I'm not defending the uranium enrichment, but this was not consistent with international law.
And maybe we just don't believe international law anymore or shouldn't believe it anymore.
But, you know, I think there's reasons to wonder if that was motivated by some, motivated by wanting to support Israel rather than an objective look at U.S. interests.
So all of this is occurring in a context when I think whatever you think of the Israel-Gaza-Hamas war, there's a genuine concern that the U.S. could get drawn into a broader Middle Eastern conflict because of Israel.
I don't think that's, that's not anti-Israel to be concerned about being pulled into foreign conflicts.
So when you add in this, you know, potential sex blackmail operation, yeah, it really dials up the drama a bit.
Optimizing Body Performance with Armra00:02:24
Well, I think it's safe to say both you and we will stay on it.
All right, we're going to take a quick break and then we're going to come back on what we just learned about Joe Biden and President Otto Penn.
This thing is getting more interesting and more problematic for the Biden administration.
Why are elite athletes, business leaders, and high performers turning to Armra cholesterol?
Armra cholesterol is nature's first whole food, packed with over 400 bioactive nutrients that work at the cellular level to support lean muscle growth, accelerate recovery, and fuel performance, all without artificial stimulants or synthetic ingredients.
Whether you are training hard, managing a busy schedule, or simply looking for an edge, Armra says it can help optimize your body for peak output.
Armra cholesterol reports to enhance metabolism, improve nutrient absorption, and support hormone balance for better energy and fat burning potential.
Additional benefits include support for hair growth, skin radiance, and faster recovery after intense activity, making it a powerful tool for anyone looking to perform at their best.
Here's a special offer.
Receive 30% off your first subscription order.
Just go to armra.com slash Megan or enter code Megan at checkout.
That's armra.com slash Megan to get 30% off your first subscription order.
Here's one way to clean up your medicine cabinet this season and replace toxin-filled conventional products with more natural ones.
Propolis immune support, throat spray, and propolis plus vitamin C liposomol that can be must-haves in the medicine cabinet as seasonal germs start to hit.
Did you know that germs can enter through your nasal passages just as easily as through your mouth?
Propolis nasal spray is a great non-toxic swap for other over-the-counter drug-filled medications.
It's non-habit-forming, natural, and has antimicrobial benefits.
Beekeepers Naturals makes clean, non-toxic products that actually work.
They never use harmful ingredients like red dye number three or other synthetic dyes or artificial flavors.
Their products are third-party tested for all pesticides, and they're dedicated to sustainable beekeeping, too, and helping save the bees.
Beekeepers Naturals is offering you an exclusive right now.
Go to beekeepersnaturals.com slash Megan or enter code Megan to get 20% off your order.
That's beekeepersnaturals.com slash Megan or enter code Megan.
Beekeepers Naturals products are also available at Target Whole Foods, Walmart, CVS, and Walgreens.
Bioweapon Development Concerns00:08:13
I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM.
It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today.
You can catch the Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love.
Great people like Dr. Laura, Flynn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly.
You can stream the Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are.
No car required.
I do it all the time.
I love the SiriusXM app.
It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more.
Subscribe now, get your first three months for free.
Go to seriousxm.com slash MK Show to subscribe and get three months free.
That's seriousxm.com slash MK Show and get three months free.
Offer details apply.
You're talking about the Auto Pen.
Look, the Auto Pen, I think, is maybe one of the biggest scandals that we've had in 50 to 100 years.
This is a tremendous scandal.
And I know the people on the other side of the desk, that Resolute desk, unfortunately, he used it before me.
But, you know, we have our choice of seven desks.
They're all beautiful.
But I chose the Resolute, and so did he, unfortunately.
But the people on the other side of the Resolute desk, I know them, Lisa, the whole group, and they're no good.
They're sick people.
And I guarantee you he knew nothing about what he was signing.
I guarantee it.
So they're going to figure it out and we'll see what happens.
Welcome back to the Megan Kelly Show.
Michael Schellenberger is my guest.
He's founder of Public on Substack.
Michael, that was the president commenting on this New York Times report on the Auto Pen, where they, for the first time, got access briefly to Joe Biden himself.
And it was revealed by him, he claimed that he had orally granted all the pardons and commutations issued at the end of his term, saying, I made every decision.
But the New York Times actually unearthing that the person who would actually like press go on the auto pen was her last name is Feldman.
And she, I guess, felt uncomfortable with the process they had set up because she was not in any of the meetings with the president, only was receiving direction from underlings and wanted to have some written accounts confirming his oral instructions in these meetings.
And yet all she got was assistants who drafted blurbs who were not themselves in the room.
The assistants then circulated the drafts to the people who were in the room, like Ed Siskel, his White House counsel, Jeff Zeintz, his chief of staff, and some others.
And that whole people wound up pardoned or having their sentences commuted by Jeff Zeintz just simply hitting reply to all to approve these decisions.
So it was like Biden orally to some set of staff.
Then the girl who had to press go said, can I have something in writing?
And all she got was like a reply to all from the chief of staff saying, everything's approved.
And that is how we wound up with some of the most controversial pardons in U.S. history.
The only one he physically signed was the one for his son, Hunter Biden.
What do you make of it?
Gosh.
How could I possibly add anything to it?
I mean, it's so crazy because if you're too debilitated to actually sign something, then how can you say that you were, you know, were fully competent to actually make the decision?
There's so much to unpack in there.
I mean, I thought the Times piece, first of all, is very long.
It was a very serious report.
They then frame it sort of defensively on the side of Biden.
Biden says he made the clemency decisions.
But if you actually go read that full piece, it is absolutely damning.
Comer, you know, Congressman Comer doing oversight apparently is issuing new subpoenas.
There's going to be more of investigation.
You know, where does it go legally?
I mean, who knows?
Does it go to the Supreme Court finally to rule on this stuff?
I mean, there's so much in it.
You know, Jeff Zeinz, the chief of staff, Zents, who pardoned Fauci, was also the main social media censorship coordinator on COVID policy.
So, I mean, it's just, you know, so corrupt from top to bottom.
It's really quite shocking.
That's really interesting because the other person who got pardoned, of course, was Fauci.
And he's the only other one that I think the president admits in this meeting, he personally said like specifically yes to.
He said specifically yes to Hunter, specifically yes to Fauci, and he signed the Hunter pardon.
But I mean, the more we learn about Fauci, the more we come to understand that this whole cabal probably well understood that Fauci, this was not some prophylactic, oh, just protect our friend who did nothing wrong, that perhaps it was much more nefarious.
And they knew what we're starting to realize about Fauci and what we're starting to glean from the Intel community, which is he knew far more and was repeatedly under oath with Congress lying.
Yeah, that's right.
I mean, it's also such a testament to like these cases that you think are actually that we know everything and they're ready to move on, that there's still information coming out about them.
I mean, I thought we knew everything about Biden's, you know, poor health until the Jake Tapper book came out, which was, I think, contained a bunch of new revelations as annoying as it was coming from him.
But similarly for COVID, there's so much we still don't know about COVID.
And what was it that they were doing?
You know, was COVID, you know, if it's created in a lab, I mean, this whole idea that it was a, people go, people that say it's a conspiracy theory.
It's a conspiracy theory to suggest it was a bioweapon.
But if it was created in a lab, you know, it was potentially in, you know, a lab that PLA had oversight over the Chinese army.
It was potentially a bioweapon.
And so you were looking at essentially, I mean, I also told this to some progressive friends of mine.
They were like, what are you actually saying?
And I was saying, I'm saying that it looks as though, and we don't have all the proof yet, but it looks as though the United States was involved in a bioweapons program, you know, I think motivated to develop vaccines against those bioweapons, but was involved in a bioweapons and vaccination program in China.
We funded it.
We did a lot of the intellectual development of it and then it leaked and the guy that was responsible for creating it also oversaw the response, which Megan, I think people don't fully appreciate.
I mean, we know, of course, it was, you know, people know that it was an over, we over-responded to it.
One of the questions is why?
Like, why was there such a radical, aggressive response to COVID with the lockdowns and the school closures?
One possibility is that they knew perfectly well that it was a bioweapon, that it wasn't some thing that leaked out from the wild.
And so one of the remaining questions that we want to get at is, did Fauci and his lieutenants realize, oh, you know, they were developing a bioweapon in that lab?
Again, I'm not saying it was some conspiracy to poison the world or kill all these people.
I'm just saying as a military project to develop vaccines to potential bioweapons.
And then when it leaked, the response to it resembled much more of a response that you would have to a bioweapon rather than to some virus that had emerged naturally, you know, from the jungles of South China.
And now I feel like we're never going to know because there's no question in my mind that neither Fauci nor Francis Collins left those offices without scrubbing anything and everything that would have reflected any of that.
Lurking Information Remains00:01:33
Yeah, you could be right.
You know, like I said, I think that, you know, I think we all thought, you know, I just published a, I've been publishing a debate around the JFK files and the person that thinks it was a lone shooter wrote a book called Case Closed that came out in the 90s.
So, you know, I think that sometimes we think these things are case closed, but there is some information lurking out there.
So another reason to keep the cases open and continue to investigate and continue to demand transparency in congressional hearings because there could very well be more information out there that we're not aware of.
Well, and I wonder now whether the Fauci pardon and for that matter, the Hunter Biden, I don't know.
I'm like not sure.
If Biden was non-compass mentis, the Hunter one could be in trouble too.
But really, the auto pen pardons, whether they're really going to stand.
I mean, the odds, you'd have to butt money on them standing.
I don't think the Supreme Court's going to want to second guess any of this, but it's one of the reasons why we need this Dr. Kevin O'Connor to actually speak, notwithstanding his BS assertions of privilege, which don't stand when you're looking at a congressional subpoena, the attorney or the doctor patient privilege.
Now we'll see about the Fifth Amendment.
If he gets immunity, that too should go away.
Anyway, there's a lot more happening on that front.