Owen Shroyer and Ben Bankas dissect the Trump administration’s push for a controversial "big beautiful bill"—Senate-backed tax reforms (like SALT deduction cuts) and House AI/military policies—while mocking Elon Musk’s Epstein feud and Kash Patel’s debunked jail video claims. They criticize activist judges blocking immigration enforcement, contrast Arnold Schwarzenegger’s legacy with modern welfare-dependent immigrants, and joke about raw milk regulations and airport security. Bankas promotes his supplements as "deep state" antidotes, while Shroyer ties it all to a broader culture war: fiscal conservatism vs. liberal self-censorship in comedy, where offense now dictates boundaries. The episode frames political and media battles as clashes over control, truth, and viral provocation. [Automatically generated summary]
Ladies and gentlemen, it is Friday, June 6th, 2025.
This is the Infowars War Room, the fastest three hours on the internet.
I think things have cooled down a little bit today.
Things have cooled down since yesterday's battle of the MAGA Titans, Elon Musk and Donald Trump.
Now, there were rumors last night there would be a phone call between the two parties today.
The White House then said that will not be happening, and it sounds like Trump is not interested in that phone call.
I'm not so sure if Musk is either.
And so that just kind of festers.
And then the ongoing debate, which I saw actually shift.
Today, I think yesterday was kind of shock and awe, and then the actual debate over the contents of the bill.
Now, today, a lot of people, not even conspiracy theorists, I'm talking about just, you might say, mainstream conservative talk show hosts and commentators now think that the entire thing was a ruse.
They think the whole thing was theater.
For some reasons we discussed yesterday, but it was interesting to see that shift today.
They just couldn't even believe it.
I still don't think that's the case.
There's a lot of reasons why people believe that.
But I think when Elon Musk goes into the Epstein accusations, I don't really know if you're kidding anymore.
And then it looks like there were some things in response to it, in all the chaos, some...
So that, to me, makes it look real.
But we'll go over all of that.
Now, there was some political action today.
Actually, some of it happened yesterday, but it kind of got blurred out because of all of the noise with the Trump-Musk conflict.
And then Kash Patel appears on Joe Rogan today looking very comfortable.
In his hoodie.
And I had some interesting stories that he broke today with Joe Rogan.
Now, I was familiar that Patel and others have been doxxed from the Trump administration, and I've also heard that there have been some local officials here.
They just haven't gone public because they don't want to confirm that these people have the right address.
But he just went public with that today.
And then there were some...
So we'll get into some of that, review some of that.
I've got a couple interesting guests today.
We're going to be going back to the good logic.
Let's play on words.
The attorney we had on, Joe Nierman, who is in the courtroom every day monitoring and reporting on the Diddy case.
So we're going to be getting another weekly update.
On the Diddy case.
I know of a couple of crazy details that came out this week, but I'm sure he'll have some more information on that.
And then we're going to be joined in studio by a comedian, actually a Canadian comedian.
You may have seen his work before.
He's very funny.
Ben Bankus, who now has, he's actually moved now, and he's in Texas now, so he's going to be coming in studio, actually.
And I'm going to be talking to him about the state of comedy.
You know, this whole Dave Portnoy situation where, and he's not the only one, but he's got a big platform, he's got a big voice, and he wants to ban, he says we need to ban any Jew jokes.
Now, we'll get into that and kind of the overall state of comedy, but really just to focus on Portnoy, what a hypocrite he is when it comes to his stance on what comedy is allowed and what comedy isn't.
So the crash out from a couple nights ago with Dave Portnoy, we'll talk to comedian Ben Bankis about that.
And then I'm also going to talk to him about the state of Canada.
You know, he moves down here to Texas, probably because he's sick of what's going on in Canada.
So we'll have a bit of that discussion as well.
We do have some other geopolitical news.
And yep, Russia has now officially attacked Kiev.
We saw this coming, but specifically after the Ukrainian attack on the Russians the other day, we knew that this was inevitable.
So we'll get into that as well today on the Infowars War Room.
It looks like it's going to stay in that box for the time being.
And so we separate that.
Some people think it's all theater.
It's all part of...
I'm not of that belief, but that looks like it's just going to kind of stay over there.
But it's now separated from the issues in the big, beautiful bill that they have in Congress or whether it's relevant or not that the Trump base has.
And so this debate has been ongoing.
We've separated the two issues.
There's no doubt the White House is running cover for this right now, meaning They're trying to get the narrative back on track and hoping if they can just drum up support from the Republican voters that maybe they can get some of these senators and some of these House representatives on board.
But I think it's pretty clear what's going to have to be done.
And I would say at this point it looks like the Senate will likely remove the SALT deduction.
We'll see if they remove any of the military spending.
But the Senate will likely remove the SALT deduction and maybe the debt ceiling, no limit debt ceiling.
And then they'll put the onus on the House to do something with the AI issue and maybe some of the other issues that they have as well.
But it looks like they're kind of going to tag team this to try to work it down a little bit.
And get something that they all feel a little bit more comfortable with.
Now, when I say the White House is out here running cover, I guess I don't mean that in a totally negative way.
But obviously they're sending spokespeople out into the media to try to explain what's really going on with this bill.
And really their best communicator is Stephen Miller.
Now, I think they're in a tough position.
Because usually the world of Trump politics and MAGA politics doesn't have to work like this.
They don't usually have to do issue campaigns.
You might even call it political propaganda campaigns.
They don't normally have to do this stuff.
Now, they might get into some fighting with congressional Republicans on getting things done, but there's never been an issue really since COVID.
There's never been an issue in this administration.
It got so big that it just sucked the air out of the entire political world and everybody was talking about it.
But Stephen Miller has been doing some media rounds trying to explain what's going on.
And he's a great communicator and he did a good job.
Now, I don't think it really changes the issues that we have.
And so now it just becomes a matter of who's going to make concessions.
Are the...
Or are they going to scrap it?
Are the House Republicans going to make concessions on the AI issue and some of the military spending that they don't like?
Or are they just going to accept it?
And I think this is where the lines are going to be drawn, and I think this is where the Senate and the House are kind of going to play volleyball with this thing to see what they can get it down to and then hopefully get it passed, which looks like it's...
We're not technically in summer yet.
But it looks like it'll be maybe more of a late summer victory.
But the Trump administration, which really I think is fair to say is represented by Mike Johnson.
Because I think they're controlling Mike Johnson for the most part.
As far as this bill is concerned.
And so, you know, whatever they're telling Mike Johnson, he'll basically go along with it for now.
And whatever they're telling Mike Johnson they need in this bill, he's going to promote it for now.
But then Johnson will have to be the intermediary between the congressional Republicans and their demands and what the White House wants.
But eventually they're going to have to come together and they're going to have to pass this bill.
They're going to have to pass this bill because it is going to be important for the Trump agenda.
And in a reconciliation bill, there's other advantages that they have as far as the procedures and the votes are concerned.
And so it's like, you get one shot at this, you gotta do it.
So they gotta get this thing right.
And it is gonna be important for mass deportations.
They're gonna massively fund ICE.
They're gonna massively fund the deportation effort.
They're gonna fund deportation infrastructure.
Hire a bunch of new agents.
Expand these operations.
So that's very important.
There are the tax cuts in there.
Obviously, we all want that.
And there's some other MAGA agenda items in there as well.
Now, the AI issue was explained.
The reason why they have it in there and written like they do is because the way it works right now, they don't want, for example, the state...
Now, again, Stephen Miller explained it.
I'm going to try to do my best, but I think if you just kind of understand the concept of it, you'll get a grasp on it.
But basically, a lot of the AI headquarters are in California.
A lot of AI technology will come into the country through California.
And so they can basically rig their laws that will end up controlling the entire United States based off whatever they want to do in California.
So the reason why they put that language of the AI in there was to basically cut California out of that process and remove that control from the state of California so that the federal government can do it.
Now, you might like that concept when Trump is president, but a lot of these policies are 10-year long.
So they can get reversed, or the Biden, whoever administration, not Biden, whatever Democrat gets in next, can then use these policies to their own advantage, or they can just decide they're going to reverse them.
So a lot of this stuff could easily, they could just reverse it with another Democrat president.
If a Democrat president decides, okay, no debt limit, I'm going to do ridiculous spending for welfare.
So there's all kinds of different issues if you hand this bill to the Democrats.
But these things normally just get reversed and rewritten anyway whenever there's a new administration.
So, that's the reason why they had that language in there.
Now, Miller did say that portion of the bill could be, they could make a concession, the White House could make a concession on that.
If it's a no-go and they can't get it through the House, then they can make a concession on that, but they'd still like to find a way.
To make sure the state of California cannot dictate how AI is handled for the rest of the country.
So maybe there's a better way that they can work that in.
But I do think that might be an issue with getting, once again, the votes in the House.
So that's going to have to be probably reworked.
The debt ceiling, they argue that if they don't increase the debt ceiling or they don't have no debt limit, That Chuck Schumer can use to basically cap the spending of the Trump administration.
Now, to me, it feels like there's a bit of a mix-up here.
And I don't doubt that the CBO was not giving good numbers or favorable numbers to get support for the bill.
Probably the exact opposite.
I have no doubt about that.
But the Trump administration is arguing that the thing will balance itself out if you're saying, hey, this doesn't balance the debt or this doesn't balance the deficit, and that's what the CBO was reporting.
The Trump administration is saying, well, the tariffs will balance it.
So they're not weighing in the tariffs.
Okay.
Well, so let's say that's fair.
But now if you're talking about balancing all of this, then why do you need to go with the unlimited debt?
So that one, I don't know.
I don't know if they're going to have, if they're going to be able to get the votes in the Senate on an unlimited debt ceiling.
So that might be something that the White House has to make a concession on.
And those two things I think are inevitable as far as concessions are concerned.
The SALT deduction, this is ridiculous.
It shouldn't even be in there.
But you have Republicans in the state of California and in the state of Illinois that refuse.
They're in the House.
It's like Mike Lawler's one of them.
They refuse to vote for a bill that doesn't maintain the SALT deductions.
It's absurd.
If I'm the Republicans, I force them to own that, and I'd make them play chicken on that, and I'd call them out on that, and I'd say, these Republicans refuse to vote for this bill unless we continue to subsidize blue states with red state taxpayers.
So I'd make them own up to that.
I'd remove that.
The Senate is where that's going to have to happen.
The House is not going to do it because they won't have the votes.
But if the Senate does it and then it goes back to the House, maybe that'll force their hand to vote for it anyway, and then they don't want to sit there with their tail between their legs like, oh, I'm not going to vote because I can't get the SALT deductions to subsidize blue states.
So I think that'll be the strategy.
Now, whether the Senate Republicans want to do that or not, or just balk at that and say, fine, we'll keep that in, we shall see.
But this is where it's all going.
This is where the bill is all going.
This is where the debate inside Congress is at.
And it looks like Johnson representing the White House.
And then the House Republicans as a voting bloc where they have to get, obviously, a certain number to get it passed.
And the same thing in the Senate.
So the House Republicans are going to have to agree on something that they get the votes for.
Which they don't have right now.
The Senate Republicans will have to agree on something that they can get the votes for, which they don't have right now.
And then Mike Johnson is going to be in there basically lobbying for the Trump administration on these issues if they think it's something worth fighting over or not.
So the AI thing, they've already said we can work with that and we can rewrite the language or if we have to remove it, maybe we will.
So the White House has already said, okay, there's a possible concession there.
They don't want to deal with the debt limit.
They've made that clear.
They may not have a choice, but that's one thing they've made clear.
The SALT deductions doesn't seem to be a big issue for the White House.
I think that's just a five Republicans in the House issue.
So if the Senate removes it, their hand might be forced.
So there's a chance you could get rid of the SALT deductions.
The military spending, they can probably keep all of it and still pass the bill in the House.
I think the only holdout on the military spending is going to be Thomas Massey, and that's not enough to keep it from passing in the House.
So that will likely stay, and he's been the one vocal about the military spending being too much.
But that's where it's at right now.
So we're separating that issue from the Trump-Musk feud, which who knows where that goes.
Who knows where that goes now?
Now, some other issues here.
Senator Mike Lee, I think we can all get behind this.
Leave NATO.
Reunite Trump and Musk.
This is the way.
And you also have Anna Paulina Luna in the house.
NATO is a massive financial drain on this country.
While we are actively pushing for peace between Ukraine and Russia, Yeah, well, not just NATO.
Lindsey Graham, Mike Pompeo, Vladimir Zelensky, and now Vladimir Putin.
So, we shouldn't have ever been in NATO.
NATO just steals our money.
The only reason why Trump doesn't leave NATO is because it gives him leverage in geopolitical and foreign policy debates and issues.
So he can use that NATO funding against Europe to say, okay, well, if you won't do this or if you won't do that for us, then we'll just go ahead and stop funding NATO, to which, of course, the European countries are like, well, no, hey, ho, we don't need to be, let's not make any rash decisions here.
We still want your money.
We still want all the money you pay to defend our countries that doesn't really benefit you at all.
We still want that money from you.
So hold on.
Maybe we can make something happen here.
So, specifically, maybe it's with tariffs.
But whatever issues that Trump may have, as far as foreign policy, geopolitics in Europe, he uses the NATO funding as a bargaining chip and as leverage.
And it's about as good as one as you can get, except we are sick and tired of paying for NATO, and it's just been a disaster for our foreign policy, and it's been bad for the world.
So it's losing popularity.
It's losing popularity fast.
You also have the SAVE Act, which the Senate is promoting right now, and it should have been passed a long time ago, but the Democrats never wanted to pass it, but now is the time.
Senate must advance the SAVE Act.
Congress must pass the SAVE Act to ensure the legitimacy of our elections.
Voting in the United States elections is for U.S. citizens only.
Federal law prohibits non-citizen voting, but it's too easy to circumvent.
The SAVE Act would fix that.
And then Senator Lee shares a story that he wrote with Ken Cuccinelli explaining why the SAVE Act is necessary.
So some other agenda items there in the Senate that need to get done.
And there should be no reason why we can't get the SAVE Act passed unless some Republicans want to get nasty or...
Democrat shenanigans, too.
You also had, and this happened yesterday, but the noise of the Trump-Musk feud drowned out.
House Oversight Chair James Comer subpoenas Joe Biden's White House doctor.
That's right.
Kevin O'Connor has been subpoenaed, which the subpoena dictates This comes after Connor had declined Comer's request to voluntarily appear before the committee.
Now, it's not clear, I'm getting mixed signals here, whether it's going to be a public testimony or closed doors testimony.
It sounded like this one was going to be public.
They offered him the closed doors once he declined it.
Comer said, Among other subjects, the committee has expressed its interest in whether your financial relationship with the Biden family affected your assessment of former President Biden's physical and mental fitness to fulfill his duties as president.
Given your connections with the Biden family, the committee sought to understand if you contributed to an effort to hide former President Biden's fitness to serve from the American people.
Which, of course, he did.
O 'Connor's attorneys previously told the committee that the denial to appear was due in part to a D.C. code concerning physicians disclosing patient information to a court without consent.
Quoting this from the American Medical Association, ethical obligations pursuant to principal number, yada, yada, yada, and physical physician-patient privilege.
LaCommerce says this argument lacks merit because Congress is not a court.
This section, therefore, in no way precludes you from appearing and testifying regarding your role as physician to former President Biden.
So this is where they can really turn up the heat on the corruption from the Biden administration.
The cancer cover-up, the dementia cover-up, and then, of course, the auto-pen scandal.
And these things, they should, I mean, these things were so obvious.
Even if you can't get anything effectively giving you results from this process, the American people can sit here and watch these liars and these scumbags, and they can get a better idea of how corrupt the Biden administration was, how corrupt the Democrats are, and how the mainstream media lies for the purpose of protecting and promoting the Democrat Party.
So even if you can't get results, the process here is going to be very important.
And it's not going to be limited to Dr. O 'Connor.
It's going to be other aides.
It's going to be other advisors.
It might even be Karine Jean-Pierre.
And, you know, she's probably not that smart.
Maybe the other Biden aides that are talking to mainstream news outlets now and publications and posting on X insulting Karine Jean-Pierre.
You know, she wasn't very bright.
She couldn't learn.
More intellectual, philosophical, political issues.
She couldn't understand geopolitics.
I mean, they're basically calling her an idiot, which I guess we're not going to be debating that.
I think that was already settled.
But maybe now she's got a bone to pick.
She needs to sell some books.
She can't get a TV gig.
Nobody wants her.
But now maybe she has a little leverage.
Now maybe she can play a little cat and mouse here.
Call some of her old friends from the last administration and say, hey, you know, the Republicans really want to know the truth about Joe Biden.
And, you know, I could maybe tell them that.
You know?
I could maybe give them that information.
But I suppose I'd be less inclined to if you could, I don't know, get me a TV gig.
I don't want to come out and destroy whatever credibility the Biden administration has left.
But, you know, I could do that.
But if you could find me a nice paying TV gig, I suppose I wouldn't need to cooperate or be inclined to tell America just how bad things really were.
So don't be surprised if that's how it goes down.
So if Karine Jean-Pierre does end up with a TV gig and doesn't end up spilling the beans in the Biden administration, even though clearly nobody from the left has any interest in her anymore, I think you can be pretty confident that that's how it went down behind the scenes.
By the way, speaking of behind the scenes, the Secret Service ordered destruction of the White House cocaine bag.
The day after closing the case, well, yeah, they covered it up, and it's obvious why.
And look, I don't even, it's not even that big of a story to me.
Whatever, it's, you know, it's a scandal.
People have interest in it.
It's, ooh, you know, Hunter Biden doing drugs or whoever it was.
They know who it was.
And it was a member of the Biden family.
It may be multiple members.
You know, it might have been a family affair in there, doing some lines, whatever.
So, you know, overall, it's a minor thing to me.
It's just the nature of the Biden family and just how corrupt this last White House was.
But yeah.
Am I upset that the Secret Service wanted to bury a story about the Biden family blowing lines in the White House?
No, not really.
Probably overall a good thing.
You know, maybe we don't want that as corrupt as the Bidens were.
Maybe we don't want the national headlines of, Joe Biden's kids skiing in the White House.
You know, maybe that's something I'm okay with.
Secret Service just go ahead and spiking that and making sure that doesn't become a national scandal.
But that's what it was.
Let's not pretend we don't know what went on.
It's pretty obvious what went on here.
So, the one thing you can do now, though, if they wanted to, and if they didn't, again, it wouldn't really matter to me.
But they came out and they said, well, we're going to reopen the investigation into the White House cocaine.
I think it was all PR because Bongino and Patel saw their approval rating going down, so they wanted to throw a little red meat to give it a bump.
They said, oh, well, no pun intended.
They said, oh, well, we'll investigate the cocaine.
But I think they already knew that that deal was closed.
So if they really wanted to come out, they could just come out and say, look, we know it was the Bidens.
It was one of the Biden family members.
That's how they got it in.
It's all said and done.
They covered it up.
And so we're just moving on.
But that's who these people were.
That's how they treated the White House.
No plans.
No plans for Trump must call to resolve feud.
What do you think?
All for show?
All part of a ruse?
Is it for something else?
And look, I look at all the angles and I just crunch numbers.
So I could see that there's a potential that Musk and Trump basically said, all right, now that your time here is up, this is how this is going to go.
You and I are going to have to have a falling out because people are going to say it's a conflict of interest with all the government contracts you get.
And plus, for your side, for Musk's side, You know, you've got to do something to help out your businesses, help out Tesla, so you can kind of separate from me and maybe that'll help that out.
So I could see that maybe being something that they had planned.
I'd put that at like a 15% chance maybe.
I'd put it at like maybe a 5% chance that this was all a ruse to force the Democrats to come out in support of Doge and releasing the Epstein files, which did happen.
By the way, Democrats seek answers from FBI if Trump has any role in Epstein files demanding the release of them.
So, I mean, that's just a chef's kiss.
And they were also demanding the doge cuts, too.
So it's incredible.
The Democrats literally ran a campaign, which the purpose of...
And then the minute, and they organized, they had him in the streets, everything.
And then the minute Musk and Trump fall out, all of a sudden they're pro-Musk.
All of a sudden they're with Musk on the Epstein stuff and they're with Musk now on the doge cuts.
Incredible stuff.
But I'd say that all being a plan was like 5%.
Could Musk all be doing this on his own, out of a fiduciary duty to his company to stand for the EV credits?
I'd say that's about a 5%, maybe less, actually.
I think the odds are in favor of, I don't know, maybe Trump or Trump's team got sick of Musk being around all the time.
And maybe Musk felt like the work put in by Doge and himself didn't get the proper respect or application that they'd like to see, so he kind of blew up about that.
To me, that's the odds-on favorite, that it was an organic thing.
But I'm open-minded to this being a bit of theater.
I'm open-minded to this being Trump and Musk kind of having a predetermined agreement that, hey, we're going to have this nasty fallout here.
And this is how it's going to go.
So I'm definitely open-minded to that.
Now, some of the other conspiracy theories are this has something to do with all this AI and the giant surveillance grid that Palantir is bringing in or that the Trump administration is trying to bring in.
Technological Advancement vs. Surveillance00:12:55
And maybe there's some power struggle between Musk and some of these other AI guys.
It could be a personality thing.
It could be a...
It could be a battle for who's going to be the one to get the contracts thing.
It could be all of it.
So that's definitely a big thing.
And it's kind of a debate that gets lost now in the world of politics.
And it's not something that we have to accept.
I don't buy that it's something we have to accept.
That we have to live in a surveillance state.
We have to live in a control grid.
And basically, this entire system...
I mean, here's what I would just...
So you can deal in the things you want, and then you can deal in the things you have.
And this is just the reality of the world.
And we might already be there, but now they're just ramping up the system.
We obviously live in a controlled spy grid.
I think that that's pretty obvious.
We're spied on all the time.
We've witnessed it ramp up with the internet.
We've witnessed it ramp up with the smartphones.
Now we've witnessed it ramp up with this ever-present AI.
Just about everybody now has experienced something like, let's say I'm talking to the crew here before the show, and I'm like, hey, what's everybody doing this weekend?
Oh, yeah, I'm going to go fishing out on the lake.
You know, I've been looking for a new fishing rod or something like that.
And then I open my phone and then boom, there's a...
It's like, yeah, the phone's listening to you.
So most people have experienced that by now.
But I don't think it's all-encompassing yet.
And I think there's so much data when it goes into the internet that they just don't really have the system that can process and maintain it all.
But that's what they're trying to build.
So you have what you want, and then you have what you have.
I don't want to live in a spy grid.
I don't want to live in a constant surveillance state.
I don't want to live in a country that treats me like a criminal just because I exist.
And then you have this system now, and this is where you have to make a life decision.
This is where you have to realize this is the world you live in.
I don't want to live in a system now where you're basically, you're now inside a blackmail operation.
You are now walking around inside a giant blackmail operation.
You can make the argument that all of this technology can be used for good.
Let's not be totally closed-minded here.
You can make the argument that all this technology can be used for good.
Now, you could say that the bad outweighs the good.
Or you could say, I don't want to open that Pandora's box.
We need to just stop it here.
But this is the reality of the situation.
You are either already in...
And basically now, anything you do, anything you say on the internet, or even in person if you have a smartphone in the room, Or a television that records you?
Or a computer that records you?
Or a microwave that records you?
Whatever.
They got recording devices everywhere.
Anything you say or do will now be immediately put into this system as a data point.
And you can call it a social credit score.
You can call it a personal profile.
But that's the world you live in now.
Anything you do on the internet and anything you do when there's a recording device around you, that is now going on to your permanent record.
And abso-frickin-lutely, abso-frickin-lutely, you end up somewhere on the internet you're not supposed to be.
You do something behind the scenes that you're not supposed to be doing.
Well, might not.
Might not come back to haunt you.
Until you run for office.
Might not come back to haunt you until you get that big CEO job or you land on that board.
I would say if that stuff goes on, or I don't doubt that stuff goes on, it's a very targeted operation.
They just don't have the computing capacity.
To handle all the phone calls, all the recordings, all the internet browsings.
They just don't have the computing capacity yet, but they're getting there.
They're getting there, and now they're building it, and it's Palantir that wants to be the ones that build this worldwide quantum computing master surveillance operation that, you know, I think if Trump has one thing that he's short-sighted on with all of this is he kind of, he—
So you can have Karp in there saying, hey, this will help us lower crime rates.
This will help us identify and arrest violent criminals.
This will help us identify and arrest and deport illegal aliens.
And, you know, Trump sits there and says, well, this all sounds great.
And nobody's even asking about the downside.
Maybe Trump can't even comprehend the downside.
I don't think Trump is really a tech-savvy guy.
I mean, he's an older guy.
And I think maybe he's learning about some of this stuff.
And it's really probably only Barron who could maybe get him up to speed on this.
Maybe Eric, maybe Don Jr.
But probably even Barron more than anybody if he wanted to.
But that's what's going on.
So, yeah.
You're really already in the world where you, if you're smart, you have to think like that.
You have to think that everything you do is being spied on.
You have to think that everything you say is being spied on and that now, I'd say now we're either, maybe not there yet, but we're getting close, where now it'll all be harvested into a data center.
So right now, If that's going on, which I would say it is, it's still very targeted.
They just don't have the data centers, the computing capacity, the AI to organize and sort it and identify it all.
But that's what they're building.
That's what they're building.
And a lot of people have a problem with that.
So really, and I think this is where it feels kind of dirty to us, like dirty salesman type stuff with us with this bill.
We shouldn't be even sitting here talking about All of this AI infrastructure.
Hey, I'm okay with making sure the U.S. can be AI dominant or can compete in that field since China is going to be a major competitor there.
Quantum computing, everything else.
I understand that that's a field we're going to have to compete in.
But we shouldn't be sitting here building this infrastructure and green lighting all of it just for the sake of, hey, we got to do this.
No, we should be having summits on this.
We should be having White House summits on this.
We should be having congressional summits on this, congressional hearings on this, town halls on this.
We should be bringing in all these tech giants, and we should be talking about this.
We should be saying, okay, what type of uses for AI can be used for good, and then how can we make sure that these things cannot be used against us eventually?
Just generally decides it's going to use it against us.
And it's not even in our control anymore.
But see, we're not having these conversations.
It's just, oh, just get it into this bill, get it done.
It's all for the good of the economy.
It's all for the good of law enforcement.
And then they don't even think about the negative repercussions, which is not a good place to be.
Now, Marjorie Taylor Greene is speaking out about this more than anyone else.
She's kind of boiling it down to a state's rights issue, which is fine.
But I think the bigger issue is just with the dangers of AI and the surveillance grid that they're building.
But here's Marjorie Taylor Greene talking about why she doesn't have, she's not going to vote for it again in clip eight.
unidentified
You said you have problems with the build, just like Elon Musk has said.
I have one serious problem with the build, and that is destroying state rights and federalism to allow AI to run rampant over 10 years.
And AI, I think, is one of the most unknown and unpredictable industries going forward.
And I can tell you right now, if you looked up the jobs that AI will replace, I'm looking at every single one of you.
And over the next 10 years, all of the people here in the press, your jobs will be replaced by AI.
And I am 100% opposed.
And I will not vote for any bill that destroys federalism and takes away states' rights, the ability to regulate and make laws when it regards humans and AI.
And this is a warning shot for everyone.
I don't care what your political party is.
I do not care if you hate my guts or you love me or you don't care about me whatsoever.
I think every single human matters.
And I think this is an issue I'll go to the mat on.
I love many of the policies because they fund the president's campaign promises.
I can also say I don't like the price tag.
I can agree with Elon there.
I can agree with the president on the good things in the bill.
But I can also tell every single Republican in the House and the Senate, I don't care what you change it to.
So those are the two big issues that I think we have to review with this bill.
And of course, you know, the people inside the Trump administration, the big tech people inside there, and the Palantir representatives inside there, they're just, you know, green light, green light, let's go, go, go, go, go.
They want those government contracts.
They want to get that power.
They want to get that control.
But who's in there running the checks and balances?
Who's in there saying, hey, let's take a pause here.
Who's in there saying, what does this look like in 10 years?
How do we make sure all the bad things we can identify as potentials don't happen?
I'm not hearing that anywhere.
So that's fine that Karp and Palantir and the rest of them can come to Trump and say, hey, look.
Bring in this AI system, give us access to all this data, and it's the biggest data mining, it's the biggest data harvesting operation of all time, at least that we know of.
Now, I'd say between the CIA and MI6 and Mossad that they're basically already running it, but again, that's very targeted.
They don't have the computing power to do that to the entire planet.
Now that computing power is almost here.
And then...
You don't even have to have humans running it to determine social credit scores and all this other stuff.
The AI will just automate all of it.
And then the only involvement the human element will have will be the target element to say, hey, go look at this politicians.
Go look at this executives.
Go look at this celebrity's profile.
Let's see what kind of dirt we can dig up.
And then it's your entire life record there.
Now let's just move on for the sake of time here because I got guests coming up and we got other news.
I got a bunch of these clips from Patel and Bongino.
Now they do talk about Epstein.
You want to talk about bad timing.
Why would they do this?
But this is the Daily Mail and apparently Alan Dershowitz is maybe behind the scenes trying to get this out here.
Epstein lawyer responds to Elon Musk claim Trump is named in files.
As Ghislaine Maxwell pins her hopes on a presidential pardon, former Trump friend and attorney Alan Dershowitz tells Daily Mail that he would be right to consider pardoning Maxwell.
What?
First of all, horrible timing.
Worst possible timing.
Again, David Schoen came out in support of Trump, saying he's completely exonerated on the Epstein stuff.
I don't doubt that.
Why would you come out and tell the Daily Mail that Trump needs to pardon Maxwell today?
Are you nuts?
Are you stupid?
Couldn't be worse timing.
So is that to hurt Trump, or does he think this was a smart move with this momentum?
And then his argument is, Maxwell was a victim here.
Did you even listen to the testimony of Virginia Jufri and the rest of them?
Did you even listen?
She was the recruiter.
She would bring in the girls and make them feel comfortable before they got to go and rub Epstein down.
And so now you've crossed the threshold where there's so much pressure.
On the FBI and Bongino and Patel, and look, I don't want to believe that Bondi is intentionally covering up the Jeffrey Epstein story.
I don't believe that Patel and Bongino are doing that for whatever reason.
It certainly is not on behalf of Trump.
It could be on behalf of the CIA and Mossad.
So maybe they realized, well...
But the public pressure is building so much and the conversation is just every day that they have to do something.
So do they?
I mean, it looks like now they've realized making the empty promises or saying things we can't deliver on here has been a mistake.
So maybe now we just say it's over.
There's nothing we can do.
They destroyed all the files.
And that's basically where they've gone at this point.
So we got a couple on this from Patel and Epstein, and I went a little long here.
So we'll do it now, and we'll do it at the top of the next segment before the guest joins me to give us an update into the Diddy trial, which is like Epstein Lite.
If he was murdered in segregated housing, in isolation, after being on suicide watch in a place in a detention center that I've physically been in myself, it would be fiction.
Wouldn't you think, though, that if someone was in a position where a guy could release information that could potentially damage the most wealthy people on earth, you would have a concerted effort that's unprecedented?
But, I mean, so many people have been implicated, right, already.
And some of that information, whether they did to Prince Andrew and everybody else is already out there.
And so that's the conspiracy stuff that me, Bongino, and the folks have to say, look, we will give you everything we can, and then we will have done our job.
Also, if I had a shred, me, Kash Patel, had a shred of evidence.
The Russiagate guy.
The Jan 6 guy.
The COVID origins guy.
Had a shred of evidence that this guy was murdered.
I would be the first guy to bring this case hard and fast.
And I would do even doing press conferences every week on it.
The first guy.
That's what I'm asking people to play out to their logical conclusion.
We got a wild admission about the mRNA vaccines that, of course, we knew all along.
Now they're just admitting it.
They're like, yeah, well, we had to lie and deceive, otherwise you wouldn't have taken them.
It's like, oh, okay.
And, of course, that's on top of the lies they told you about COVID.
To scare you.
But this is just breaking.
Now, what's crazy about this is we kind of anticipated this.
When we filed the FOIA request, we were blocked by the DOJ when me and my attorney filed the FOIA request to get the Kilmar Garcia information and body cam video, which we did eventually get.
We published it.
I published it on my X account.
But they blurred a lot of stuff out, and then they told us the rest of the files, which they fully redacted or wouldn't give us, they said this is a part of an ongoing investigation.
So we were kind of scratching our heads, me and my attorney, if you remember, we were talking about it on the show, and we said, well, maybe this means that they are actually investigating him for human trafficking.
Well, now they've announced it.
So Pam Bondi just made this announcement.
Kilmar Obrego Garcia is actually about to be flown back to the United States for court.
This is especially disturbing because Abrego Garcia is also alleged with transporting minor children.
The defendant traded the innocence of minor children for profit.
There are even more disturbing facts that the grand jury uncovered.
It is alleged this defendant is part of the same smuggling ring responsible for the death of more than 50 migrants in 2021 after the tractor trailer overturned in Mexico.
This is part of that same ring.
The defendant abused undocumented alien females, according to co-conspirators, who were under his control while transporting them throughout our country.
This defendant trafficked firearms and narcotics throughout our country on multiple occasions.
They were using vehicles, SUVs, with added seats in the back, floors that had been ripped out, guns, narcotics, children, women, MS-13 members.
That is what the grand jury found.
A co-conspirator alleged that the defendant solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor.
A co-conspirator also alleges the defendant played a role in the murder of a rival gang member's mother.
These facts demonstrate Abrego Garcia is a danger to our community.
We want to thank The Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, our state and local partners, our acting U.S. Attorney Robert McGuire, and prosecutors from the Joint Task Force Vulcan.
I think it's fair to say that to some degree it's died down a little bit.
A little bit of the hullabaloo that we had early on was when, with Kid Cudi expected to testify, he's a big name musician, and the courthouse itself was preparing for his arrival.
And at this point, some of what we're hearing is, especially over the last couple of days from the second girlfriend to be trafficked coming in to testify on direct, what we've been hearing is, A lot of what we had heard similar to what we heard from the first victim, Cassie Ventura.
So it could be that there's some sort of dying down.
What I've heard is you can get into the courtroom if you're there by 6 a.m.
This is not, which is difficult for most people, obviously.
But if you're there by 6 a.m., you can get there, as opposed to other big-name trials, which sometimes you have to wait through the night.
If you wanted to catch Donald Trump's trial, you had to have someone waiting there through the night.
Or the DEP trial.
People were waiting there since 7 in the evening the day before.
So as trials go, this is something that people have an interest in.
But for one reason or another, it's not the same level interest that we've seen with other big-name trials.
And over the last couple of weeks, I would say the overflow room that I'm in, which holds about 70 people or so, is pretty full.
It's difficult to get a seat sometimes in there.
And if it gets too full, This week, we haven't needed a second overflow room.
The first week or so, we did need that second overflow room.
So I would say there's probably about 20% to 25% fewer journalists covering it now than there were in the first couple of weeks.
So in the early part of the week, we had the person who was paid off came in there and testified.
And then we also heard from Brianna Bonalong, who's known as Banna, who is part of a group of four or five friends that Cassie was regularly partying with during particularly during the last few years of a relationship with Diddy from around 2015 to 2018.
And we had been waiting to hear from Banna for a while, only because even in opening arguments, we had heard about how.
And there was one or two references that were made to it during testimonies of specifically Cassie Ventura.
She talked a little bit about it.
And so we were waiting to hear that story.
Obviously, when you hear about some celebrity dangling someone off a balcony, you have certain images in your brain, right?
Like you picture Michael Jackson with that horrific moment where he's dangling a baby outside a window.
And for me and a lot of other people, when I'm picturing him dangling someone off the edge of a balcony, I'm picturing him holding her by her legs, you know, like about to drop her, having some muscle there, which is holding her up and threatening her.
I didn't know what to picture.
And now that I've heard her testimony, I still don't know what to picture because we've heard so many different variations on this same story with Bonna.
And to some degree, it's frightening for the state to think that her testimony, which was shredded on cross and even had some some hardcore forensic evidence to refute some of the things, some of the claims that she made, whether it might have such a bad carryover effect that it might actually impugn some of the.
That Cassie gave a couple of weeks earlier.
I can walk you through the forensic evidence.
It was really shocking to see how well Nicole Westmoreland for the defense broke Bonna down and her balcony story in particular, which.
It's curious because I think, again, it's just the ebbs and flows of this case, but Ventura did pretty well, all things considered.
And I know she got hammered and crossed, but it seemed like when her testimony was done, it was like, okay, this hurt Diddy.
This was a bad testimony for the Diddy side.
And, you know, okay, how do you recover from this?
So then they get her friend in there and she does damage to it.
And you can get into some of these details.
But I guess the question that comes into my mind is, what is her motive, right?
I mean, what is her motive to come in here and either hurt Cassie's testimony or even just, if it's on her own accord, not be accurate with the information provided?
So let me break down to you what the defense wants the jury to think her motive is based on how they did this cross-examination.
You need to understand that the way she tells over this balcony story when she gets on direct is that she says Diddy came up behind her and lifted her up under her arms, and she had her feet on the railing, and they show a picture of the balcony, and there was 15, 20 seconds, and he's screaming, you know what you did, you know what you did.
She's saying, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't know what I did, and freaking out.
And then he takes her and throws her onto some balcony furniture, and this causes her to sustain injuries, including a five-inch round welt with a puncture in it, in her leg, which she says she took a picture of it a few hours later.
And she shares the metadata from that picture, dating September 26, 2016, at 9 o 'clock in the morning in Los Angeles.
all happens in Los Angeles.
On cross-examination, Sometimes she said that now she's saying that she had her back to Diddy, which that's a very different type of incident.
Sometimes she said she was smoking weed.
Other times she said she was smoking a cigarette.
Other times she said she wasn't smoking.
There was all sorts of contradictions between her story, the story that Cassie told about it, whether or not Cassie saw it or didn't see it.
There's all sorts of different...
2016?
I don't know.
Well, she was actually in the Prudential Center in New Jersey on that evening, wasn't she?
And she's like, I'm not sure.
Where was Diddy on September 25th, 2016?
He was performing on stage in the Prudential Center with Lil' Kim.
And where was he on September 26th, the day of this incident?
Oh, he was visiting some place for achievement, a benefit of boys and girls who have some achievement awards in New York City.
And then he's ordering from the Trump Hotel where he was.
And she shows her the Trump bill and goes line by line.
Oh, here he's ordering breakfast at 10 o 'clock in the morning for $240 at the very time he's supposedly in L.A. dangling her off a balcony.
And she said, you lied to the men and women of this jury, and it's because you wanted to sue him.
You saw that Cassie sued him for $30 million.
And she included your balcony story.
So you wanted to sue him also.
And you started a lawsuit against him for $10 million.
And the two of you put this story together.
Because that's why sometimes you can't get it straight.
Sometimes it's in her apartment.
Sometimes it's an hotel.
Sometimes you're facing her.
Sometimes he's facing.
Everything is constantly changing.
And you can't even get a date straight.
Because the date that you put in here was a date that he could not be there.
And she said, can someone be in two places at the same time?
And the witness is like.
Like, in theory, it's like, okay, I got nothing further.
So, yeah, that's the motive.
That's the motive, is that they want to sue, that basically the state defense wants us to believe.
That they want to go after his pocket and basically any incidents of abuse that they want to sue him and that she's suing for $10 million and Cassie ended up getting $20 million from him and $10 million from Intercontinental and that this is a way that they're trying to raid his pockets and that if he gets convicted here, it helps bolster her lawsuit, at least with Bonner.
In fact, I even left out another moment, which was a terrible moment, which happened on the first day of her being on direct when she was asked about different statements she made to the police and that two days earlier.
She's testifying on June 4th.
On June 2nd, 2025, you told the police, you're not sure about some of the facts with the balcony.
Yeah, yeah, because all you could do is what she ended up doing, which makes you start questioning whether Cassie and her friends are all in cahoots here.
And the only reason I can think that they called her is that they locked in.
Before this jury in opening statements that they're going to tell us about this balcony story.
So I think what likely happened is they craft their opening statement and they want to tell us about all the hostilities, about the intercontinental and how he's dragging Cassie around and all about the beatings that he did and punching her in the eye and cracking her head open and the people he threatened and the balcony.
And they even dangled a woman off the ledge of a balcony.
That's what they say in opening statement.
Well, now, fast forward two and a half weeks, they're prepping Bonner on June 2nd, and she says, I'm a little hazy about what happened with the balcony.
Well, they were prepping her, but she makes that statement.
Now you have no choice because you promised the jury you were going to bring her up there.
So I think that they made a mistake of banking on her because she has a long history of drug use.
And she didn't even know how many drugs she took the day of the balcony incident.
She was a drug supplier for Cassie.
She was the one who would buy drugs, bring them to Cassie, and Cassie would pay her and they would do drugs together.
So her memory in general is very hazy.
And I think what happened is once They felt they had no choice to put her up there, even though a couple of days before she's supposed to testify, she's admitting to the police, I'm hazy about what happened that day.
Well, now the whole thing sounds, because we're already suspicious of Maureen Comey and her agenda as far as this case is concerned.
And now you have this disastrous witness that she called up there.
And I mean, look, if I'm a member of the jury, I'd be probably already biased anyway, but I'd be looking at this and I'd say, okay, well, I have very little to no doubt that Diddy probably did something to Cassie on that balcony.
How extreme it was as far as dangling her off of the balcony, I guess maybe that's open for interpretation.
But considering the proof of violence we already have, how aggressive Diddy was, and some of the other developments, it's like, okay, something probably happened with Diddy and Cassie on that balcony.
You hear the second witness, and if you're a member of this jury, that's just how it goes.
Now you have to doubt it.
And now you have to have reasonable doubt about the balcony story, and that certainly hurts Cassie's testimony.
Were there any other details as far as she says, what did I do?
Were there any other details?
Why Diddy was mad at her?
Was it over a relationship, or what was that about?
So the best understanding we can have about this is there's testimony that during the last couple of years of Cassie's relationship with Diddy, that he didn't like her doing drugs with her friends.
He only wanted her doing drugs during freak-offs with him.
We heard from Cassie, and at the end of this week, over the last couple days, we've heard from his second girlfriend, who he was dating between 2021 and 2024.
She only broke up with him when he got arrested.
And it's the exact same story.
This is the way this guy operates.
He basically finds a girl who's a model, a beautiful girl, and...
And he wines and dines them.
And he starts introducing them to drugs.
And he'll dote on them and tell them that they're amazing and spend all sorts of time with them.
That he's forcing her to have sex with multiple men, some of whom she said she found revolting.
And that and that he basically gets them to a place where they're willing to degrade themselves for him.
And the problem for the state is.
1591.
One is that it's commercial sex and the other is that they're forced.
And particularly with Jane, on her testimony, she keeps saying things like, I felt like I had to do this because he's my boyfriend and I want him to be happy.
Well, that's not coercion forcing under the way most people would understand it.
Otherwise, every relationship in the world has people who are caving in to their loved ones as far as them being forced.
But that's all she's saying, and she's said it repeatedly.
It makes you question how on earth the state can get a conviction for USC 1591 that it's sex trafficking.
Now, the state will obviously counter and say that he was drugging her up and that he was he was, you know, he was twisting her arm and getting her on drugs.
So she'd be more compliant and agreeable and that she didn't really have free choice.
So there is there is testimony and I actually came out early, so I didn't get to review this afternoon's testimony.
We're certainly expecting to hear direct testimony if it didn't come out late this afternoon about there being physical violence, because during opening statements.
So we're expecting, and I'd be surprised if it didn't come out by this afternoon, we're expecting to hear testimony that he was beating on her.
And that is for a lot of people, myself included, if she's getting beaten up and under fear of getting beaten.
I don't understand how you cannot call that being forced.
However, with her continually talking about how she just wanted to spend more time with Diddy, you can understand the defense on closing coming forward and saying they made a poor choice because they wanted to trade their bodies and degrade themselves.
For what they viewed as the benefit of having intimate one-on-one time with Diddy, and even though it's terrible and it's tragic and it's awful, the reality is that's not being forced.
And if they feel that these women were not forced, they have to acquit under 18 U.S.C.
1591, which is why right now, in my opinion, I think the RICO charges are looking stronger than the trafficking charge, certainly with respect to Jane.
Cassie, really, she seemed like she was trafficked.
So let's come back on the other side, explain that concept, and we'll get some final commentary on you before we get you out the door here on a Friday.
Again, my guest, Joe Nierman of GoodLogic.
Does a great job with all of the experience he has in the legal field and working in New York as a litigator.
Follow him on X at TheFollowingPro.
Follow him on YouTube at GoodLogic.
And we'll be right back to put a bow on this.
All right, we're closing out here with Joe Nierman of GoodLogic, and I wonder if...
Well, you know, what's so crazy to me is when you hear these stories...
But you hear the chaotic life of not just Diddy, but the people surrounding him.
Honestly, it sounds miserable.
It's like, how much enjoyment can you get out of going to an island a couple times a year or having a nice penthouse when you're basically living in discomfort 24-7?
But that's not the story that we're talking about here.
So, okay, I'm looking at this and we still got- You know that there's no genuine happiness in a life of pure self-indulgence.
There's never actual happiness there.
Because the only way you actually feel happiness is if you're accomplishing and developing something.
I think at certain times when Diddy had success and supposedly he was addicted to success and crazy hard worker, he just had this crazy fetish and a ridiculous inclination to just be evil and control and dominate women.
But, you know, I think that possibly he might find success I'm sorry to cut you off there on that.
Yeah, because to get 12 people to unanimously agree that these women who are professing their love for Diddy were false.
I think that's difficult.
I see in the jury room there are some people who are avid-ditty supporters, and there probably is one or two on the jury themselves who they could see video of him taking a bazooka to someone's head and really not want to convict him on anything.
And then there are others who see the horror that these women suffered, and it is horrific.
No human should go through what either Cassie or Jane have gone through.
And you just want to put this guy away even if he hasn't committed a crime.
So those are your diametrically opposed extremes here.
And obviously, then you have a lot of us who are just trying to figure out, is this actually a crime or is it not?
So I would not be remotely surprised if we see what lawyers refer to as horse trading.
There's three main charges and two lesser charges.
The first charge is RICO.
Then the second and third charges are for sex trafficking.
King, one for Cassie, another for Jane, and then there's fourth and fifth.
That refers to flying in porn stars to engage in these hotel nights with Jane.
So I would say right now that the Ricoh charge, which has a minimum, I think, of 10 and a maximum of life, that that's...
I need to look that back up.
But it's under 18 U.S.C.
1961.
In order to establish a RICO violation, racketeering, what you have to establish is that there's a pattern of illegal activity by an enterprise of multiple persons.
And you only need to convict one.
You don't have to get the entire enterprise.
So even though he's the lone-charged defendant, they could get him individually on RICO.
And you have to establish that he's committed multiple crimes, and there's a pattern of that.
And the crimes they list off, it's almost...
There's kidnapping, which we heard testimony about that.
There's arson, which we heard testimony about Kid Cudi's car.
There's drug trafficking, which we've heard in spades.
Everyone's talking about how he was continually handing out drugs.
I mean, if they're saying he's doing this for his own, you know, sexual desires or fetishes or whatever, that's one thing.
They're not really getting into like, as far as I know, they haven't really gotten into how he tries to control the artist under his label or how he tries to, you know, blackmail people that he has over to his parties with the videotapes.
I mean, wouldn't that be where the Rico charges come in?
You would think you would think that's the way it should be.
This is classic Maureen Comey.
I started touching on this with you with I think last week.
I think I may have.
But just to remind you, the sex trafficking isn't your typical sex trafficking.
Sex trafficking that was this is a statue that was passed in 2000 was designed to stop people from kidnapping people, from kidnapping young girls and then selling them off as sex slaves and reaping the benefits.
What's the motivation there?
The motivation there is financial.
I'm going to basically ruin your life and trade what value these sickos find and are willing to pay for you, and then I'm going to take that money.
So they create elements, and they say, okay, the elements of that are you're forcing someone to engage in sexual activity, and it's got to be commercial sex.
So once we have these two elements of that crime, if you look at what the objective there, the objective of someone violating sex trafficking, their objective is purely money.
I'm going to destroy someone's life for money.
That's what Congress was trying to stop.
In comes Maureen Comey, and she's like, well, I've got this element of forcing.
I've got that element since he's paying people.
So it's commercial sex.
So now I can basically take those two elements, throw them into a big pizza pie here, and then basically serve it up and say that's now sex trafficking as if he's pimping these girls out when his motivation has nothing to do with making money the way your typical pimp would be.
So we have similar with Rico.
And with respect to RICO, we saw the same thing with Donald Trump in Georgia.
What did they do?
Is there a criminal enterprise there they were claiming with him?
No, it's the exact same type of RICO bastardization of what was supposed to be stopping the mob, that what the state does and what these prosecutors do is they say, since the statute is worded this way, it says these are the elements, so I basically pluck this element from there, pluck that element from here, and then I see if I put these elements together, what crime can I charge them with?
And it ends up being the underpinnings of Rico, even though it's not what Rico was supposed to stop.
Rico was supposed to stop the mafia from trying to extort money out of it.
people and terrorizing you back on track for the sake of time here so so you think so you think well i know you're you know you can talk legal stuff all day you're like me with politics it's a never-ending motor mouth here um so so it sounds like what you're saying is maybe the jury says okay we can't get anything on rico but it looks like we can probably get the um The trafficking charges here.
What I'm saying is this, that technically he has no way out of the RICO.
Because he's technically violated Rico.
Even though it's not what Rico was intended for, he's technically violated for it.
So I think they're going to take the sex trafficking and say these women were horrifically destroyed.
And they're going to say, OK, you give us Rico and we'll take and we'll and we'll acquit on the sex trafficking of at least one of them.
But I think they're going to want to put him away because when you see if you watch this trial and you see these women sobbing in the stands and from the stand about what it's like to be his girlfriend and the horror of having to have sex with people they don't want to have sex with.
It's very hard to just say, let's acquit this guy, even though he's going to have sex with.
Enterprise just means multiple people who are engaging in a pattern of criminal activity.
So you have to look at what's considered criminal activity.
And they list off eight different things that could be considered criminal activity.
And you have multiple people.
His own bodyguards and security or his agents, his manager going and picking up drugs for him is technically under the law defined as being an enterprise, even though it's not to make money.
It's actually for self-gratification and to burn money.
I think the Trump-Elon thing, I think that the big, beautiful bill is pragmatically the best thing that we could probably get through Congress.
Because we have all these stinking rhinos in there, and they're not going to pass it.
And you have such a slim majority in the House and in the Senate that you have to toss them a bone if you want to get anything passed.
So we can decide, do you want to have Trump going out there writing EOs that all get shredded the day that he leaves office or the day some Democrat takes office?
Or do you want to have ICE established in there and able to go out there and get rid of these people?
This bill is not about.
To get past Congress.
So how did they do that?
They said, okay, we want to take care of the security, we want to take care of the military.
So in order to do that, we have to make it an appropriations bill, make it a bill about money.
And by making it a bill about money, now we don't need 60 senators to get this to pass.
We only need 50. So it's not supposed to be a money bill, but that's sort of the backdoor method that the Trump administration has come up with as a way of trying to get it passed through Congress so they can get this legislation.
Now, Elon, I can understand him being ticked off because he's like, look, now you're burning all this money.
I took off from running Tesla and X and SpaceX for the last four months to try and trim money, and here you are blowing it all.
And I think that as far as what MAGA values are, I think Elon is expressing MAGA values in an idealistic perspective.
But I think that him trying to kill that bill, which is pragmatically probably the best way we can help get rid of these illegals, I think that it's short-sighted.
I think Trump got mad about it.
And when Trump called him out, that Elon basically went off the rails in trying to imply that Don had anything to do with Epstein or he should be impeached, which was all crap.
That was all ridiculous lies.
So I think that at the end of the day, the day, we voted for Trump.
We have to stick with Trump.
And I really, really hope that they're able to sort it out because Trump.
So I hope they can sort it out.
I don't know if it's going to happen or not.
And a lot of people speculate that it's all just staged, but that's now...
That's my short perspective of it, is that we need to support Trump here, and that it helps Trump and Elon, assuming even if it is staged, it helps them both if MAGA stays true and says that Trump is our guy, this bill is something that I might not love it, I don't love some of the spending here, but it's certainly important enough that we need to actually move forward in supporting him and getting it to pass through Congress.
We still got other political news that has happened here that we want to get to.
Basically, now they're admitting, yeah, okay, we lied to you about the COVID vaccines so that you would take it.
If you knew it was an experimental gene therapy, you wouldn't have taken it.
It's like, oh, well, okay, we're honest now about it.
Ladies and gentlemen, remember to support us by shopping at thealexjonesstore.com.
Now, today is the final day.
Today is the last day where you can qualify for the Ford Raptor giveaway.
So when you shop at thealexjonesstore.com, you get multiple entries.
Right now we have two live giveaways, so you get multiple entries into the Ford Raptor giveaway and multiple entries into the Ford 250 Lariat giveaway.
But the clock is running out on the Ford Raptor giveaway, and it runs out.
I believe it's tonight it runs out.
If we can pull up the screen there, I can get the exact time there.
But I believe this deal runs out tonight.
And when you go to the AlexJonesShow.com today for 10 times entries, that's right, 10 times entries right now to win both the Ford Raptor and the Lariat.
So the next winner will be the Ford Raptor.
That does end tonight.
That does end tonight.
And I don't know if you've ever driven or ridden in a Ford Raptor.
These cars are really fun.
It's about as fun of a truck as you can have.
Is the Ford Raptor.
So, last night.
Last chance is tonight.
When you shop at thealexjonesstore.com, you get 10 entries into both the current truck giveaways, but last chance on the Ford Raptor tonight.
So, get your shopping done at thealexjonesstore.com to qualify to win the Ford Raptor.
Have fun, and good luck.
And by the way, everything there qualifies.
Whether it's the apparel, whether it's the supplements, whether it's the collectible items, everything.
Qualifies for these giveaways.
Have fun.
Good luck at thealexjonesstore.com.
All right.
Let's get back to the Patel clips here.
Let's go to the longer one where he's talking about the prison cell.
And I guess now they claim they have the new video, which is strange.
But here he is talking about the situation with the prison cell in clip 13. My job is to get you absolutely everything that we can give you, and that's what we're going to do.
Look, I live in the political world, so I don't assume that everybody knows what I know, but I thought that that was kind of common knowledge in people that were following this story.
In charge, he pleaded not guilty to abusing dozens of girls, some as young as 14. Soon after Epstein's death in August, two of the CCTV cameras outside his cell had malfunctioned and were being examined by the FBI.
Found semi-conscious in his prison cell with injuries on his neck.
On 25 July after this incident is placed on suicide watch.
You know, there's just like I'm giving you the documents from the vault, just like I'm giving you information to Congress on COVID origins or what have you.
Well, you know, there's a couple interesting things there.
So now you have to ask why, who was spiking videos from being released or what was this process of claiming there were no videos?
You have to ask that.
And there's going to be other contradictory reports that come out.
Because the FBI director is obviously not there on the scene.
But the people that run the prison are there.
Now, when you're talking the wee hours of the night, the normal lieutenants and the warden, they're not there.
So they can only deal with whatever they got.
And they were claiming there was nothing.
So these questions are going to remain.
As an aside here, he speaks about the AI video.
Microsoft just made a huge breakthrough in AI video technology.
And this stuff is advancing so fast.
But you're probably going to be hearing about this.
And they kind of want to shift the market now where most of this video technology requires some level of expertise.
It costs money, and it looks like Microsoft is trying to flip the whole thing and make it really simple and cheap, but that's just a different story of something developing.
This is where it has to go from here.
And I got a couple more clips.
We might have some time.
This is where it has to go from here.
You know, I'd love to know what happened inside of the Diddy cell, or excuse me, inside of the Epstein cell, but people are probably never going to believe it, whatever you say.
Produces the evidence that he did kill himself or whatever.
Nobody's going to believe it.
So this issue is at a stalemate.
And it's not even that I'm over it.
It's time to move on and get the answers on who were Epstein's clients.
So the conversation has to shift.
It's no longer about did he kill himself.
It's no longer about what are we going to have as far as video footage or proof that he killed himself.
The conversation is...
Who was Jeffrey Epstein working for?
Who were the clients?
Who were the people going to his island and engaging in these activities recorded on tape in the vault?
What intelligence networks was Epstein working for?
These are the questions.
These are the questions that matter now.
If Epstein is dead, the conversation is never going to get anywhere.
About did he kill himself or not?
Some people are never going to believe it, no matter what you say.
So just give us the client list.
That's what we need to know now.
And we're still supposed to believe what?
There were no clients?
Alright, there's a lot more from the Rogan Patel interview.
I kind of want to move on.
He did announce that he's been swatted.
That was shared with me as part of the investigation.
So now they're going to be doing this in every courtroom.
And they're going to have Democrat activists in every courtroom when they know that ICE is going to be there to make arrests, and they're going to be there disrupting them.
And now you have Hakeem Jeffries running around saying, I should not be allowed to cover their face so that they can dox the agents.
These Democrats are sick people.
And then I guess we have these scenes from Los Angeles, guys.
And now the FBI has been called in for extra law enforcement here because the leftist protesters showed up to try to stop them from arresting and deporting illegal aliens.
So now, yeah, this is going to happen every courtroom now.
So this is going to happen every courtroom.
And don't be surprised if you hear before the day is over that a couple of Democrat politicians are.
Because they'll probably have some local politicians out there, you know, staging themselves at these places.
So don't be surprised if you hear that.
If not by the end of the day, probably by the end of next week.
And, you know, we're going to have to make some very tough decisions, and it's going to seem a little cold, but this is all for survival of the country.
Why haven't we blocked people coming in from China?
I'm just curious.
Seems like that would be an obvious one.
China, and I'm not saying everybody that comes here from China is bad.
I'm not.
I met a couple people from China when I was in college.
Very nice people.
Got along very well with them.
Very smart.
And I don't want to sit here and create this thing where we're demonizing Chinese people either.
And yet, you'd think, you know, okay, we're blocking the countries that send terrorists here.
We're blocking the countries that want to send people here to, you know, blow up Jews and everything else.
Okay, that's good.
I mean, honestly, we should have a total immigration moratorium.
But you'd think China would be the one.
China is sending professors here that are agents of the CCP.
They're sending students here that are agents of the CCP.
They just got busted trying to engage in agricultural terrorism, which how many times have they done it and got away with it?
I don't understand why China isn't on that list.
Seems like that'd be kind of an important one to add there.
But maybe that's a little too tough when you're trying to have negotiations with China.
I don't know.
Also, Obama judge extends order blocking Department of Education from canceling COVID-19 school funding.
So they're still stealing COVID money.
Very nice.
All right, joining me now in the studio is Ben Bankus.
and I was telling him before he sat down, I've been following him for probably about four or five years now.
His stuff started to catch tread, get viral on X. And he, I guess some of the funniest stuff, And you'd go to like a fake political ad.
And I think some people actually thought it was real.
And once he created his club, and then Austin is, you know, it's becoming a bigger city too.
But when you think about the culture of New York and L.A., did it get to a point where it was almost uncomfortable to go there and do a comedic bit that you thought might get backlash?
How do you, you know, Jerry Seinfeld has actually talked about that.
It's like, how can I, if I'm trying to be a comedian and I'm trying to be edgy, how can I go to some of these comedy clubs and feel comfortable to make a joke that I want to make?
I think most of the actual comedy clubs are pretty open to, like, whatever.
But when you get to the bigger cities, there's a lot of comics running shows and, like, little bars and little things.
And that's where I think there's more people getting offended, comics getting angry at other comics for saying a joke that's offensive.
And, you know, I'm from Canada originally.
They have Just for Laughs.
Just for Laughs has been very censored.
It's in Toronto, and the main one was in Montreal.
I think they're doing it again.
They went bankrupt.
And then they, I don't know if they're even back, but they're, they were always, you know, woker with the Canadian comics than the American comics.
Like an American comic that's offensive, but sells tickets can headline the event, but a Canadian comic that's offensive and, you know, is at the level that all, you know, of the comics that they choose, which is usually like they choose comics.
It's like, it's not even, it's not even like an anti-Semitic thing.
It's almost not even about Jews.
It's like the more you tell us not to do something, especially with young kids, right?
The more you say, hey, don't say that, don't...
Like, they're just saying what they know is going to piss you off, and then there you are in the video, your head, your beet red like a tomato here, reacting to it.
Yeah, I mean, I don't really know what he means in terms of don't do Jew jokes anymore.
Maybe he means, like, I don't think he's talking about jokes.
I think he means, like, actual, but even then, it's like, I think you should just be allowed to say whatever, and then somebody else can say something back.
If the joke's funny, do it.
I mean, for stand-up, I don't know if he's talking specifically about stand-up either, or, like, I think he's just talking about across the board.
If I'm a Jew going to a comedy show, I hope there's a couple Jew jokes.
You know what I mean?
Like, I guess if they're like, you know, every last Jew on Earth should be burned alive, you know, I mean, maybe you'd be like, oh, yeah, maybe, oh, yeah, yeah.
Well, I think specifically in this reference, so he's doing one of his pizza reviews, and somebody walks by, and there's a group behind him, and somebody walks by and says, F the Jews.
Now, look, I don't know who the guy is, but I think it's a pretty fair answer.
It's probably a fair assumption that this guy doesn't actually hate Jews or even care about Jews or think about Jews.
Well, I've talked to some other people, and I think even, and Rogan talked about this too, but it seems like that culture, specifically the one that Rogan was referencing and a couple other people I've talked to that are getting specials on there, like I think Kill Tony's about to get a special on there.
You know, Netflix is now kind of saying, okay, the whole woke thing didn't really work, and now we're going to open up the doors.
And when Rogan got his most recent comedy deal, he asked them, he said, okay, you know, what are the boundaries here?
What are, you know, is there anything you guys want me to lay off?
And they said, nope, do it, do whatever you want.
So it sounds like the door is kind of opening again.
And it's just, I don't know, do you think the strategy is now that it's open, you just blow it open and you just go all in?
Or do you kind of allow them now to say, well, wait a second, maybe we need to inch it closed a little bit?
And I think the two times I've seen him, it's happened both times where somebody in the audience, you know, wants to pipe up and make a statement.
How much now is that part of the routine?
Do you have to, is that something you have to prepare for more now than say in the past, expecting there to be somebody in the audience that gets triggered or wants to, Try to jab you back?
Or the security's like, ugh, I know if I'm going to talk to him that I'm going to have to actually throw him out because he's not going to want to leave.
But now that I'm doing clubs that are better and people are coming to see me, they take it a little more seriously where they'll shut it down if it gets crazy versus before, like when I was touring Canada as a no-name act.
But still headlining or whatever.
You deal with worse, because they really don't give a shit.
Like I said, I don't know if it changes, but at one point it seemed like, and I just mostly see the stuff that goes viral, at one point it seemed like the thing that was getting audiences triggered was race-based jokes.
Then it was the trans stuff.
Now maybe it's...
I haven't really seen that other than Pointnard crashing out, though, so I don't know if that's a real thing.
But I saw all the time, I'm sure you did too, a race joke would get somebody in the audience triggered, they'd blow up.
A trans joke would get somebody in the audience triggered and they'd blow up and they'd be escorted out.
I mean, I guess, I don't know, part of me would feel like I'd kind of lean into that.
As a comic, it depends where you're at with your act.
If I'm killing with the act and it's an hour or it's 55 minutes and it's It's great, and I'm going to be a little bit more pissed off if somebody tries to ruin it than if I have half an hour.
I just put out a special, so I only have 25 minutes, and then I'm like, okay, let's just deal with this guy for 20 minutes.
So it really depends.
Comedy has always had hecklers.
It's always had idiots.
Because comedy clubs have always been in places like malls and strip malls, and they're accessible places anybody can go.
And you can drink, so other people get hammered.
And that's part of the fun, is you come to my show, you have a couple drinks, you witness me being hilarious, and then you witness other people being psychotic.
And then I've had people who are like, I'm liberal, or my friend was liberal, she wanted to leave, but I told her to stay, and then she ended up enjoying it.
The atmosphere has changed so much, and maybe it's going back a little bit, but it didn't used to matter.
I don't know.
I feel like the 90s, the early 2000s, it didn't really matter.
It was like, okay, we're going to do a joke about whatever we want.
I mean, I remember watching movies that were almost like 80% of the comedy was just white comedy, just bashing white people like Undercover Brother is a good example.
Movie's hilarious.
I laughed the entire movie.
Most of the jokes are white.
It's like, so what is this?
When did we decide we're going to start being offended by things and we can't just laugh and have a good time?
I think that if I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, they'd say, if you drink a million gallons of raw milk, maybe one will be tainted, and so therefore we can't have any.
People in Canada don't know why Carney was elected and they were blindsided by it because originally Pierre was supposed to win against Trudeau and they kicked out Trudeau.
But really, whoever was controlling Trudeau orchestrated the whole thing of let's get rid of him and then move the other guy in.
Personally, I think it would be weird, but I think it would benefit me personally because I wouldn't have to, you know, get a green card or get a whatever.
Like that was when immigrants and a lot of people who came when he came who aren't famous, but are rich or well off because they, you know, ate.
There's good things about immigration, but now, and it's the same thing in Canada, now you have people coming who are like, I'm not coming here to make it a better country.
But Niagara Falls, I've been there a million times to do comedy.
And when I did Yuck Yucks there, they put us in these hotels.
They would always put us in like a crappy hotel because it's a comedy club.
And they were like, yeah, this one's about to be under construction.
And then they kind of lied about that and they just made it an immigrant hotel.
So now, if you go to Niagara Falls, Canada, which is kind of like an Atlantic City Vegas-y vibe, all the hotels that you stay in as a guest going to gamble and hang out and watch a show are filled with people who are basically undocumented immigrants.
We named this new game-changing, high-quality supplement complex Ultimate Life Force because Because that's what it does.
Now, since the carnage of COVID and the spike protein infections and everything we've seen, both from the so-called vaccines and from the man-made virus, a lot of great blood detox products that have been promoted by a lot of great scientists, a lot of great doctors.
And I promoted those to my audience.
I have countless times ordered it for friends and family and others that had long COVID or were sick from the shots.
Everybody had dramatic effects.
Some people got complete reversal.
So it's really important to understand that when I tell you this is a game changer, you need to experience it for yourself.
This takes the aspects of a whole bunch of other amazing formulas that are already out there and throws them all in together, and it just has a dramatic effect.
Now, there are a whole bunch of detoxing, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory compounds in here, but the biggest one is NAC.
Now, remember, during all the COVID hysteria, the feds, Fauci and others tried to ban NAC, This is all super concentrated.
It is the precursor to glutathione.
Your body's main engine to clean out its mitochondria that's so key.
It's involved in nearly every core process of cellular cleanup in your body.
And remember, the bad guys didn't want you to have it.
So, it is so important with all the things in our environment, all the things that are going on, periodically detox, but not just for your blood health.
This is so good for your whole body overall.
So secure your ultimate life force today at thealexjohnstore.com.
And for a limited time, if you subscribe to it, you lock in 50% off on your next order.
You can cancel any time.
Get yours today at thealexjohnstore.com.
Quite frankly, I didn't develop...
They went out and did what I wanted.
People love them, and they're incredible.
The turmeric, the Shilogy, the Irish Seamoss, all of it.
But they'd had this out for years, and I thought, my green caps are great, and this other company I use is great because your green superfoods are amazing.
And then I finally took it, and Harrison Smith took it, and I was like, my God.
And by then, we'd been selling it four or five months, and it was already a top seller.
The problem is there's so many ingredients and it's so hard to source and it's so clean, high standards, that it's sold out most of the time.
We finally got a decent shipment of it in, but we never offered it for subscription because we just couldn't keep it.
When you subscribe at theallocshowstore.com and then they keep it back for you so it never sells out.
So go to theallocshowstore.com and get your Optimal Human and so many other incredible products today.
Check out all the great Patriot apparel.
Make your life more healthy and enriched and help keep us on the air as we take on the deep state.