Ezra Levant challenges the Trump administration’s dismissal of Jeffrey Epstein’s "client list," citing his 2019 prison death, missing surveillance tapes, and a 20-year history of abuse—including a 2008 plea deal (13 months) and alleged blackmail operations on his Caribbean island. He claims Epstein’s associates, like Bill Gates and Prince Andrew, were silenced to prevent exposure, while Joel Pollock counters with suicide theories, Occam’s Razor, and skepticism of deep-state narratives. The debate pivots to whether Epstein’s legacy reveals systemic complicity or if focus should shift to current issues like immigration, where Democratic motives may surface. Ultimately, the episode frames Epstein’s case as a test of accountability versus political expediency, exposing tensions between transparency and protecting powerful figures. [Automatically generated summary]
I didn't mean to, but I got into a debate today with my friend Joel Pollock about Jeffrey Epstein, the sex trafficker child abuser who died in his prison cell a few years ago.
Was it murder?
Was it suicide?
We'll talk a bit about that, amongst other things.
It's a show you don't want to miss.
But first, let me invite you to subscribe to what we call Rebel News Plus.
It's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
Click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month, which might not sound like a lot of money to you, but it sure adds up for us.
So please consider subscribing.
That's at rebelnewsplus.com.
Tonight, what's going on with that Epstein file?
It's July 9th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender and pedophile, is not the most important political in America, at least as far as I can tell from up here in Canada.
I think protecting the borders is deporting millions of illegals, is reigniting the economy, is creating jobs, is opening up foreign markets to American goods, reshoring American industries, deterring foreign enemies from going to war, stopping men from invading women's spaces in America, like bathrooms and change rooms and sports teams.
Those are all real things, very real issues that have a real effect on everyday lives of every American.
Trump is ticking a lot of those boxes these days.
He's getting a lot of things done.
I just saw this that rang a bell with me.
Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff with a real focus on immigration, he tweeted a video showing just how empty Los Angeles's normally traffic-jammed highways are.
And he wonders if that's a result of mass deportations, including self-deportations.
There's an estimated 800,000 illegals in L.A. Imagine what that would do to traffic if they were gone.
FBI's Missing Girls Case00:11:29
I don't know, but at a certain point, I think that would be something you could detect.
I mean, imagine for a moment if we in Canada deported the 4.9 million Canadians who no longer, they're not Canadians, foreigners, who no longer have the legal right to be here.
In a few months, 4.9 million visas will expire.
Like this case, where someone on a student vita, visa a foreigner here on a student visa, was actually working for Bell Canada, and he sexually assaulted a woman in her own home.
Why was he let into Canada in the first place?
No criminal check.
Since he's obviously not in school, why hasn't he been sent home since he's here on a student visa?
How did Bell come to hire him if he's here on a student visa, not a working visa?
Did Bell do what they usually do, which is make Canadian employees train the foreign replacements before firing the Canadian employees and hiring the foreign replacements for less?
The banks do that all the time.
It's so gross.
So all these things I've just been talking about are real and important things that really affect ordinary people.
But what about Jeffrey Epstein?
Does that affect us?
He was a sex criminal who was investigated as early as 20 years ago for sexually abusing young girls, some as young as 14 years old.
So he was a child rapist.
He was convicted in 2008 for child prostitution and another crime, but he got a plea deal to serve 13 months, and much of that was on work release.
He got off so easily.
But he obviously didn't stop.
He was arrested in 2019 on more sex trafficking charges and then he died in prison a few weeks later.
Authorities claim he killed himself, but videotape of his prison cell for the moment in question has gone missing.
Isn't that curious?
And the two guards who were curiously not there at the same time, the whole thing looked like such a cover-up, especially when you know that Epstein consorted with so many rich and powerful people.
He wasn't doing these rapes on his own.
He was procuring these girls for others.
He had a private jet that was dubbed the Lolita Express.
You know, Lolita, that story by Nabokov, the very young girl.
That was his private jet that he flew to his private island in the Caribbean, where he allegedly and he and his guests engaged in raping those young girls.
And Epstein filmed his guests doing so for blackmail material on them, it is alleged.
It was such a large operation and went on for so long and had so many rich and powerful people.
It's thought that he must have had the cooperation of a government entity, the CIA, the Mossad, MI5, whatever, to have that kind of compromet.
That's the Soviet word, the Russian word for compromised material on so many rich and powerful people.
Epstein died or was killed before he could spill the beans.
His colleague, his trafficker, Gheelane Maxwell, whose father was a spy, by the way, was convicted and sentenced to prison where she now is.
And then there were reports like this.
A journalist, thinking she was speaking during an ad break, saying hi-ups at her network forbade any discussion of Epstein.
Had the story for three years.
I've had this interview with Virginia Roberts.
We would not put it on the air.
First of all, I was told who's Jeffrey Epstein?
No one knows who that is.
This is a stupid story.
Then the palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.
We were so afraid we wouldn't be able to interview Kate that we that also quashed the story.
And then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in it because of the planes.
She told me everything.
She had pictures.
She had everything.
She was in hiding for 12 years.
We convinced her to come out.
We convinced her to talk to us.
It was unbelievable what we had.
Clinton, we had everything.
I tried for three years to get it on to no avail.
And now it's all coming out.
And it's like these new revelations.
And I freaking had all of it.
I'm so pissed right now.
Like every day I get more and more pissed because I'm just like, oh my God, what we had was unreal.
Other women backing it up.
Hey, yep.
Brad Edwards, the attorney, three years ago saying, like, there will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known.
I had it all three years ago.
And there were always rumors and insiders talking about sex, not just unusual sex or extreme sex, but illegal sex, rape, rape of children.
It was almost too much to believe.
It felt like something pre-biblical, pre-civilizational.
Epstein even had a strange pagan temple on his Caribbean island.
It all felt like something out of the Tom Cruise movie, Eyes Wide Shut.
And it became a political issue.
Of course, so many politicians named in his black book.
Donald Trump said it was something he would reveal if he became president.
The Epstein files, along with the JFK files and so many other state secrets.
And his attorney general said so too, even just recently.
The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients.
Will that really happen?
It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
That's been a directive by President Trump.
I'm reviewing that.
I'm reviewing JFK files, MLK files.
That's all in the process of being reviewed because that was done at the directive of the president from all of these agencies.
So have you seen anything?
You said, oh my gosh.
Not yet.
And so did others in the administration, including Trump's new head of the FBI.
You know, it's the same thing with Epstein's list.
It's like, what the hell are these Republicans doing?
Oh, I saw you give out this.
I saw you make news this morning about that.
I got to get to that.
You say that the FBI has Epstein's list, they're sitting on it.
That doesn't seem like something you should do.
You're protecting the world's foremost predator.
That seems like an evil thing to do, regardless of who may be embarrassed in the release of that list.
Why is the FBI protecting the greatest pederist, the largest scale pederist in human history?
Simple, because of who's on that list.
You don't think that Bill Gates is lobbying Congress night and day to prevent the disclosure of that list?
And why is it that the Senate, you know, and good for Senator Blackburn to try to get it out, but then Dick Durbin comes over the top and says, no, we're not going to release the names.
I don't care about the list itself, but if released the names, right?
What the hell are the House Republicans doing?
They have the majority.
You can't get the list.
You're going to accept Dick Durbin's word or whoever that guy is as to who is on that list and who isn't and that it can and can't be released?
Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are.
We have an election coming up and we need to adjudicate this matter at the polls.
God knows the FBI and DOJ aren't going to do anything, but how are you going to reward the FBI with a new headquarters building after their illegal surveillance on Donald Trump continues with a reauthorization of FISA and we can't even get basic documents out?
This is why America hates Congress.
And this is why I'm tired of the Republican majority saying they're going to get the job done and failing.
But that was then.
Now the word is there's nothing to see here.
Yeah, sure.
Can I just interrupt for a second?
Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?
This guy's been talked about for years.
You're asking, we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things.
And are people still talking about this guy, this creep?
That is unbelievable.
Do you want to waste the time?
Do you feel like answering?
I don't mind answering.
I mean, I can't believe you're asking a question on Epstein at a time like this where we're having some of the greatest success and also tragedy with what happened in Texas.
It just seems like a desecration, but you go ahead.
Sure, sure.
First, to back up on that, in February, I did an interview on Fox, and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said, I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed, meaning the file, along with the JFK, MLK, files as well.
That's what I meant by that.
Also, to the tens of thousands of video, they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein.
Child porn is what they were.
Never going to be released, never going to see the light of day.
To him being an agent, I have no knowledge about that.
We can get back to you on that.
And the minute missing from the video, we released the video showing definitively the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was showing he committed suicide.
And what was on that, there was a minute that was off the counter.
And what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year, every night, they redo that video.
It's old from like 1999.
So every night the video is reset and every night should have the same minute missing.
So we're looking for that video to release that as well, showing that a minute is missing every night.
And that's it on Epstein.
What's going on?
Will we ever know?
If we don't know now, how will we ever know in the future?
Don't we have a right to know?
By the way, Mark Carney, our new prime minister, his wife's family is listed in Epstein's black book.
Epstein's client, Prince Andrew, who settled a massive lawsuit with a young girl who raped her.
He's friends with Mark Carney.
Isn't that weird?
Prince Andrew actually threw a party for Mark Carney.
That's weird.
That's odd.
Seems odd to me.
We don't have an explanation for it.
It's a subject that came up in the course of my conversation with my friend Joe Pollack.
Earlier today, I was talking to him about all things American.
I just wanted to go across the waterfront and get updates on all sorts of files.
And I just mentioned the Epstein news in passing.
It actually turned into quite a debate.
Let me show you my whole interview with Joel, which turned pretty quickly into an Epstein debate.
Here, take a look.
Look stronger in every foreign dealing now.
You can imagine what they were thinking in Moscow and Beijing at the fact that the B-2 bombers entered Iran undetected completely and that they were able to do such a pinpoint, devastating attack.
I think that America's position is so much stronger, a great month or so for Trump, but some recent bumps in the road, including his once best friend, Elon Musk, now starting another party.
He says he will, at least, called the America Party, and other things a bit of a bumpy week.
And here to join us now to talk about it is our friend Joel Pollock, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com.
Joel, great to see you again.
I don't want to spend too much time talking about the Iran attack or the big beautiful bill, other than I think they were great accomplishments.
And, you know, in news, it's what's new.
And I think what's new is some of the things I just mentioned.
Elon Musk's America Party?00:09:42
What do you make about Elon Musk's America Party?
Is it a real thing?
Will it hurt Republicans more than Democrats?
Is it just Elon Musk hitting back at Trump publicly to make a point?
What's going on there?
The history of third parties in the United States is a rather dismal one.
Our system for centuries has favored a split between two major parties.
And when third parties have emerged, they have quickly been swallowed up by one side or the other, usually both in organizational terms and in terms of issues.
That doesn't mean they don't make an impact.
And you can look at Ross Perot's Reform Party as having had a very significant impact.
First of all, when Perot ran and made his biggest impact on the presidential race in 1992, he won about 20% of the vote, and that swung the election away from George H.W. Bush, who was running for re-election, and towards Bill Clinton.
But even though Perot didn't win any Electoral College votes and played the role of the spoiler, he did get his main issue onto the table, which was deficit reduction in the national debt.
And Bill Clinton incorporated Perot's ideas, and so did the Republicans, who were later elected to run Congress in 1994.
And Clinton and the Republicans, in a bipartisan way, managed to balance the budget so that there were surpluses in the federal budget for the first time in recent memory, and unfortunately, in the last time until now, that was 25, 26, 27 years ago.
But many of us still remember it.
There was a question about what to do with the surplus.
That was a big question in the 2000 election.
And that really was a legacy of Ross Perot's Reform Party.
Another legacy of the Reform Party was Donald Trump himself.
Donald Trump tried a third-party run or contemplated a third-party run in the late 90s, early 2000s.
And so, in a way, you can say the Trump presidency is also a legacy of that third party, even though Perot and his party both faded and really didn't achieve very much, didn't elect anybody outside of Jesse Ventura, the governor of Minnesota.
So that's how third parties go in the United States.
You can look back to the late 19th century when there were also third parties advocating for things like silver remaining part of the standard for currency.
In other words, not just having gold at that time as the standard for the dollar, but also silver.
And some of their ideas eventually made their way into populist platforms of the other two parties, but they did not stick around these third parties.
The first third party, by the way, in the history of the United States, this is a little bit of trivia that you learn in high school history, was a party called the Anti-Mason Party.
It was a party opposed to Freemasonry and didn't really do very much, but it did happen to win a small percentage of the votes.
I think it was around in the 1830s or so.
So Elon Musk's party will probably hope to do what Perot's party did, that is to highlight issues that Musk cares about.
Musk cares very deeply about the deficit and the debt.
He's made that very clear.
I don't think it's going to elect anybody, but he could swing the election one way or another.
It's not going to affect Donald Trump, who's not running for re-election ever again, but it could affect future presidential contests.
And maybe that's as it should be, because the only way to address the issues Musk cares about is to address entitlements.
Trump made it clear he was not willing to do that.
He wasn't going to touch Social Security.
He wasn't going to touch Medicaid or Medicare, really Medicare.
But there are some Medicaid reforms in the big beautiful bill.
But essentially, the old age health care and income support programs that people have relied on for many decades are untouched, and Trump said he wouldn't touch them.
But they are driving the deficit problems in the United States because there is so much spending on those entitlement programs alone that even if you take drastic cuts in domestic spending, as Elon Musk suggested, it doesn't even come close to touching the problem.
So the only way to really do this, as Paul Ryan suggested several years ago, is to tackle entitlement reform.
But there's not been any kind of political appetite for that.
And so you'd almost need a different kind of leadership to do it.
You'd need a third party to force the issue.
And I think Musk could have a chance at doing that in the long run.
But I don't think he'll be elected, or certainly he can't be president, but I don't think they'll be electing presidents.
But they will hope to have an impact on the agenda.
Yeah.
I'm not even sure if he can run for president.
He was born in South Africa.
I don't know because didn't stop Obama.
I'm joking.
I'm joking.
I mean, I love Elon Musk for so many reasons.
I love his dedication to freedom of speech.
I love his industriousness.
My guess is what happened there is Trump has learned the hard way that when you come to Washington, there's 100 senators, 435 congressmen, 50 governors, and everyone has a say.
And log rolling, as it's called, is you got to make deals, even within your own party that you don't like.
It's part of being, it's part of the system of checks and balances.
Compare that consensus-building art of the possible with what it's like to lead a startup in Silicon Valley, where you just do things the faster, the better, break things the harder, the better.
And, you know, as long as your financiers like you, you're golden.
It's a very different decision-making style.
And well, let me put it another way.
Let me put it another way.
In Silicon Valley, you can fire people very easily.
And it's nothing personal, but Musk just fired one of his closest allies in Tesla.
That doesn't happen in Washington, D.C. There are consequences for not just firing federal employees, but if you, for example, force a cabinet member to resign, or if you break publicly with some political ally, you're hurting people.
And so those people have the same voice you do, actually, at the end of the day, and they can counter.
That doesn't happen in Silicon Valley.
In Silicon Valley, in California, in particular, and this is one of the great things about California, even though it's run so badly.
In California, people accept that they're going to lose sometimes.
They're going to fail.
They're going to be fired.
But they don't mind because they're going to be hired somewhere else.
They're going to start a new business.
It's a very entrepreneurial culture.
And so Musk can get rid of employees, but those employees are going to find almost instant work in many cases because their skills are so valuable and their experience is so valuable.
And they have so many ideas that if they don't get hired by somebody, they're just going to start their own business.
And that has happened.
I mean, it's happened to Musk.
Musk applied to work for Netscape in the early days of web browsers and he didn't get the job.
So he started his own company with some friends and the rest is history.
So Musk wants to do that to the federal government.
He wants to say, look, I want to fire these people and replace them with these people.
And it just doesn't work that way because there are constituencies that are being hurt.
It's partly log rolling, but also when you're talking about getting rid of important entitlement programs or just regular government programs or pieces of the federal bureaucracy, you're talking about thousands of jobs.
You're talking about perhaps millions of dependents.
And these people have a voice.
They have a vote.
And it's just not so easy to do things that way.
It's as if every employee were a shareholder as well.
You know, it's not, it doesn't work like Silicon Valley and it can't.
But what you do need ultimately is an agreement where the two parties agree to jump off the cliff together and say, we're going to absorb the political impact of the decision to save these programs from themselves by reforming them and to save the fiscal integrity of the federal government.
And we're going to accept cuts.
For Democrats, that probably means raising the retirement age and maybe even accepting some benefit cuts or changes to the program where it's not a defined benefit program, but rather some kind of individual contribution program.
Democrats have resisted those ideas for a long time, but that's probably going to have to be what they accept.
And maybe Republicans have to accept some kind of tax increases to pay for some of the shortfalls.
And they're going to jump off that cliff together.
And they're saying, look, we're going to take a political hit from our own voters for accepting these things, but there's no other way except this way.
And Musk is probably not going to be the person who does that.
He doesn't have those diplomatic skills.
But perhaps by putting the issue of fiscal responsibility back on the agenda, he can force other parties to develop policies around that priority.
And then you might see new leaders emerge who are ready to make those kinds of compromises.
There was one leader in our lifetimes who could have done it.
It was Barack Obama because Democrats really have the most credibility on those entitlement programs.
Those entitlement programs are really central to the Democratic Party's message and its constituency.
He would have had the political capital to make changes, instead of which he decided to be a Marxist revolutionary and not to do the job he was elected to do.
Joe Lieberman was the one who pointed this out: that if Obama had used his immense popularity at the beginning of his first term to reform entitlements, we would be talking about him today as one of the greatest presidents America had ever had.
Instead of which, he's basically an afterthought.
He affected politics by bringing a new brand of woke into politics, but he didn't really leave any positive impact on the country.
Yeah.
His last legacy was the Iran nukes, which Trump took out.
There's only one Elon Musk, and there's only 24 hours in the day.
Jeffrey Epstein and the Deep State00:15:18
I've had some very small interactions with him, and I'm stunned by how multitasking he can be.
And he's quite good at delegating, too.
I mean, any one of us would be happy with Tesla or SpaceX or the boring company or Neuralink or RE.
Seems to juggle them all.
But even he, when he was so engrossed at the White House, you know, the stock price of Tesla dipped down.
When he backed away from politics, Tesla zoomed again because they know he is such a key part of the MVP.
And I wonder if Musk will maintain his interest in politics.
He has a huge database.
When he was campaigning for Trump, he was giving away a million bucks a day for anyone who signed up to his super PAC.
He's got to have an amazing list.
Will he?
I don't know.
Part of me thinks his greatest contribution to society may not be a third party.
It may be an industry or tech.
I don't know.
But do you think there's any chance of a personal rapprochement between him and Trump?
Trump is easy to anger, but he's quick to forgive as well.
In fact, I think he sort of likes making up with a foe because he feels that the foe sort of owes him something.
I've seen it a zillion times, even when he meets with, you know, he met with Carlos Slim, the New York Times boss.
He sort of likes it.
He loves the rapprochement.
Do you think they'll stay enemies or do you think they'll refriend each other?
I think they'll have to be allies because they have common interests and they both believe in the success of the United States.
And so that's going to bring them together.
Trump does work in an environment where he creates conflict as a creative force.
And if you've been around Trump at all, you know that these kinds of conflicts are pretty normal for him, even with people he likes.
I mean, look at Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Trump wouldn't talk to him for years because he blamed Netanyahu for legitimizing Joe Biden's election.
And now they're the best of friends.
And Trump was very emotional, I thought, when Netanyahu nominated him for the Nobel Prize.
The week before, he had been swearing in public about how Netanyahu is so used to fighting wars, he doesn't know how to do anything else.
So that kind of tension comes with a close relationship with Trump.
He's just a volatile person, and there's a creative purpose behind that.
It's not just temper.
It's not abusive.
It's just the way he functions in a creative way.
It's part of the energy that keeps him going.
And I think we are all the better for it.
It does make him a little bit more difficult to deal with, but it does make him an effective leader at the same time.
I want to ask a little bit about the Jeffrey Epstein story because I think that was the definition of the deep state.
Someone who clearly was involved with some state or states.
I think it's pretty obvious it was a honey trap sort of influence operation.
And Trump had talked about releasing those files, like releasing the Kennedy assassination files.
And it was sort of proof that he was going to take over the deep state.
He made promises.
His Attorney General Bondi made promises.
And now they're saying, oh, there's nothing to release.
And I think that this is a symbolic thing.
People want to know the truth about Epstein, but they also want to know that Trump didn't get sucked into the deep state or wasn't bamboozled by them or rolled by them.
And I think, I'm not sure how widespread an issue this is.
I don't know if it's going to make anyone not vote for Trump.
I think the immigration thing is so huge and taxes are huge and jobs are huge and they're real.
And maybe caring about the Epstein file is sort of a hobby or a luxury belief that people just like an intellectual exercise.
But what do you make about it?
Because Trump seems to be saying there's nothing here.
I don't think there's anything there more than what we know.
And I've always felt that way.
I thought it was pretty easy to understand why Jeffrey Epstein had killed himself, and I do believe that he killed himself.
Remember that Jeffrey Epstein had lived a high life.
He was a billionaire.
He had then been convicted of statutory rape.
He managed to work out a plea deal, and he walked free eventually.
It was a very lenient sentence he received, and he moved on with his life for the most part.
Then the first Trump administration nominated a man named, I believe, Alex Acosta for labor secretary.
And Acosta had been involved in the plea deal.
I think he had been the U.S. attorney, the prosecutor involved in agreeing to the plea deal.
So the Epstein case hit the spotlight again.
And with that case, came a bunch of other important political personalities who had been involved, not because they'd been implicated in wrongdoing.
But for example, a good friend of mine, Alan Dershowitz, had been Jeffrey Epstein's defense lawyer at one point.
So a lot of high-profile personalities were suddenly involved, people with things at stake.
And Acosta, I think, was a big one.
And Epstein found himself rearrested after thinking he had put this behind him.
Not just rearrested, but rearrested for essentially being a pedophile.
And then he was being held in this cell.
And when the news came out that he had killed himself, it made complete sense to me because what I was looking at was a man who had suffered this.
I mean, it's hard to describe him as a victim, right?
He was a terrible criminal in many ways.
But in a sense, he had made a deal with the government that he thought was good.
He paid good money for those lawyers to make the deal.
And then he found himself in prison facing potential prosecution once again for things that he thought he had put behind him.
I think he knew he was never going to get out of jail or prison.
I think he believed he was going to be held and be in captivity essentially for political reasons.
Everybody on the Democratic side and Republican side had a reason to have him in prison, not because he was going to spill secrets necessarily, but because the fact that he had this sweetheart plea deal for these heinous crimes embarrassed everybody involved.
And so I think he saw himself just as a target for the rest of his life, and so he killed himself.
That was my feeling at the time.
But what remains from Attorney General Bondi that there were an enormous number of files, and the reason they couldn't be released is because of protecting the identity of the victims of his child rape.
And what about, you know, so I'm not saying I think all that is true.
I mean, I think to some extent the conservative new media created something more out of this than it was.
And there's a danger in that, in that you buy into some of these narratives too.
You always have to have a little bit of skepticism.
I mean, obviously, I'm open to the idea that there was more there, especially given the high-ranking officials from other countries and so forth who seemed to frequent Epstein's Island and so forth.
But I also think that you have to look at the simpler explanations.
Let me give you another example of that.
I'm doing a story right now about how my own governor in California, Gavin Newsom, is spending $100 million on low-income housing in the Pacific Palisades.
This is something residents have feared for a long time.
Town burnt down, and we fear they're going to fill it with housing projects.
And that's because California is run by socialist Democrats.
So these fears turned out to be well-founded.
But then there's an additional step, which is to say, maybe that's the reason it burnt down.
Maybe they let it burn down or even set it on fire to allow themselves to build this low-income housing for illegal aliens, for the homeless, and so forth, and to do it on prime real estate near the ocean.
Now, that's a level of conspiratorial thinking you have to remain open to because sometimes things like that do happen, but it's just not the best explanation, and it requires a level of coordination we're just not used to seeing from government officials.
And yeah, I believe in Occam's Razor, which is the philosophical principle.
Yeah, I didn't want to go there because I don't.
I actually don't.
I don't believe in Occam's Razor.
I believe in a healthy skepticism toward everything, but just to go with the, I mean, my gut feeling on this is that the fire was an accident.
My gut feeling on this is that the Epstein death was a suicide.
And I stand to be corrected on these counts, but that's just how I feel about it.
I just can't get out of my head that clip of Melinda Gates describing how this was why she divorced one of the world's richest men, her husband of decades.
I'm not sure if you saw it.
She said he just wouldn't stop going back to meet him.
And it was that.
And, you know, his excuse, Bill Gates, for meeting with Epstein more than a dozen times was, I was trying to fundraise.
One of the world's richest men, maybe he would fundraise from Epstein, but after he realized it wasn't...
Like, that just doesn't hold up.
You don't meet with a guy a dozen times, and that's not why Melinda Gates divorced.
He said he was ghastly and a horrible.
Here's a quick clip of that.
You know, it was also widely reported that Bill had a friendship or business or some kind of contact with Jeffrey Epstein and that you were not, that that was very upsetting to you.
Did that play a role in the divorce at all in this process?
Yeah, as I said, it's not one thing.
It was many things.
But I did not like that he'd had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, though.
And you made that clear to him.
I made that clear to him.
I also met Jeffrey Epstein exactly one time.
Did you?
Yes, because I wanted to see who this man was.
And I regretted it from the second I stepped in the door.
He was abhorrent.
He was evil personified.
I had nightmares about it afterwards.
So, you know, my heart breaks for these young women because that's how I felt.
And here I'm an older woman.
My God, I feel terrible for those young women.
It was awful.
You felt that the moment you walked in.
I didn't realize it was awful.
Yeah.
And you shared that with Bill, and he still continued to spend time with him?
Any of the questions remaining about what Bill's relationship there was, those are for Bill to answer.
But I made it very clear how I felt about him.
Like, I think the reason why people care is not because they want a different kind of justice for Epstein, who is now dead.
It's they want a different kind of justice for Bill Gates and Reid Hoffman and anyone else who they think participated in those pedophile rapes.
And I don't know.
I just, I mean, I don't think I'm a conspiracy theorist.
I understand what you're saying.
Look for other explanations.
But there is no other good explanation for Bill Gates being divorced by his wife because she says he just won't stop visiting Epstein.
It wasn't, you know, to play cards or to fundraise.
It was for rape.
I think we know a lot about Epstein's friends already.
We know about Bill Clinton.
We know about Reid Hoffman, as you mentioned.
We know about others.
And I don't think they've really been held accountable for what we already know.
So the things that people are upset about are already in the public domain.
I don't know what extra information people expected to find.
Maybe some kind of evidence he was working for a spy agency or something like that.
I mean, I think everything looks set up to make that possible.
Certainly he knew some very high-ranking people.
I mean, he knew Ehud Barak, the left-wing former Israeli prime minister who's now been implicated in these visits to Epstein Island and was fundraising with him.
But, you know, what's interesting is it doesn't stop left-wing think tanks from featuring Ehud Barak very prominently when he wants to criticize the Israeli government.
Well, and Bill Gates could never be more widespread.
Right, right.
I mean, it's, I think that the job of holding these people accountable really falls to people like you and me.
But I just didn't expect more to come out of the Epstein files.
And I think that people who hung around with him knew they were playing with fire.
That's why his longtime assistant, Maxwell, is serving a lengthy sentence in prison.
You know, I think it's unfortunately the double standard that it often applies isn't just in our justice system.
It's also in our media ecosystem.
I mean, you know, look at, you know, to look at a different sort of part of the Clinton world.
James Carville is basically outed himself as a raving anti-Semite, but he's on news analysis shows all the time for his opinion about this and that.
I mean, we just, you know, prominent people are not held to the same standard, especially if they're on the left.
And I think that's also part of the Epstein story, but I didn't know how much more there was really going to be.
Likewise, I don't know that it makes sense to prosecute James Comey and Brennan and some of these other figures who were part of the Russia collusion investigation.
I mean, we know they're liars.
We know that they fomented the whole thing.
Is it worth wasting time prosecuting them and looking for some kind of smoking gun?
Or should we just think about other things and move on to other things?
I'm not saying forgive and forget.
I'm just saying I wonder if the American right is investing in past narratives that helped solidify or articulate an idea about what was failing in our government, but might not help Donald Trump achieve his agenda.
So that's all.
I'm just not heavily invested in the Epstein story because I don't think there's much more to mine there, even if it was entertaining for a while in a grizzly sort of horror show kind of way.
To me, what's really interesting is what's happening with immigration policy.
We may find out more about what Biden was up to.
I do think there are some smoking guns about how Democrats made the decision to throw our borders open and why they did so.
I think we are going to find that there are some political motives that are probably in writing somewhere.
And they've called the rest of us racist for assuming that Democrats want these people to be voters someday.
But I do assume that that evidence will emerge.
So I think there are battles worth fighting.
And we're so busy in the Trump era, we don't have the resources to fight things, I think, that are already settled.
All right.
Well, listen, I won't go at you another time on that because I feel differently.
I feel that there's a lot of deficits of information and a deficit of justice.
And I think that I think the deep state has won here.
And I think to see Kash Patel and Dan Bongino and others go mum and become that which they criticized six months ago, I think is telling.
Listen, I still love the Trump administration.
I think what they're doing on immigration is the most important thing for Western civilization.
Can I defend Patel and Bongino?
And again, I could be wrong.
I've made mistakes like this in the past, but I will say that I actually have more respect for them because they got a better look at the evidence than any of us have, and they have to go against what they said before.
That doesn't mean they sold out.
It means they were honest, I think.
Defending The Deep State00:03:52
That's another explanation.
They just saw the evidence or the lack of evidence.
And so they revised their earlier statements.
Again, not because they had to do so.
I mean, in this sense, the people who elected them expected them to continue where they were.
It took some political courage to look at the evidence and say, I was wrong about what I said before.
You can look at that as conforming to the swamp, but I think to give them the benefit of the doubt is reasonable here.
I think maybe they just stood up and said, okay, we thought there was more here than there was.
Well, if Melinda Gates changes her mind and remarries Bill Gates, then I'll accept that thesis.
She had billions of reasons to divorce Bill Gates.
She walked away with those reasons.
Yeah.
Well, she had, I mean, she really can.
It's called the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
I think she was just as in control as he was.
I mean, I believe her.
When she says about her personal life, that was the reason she divorced him.
I believe her.
Actually, that's where I don't believe her.
I think that the Epstein scandal became embarrassing to her, but I think that privately, as long as it didn't make the news, I think she was okay with it.
That's my personal suspicion about it.
I don't think that she could have interpreted Bill Gates disappearing for weekends at a time any other way than that he was having affairs or having some kind of alternate romantic attachments.
I mean, I think that these billionaires get away with a lot of that sort of thing, and their wives who are attached to their wealth tolerate it.
And I think she was prepared to tolerate it until Bill Gates became associated with Epstein and Epstein came back into the news.
I think it was convenient for her to get rid of him.
I think there are other cases like that as well, where the wives of wealthy and famous people have tolerated their misbehavior until it became public.
And then they, you know, oh, you know, shock and outrage.
I didn't know about this.
And, you know, I feel betrayed.
And, you know, nonsense.
I mean, I'm sure it's true in a couple of cases, but I think for the most part, this behavior was tolerated.
And then when it became a problem for Melinda Gates, I mean, again, I don't want to disparage her.
This is just my hunch about it.
I can't prove it, but it's speculative.
I wouldn't take anything these people say at face value.
Nothing.
Well, we'll leave it there.
Joel, thanks very much.
I didn't really mean to get into a debate with you about the Epstein.
No, it's Paul.
I just wanted to read it.
This is the healthy discussion.
You know, this is, we're both talking about our instincts here, and you need kind of both sides of this to get to the truth.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, thanks for taking the time.
We're talking with Joel Pollack Sr., editor at large of breitbart.com.
Keep up the fight.
Thank you.
All right.
Stay with us.
warhead what do you think of that I don't feel like giving Epstein the benefit of the doubt.
I don't deserve, I don't think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
And I think the public interest in finding the facts here is enormous.
I'm absolutely certain that Epstein's clients were of both parties, the Democrats and the Republicans.
And they weren't just of Americans, they were people in the UK and around the world.
And I'm absolutely certain that people like Bill Gates would do anything to stop these files from seeing the light of day.
There was no reason for Bill Gates to meet with Jeffrey Epstein dozens of times, but he chose to.