All Episodes
Previous Next
July 16, 2025 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:00:57
GOP Blocks Push to Unseal FULL Epstein Files - SF615
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, Russell Brand and Russell Conspiracy Theorist trying to bring real journalism to the American people.
Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
You might be watching this on YouTube or X. Make your way over to Rumble and if you don't have Rumble Premium yet, get Rumble Premium now.
We're going to be talking, of course, about the list that never was, something that we could have anticipated.
In fact, for us, well, I mean, really, from our all history, it's been pretty clear that ultimately there are layers of power that have to remain obfuscated.
That's what I think.
Let me know what you think in the comments and chat.
Will we ever know the truth?
And are you surprised by some of the people who seem invested in blocking it?
Hearing none, the question's on the amendment.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Those opposed say no.
No.
In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it.
The amendment so agree.
Mr. Chair, I'm kind of shocked by that.
I will ask for a roll call.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mrs. Fitchbach.
Mrs. Fitchbach, no, Mr. Norman.
Mr. Norman, aye, Mr. Roy.
Mrs. Houchin.
Mrs. Houchin, no, Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy, no, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott, no, Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith, no, Mr. Jack.
No.
Mr. Jack, no, Mr. McGovern.
Aye.
Mr. McGovern, aye, Ms. Scantlin.
Ms. Scantlin, aye, Mr. Nagoose.
Yes.
Mr. Nagoos, aye.
Ms. Ledger Fernandez?
Aye.
Ms. Ledger Fernandez?
Aye.
Madam Chair?
No.
Madam Chair, no.
The clerk will report the total.
Five ye's, seven nays.
The no's have it.
The amendment is not agreed to.
And I think most of us believe what's appropriate will be released when it is time for the president to release it.
Some of those people look pretty embarrassed that they were on the nay rather than the A side of the aisle right there.
Charlie Kirk's not going to be talking about it anymore.
Honestly, I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being.
I'm going to trust my friends in the administration.
I'm going to trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done, solve it.
Balls in their hands.
I've said plenty this last weekend.
So if you guys want to see my commentary on it, that's fine.
Prince Andrew is free now to travel abroad.
And I suppose into this environment, this environment of cynicism, you might call it skepticism or at least acknowledgement and recognition that there are ulterior powers.
As Tulsi Gabbard said at Turning Point, the deep state is real and seems to have power that goes beyond the reach of elected officials.
Isn't that surprising?
Andrew Short says that the real America first candidates are now surprising figures of the left.
Let me know what you think about this.
The only party right now that to me seems America first is the Democrat Socialist Party.
Bernie is America first.
Mamdani and all his ideas that he will not be able to execute, and I frankly think many of them are not good ideas.
But he is no doubt New York first.
The policies seem to want to help people here.
That's what I care about.
If MAGA wants to take this America first thing back, they got to start looking out for America.
It doesn't seem like they're doing it.
Lying to Americans is not America First.
There is one lie, which is Epstein did not have a blackmail ring on all these very influential people.
And by saying that that didn't happen, you have to tell a lot of other little lies.
Every one of them just pulls a little piece of thread away from the fact.
And we're starting to see right through it now, and it's just embarrassing.
Are we then a pivotal and radical moment in American politics and American power?
Certainly media has shifted the dynamics of American politics almost beyond recognition.
Here, Gavin Newsom says that Joe Rogan personally asked him via text message to reveal how COVID mandates for children ended up being an official policy.
And this is the very kind of dynamic that would have been unthinkable a matter of years, maybe even a matter of months ago.
And with Andrew Schultz saying that the left are the real America First Party, are we going through yet another significant and unanticipated transition in American politics and public life?
Let's have a look at this conversation about Joe Rogan with Gavin Newsom.
While I'm tended to by Nurse Nikki, yeah, come over here because there's something going very, very wrong with me.
I don't know if there's too much.
Yes, I need serious and urgent and immediate adjustments.
Do you think it's coming through too quickly or too slowly?
How do you feel?
I feel vulnerable.
Very vulnerable.
Let's have a look at Gavin Newsom to talk about Joe Rogan.
So this is from Joe Rogan.
Oh, God.
This is a tough one.
He won't have me on the show, by the way.
Who will be held accountable for mandating COVID-19 vaccines for children which were unnecessary and ineffective?
And who will take responsibility for the unprecedented increases in myocarditis and cancer cases among them?
Second to that, do you feel any remorse for that draconian decision that was obviously heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical company's desire for maximum profit?
Yeah, I've signed some of the most progressive laws against big pharma in the country.
So I have receipts on that.
So no one should suggest that it was about doing the bidding of big pharma, quite the contrary.
California, like many states, Red States included, Florida included, moved forward early in the pandemic, working with the Trump administration and the advisors from the Trump administration to impose dirt and strategies to mitigate the impacts of this novel disease, coronavirus.
What's interesting about this process is none of us have really reviewed in an objective way.
It's all through the lens of politics, what we did right and what we did wrong.
And so I'll answer that question by telling you what I've just tasked.
I've asked our team to put together an objective review of everything we did right, everything we did wrong.
We're interviewing people that vehemently disagree with us, that oppose the mask mandates, that oppose the stay-at-home orders, people that are international experts.
We're stress testing Our entire process could have, shoulda, would have.
Comparing and contrasting to what other states did.
I mean, Florida shut down their bars and restaurants before California, before California.
The question was: when did we start to unwind some of those restrictions?
California was more restrictive, and we were certainly aggressive at scale.
As it relates to vaccines, vaccines save lives.
But Joe asked a very different question about children, and I respect that.
And that was where there was a lot of feedback with a lot of experts that I had as advisors.
By the way, I used advisors from two other states.
We did this West Coast Alliance to review not just what was coming from the federal government, but to have a prism and lens on the recommendations coming from the CDC through our own independent advisors.
And I took their advice, not as a doctor, but as a governor.
So with humility, seriously, humility and grace, I've asked them to have that report done.
It's going to be done next month.
And it'll be the only state that I know of that is putting out a truly objective review of what went right and what went wrong.
And I know everyone's a goddamn genius now in hindsight.
But at the time, none of us knew what we were up against, including the President of the United States, who I worked very closely with.
There wasn't a Democratic governor in America that worked closer during the pandemic than I did with Donald Trump.
Gavin Newsom's getting ahead of it, isn't he?
Gavin Newsom's positioning himself in new media in a way that indicates that he sees himself as the next leader of that party.
And with Andrew Schultz saying that the left are providing the real candidates for America first politics, what do you think about this conversation?
Or do you think that's kind of an outrageous claim by dear Andrew Schultz, who I enjoy and like a great deal?
Certainly, I think it's worth being radical in our willingness to look at political views that go beyond bipartisanship and tribalism.
Let me know what you think about that in the comments and chat.
Because look at this.
Everyone's sort of kind of focused on Tucker Carlson's remarks about the Epstein Files.
And of course, the Epstein Files is, as I say, the mosaic tile that went unpicked, reveals archaeological depths previously unvisited that might show you a deep labyrinth of subterranean corruption.
That's why it's important.
That's why people keep going on about it.
But when Tucker Carlson talks at a turning point about young people not being able to afford homes, I suppose that is a glimpse at an economic future that, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, is pretty undesirable and an indication that politics has taken a turn that where we need to make some pretty radical revisions.
Let's have a look at Tucker Carlson there at turning point and we'll talk about that together in a minute.
Biggest house in Europe, like, what is that?
Just, you know, of course I do have an attendant nurse at all times now because I'm pretty vulnerable.
Later on in the show, we're going to be talking about the UK justice system and their plan to get rid of jury trials.
Let me know you think about that in the comments and chat and if you think that's part of a broader plan to implement global imperialist systems everywhere so that power can be consolidated and concentrated in as fewer hands as possible.
Biggest house in New York?
Like, what is that?
Like, at some point, the basic economics really matter.
And they matter because not that it's bad that rich people are getting richer, it's bad that everyone else is getting poorer.
And it's especially bad that young people can't afford homes.
Let me just put a very precise point on this.
If you want a measure of how your economy is doing, I personally favor eliminating GDP as a measure.
I don't even know what that is.
It's clearly not relevant.
They tell me Japan has a stagnant GDP.
Have you been to Tokyo?
It's the single most radicalizing experience you'll ever have because it's just so nice.
You lost the war?
Really?
Can we lose a war and wind up like this?
GDP.
No.
I don't know what even that is.
The total economic activity.
Oh, no, no.
My measure is really simple.
I've got a bunch of kids.
Can they afford houses with full-time jobs at like 27, 28?
And the answer is no way.
And the answer is that 35-year-olds with really good jobs can't afford a house unless they stretch and go deep into debt.
And I just think that's a total disaster.
That's a complete disaster.
Why?
Two reasons.
One, if people don't own things, they don't feel ownership of the country they're in.
And the country gets super volatile because people feel like they've got nothing to lose.
When you have a lawn, trust me, you're thinking long-term.
Second, it's really hard to have a family without a house.
It is.
It's like super fun to live in an apartment if, you know, there's like a bar downstairs, you're in a cool neighborhood.
I'm in East Village.
It's so cool.
Try to have three kids.
You're not going to have three kids there.
You can't.
Nobody wants to raise their kids in that neighborhood.
Nobody wants to raise their kids in an apartment.
People do it because they have to.
Nobody wants to.
People want a little house, not some McMansion, just a little normal house.
That is the actual American dream.
And that is what is totally unattainable for young people.
And so the only young people in general that you will ever meet who have houses are young people whose parents help them.
And God bless their parents.
That's a perfectly great thing to do for your kids.
But most people's parents can't afford to do that because they're already in debt from their pointless college degree.
Hey, do you see, like, when you watch this, how both sides of the political argument benefit from the cultural war and the distraction that it provides?
And in a way, whilst I would not want to yield to the idea that economics and materialism are what decides the quality of your life, if you can't get a house or place to live, it's going to be difficult to feel happy and satisfied and content.
And maybe even as Tucker Carlson suggests, connected to your nation and your national identity.
Do you think this broadening of the conversation beyond what we would normally see as the accepted conditions of political debate is part of the rise in independent media?
Here is a conservative social commentator, albeit a unique and very gifted one, at a Republican event pointing out that actually neither the Republican Party or the Democrat Party are providing a cohesive or even sensible vision for the future of their country.
And that if you go to a corporate city like Tokyo, you're being offered a more favourable alternative and that even GDP, the very metrics by which we measure success are becoming redundant and abstract.
Do you think that the conversation pivoting in this way?
And as I said to you before about Tucker Carlson, you'll get commentators from the left citing stuff he's saying about Israeli influence on American politics.
You'll get people from the libertarian right probably enjoying and highlighting things he's saying here about economics and home ownership.
Do you think that in a way the categories of left and right are changing?
And in a way, isn't it obvious that they would?
Because those categories have come from industrial political positions.
Socialism and capitalism are based on industrialism.
And we might be in a, I don't say post-industrial, because that doesn't seem quite right because we still have industry and we're still making stuff.
But we're not at the point where most people feel we're in the ascendancy when it comes to materialism.
We're in decline.
People don't think they're going to be wealthier than their parents.
People don't think that their problems are going to be solved by owning stuff at scale.
In fact, there's a kind of modesty in what Tucker Carlson suggested there.
To me, sounded more like a kind of British socialist political figure, you know, like own a little house, have free kids.
I don't know, man.
I think what we're being offered politically and socially has shifted so much and it's become so bewildering.
We're invited to believe so many things.
Like one minute, it's post your pronouns in the bio and take the shot and take the vaccine and defund the police.
And the next minute, all those things are being kind of scribbled out and turned over and deleted and whited out.
You know, Gavin Newsom's cropping up and Sean Ryan to tell you how anti-big farmer he is.
But I kind of remember that guy getting paddleboarders arrested during the pandemic, don't you?
Who are you going to trust in this bewildering climate?
Are you going to trust that Gavin Newsom is saying that because he means it and has always meant it and is indeed an anti-establishment, anti-corporate, anti-big farmer figure?
Or is he just positioning himself for political ascendancy?
Let me know what you think about that in the comments and chat.
And increasingly, don't you think there's no real requirement for these kind of nationwide political heroes?
Aren't we sort of ready for a return to a kind of localism?
Isn't the only way to achieve what Tucker Carlson's aspiring to or lamenting the loss of, a kind of instantiation of a new set of rules and systems?
I.e., do you think that the current systems and institutions of American power or global power can deliver what Tucker Carlson is talking about?
It can't, can it?
Because it's regulating and measuring itself using what he regards as obsolete methods like GDP.
So that is a national emergency.
And I know that there are certain cable channels who are spending all this time talking about, oh, they're about to elect a socialist in New York City, which obviously I'm opposed to it.
He's not even a real socialist.
He's like a trainee vax, you know, rich kid liberal guy.
Mom Donnie.
He's a fake leftist, but whatever.
Why do you think that's happening?
One of the reasons it's happening is because normal people with normal jobs no longer believe they can win in this system and that all the money is going to the worst people.
And no one even stops to ask what the hell is going on.
How did Bill Ackman get so rich?
I mean, he went on CNBC and like talked down Herbalife.
You know, bet against companies by driving down their stock prices.
That's what he's been accused of.
I'm not accusing him here because he's sue me if I do.
I'm just suggesting others believe that might have happened.
He's already threatened to sue me for saying that.
But there are plenty of people who do do that.
And I'm not saying even that it should be illegal.
What I'm saying is that our leadership class should say something about it and should assign a moral value to it.
And if you're getting rich by loaning money to people at incredibly high interest rates, that's something you're going to have to talk to God about.
That is not good.
That is not virtuous.
That's disgusting.
And the fact that nobody feels free to say that, nobody feels like you can just say like 30% on a credit card?
Why is anybody paying your credit card bill?
I said to somebody recently, I feel like I'm very moderate and sensible and...
Usury!
Interesting heckle there because usury is forbidden throughout the Abrahamic faiths and perhaps wisely so.
In a way, what Tucker Carlson is highlighting is the kind of decay of our ordinary fealties to political systems and parties that just a short while ago, we would have presumed were immutable.
You can't just advocate endlessly for the Republican Party or the Democrat Party based on what you think those parties' values are because those values change all the time.
Indeed, someone suggested recently in the wake of this extraordinary post-Epstein-list denial period that the Democrats might become an anti-war party if Trump and Republicans and MAGA are now going to continue to fund Ukraine's unwinnable fight against Russia,
if we're going to still see increasing conflict in the Middle East, if the United Kingdom are preparing for war against Russia, which would of course be an unwinnable war from a British perspective, and I say that as a somewhat patriotic Englishman, then maybe, maybe the Democrats could repo as the anti-war party of the United States and maybe garner the attention and affection of the world.
And maybe Gavin Newsom could be swept into power.
Could he ever be president?
Let me know in the comments and chat.
Maybe Andy Andrew Schultz is right.
Maybe Mamdani and Bernie Sanders and AOC and these socialist radicals are the future of a peaceful world.
Well, and I think there are a lot of voters that instinctively cringe at this idea because they do have those memories, right?
And I've interviewed Congressman RoCanna recently, who's been advocating for the Democratic Party to be the anti-war party.
He said that the party has become too hawkish, in his opinion.
Is this an opportunity for Democrats to move more in that direction as you're hearing from Americans that they don't want us?
I mean, one of the reasons so much of the president's base is frustrated is because they voted for him because they felt that he was the anti-war president, that he made promises That we would not be entangled in foreign conflicts.
Is this an opportunity for Democrats?
Might you be missing that opportunity if you don't sort of look at that messaging as a path for the party?
No.
And I think Rocana is wrong.
Okay.
The fact is, foreign policy isn't that easy.
You can't just say, I'm against all conflicts because they're all going to be against America's interest or against global interest.
What do you say to the No, we need war.
What are you talking about?
This is the reason that we have to keep the Epstein files quiet.
We can't have his clients review.
How are we going to keep the war machine rolling?
How are we going to keep everybody blackmailed?
One person who will never tire of war is Lindsey Graham.
He says any day now, Ukraine will be significantly, sufficiently, and superfluously armed by the United States of America.
We'll be talking about that in a matter of moments.
But first, here's a message from one of our partners.
What if your coffee didn't just wake you up, but actually awakened you to new realms of consciousness?
That's what's being promised by 1775 Peaberry.
Why are you drinking stinking, jaded, lukewarm, dirty, filthy grey coffee beans when you could be having vibrant, revolutionary coffee like this one?
It's an elixir of pure innocence.
It's a glorious and awakening drink.
Peaberries are the outliers, the lone wolves, the beans that grow solo on the branch.
No twins, no compromise, no hangers-on, no hemorrhoids.
Just one dense, round, flavour-packed powerhouse that tastes like it's been preparing for this cup its entire life.
Let me take a sip of it now.
Oh, holy beverage, we salute you.
Less than 5% of all beans can become pea berries.
They're the navy seals of coffee beans.
Some of them just can't take hell week.
Which basically means your morning brew is rarer than a mainstream journalist telling the truth.
Jake Tapper, you must have seen that Joe Biden was old.
He was obviously old.
I think you have absolutely no standing to diagnose somebody's cognitive decline.
It's grown high in the Bolivian mountains where the air is thin, the vibes are thick, and the beans basically whisper ancient truths to the winds.
No acidic afterburn, no synthetic weirdness, and none of the lingering shame that tastes like the hotel minibar after a three-day bender with all the snow.
Hey, I played that guy in a couple of movies.
I've lived that film.
I was that film.
But this coffee doesn't leave you hung over in a feather boa or speaking fluent nonsense.
Just bold, smooth, consciousness activating coffee with clean energy and antioxidants so potent I drank it and remembered three of my past lives.
Go to 1775coffee.com, use the code brand and get 15% off.
P-very wonder, hallucinations, glory, psychedelic wonder, all available here.
Use the link, get the discounts, get the free shipping, benefit from an awakening beam, you lunatic you.
If you're watching us on YouTube and you're interested in free speech, please click the link in the description.
Escape the grip of the Trusted News Initiative, the shady cadre of media organizations that ensure that you only get pre-chewed data spewed into your mouth like a fledgling, rather than mightily swooping down like the nation of bold eagles that you are and claiming your quarry.
Truth, freedom, free speech available to you on Rumble and Rumble Premium.
If you don't have Rumble Premium yet, get Rumble Premium Now.
It supports me.
You get additional content from me, Crowder, Tim Paul, a whole bunch of other people, as well as making sure that my financial future is assured and that my children will have nice houses, hopefully in America.
Will there still be in America?
There may not be a UK.
We'll be talking about the collapse of the UK justice system a little later in Russell Brand Unpacked.
Have a look at this clip from Russell Brand Unpacked, where we go offline and take a deep dive into news stories in a little more depth.
Have a look at this.
The fact of the matter is there's a great distance between us and Russia.
We're not militarily threatened in a direct way on the ground by any obvious external enemy, even Russia.
So what's Kirstama mean when he stands in front of a crowd of dozers or Bob the Builder?
Pick your reference.
Maybe you're British, maybe you remember Frag or Rock.
And make sub-Churchillian declarations about readiness for war and respect for the military.
He's lying.
It's a distraction.
In fact, the entire news cycle is a distraction.
Whatever it is you're into, whatever it is your attention is being glommed onto, make a serious effort to unglom it and focus it onto this.
The country is changing fast.
The world is changing fast.
In these liminal and pivotal moments, there's the opportunity for radical change if you're awake to it.
Now, Lindsey Graham believes that there will be more war.
And you know, Lindsey Graham likes a warhead to be hurtling through the skies at its intended target.
Is that his prostate or G-Spy?
I don't know.
But the game regarding Putin's invasion of Russia is about to change.
I expect in the coming days you will see weapons flowing at a record level to help Ukraine defend themselves.
I expect in the coming days that there will be tariffs and sanctions available to President Trump he's never had before.
I expect in the coming days more support from Europe regarding their efforts to help Ukraine.
Putin made a miscalculation here.
For six months, President Trump tried to entice Putin to the table.
The attacks have gone up, not down.
One of the biggest miscalculations Putin has made is to play Trump.
And you just watch, in the coming days and weeks, there's going to be a massive effort to get Putin to the table.
And to those who are helping him, China, buying cheap Russian oil and having no accountability, those days are about over.
Besides, like Lindsey Graham, he's a real little sweetheart.
Fox News believe that it's not Trump playing Putin, but quite the reverse.
This is an extraordinary pivot.
Later on in the show, we'll be talking about the UK justice system and its collapse.
And I want to show you the speech that I gave at Turning Point where I focused also on spiritual decline and a culture that wants you dumb, voided of values and of value.
We'll be showing you that in a matter of moments.
Let's have a look at this, though.
Fox News claimed that Trump's been played by Putin.
In a sense, the kind of claim that the Left side of the centralized legacy media has been making for a while.
Let me know in the comments and chat if you agree with that.
Yeah, I think, look, it's clear from what the president himself has said, although he wouldn't put it this way, that he got played by Putin and dragged on for months.
And he was being jogged along under the impression that Putin had obviously given him that Putin wanted to end the war and was prepared to negotiate from where we are.
And it's pretty clear now that Putin didn't want to end the war where we are.
He had more conquest in mind and perhaps wanted his whole original purpose of taking Ukraine to be fulfilled.
And, you know, I think that's the Ukrainians have held him off.
And Trump, I think, understandably didn't want to add a lot more weaponry into the equation at the beginning of his term because he thought that would simply escalate the conflict.
I think he's now changed his mind about that and is prepared to not only add weapons to Ukraine's forces through Europe.
He's also prepared, it seems, to impose some sanctions that really might make a difference to Russia.
Secondary sanctions on countries that are buying oil from Russia could be very serious for the Russian economy.
And we'll be talking to them.
In a sense, what Tucker Carlson said at Turning Point seems increasingly irrelevant.
You're offered a very limited window within which to make selections of the cover of the kind of future you want for yourself, your family, for your future.
I was at Turning Point as well this weekend.
I talked about the significance of throwing off the mind-melded man-made manacles.
Have a look at this talk.
Then we've Jack Pasevik.
Please give us a round of applause.
Hey, Jack, we were just talking about how to organise a political movement.
Now, I wonder, Jack, how significant the change is from when you are campaigning to get elected to when you are an advocate for a party that's already in government when it comes to shaping policy.
Whether that's the Maha aspect of this movement or what Charlie Kirk is so devoted to here at Turning Point.
How does the objectives change?
And how do you remain clear?
Because wouldn't you take the, you know, and I don't know if we, how far into it you want to get, wouldn't you take the non-disclosure of the Epstein files as an indication of things get different once you get in government, that the sword of Damocles appears above your head and suddenly you have different challenges?
That means people in government have a set of challenges that we don't fully understand and aren't fully clear to us.
How do people that are on the periphery of power, whether that's like you, a significant influencer, or every one of us here, a turning point, participate in?
How do we ensure that government remains accountable to the ideals that got him elected?
Well, Russell, thank you so much for the opportunity to answer that question because I was, and I think there's a few others that are here this weekend.
I was one of those people who was brought in with Pam Bondi and received the binder.
Remember the binder now?
I call it the baloney binder because as I opened it, it turned out that's all it was full of was just baloney.
There were no actual new documents in here at all.
And yet we were told, hey, this is phase one.
Well, phase one went into it, phase two, phase three, phase four, et cetera.
We didn't get any of it.
In fact, we get this memo that says nothing.
So to your point, you're right.
It's very easy in a sense to be in the opposition because all you can do, you can point and you can complain and you can whine and you can criticize.
It's simple.
It's easy.
When you're in, you must govern.
When you're in, now you have the responsibility, but, but I always say that that responsibility must be mitigated by, number one, the promises that were made before you went in.
If you remember the things that you said, the commitments that you made, if you're not making the commitments and staying true to those commitments, then how are you any better?
How are you any better than the people that you were previously criticizing and opposing that aren't you just becoming the thing that which you opposed?
And so what I do believe is when it comes to something like Epstein, when it comes to something like Maha, you have to have those clear objectives.
And the objective doesn't just mean we're going to get through today's news cycle.
The objective means that we're meeting our commitments and we're making good on that as we proceed through time to the next election, to the midterms, to the next presidential.
And I'll say this on Epstein.
We need full disclosure and wherever the truth goes, we must follow it.
I've heard a number of things on that subject from Bill O'Reilly saying that it's really an attempt to ensure that people that may have been affiliated with Epstein aren't tarred by the more nefarious aspects of what Epstein was doing to people claiming that Epstein did not die in that cell and is still alive and at large.
And my own sort of deep and entrenched biases as a conspiracy theorist lead me to not intuit, just feel.
And sometimes I have to be careful, Jack, because I start to want certain things to be true.
Like I kind of want Bill Clinton to be implicated and I want Obama to be, I'd be disappointed if I found out that Bill Clinton's a really nice guy and he's never done anything wrong.
I'd be like, well, I was looking forward to reading about him being involved in satanic rituals on Epstein Island.
So I have to be careful of those biases.
But my sense is that contained within those files is information that is so deep and damaging that it goes beyond the reach of any individual party but that entire system itself.
How are we who are sitting on the outside of politics, of government, of world affairs, how are we to understand how the American government, the British government, Prince Andrew, all right, Ehud Barak, the prime minister of Israel, how are we to understand how all of these governments and world affairs operate and the decisions that are made?
Now, can you go to the news media?
Of course you can.
Can you go to social media?
Sometimes.
But if there are things going on behind the scenes, if there are blackmail operations, we can't possibly understand the true nature of that blackmail.
Who's blackmailing who?
Who's got the goods, the receipts on another?
Why is it that some action is taking place?
Well, the politician will tell you, well, This is taking place to achieve this, this, and this, when in reality, it's because someone's got pictures, information, or and by the way, one of the biggest pieces that people miss on Epstein that I think is so crucial is what was Epstein?
A money manager, a money manager.
He was receiving money from these highly wealthy individuals, and he was pushing the money out into different locations, different accounts, talking about I'm managing your wealth.
I'm managing your wealth.
If you need someone, needed someone to run, and I say this as a prior intelligence officer, if you needed someone to send out black funds to be able to fund a black operation, what would you need?
You'd need a money manager.
You'd need someone who understood the art of making money travel throughout the world and go into different pockets without the wider government or without the wider financial agencies seeing this.
That's exactly the service that Jeffrey Epstein could provide.
Now, you attach that to whatever went on on this island, whatever went on on these airplanes.
Suddenly, you've got the makings of an operation that is not just potentially valuable to an intelligence agency.
It would be valued to every intelligence agency.
Julian Assange said the reason that the information has not been made explicit is because if it were, it would lose its inherent valuable leverage against the powerful individuals contained.
If that is the case, and I sort of just generally trust Julian Assange because of everything he's been through, how do you feel as someone that's openly advocated and campaigned for this administration, that's pretty closely connected to this administration, that's publicly backed senior members of the government?
Do you feel compromised?
Do you feel like, oh, well, at least it's better than the Democrats?
Do you feel that there needs to be significant evolution in the way this country is run?
Do you think it's an indication that there's a requirement for systemic and institutional change, without which you're going to get some form or rendering of this centralized corruption, regardless of who populates the roles within power?
Does it make you feel disheartened?
Well, I'll put it this way.
I know what it looks like when the government wants to investigate something.
I saw the way that, and I mentioned this on stage, that the January 6 participants were treated.
We saw what the government can do when the full force and full scope of the power of the federal government is brought to bear.
And when they went after the Gen 6ers, people, little old ladies that were waving a flag or praying on the steps of the Capitol, it didn't matter where you were in the country.
It didn't matter where you were in the world.
You were getting a knock on the door.
You were getting a raid in the middle of the night.
You were getting your finances frozen.
You were getting your communications sucked up.
You were getting all the rest of it.
And Russell, I haven't seen any of that with this Jeffrey Epstein client list, the Jeffrey Epstein network.
I haven't seen any public hearings or public trials.
I don't even have the number off up.
It was thousands of people.
Thousands of people were rolled up over January 6th.
They've all been pardoned now, every single one of them.
And yet the only two people who were ever arrested for Jeffrey Epstein were Epstein himself and now Ghelane Maxwell.
Even Prince Andrew is now free to travel again on the basis of this report.
And I say, it's not good enough.
Oh, mate, I'm a little bit freaked out by that.
There's two things you've said.
One is how easily infatuated we are and distracted we are by the news cycle, the ever-churning news cycle.
And I'd not considered that, that when a government is seriously undertaking to resolve a matter, doors get kicked down and people get arrested.
You remember COVID?
Right.
Yeah, they can enforce power.
Immersive messaging, total control, arrests, changing laws when not changing laws, regulating through near mandate.
All right, that's pretty interesting.
Okay, so that sort of suggests to me that you, like I do, believe that there is some degree of suppression and distraction taking place with this matter.
How do you reckon the role of people that are not within government but have been supportive of government changes now that we're in this position and this condition?
Take, for example, Maha.
The Maha, I suppose, is the movement that's generally affiliated with health and food of Americans and perhaps you might say in particular, young people, as it pertains to big food and big pharma and big agriculture.
What type of direction do you think the activism has to take with regard to those issues?
Because I think in the instance of Maha and the HHS, I think Dr. Roz is fantastic.
I love Robert Kennedy.
I love Jay Bhattacharya, Mai Makari, Callie and Casey Mean.
Seems like there's really good people there.
So what is it that they face that's perhaps a less glamorous and incandescent version of Epstein, but nonetheless represents a nexus of interest?
What you're talking about, Greg, it's the interests, in this case, hopefully not any blackmail, but corporate interests.
And at the end of the day, billions upon billions of dollars that have been made off of the backs of the health of the people.
They say, well, the food is cheaper.
The food is cheaper.
The food is cheaper.
But guess what?
It's cheaper and the companies are able to sell more of it.
They're getting more of a profit because of this, but it is not healthier.
It is, in fact, unhealthier.
And by putting this unhealthy food into our bodies, my wife, who's just sitting over here, she's from Eastern Europe.
And when she came to the United States, he was filling out her health insurance forms.
And they ask her, they say, oh, what allergies do you have?
Okay, what food allergies do you have?
You know what she said?
She said, what's a food allergy?
What is that?
I've never heard of such a thing.
I said, how could you be allergic to food?
How?
How is it possible?
Except, because in other parts of the world, it's not even something that enters into your consciousness that food is the source of life.
It's something that you could have some sort of adverse reaction to.
And that goes to speak to you that the food in this country is the thing that has the problem.
It's not our bodies.
It's the food that has this problem.
So when it comes to, and I'll get back to your question, and this is why she's so passionate about it, Tanya, that clearly defined goals and clearly defined objectives are so important.
And, you know, there's So much that the government is doing on a regular basis, but because it is, you know, it could be a bit boring.
You're having a meeting, you're releasing some new talking points.
You need more.
You need optics.
You need to go to these factory farms.
You need to go to Big Ag.
You need to go to, and by the way, we see ICE is going again.
That's Big Ag again.
So you're going to Monsanto.
You're going to the GMOs.
And, you know, maybe you put the police tape up.
Maybe you do something.
You've got to bring people on board.
Show them the story as you would in any narrative storytelling.
Show, don't tell.
Jack, if something is as significantly warped as the food that an entire population eats in order to fulfill corporate and commercial edicts, don't the sundry and less significant issues of tribal politics pale into insignificance?
The example of your wife, food has become toxic and poisonous.
Yes, we have the example of allergies, but beyond that, we know that we're en masse eating food that's essentially bad for us.
Aren't we being invited to reframe our entire perspective on politics and become sort of somewhat more radical and dare I venture somewhat more Christian and approach these institutions as if they are kind of corrupt behemoths that have taken control of the spiritual life of our country?
Well, that's precisely how I view these behemoths.
That's precisely how they view these institutions that for far long, and perhaps they were set up with the best of intentions, but they say the road to hell is paved with the best intentions.
That these institutions, which were supposed to be set up to protect people, have actually become, the FDA is a perfect example of this, that have become the ones that actually prey upon people, have become the ones that turn into a revolving door of industry interests coming in with the power now of the federal government to put a stamp on anything and say, yes, this is healthy, or yes, this uses natural products, or yes, this is totally approved.
In fact, when you start digging through the labels, when you start digging through it.
So I will say this.
If you go back 10 years ago to now, and I always give people this rubric to use, you should use a rubric of where were we 10 years ago to now.
10 years ago, these conversations were not being had in public.
10 years ago, a man like Bobby Kennedy was laughed off the stage, was prevented from speaking publicly on so many of these issues by his own party.
I would have you remember.
And it was his ability to cross the aisle when he did that with Donald Trump and Donald Trump's openness to bring a scion of the Democrat Party with the most powerful name in Democrat politics, a Kennedy, to put him on stage with the MAGA-Maha alliance that was formed.
And now what they need to see going forward is the tangible objective interests, making sure that those goals are met.
I come from a military background.
And with my military background, I say, look, I agree, I'm a Christian.
I agree.
These institutions are problematic.
But with my military mind, I say, what is what we would call the desired end state?
What is the commander's desired end state?
And so once that's laid out, then you work backwards from that end state and figure out what your mile markers are, your milestones, your objectives, your accomplishments along the way.
And then you make a plan to accomplish them.
Do you think that's how the deep states operate incontinually, like the desired end state?
The Epstein list goes away.
Okay, well, say we're going to do these files, then release something, then distract people, and then it goes on for a while, then the social pressures increase so much.
Or COVID.
COVID was like a military operation, wasn't it, in this country and in mine?
Yeah.
You can see that military expertise is necessarily deployed in social management and social organization.
There's sort of military, there's military as we understand it at the level of warfare.
There's military at the level of intelligence.
And then there's military at the level of social control.
I'd never thought about it before, Jack.
This is a bit of a tangential question.
From your talking voice, it sounds like you've got a good singing voice.
Have you got a good singing voice?
Do you sound a bit like Michael Boogley?
I'm no Russell Brand, I'll say that.
Well, I think I can detect.
I bet you can do like sort of schmoozy barroom songs.
I could do a little of that.
A little bit.
A lounge act, perhaps.
I reckon you're right about this.
In somehow, like a fusion of the military planning, commitment, duty, willingness to sacrifice.
By the way, I suppose many of those values are Christian values anyway.
Willingness to sacrifice ultimate Christian values if Christ is the ultimate Christian values.
If we are to be Christian soldiers.
Yeah, then we have to be willing to sacrifice.
Man, do you hope that people ain't gone too soft for what might be a radical and revolutionary moment?
What I tell people is always remind them that our king is Jesus Christ.
Keep him at the center.
If you keep God and Christ as your center, you will be able to face any social pressures because at the end of the day, at the end of all of our days, the final test is what we're all leading forward to.
My little boys that are sitting down right over there, and I'm getting them ready for their final test as we go through this universe that we go through.
We will eventually be presented before those gates and we will be brought before the throne and God will say, he'll say to Russell, he'll say to Jack, he'll say to all of us, I gave you these gifts.
I gave you these abilities.
What did you use them for?
Did you use them to bring people to me?
And so, Russell, by the way, speaking of which, symbols I think are important.
And there was a symbol that I gave you about almost one year ago exactly.
I know.
There's a bit of a backstory to you passed that on.
So I realized that there is a symbol that I needed to get you again.
I'm so grateful for this rosary because I gave it to my rosary, Joe.
Tell us the story.
And so I gave you a rosary one year ago when we were on this Rumble Couch before in Milwaukee.
We're back again.
You gave it on.
All right.
So I said, you know something?
Russell needs another rosary.
This one, if you look at the center, by the way, that's St. Michael the Archangel right there.
Oh, I need him.
I need him when going into battle.
The sword and shield of St. Michael the Archangel.
When God needed to go into battle, to send his angels into the battle against the forces of hell, the forces of Satan, the angels that turned, one-third of the angelic hosts turned against him, he sent St. Michael into battle to the fore.
I'm so grateful because I gave this to my friend Joe because that man's mind is a battlefield and his life is a battlefield.
And I thought like that he would need it more than me.
But you know, when you give someone something, you think, I don't really want to give this away.
I had that feeling.
Sometimes I had that.
I love it.
Oh, thank you so much.
That's such a beautiful gift.
And I could also, I can feel the gentle lyricism and crooning continually in your voice.
Even as you're talking about those chests and the heavenly gates.
I could sort of feel like it could become at any moment a Sinatra-esque song.
God bless you for giving me this beautiful gift.
I love you, Jack.
Thanks, man.
Back out to Russell.
Thank you, man.
Round of applause for Jack for Savior.
Thanks for joining us.
We can't make this content without the support of our partners is a message from one now.
Free speech is under attack, Jack, but Rumble refuses to take it lying down.
Rumble is farting out the fierce cock of authoritarianism and clamping shut the butt cheeks of free speech, baby.
We've always believed in empowering voices, no matter how unpopular, and now we're taking that fight to the next level.
When major advertisers conspire to pull their dollary dues, even brands like Dunkin Donuts turn their back, claiming Rumble had a right-wing culture.
But we're not here to fit a mold.
We're here to defend free expression.
How dare you?
How dare you?
Just look at some of these comments.
Keep it going, Russell.
Great stuff.
That is from Benito Mussolini.
Well done, Russell.
Magnificent.
I loved your take on Israel.
And that's from Mr. Goebbels.
You know, there is no right-wing culture here on Rumble.
To strengthen this mission, we're excited to offer Rumble Premium a completely ad-free experience.
Except ironically, sometimes I do record the ads on Rumble Premium, but you get a behind-the-scenes glimpse.
Give us a glimpse, give us a glimpse, give us a glimpse, give us a glimpse, give us a glimpse, give us a glimpse, give us a glimpse.
A completely ad-free experience with exclusive benefits.
We're friends, but with benefits.
Not benefits like that, Gritta Tunberg.
If that's your real name.
Griffetunberg.
Which I doubt.
Content from creators like Russell Brand.
Yo, I'm that dude.
Doctor Disrespect.
Are you even a real doctor?
Tim Cast and the Muck Club with Crowder.
It's more than a subscription.
It's a stand for free speech.
Your voice matters.
For a limited time, you can get $10 off an annual plan using the Rumble code Brand.
Now, I do want you to do that because my contract is up for renewal and it would really help me.
So go get it right now.
Visit rumble.com forward slash premium forward slash brand and claim your discount today.
Together we can turn the tide whether you join Rumble Premium or simply keep watching.
Your support helps keep free speech alive.
And with free speech, we can be free together.
Subscribe to Rumble now.
The UK justice system is in trouble.
It's time for Russell Brand unpacked.
Trial by jury.
It seems like a good idea, but is it as good an idea as trial by chat GBT?
Well, trial by jury has been a cornerstone of the justice system for centuries, and it definitely has its own strengths.
Like bringing in a drug.
Yeah, well, let's see how that plays out in the UK.
As the world continues to move at a place that makes it barely recognizable, it's important that we remain connected.
In the UK, for example, they're normalising an extraordinary idea.
The abolition of trial by jury.
Let's have a look at how the legacy media handles this.
Remember, the agenda is always this.
Centralize control, legitimize control, normalize control, and ask people to say thank you while you're doing it.
The country's courts are so busy.
The justice system is about to collapse.
They're so busy.
Can we get rid of juries and have robots?
How about not arresting people for posting stuff on Facebook?
Maybe.
How about devolving power and having localized and regional courts?
How about minding your own business?
How about resigning?
How about taking to task and indeed to trial a corrupt media that lied to an entire population during the pandemic?
How about a massive revision of our entire parliamentary system?
No.
The problem is trial by jury.
What we have to do is cleanse every single corner of our nation of the influence of ordinary people.
That's the warning from one of Britain's top judges.
The government's thrown money at the problem, but it's still getting worse.
The answer is put Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate in prison immediately.
We've asked the top judge, we've thrown money at the problem.
Where did that money go?
Uh, to the top judge?
I'm not suggesting.
There are more than 75,000 cases waiting to go to trial, the most there's ever been.
Sir Brian Leveson has been asked to sort it out.
You've got to go through the whole system and try to improve it, not only so that we no longer have an increasing backlog, but that we can eat into the backlog and reduce it to a level that is acceptable so that trials can take place within a reasonable period of time.
We've got to get rid of the backlog.
It's an idea that's been normalised by mainstream journalists for a while.
Here's a couple of journalists from The Guardian.
We don't need trial by jury.
They mooted the idea in Scotland during the pandemic here.
Look at that.
And also in the UK, legacy media journalists have been putting this idea into the minds of the public for a while.
Why is that?
Let me know in the comments and chat why you think it would be good to pilot schemes where ordinary members of the public are evacuated from the process of justice.
Remember in the UK at the moment, free speech is becoming increasingly anathema.
Also remember that protest laws are being introduced that make protesting near impossible and that facial recognition technology is being implemented to the tune of hundreds of thousands of cases every single month with people getting prosecuted.
And not to say that that doesn't mean that some legit criminals end up incarcerated and that's surely a good thing.
But primarily what it does is concentrates power in the hands of a few institutions and maybe even a few people.
He suggested fewer trials with a jury to save time.
What would save time is fewer trials with jury.
What would save even more time if we just put everyone in the UK in prison right now, Took all of their money and killed the absolute worst ones.
Potentially lower prison sentences if the defendant pleads guilty at the first opportunity.
The government has said it will now go through the recommendations and bring in new laws in the autumn.
But there are already concerns about a reduction in the use of juries, which have been part of the justice system since the Middle Ages.
Now when people talk about medieval times and the Middle Ages, it'll be with misty-eyed nostalgia.
You know, in pulp fiction, when he says, I'm going to get medieval on your ass.
You hear me talking, Hillbilly boy.
I'm going to get medieval on your ass.
No, it doesn't mean butchery with dangerous weapons.
It would mean a trial by jury.
Paula Harriet runs a charity that supports those with criminal records.
I do worry about that.
That is one of the concerns that I have about the review that defendants won't have the opportunity for a trial in front of their peers and that will be in the hands of people who maybe don't have the same level of proximity to the issues as members of the public do.
Modern trials are taking longer and delays caused by COVID haven't helped.
The government asked for plans for bold reform and now need to decide which of Sir Brian's plans should pass through Parliament and enter the courts.
I respect juries and I admire the conscientious way in which they go about their business.
But it can't be right that all cases, however large or small, necessarily get that treatment.
As somebody has said, it may be that a jury system is Rolls-Royce, but if there are many cars on the road, the Rolls-Royce isn't moving.
Hmm, his upper lip was getting a bit too wet during all that.
I'm not sure we can trust this fella just on the basis of upper lip perspiration.
Maybe we should give the guy some sort of trial.
Maybe we should judge it with a jury.
No, AI will be better.
Or some unelected military dictator.
Yes, yes, that would be a perfect system.
Let's have a look at how Europe as a whole seems to be amending its position to, yeah, come in, Nurse Nikki, to jury trials.
But first of all, I'm going to be looked at because I'm not a world man.
I'm facing actually trial by jury in the United Kingdom next year, hopefully by jury.
I think I'll do better with human beings like me rather than AI robots.
But who knows these days?
In January 2023, the French government announced it'll be scrapping jury trials for rape cases and all crimes with a maximum sentence of 15 to 20 years, citing a need to clear the backlog and make the court system more efficient.
Academic papers are even discussing the possibility of replacing jurors with chat GPT-like artificial intelligences, a possibility too horrendous to contemplate.
Abolishing jury trials is like censorship, surveillance or digital ideas, a lid that fits every pot.
The report also suggests offering up to 40% reductions in sentencing for early guilty pleas.
Although this is ultimately a matter for the government or the sentencing council, I would recommend an increase to the maximum reduction for entering a guilty plea to 40% if made at the first available opportunity.
Combine this with the knowledge you'll be tried by a judge or tribunal rather than a jury, and that's a system directively incentivising pleading guilty, a recipe for a huge increase in convictions.
That's really odd, isn't it?
Because the aim will always be truth, justice and transparency, not a particular outcome like an increase in convictions or the ability to imprison people.
But if you can criminalize anyone, you can control everyone.
If an assumption like the right to free speech can be queried, if suddenly everyone is under continual surveillance and then you even eliminate human intervention via jury from the justice system, you're approaching something like total and totalitarian control.
Let me know what you think about that in the comments.
The narrative push for reform of the old justice system is old and the propaganda drive justifying it is even older.
Articles and reports complaining about the price, unfairness and length of jury trials go back 25 years or more.
We've literally had years of propaganda bemoaning the low conviction rate for rape and sexual assault.
We've had years of propaganda saying that alleged victims of rape and sexual assault need to be protected, including suggestions of testifying in secret, not being subject to cross-examination and removing jury trials.
The intention was to clearly tee up this report or one like it, which claims we should scrap jury trials and incentivize guilty pleas, specifically mentioning sexual assault.
This is an example of trying to establish what I would call the propaganda of illusory success.
You create a fake issue from thin air and then claim your reforms have fixed it, generating praise for the scheme in the captive media that camouflages both the actual aims and real harms of the plan.
It works especially well when tied to identity politics or other emotive issues.
More broadly, the list of offences for which the report suggests scrapping juries is quite obviously cynically chosen to control the conversation.
Sexual assault, drunk driving, animal cruelty, child pornography and incest.
Often when those types of emotive issues are promoted to the forefront of the argument, it is a way of controlling outcomes.
Do you remember during the pandemic, for example, that in the end, the way of leveraging a lot of people into getting vaccines was you have to do this for your neighborhood, for your grandmother.
It wasn't based on scientific evidence.
It was based actually on sociological control and an understanding that most people are pretty well-intentioned.
And if you think you can do something to prevent someone else from getting sick or harming someone else, in most cases, people will do it.
It seems like this tendency has been exploited in order to get rid of one of the cornerstones of our whole civilization, actually.
It's not mentioned in the Leverson report, but a good percentage of the alleged backlog in court cases is due to a huge increase in malicious communications offences.
Over 12,000 people per year are arrested for social media posts, etc.
More than double the pre-pandemic numbers.
Increasing the number and types of criminalized behaviours will inevitably increase the number of criminals.
Yes, of course, if you create new crimes, you are creating new criminals.
And 12,000 arrests for malicious content seems high.
Let me know what you think in the comments and chat.
Most of you are flat-out criminals, just one by one parading by.
And you might say, well, give me a fair trial of a jury.
The answer to that, if you're in the UK, is absolutely not.
Prison reform is a major part of the plan for the future, too.
Since Labour won the election last year, there's been a constant drizzle of prison crisis stories.
In March, we were warned of a prison system in crisis that could possibly collapse by 2026 if rapid action was not taken.
The same month, Labour were forced to implement Operation Safeguard to deal with prison overflow.
Last month, a report claimed overcrowded prisons fuel prisoner violence.
In September last year, Labour, that's the party of government, publicly released hundreds of criminals early in order to ease overcrowding and make room for newly convicted social media offences.
Following the incredibly fake riots, they later admitted to releasing dangerous criminals by mistake.
Why did this story hit the headlines?
Why wouldn't they do this in secret?
Because the outrage is part of the story.
You're being offered a false choice.
Also, we can probably expect increased privatisation.
The UK already has the most private prisons in Europe, with 17 of England's 122 prisons, holding 18% of the prisoners being run privately.
The first of Labour's four new prisons, HMP Mill Psych, is already complete and is confirmed to be privately run and green.
In headlines up and down the country, Levison has claimed the measures outlined in his report are needed to prevent the collapse of our criminal justice system, but these measures are the collapse of the criminal justice system and start of a criminal justice system.
So there you have it.
The United Kingdom is implementing facial recognition technology, the criminalization of free speech, the foreclosure almost of the right to protest, all stories that we've covered in recent weeks and now wants to abolish trial by jury.
And even if the response to an outrage, the likely outrage that will follow this will be, it's only under certain circumstances and for very particular trials, you know that the way that they introduce these measures is incrementally.
You know that whenever you see a mainstream legacy media news story, it's a kind of testing of the water.
And you also know that their intention is always maximal control.
It seems to me that the ultimate desire is to turn the UK into something resembling a prison or an airport where your entire life is modulated and controlled, where you carry a digital ID, where your bank accounts can be frozen at will, where if you're anything other than totally obedient and compliant, you can be criminalised immediately, recognized digitally and jailed without trial.
But that's just what I think.
Let me know what you think in the comments and chat.
Remember, get Rumble Premium to support our work.
But more importantly than any of that, if you can, please stay free.
Thank you for joining us today.
Remember, tomorrow we'll be doing our watch along.
Join us for that, where we take on a conspiracy theory, discuss it together with your contributions.
See you tomorrow.
Not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
▲
Export Selection