Trump EXPLODES Over Epstein Case, SLAMS Own Supporters, Calls It Democrat HOAX
|
Time
Text
This morning, Donald Trump said that only very bad people in the fake news are interested in the Epstein files story, which he has now repeatedly called a Democrat hoax.
Here's the latest.
Shortly after this, Trump posted on Truth a scathing statement saying, you are past supporters and I don't want your support anymore.
And Trump may get his wish.
I can't for the life of me understand the strategy behind what this play really is, except to help Democrats win in the midterms and burn down all of the goodwill you've generated with major victories in your first hundred days.
Michael Manalis wrote a book tracking every day of the Trump administration and all of the major successes, which they're there, they're copious, and they're delicious.
And I've got some examples for you.
I'm not going to play this game of sacrifice everything we've won over a single issue.
That being said, Trump is miserably screwing this up unless for some reason this was his intent.
This one's hurting the Trump team and his base.
Very much so.
You're not going to get out of this one with Trump supporters, prominent individuals being like, guys, let's just trust the plan here.
That ain't happening.
And there are ways to handle this.
And this ain't it.
With this massive post by Trump, it's getting bad.
I will say, possibly the funniest thing in this is Stephen King has come to his defense.
And we all know about Stephen King.
No.
So I don't know what to tell you, my friends.
Trump says he doesn't want your support anymore.
And I know that for the people who watch my show, 80% maybe are not going to march in lockstep with the Trump plan.
Of the remaining few, I say few, but the 20 or so percent.
I did a poll yesterday.
I understand the argument is not simply to let Epstein get away with whatever he did.
The argument is we cannot lose all of the victories and the Trump agenda over a single issue Democrats wouldn't give us either.
And I think we can acknowledge that's true.
But Trump should not be insulting and attacking the people who voted him in and supported him simply because they want answers on this notorious case of a high-profile individual.
So we're going to talk about that, my friends.
But before we do, hey, we got a great sponsor.
It is Venice.ai.
Venice.ai, it's an AI, LLM.
It can do image generation, and it can answer questions, and it's uncensored.
For all the good, for all the bad, it is uncensored.
And let me tell you, I use a variety of AIs, but I constantly have to come to Venice.ai.
Use Venice.ai slash Tim GetTheirPro plan.
They're sponsoring the show.
We really do appreciate it.
I constantly have to come back to Venice because it's uncensored.
You know, it's wild.
Let me tell you straight up.
I was using, I tried GPT and Gemini, and I was trying to look into Epstein funding, and it kept doing this really creepy thing where it was like, well, Epstein may not have funded a politician, but did you know that Donald Trump was accused of, I kid you not, and I'm like, wait, wait, wait, hold on.
Dude, I did not ask you about Donald Trump.
They do this all the time.
It's this weird political injection they have in these AIs.
And even Grok, to a certain extent, has this, that it starts bringing up South Africa to the weird things.
To be fair, Grok is a bit better, although they didn't have that weird thing.
Venus AI actually uncensored.
And when it comes to image generation, I'm not saying uncensored in the sense that it's adult content, though it can do that.
I'm talking about political images, religious images, things like that.
It will make what you ask it.
My friends, OpenAI, they've even hinted they might require IDs.
Sam Altman said GPT is going to get to know you over your life.
Venice AI is an open source AI model delivering text code, image generation to your browser.
No downloads, no installations, and it's private and permissionless.
They don't spy on you or censor your AI, and your conversations are encrypted and private.
Check out their pro plan.
It unlocks the full platform and features, including PDF uploads, summaries, insights.
You can turn off safe mode for unhindered image generation, for better or for worse.
And the ability to change how Venice interacts with you by modifying its system prompt, limitless text, and high image lens.
And the unlimited text thing is actually massive too.
So again, check out venice.ai slash Tim.
Shout out.
We really do appreciate it.
Also, in the description below, get your tickets now to the Culture War podcast live in Washington, D.C. July 26th, coming up in just about one week.
Tim Poole, Alex Stein, Matan Even, and Gavin McGinnis discussing is Trump still winning?
Considering the subject matter of today's story, we're going to have an interesting debate, especially considering any developments.
And we do have, we got this prominent liberal.
They said they want to do it.
And we are like, please confirm.
I'm hoping they do.
They may not.
But if they do, I think the tickets are going to sell out instantly because, Lord, help us.
This liberal sitting down with Gavin McGuinness is going to be one of the phoniest things ever.
And we want it to be phony.
We don't want it to be contentious or angry or violent.
The link is in the description below, dccomedyloft.com.
Check out the events tab.
Get that show.
Let's jump into the latest story.
We've got this, my friends, from MediaITES.
Trump melts down over Epstein hoax, slams supporters who believe this BS.
I don't want their support anymore.
I could not believe it.
This morning, I saw Donald Trump say on TV that only really bad people believe this.
Let me give you the recap for those that may not have seen it.
But I'm curious, why the semiconductors and gyms?
Mr. President, I know you've urged people to move on, but I'm curious, why do you think your supporters in particular have been so interested in the Epstein story or so upset about how it's been handled?
I don't understand why they would be so interested.
He's dead for a long time.
He was never a big factor in terms of life.
I don't understand what the interest or what the fascination is.
I really don't.
And the credible information's been given.
Don't forget we went through years of the Mullah witch hunt and all of the different things to steal Dossier, which was all fake.
All that information was fake.
But I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epsom case would be of interest to anybody.
It's pretty boring stuff.
It's sordid, but it's boring.
And I don't understand why it keeps going.
I think really only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going.
But credible information, let them give it.
Anything that's credible, I would say let them have it.
Mr. French.
I'll take it.
I mean, look, I don't know what that means, anything that's credible.
There is a rumor, conspiracy theory, whatever you want to call it, that behind the scenes, my friends, Democrats in the previous administration had unleashed fake documents to sour any information that may come out about Epstein, handed it to Trump and said, good luck.
And now Trump is like those SOBs.
They may have falsely implicated him or people he works with.
And now if he just goes for their documents, it's going to destroy him and his agenda.
And now the Democrats are trying to force a vote to get it released almost like it was a landmine.
Now, I got no problem with someone having that theory because we have no answers.
We have no idea why it's not being released.
But Donald Trump posting this is a way to set yourself on fire, my dude.
This is miserable, a miserable response.
Natalie F. Danilichin says this is insane.
Trump is calling the Epstein the Jeffrey Epstein hoax.
Epstein was trafficking children.
That was not a hoax.
Trump wants this to go away.
Why this is disgusting behavior?
Check this out.
Trump says, the radical left Democrats have hit pay dirt again, just like with fake and fully discredited steel dossier.
The lying 51 intelligence agents, the laptop from hell, which then swore had come from Russia, no, it came from Hunter Biden's bathroom.
And even the Russia-Russia-Russia scam itself, a totally fake and made-up story used in order to hide crooked Hillary Clinton's big loss in the 2016 presidential election.
These scams and hoaxes are all the Democrats are good at.
It's all they have.
They are no good at governing, no good at policy, no good at picking winning candidates.
I'm going to pause and say, yes, that sentence I agree with.
He says, also, unlike Republicans, they stick together like glue.
Their new scam is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein hoax.
And my past supporters have bought into this, I'm quoting a guy, I'm quoting a president, bullshit, hook line, and sinker.
They haven't learned their lesson and probably never will.
Even after being conned by the lunatic left for eight long years, I have had more success in six months than perhaps any president in our country's history.
And all these people want to talk about, with strong prodding by the fake news and the success star of Dems, is the Jeffrey Epstein hoax.
Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats' work.
Don't even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success because I don't want their support anymore.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Make America great again.
Okay.
Adios, Mr. President.
If that's the game you want to play, I never had any problem saying anything such as this.
Now, let's be real.
I am, I consider myself to be somewhat pragmatic.
I am not a revolutionary.
I'm not going to go storm the gates, screaming, Epstein files must be released.
I'm not going to align myself with the Didlin Democrats who are equally as guilty on almost all of this stuff.
They had the files too.
They could have released them.
It is silly, in my opinion, as I've stated Many times now to look at the Democrat administration who wants to sterilize children, but has whack-a-loon beliefs, open the borders, and the Trump administration and be like, because of one issue, I'm willing to accept that psychotic psychobabble from Democrats.
Nah.
At the same time, I got no problem saying I ain't going to align with you, MAGA, on the Epstein stuff.
If y'all are really going to get behind Trump on this, saying we don't want this exposed, nah.
But I will align with you guys on securing our borders.
These ICE raids are fantastic.
Trump's got tremendous Supreme Court victories.
The DOE sucks.
State Department staffers should be fired.
I lean more towards the centrist libertarian space, and I am going to have a smile on my face over all of the Trump victories in the past six months.
I get it.
So I don't need to hear from Donald Trump insulting me, my friends, or anyone else who is deeply concerned about decades of evidence coming out over what Epstein was doing with people like Clinton and others who may have been implicated.
There was a Clinton painting of him in a dress on the island.
There's weird images of children I found on the island.
James O'Keefe doing this deep dive.
We've got witness testimony, victim testimony.
Prince Andrew implicated.
Virginia Jufre mysteriously just abruptly commits suicide.
The Epstein story, I mean, Pam Bondi putting out this weird edited video with three minutes missing, they now report.
What are you going on about, dude?
This is not how you handle it.
Unless the intended situation is to fracture his own base and give Democrats the opportunity to win again.
Maybe that was the play the whole time.
I'm real happy, my friends, to be like, I love the immigration raids.
I love securing our border.
I love the trade agreements.
I love Donald Trump focusing on America.
I ain't going to play this game.
So he wants people to shut up and call it a hoax, call it the Epstein hoax.
Oh, come on.
Hey, look, in the event it comes out and we were played by a past administration that was fabricating information over a decade to trick us, I'll be the first to admit it.
For the time being, the evidence that we have uncovered by many prominent Trump supporters themselves, namely Mike Serdovich, cracked this case wide open back in, I think it was not even 2019, it was 2018 or 2017.
These are people who helped Trump win, cracking this case open.
Maybe the truth was Trump in the first administration, he didn't want to release this.
Democrats didn't want to release this.
But now you've got Bongino and Cash in office in the FBI, and we want to see some action.
All right, fine.
Alexandra Lanes, a conservative personality.
She's a Catholic.
She says, not to be dramatic, but I think he just lost me.
Only pretty bad people want to keep this going.
So you're basically calling the American people, most of them, your supporters, bad people for wanting those responsible in the most high-profile human trafficking case to be named, exposed, and brought to justice.
Best to keep your mouth shut at this point.
Well, he couldn't help it.
After making this post, Alexandra says, yeah, I'm done with him.
And this is just one example, just to highlight Alexandra.
I think she's fantastic.
Just one example of a conservative, not necessarily hardcore MAGA, being like, I'm done.
Megan Kelly calls out Trump supporters blinded by loyalty to the president on Epstein.
She called out MAGA influencers.
On Tuesday's edition of the Megan Kelly show, Kelly singled out Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, and Laura Ingram, accusing them and others of putting too much trust in the Trump admin when it comes to the Epstein files.
The late billionaire Epstein, we get it.
Media, you don't need to rehash that whole story.
Quote, you now have some MAGA influencers clearly on direction of the White House saying, okay, I'm done.
You had Laura Ingram go on her show on Fox News last night being like, oh, well, you know, after there was the, you know, the pile on at Charlie Kirk's Turning Point event, you know, we're all this Republican infighting, and then kind of suggested she's moving on from that.
Okay, she was part of it.
I like Laura, but she 100% stood up there and fanned this flame.
Kelly was greeted by an enthusiastic crowd at Turning Point USA event where she asked how many people cared about the Epstein files and ripped into Bondi.
The former Fox News host also played a clip of Charlie Kirk in which he said he was moving on from Epstein and putting his trust in his friends in the administration like Bondi.
Quote, let's not pretend that some of the president's most loyal advocates aren't very, very interested in Epstein.
They are, all right?
However, some in the media let their loyalty to the president, to President Trump, their journalistic obligation, let their loyalty to the President Trump, their journalist.
Okay, not to President Trump, to the President Trump.
Kelly said noting that Kirk does not have the same obligation as he's not a journalist.
Kelly added Shapiro to her list of MAGA influencers she's not pleased with following their heated debate on Epstein this week on her show.
Kelly declared she refuses to be the CNN of Trump 2.0 by simply accepting whatever the administration says as truth.
I have nothing but respect and admiration for this president, but I'm in a different business.
I am in the journalism business, and my position is you can trust, but you must verify.
And I refuse, refuse to be the CNN of Trump 2.0, where they just trusted the administration of Biden's mental acuity and willingly, by doing so, ignored the biggest crisis and controversy and scandal in modern political history.
That's not what's happening under Trump.
But I'm just saying, journalists, people like me who do consider themselves as journalists, you have an obligation not to just trust.
You kick the tires.
That's your job.
You approach all stories and everything fed to you by an administration, official like them, love them, respect them, trust them or not, with a hefty dose of skepticism.
I agree with Megan Kelly on this point.
I'm going to go ahead and say, listen, I accept the victories of Trump and I advocate for more.
And that's the reality of someone.
I do my best to try and be honest, and I'm going to tell you exactly what I'm thinking, why I'm thinking it, and I am wrong a lot.
And sometimes even when I'm wrong, I am convinced I'm right.
And that will always be the case, unless I see information that contradicts us.
And I often do say, as I do on my show, oh, you know what?
I was wrong about that.
You know, to be honest, when it comes to like moral philosophies, I'm probably not going to abandon those.
Those are long-held precepts that go back a long time, but on fact issues.
I got no problem saying, really, did I get that wrong?
Okay, wow.
I, you know, try to be right on the facts.
Matt Strickland says, if you don't believe the whole Epstein thing was a scam, Trump says he doesn't want your support anymore.
He just handed a landslide to Democrats in the midterms.
Sad.
And my favorite defense of Trump, Stephen King.
The Epstein client list is real, so is the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.
To which, of all people, the serfs, the lefty guy who came on my show and said that women can get abortions whenever they want, but they can't do meth because meth kills the baby.
He said, wait, lol, are you in on it?
Yes, he is, I guess.
Look, I've got no reason to believe there's any credible information that Stephen King was in on anything.
That was meant to be humorous.
And that's for litigation purposes.
But I will digress.
In my personal opinion, the only reason Stephen King is going to come out and claim it's not real is because he's in on it.
Hey, I got an article for you.
Stephen King can't believe it book orgy concerns fans more than child murders.
So for those of you that don't know this, let's start here.
Stephen King has attacked Donald Trump relentlessly on everything.
And it would appear, as many people are commenting, I don't know if following us, I don't know, but people are saying the only time Stephen King came to the defense of Donald Trump was on Epstein.
For those that aren't familiar, Stephen King writes a disconcertingly large amount of content on child rape.
He's got a book called It.
Maybe you've heard of it.
Did you guys know, and I'll try to keep this somewhat light because I'll keep the language brutal.
At the end of Stephen King's It, after they defeat the monster, the pennywise or whatever, in the book, they turn around to leave the sewers, stop, and then for no reason at all, the 12-year-old little girl in his book, A Kid You Not, just like says to the boys, and now we will all make love.
And like, and then, and I'm being light on the language.
And then he literally writes a graphic child orgy scene.
Stephen King defending Donald Trump.
It's weird.
He's got a bunch of other books that get really nasty as well.
I am not going to ignore Trump's victories.
I will not do it.
But I do want to highlight the political reality of how the left is approaching this, be it Stephen King, and how it's hurting Donald Trump.
Jon Stewart reveals why MAGA revolt against Trump won't go away.
Take a look at this clip from his show.
It's all right, go on.
You were explaining why it was time to move on from the Epstein case.
Why are we giving publicity to files written by Obama, crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the losers and criminals of the Biden administration who conned the world with the Russia-Russia-Russia hoax, 51 intelligence agents, the laptop from hell, more.
So just to understand this, in a few months' time, we went from the Epstein files will expose the Democrats to the Epstein files were written by the Democrats and therefore can't be trusted.
So let's move on.
And then Trump brings up Hunter Biden's laptop as a reminder for all of us not to dwell on old conspiracy theories.
What?
Brrrrr.
So, problem solved?
Right, MAGA World?
Well, let's test it scientifically.
How many of you are satisfied?
You can clap.
Satisfied with the results of the Epstein investigation?
Clap.
How many of you are not satisfied with the results of the investigation?
Let me hear everyone who thinks sex trafficking should still be prosecuted say, hell yeah!
Who wants to know more about a cabal of elite sex criminals?
Just the ladies!
So...
So MAGA World is now in open revolt.
You want to know how bad it's getting out there?
They're literally burning their MAGA Army uniforms.
Yeah.
And you know there's just another guy standing next to them going, uh, you know you got to flip him.
That's your problem.
But clearly, telling your base to just forget about Epstein isn't working.
But if you know Trump, he can always just pivot to the classic Trump distraction.
Throw something outlandish out there and watch the dogs chase the squirrel.
I'm going to invade Greenland.
I'm going to bomb Iran.
He's going to try something big.
President Trump is reigniting his decades-long feud with comedian Rosie O'Donnell.
I think we're going to need a bigger boat.
That's not going to be enough.
The president taking to his social media platform to write in part, quote, I'm giving serious consideration to taking away her citizenship.
She's a threat to humanity and should remain in the wonderful country of Ireland if they want her.
Don't look at our inaction at prosecuting a sex trafficking ring to the rich and powerful.
We must focus on the real issue.
I am aware to everyone mentioning it that the volume on this video is very low and I cannot make it louder because it is literally the file.
I could crank it up only the teeniest bit.
It's literally the file they uploaded on Daily B. So I apologize.
The only thing I guess you could do is crank up your volume and then turn it down once I stop the video.
But I wanted to highlight this, though the story is from yesterday and does not get to the core of Trump now telling his supporters to get out.
But Jon Stewart brings up a good point.
He does.
Democrats are attacking on this because it is a weakness.
I don't know what the Epstein files will show.
Democrats wanting them released.
I don't care.
Now, the problem I find with many of these Democrats is that they're culty.
I argue with many of these culties on X because that's what the internet is for.
It's to argue with strangers.
But these individuals now are all of a sudden saying, release the files.
And I'm saying, agreed.
And they're like, ha, you guys are in a cult.
And I'm like, bro, I have said from day one, I don't care if Trump is in these files.
If anything, fine, release them more.
We don't want a president who's implicated in pedophilia rings, be it Trump or literally anybody else.
You don't get to save yourself by being implicated and then coming out and being like, but I'm going to fix immigration.
That being said, I don't believe that he is because the Democrats had four years to release it and they did not.
I mean, they had two years where they controlled the House and the Senate and the presidency and they didn't do it.
So you would mean to tell me that if Donald Trump could have been implicated in this and you were trying to accuse him of insurrection, that you chose not to use that?
Spare me.
I don't believe it.
I don't think Trump is implicated in this.
I don't know why he won't release it, but hey.
Now, Jon Stewart, I want to show you this.
They say Jon Stewart thinks President Donald Trump's base for the first time in years might actually be in trouble with his base.
And this is just stupid.
Stupid.
Donald Trump has been in trouble quite a bit.
Trump booed at Alabama rally after telling supporters to get vaccinated.
But I recommend take the vaccines.
He said, I did.
It's good.
Take the vaccines.
And they booed him.
I know that was a couple years ago, so fine.
They wrote in years.
But Trump has been criticized heavily quite a bit because his base is not a cult.
He is just an avatar of the anger and the frustrations felt by many Americans.
He has cult followers.
Like he's got prominent people that will literally come out and just say whatever the president says goes, but they only tarnish their reputations and put themselves in trouble when Trump goes off on a rant telling people not to support him.
Fine.
Now I want to highlight the victories.
I am not so daft nor so griftery to just play this game of, ooh, maybe now we can get a big viewership, but no, no, no, no.
Donald Trump has done a fantastic job.
Okay?
I will call him out where it needs to be called out.
And this Epstein stuff is bad.
You don't want my support.
You don't want others.
Fine, so be it.
My concern is not about you and supporting you.
It's about supporting an agenda for which you are accomplishing, which also was supposed to include the Epstein investigation.
You could handle it better.
They don't need this to be like, this is their failure in PR, of all things, surprisingly, a failure in optics.
They could not handle the press.
Fine.
But I'm going to accept the victories.
I'm going to make sure they're part of the reporting that I'm doing so people don't forget.
I'm not going to take this one off and say, oh, no, Trump's had a bad thing and he's doing miserably on Epstein.
Quick, you know, burn the Constitution, right?
I'm going to be mad about Epstein.
I will call him out and I'm going to point out some of the good things we want to happen and take the victories where we can.
From at Reddit Lies on X, yesterday, Trump fired me from the State Department four years ago.
Last week, I did literally nothing.
This guy posted, I got fired from the State Department.
They required that we go in and check out, but it was just so that we could give back our laptops and badges.
They said for legal reasons, HR had rescued themselves from the process.
No one told us anything about what would happen.
And guards escorted us to the gates to leave a dark day for the Foreign Service, a dark day for the United States.
I found out a guy who joined our tennis league works for the Heritage Foundation.
I said hello, shook his hand, and told him he was a disgusting POS for working at that place.
F these think tank pieces of ish.
He was like support staff.
He's listed on their executive about us page.
Don't be a coward and say support staff.
Laugh in the guy's face.
Say, oh, did I win and you lose?
Cry more.
Here's the same guy's post.
It's four years ago.
This week, as an FSO, my job responsibilities were one, finding and booking a conference room.
Two, submitting access requests for visitors under the building.
Three, being asked to provide Starbucks and pastries for an upcoming meeting.
And four, copying and pasting bullet points.
Yep.
Okay.
And now you're going to cry about it.
Trump got these people fired.
Victory.
I want to approach this from a nuanced perspective.
Is LA traffic really down because of ICE raids?
The story was that on a holiday weekend of all times, traffic in LA was clear.
Trump's immigration raids have relieved some of the congestion in L.A. Now, Newsweek says, but is it really?
It was a viral post.
And the answer is yes, really.
And I'm going to show you how they try to obfuscate it.
Guys, time matters in these stories.
Holy mother of God, it's real.
On July 9th, for days over the weekend, people were pointing out that traffic at LA had lightened up.
You can see at clear junctions, there is some traffic, but for the most part, it was all green.
Crazy.
Well, a day later, people went, actually, traffic is still backed up and still banned.
Here's July 10th.
Clearly, it's a level of misinformation.
Okay, let me just explain it, guys.
Holiday weekends are periods of severe congestion, especially in cities, because people are driving around.
They're coming to visit friends and family, and they're going to visit friends and family, so you get heavy traffic.
This is normal.
Trump engaged in a bunch of raids.
In fact, on the 4th, CBP, I believe it was, I think it was ICE agents, were shot at an ambush and a cop was shot.
When Trump engages in the raids, illegal immigrants go into hiding.
There's videos of them running from construction sites.
When the raids move on to other areas, they come back out.
Traffic then gets a little bit worse.
But either way, usually it's all red.
Suffice it to say, there does appear to be a correlation, not spurious, that when Trump was launching these raids in Southern California, traffic was relieved.
Yeah.
In fact, the funny thing is they got a bunch of articles they wrote saying that when Trump was engaging in these raids, restaurants were closing because their employees weren't showing up.
So they simultaneously want to say, Trump's raids are hurting small businesses, but traffic isn't down because of Trump's raids.
Well, if they're not going to work, they're not driving, duh.
So there's a clear correlation.
Point, victory for Donald Trump.
But wait, there's more.
Wholesale inflation flat in June, down year to year.
The report on producer price says a mixed picture for inflation as the economy adjusts to the imposition of import tariffs.
It's flat.
It's not down, but I call it a victory.
They claimed Trump's tariffs are going to nuke everything.
And Trump has actually managed to get through this with major benefits to these United States.
And then, my friends, of course, From the New York Times.
Supreme Court keeps ruling in Trump's favor, but doesn't say why.
That's right.
Trump keeps winning on the Supreme Court.
So let me put it this way: Trump is doing well.
He's got tremendous victories.
He should not be attacking his base at this time.
This is a time to negotiate and navigate.
But you know what?
I'm going to wrap it up there.
We're going to be bringing in political commentator Viva Fry because he had a really interesting take on this that I agree with.
And I think we want to be reasoned individuals and find our victories where we can.
So I'm going to wrap it up there.
Smash the like button.
Share the show with everyone you know.
We're going to keep going live.
For those watching the pre-record, that interview will be up at 4 p.m. at rumble.com slash TimPool or youtube.com slash Timcast.
Thank you all so much for hanging out.
We will see you at the DC Comedy Loft and more segments to come throughout the day.
For everybody else, we're going to keep the story going.
The Postmillennial reports, Democrat strategist says party should pray long and hard for an effing depression.
Yo, what?
A Minnesota accused assassin wrote an unhinged confession at Cash Patel claiming Waltz urged him to murder.
These Democrat lawmakers say, what?
The nation.
Trump is the Confederacy's revenge.
Well, right now, we have a lot of people talking about Trump's failings and his attack on his base over the Epstein case.
I think it's important to realize the left is not any less unhinged.
In fact, I'd argue they're still substantially more unhinged.
But how do those of us who have backed Trump contend with him saying, do not support us?
It's interesting because Democrats are latching onto this story on Epstein.
They're using it as an attack vector on Trump.
Now, I've laid out my position.
It's very, very, very clear.
I'm going to support Trump in his efforts that I think benefit us, and I will criticize him in efforts that I think are detrimental, as anyone should.
And that means the Epstein thing is miserably bad for him, and he needs to be called out on it.
I'm also kind of happy that he's got these victories, and I'm happy we dodged the Democrats.
They're crackpots.
But Viva Fry made a great point.
I'm going to bring him in.
We've been having some weird browser update issues, so I'm going to try and correct Vivia.
Here we go.
One, two.
Okay.
There we go.
I believe we solved the echo issue.
The browsers initializing poorly.
Viva, can you hear me?
I can hear you.
How you doing?
How's it going, buddy?
Let me pull in the camera and get you on.
So right now, we're dealing with Donald Trump saying he doesn't want our support anymore.
But I wanted to highlight for the beginning of this interview and segment conversation.
The Democrats are still crazy.
Strategists calling for a depression.
This crazy guy who claimed Tim Waltz was telling him to shoot people up.
These several past mass shooters being of left persuasion.
Democrats being right on the Epstein issue, I don't think should put us in a position where we're going to sacrifice the victories of the Trump administration and start supporting the psychotic behaviors of the left.
But there is still a conundrum in Trump telling this morning, all his past supporters, we don't want to support you anymore.
You had a really great post on this that I'd highlighted, where you'd mentioned why are we going to trust the Democrats' previous administration on this?
But I'm curious your thoughts on why Trump is doing this, what's going on, and what we should be doing.
Well, back it up to the beginning where it's not a false dichotomy of if you're criticizing Trump, it means you're going to vote for the Democrats.
But what it does mean, and I had on the pollster, as far as I'm concerned, one of the only reliable pollsters out there, Richard Barris, big data polling, talking about the fact that like, okay, you're just going to make them become inactive voters and they're not going to turn out at the midterms and low turnout doesn't favor Republicans.
So on the one hand, shaming your most ardent supporters for following a theory that you yourself proposed, it might not get them to vote Democrat because you'd have to have a hole in your head to vote for the Democrats, but you just stay home.
And so, and you can't poo on your own supporters and deter them from wanting to get out there and vote by calling them stupid and mean, bad people for following through on the very same story that not only Trump himself brought up, but his administration had been pursuing doggedly for six months.
So where we start from the beginning here, my post where I said the file is potentially corrupt, that's what I said when the line coming out of the White House was Epstein killed himself.
There is no black men material and there is no client list.
And I'm like, okay, good.
That's the finding based on the FBI file, the very same criminal weaponized FBI DOJ that you're now investigating for criminality.
How do you rely on it from the beginning?
And I'm told, well, you know, that's the file.
We've seen it.
Rely on it.
Now they've pivoted and moved the goalposts to the file is corrupt and cannot be relied on.
But they were telling us three months ago to rely on this file because it says he killed himself.
You may not believe it.
Here's the video.
Yada yada.
Wow.
And it's actual gaslighting.
Like Trump coming out and saying, I don't know why you guys find this story so important.
You brought it up and not like you brought it up.
So therefore we were entitled to be fooled.
You brought it up because it was a big story.
We don't believe it because we want to.
We believe it because there is absolutely a conspiracy there.
Otherwise, Ghelain Maxwell is not serving 25 years for human trafficking.
Otherwise, Epstein, you know, doesn't get re-indicted in 2019.
So Trump brought it up to the limelight, not made something out of nothing, brought it to the limelight.
Bongino, and I, and I didn't, I don't agree with Bongino when he was saying what I believed.
I believe what he believed, and I believe he believed what he said for the last several years.
It's a big story.
You don't know how deep it goes.
Follow up on it.
Never let it go.
I believe Bon Patel when he was on Benny Johnson saying, you know, Epstein, not Epstein, what's his face?
Bill Gates is on the list.
We know that Epstein blackmailed Bill Gates over his relationship with that woman that he was cheating on with his wife.
We know that he's blackmailed people before.
And now we have Trump saying, if you push this, it's a conspiracy theory.
I no longer want your support.
When two of the most vocal truth seekers are the director and deputy director of his FBI.
And I look at this like, how would I feel if I'm Bongino or Patel?
How would I feel if I'm Don Jr.?
And, you know, I'm on record saying, release the list.
Everyone is on record saying release list because everybody knows, colloquially speaking, there's a list of something there.
There's unindicted co-conspirators.
There are people that were involved in this.
And now we're being told not only that it's a hoax from the Democrats, can't rely on the file That they were telling us to rely on two months ago as their messaging.
And now we're being called bad people, conspiracy theorists, and he no longer wants our support.
It's, I don't know what the hell is going on because I'm trying to look for the happy ending to this.
You know, like Trump in two months says, sorry, guys, I had to lie to you because we were doing some wildly, you know, double fakey, deep investigation.
And I hope you forgive me.
That's not going to happen.
And even if that happens, there are going to be people who say, you cannot lie.
You could have just said nothing.
But I'm trying to make sense of these posts.
It's madness.
I don't know how to make sense of it.
I don't understand what their play is.
Trump repeatedly just blasting off on this issue is only making the issue more prominent.
He's pouring gas in the fire.
Trump is a PR master.
I know he knows this.
PR 101 is let it go.
I've told this story before.
I was hanging out at Vice.
When I worked at Vice.
One of their personalities on HBO went on a podcast and described raping a woman.
And it caused a huge backlash for the company.
And so I'm sitting down and I said, guys, this dude has gone on a show.
I think you could sever him from your brand because he's one of your hosts.
And they were like, well, we're going to do literal nothing.
And guess what?
It worked.
They decided we will say nothing.
We will do nothing.
We will let people talk about it.
A week later, they'll forget.
Trump knows this.
So why is he or anybody else constantly going on TV and making this the issue?
It would be...
But leaps it to Axios.
So some, and look, people want to always play the 4D, 7D, 800D level chess.
Say, he knows what the Streisand effect is, you would think.
Another reality is he might just be getting bad feedback from the wrong people, or I should say wrong feedback from bad people.
He might just be getting bad feedback.
He might be sufficiently isolated from the people who put him in power at this point that he's just getting bad advice.
And everyone around him is a yes man saying, yes, Donald Trump.
What you're doing is great.
They'll fall in line eventually, Donald, Mr. Trump, President Trump keeps saying it, and they'll fall in line.
They'll take the orders.
That could be one thing.
The other thing, maybe, you know, he comes out and says, it's a hoax, it's a hoax, it's a hoax.
Everyone jumps down his throat two months from now.
Oh, I guess it wasn't a hoax.
And X, Y, and Z are on the list.
But the bottom line is, most importantly, the way that it's become almost abusive to the most ardent supporters of his, as if to say, now that I've gotten elected, now that some of you have lost friends over your support of me, you've lost jobs, some of you have been jailed over your support of me.
Now I don't want you support.
I don't want your support anymore because you're repeating a story that I myself brought to your attention that my members, key members of my administration have been pushing for years, and rightly so, I say.
So like I've had a number of theories.
Is this sabotage and like the deep state is going to take Trump down with the Epstein file and this is how they're going to do it?
Are they sabotaging members of his administration to make the FBI look at odds with Trump's position now?
I mean, and even if the argument is going to be, well, Patel and Bongino have fallen into line.
They're no longer repeating the theories that they've been espousing for years.
So they've fallen into line.
Congrats.
What do you think the Democrats are going to do?
You don't have to be a scoundrel to think like one.
Democrats are going to say, great, your deputy director of the FBI and your director of the FBI have been pushing these hoax conspiracy theories for years.
How can we have any faith in the FBI right now?
I mean, it's like it's an abject PR disaster.
It's an administrative disaster.
I have no idea what the heck is going on.
And for those who say, you know, Trump takes to truth to get a feel for the room and see the responses, we're fast approaching the point of having said things that cannot be taken back.
This is the event horizon.
Saying my past supporters saying I don't want your support, saying this will forever be called the Jeffrey Epstein hoax.
That is a nuclear bomb on the issue.
I think we're already past the point of taking it back.
I'm trying to be charitable and forgiving.
And Tim, I say it.
My back dog is going to say, I got the shoes up there.
I say this as someone who's pointing at the shine shoe.
No, you got the gold ones.
They were out when I only got the red and white.
So, you know, I got two pairs for the price of one gold.
It's like in a fight, you know, if you're fighting with your wife, you can't say, you know, you're fat and ugly and then expect everyone to go back to being lovey, lovely the next day.
I'm trying to be charitable and hope that we're not past the event horizon.
But like they say, when you reach the event horizon of a black hole, you don't even know that you've fallen into it and maybe we're already there.
But I want to stress, you know, one of the things I was just highlighting a moment ago was the immigration raids have been on point, a major victory.
The Doge cuts just pushed through $9 billion, fantastic.
USAID, NPR, PBS budget slashed, obliterated the firings at all these departments.
The wholesale inflation was flat for June.
Not a tremendous, tremendous victory, but still good considering the tariffs.
Trump has got so many victories under his belt.
I don't understand why he would want to burn himself down over this.
But I will stress as an aside, two points.
I don't want to sacrifice these tremendous victories over a single story, albeit a very important one.
So I want to keep the pressure on and say this story will always matter and we're always going to demand it and we're not going to settle for less.
But I want Trump to win the midterms.
I want the Republicans to still win the midterms.
What is this play?
It's just risking everything.
Well, some people say to risk everything.
And yes, those are big W's.
He's had recent court victories.
If on immigration alone, it's a smashing success on the, you know, some would say for him to stake everything on this particular issue, there must be some bad names in that list that are so damn, would be so damn destabilizing that for the greater national security, it must be kept private.
But even if that were the explanation and he were to sit down and say, look, it has nothing to do with child trafficking or blackmailer extortion.
You know, Mike Benz was on with Charlie Kirk yesterday talking about the angle of Epstein being, you know, a handler, money launderer, whatever, arms dealer.
If it were only from that perspective to say it's a national security issue and we cannot disclose it, that, well, it might be too late for that now, but that would have satisfied people.
People say, okay, I understand.
That confirms everything I already thought about Epstein.
It's a national security issue.
And we can't risk World War III, if foreign nations realize what other nations might have been doing for the purposes of political, geopolitical strategy.
But at this point in time, some people think it's already going to have had a decisive impact on the midterms.
And people don't seem to say, okay, fine.
So you lose a few seats.
No, if Trump loses, if Republicans lose the Senate, he gets impeached, he gets convicted, he gets removed from office in 2026 or 2017, and they'll do it the day after they have control over the Senate.
As it was for the one big beautiful bill, it took a tiebreak.
They would need, what, like 63 votes in the Senate or something?
I thought it would be a majority.
So it's a majority to impeach, but two-thirds, I think, is to convict in the Senate.
But one way, we'll fact check in must one way or the other, they're only dealing with a six or seven seat differential right now.
And depending on how disastrous this is, I mean, but to stake all of these successes on what?
All it would have taken was A, releasing some of the documents, B, a satisfactory explanation that doesn't consist of an undated, unsigned memo leaked to Axios, and then no explanation for the better part of a week while rumors fly.
And then Dan Bongino allegedly claims he's going to leave the world.
It's him or Bondi.
Then you get Todd Blanche on Friday saying, no, no, we all discussed it and signed off on it, except nobody signed off on it.
So it was 60, it is 67.
67 senators can convict.
If Trump loses, I think like two seats in the House, he gets impeached.
He'll be obstructed every step of the way.
And considering it's already rough with Massey, for instance, always, he's the new Dr. No, Trump's already in a precarious position.
I want him to win.
But I'm curious if this is where the coalition breaks, right?
So I would say, I don't know where you'd fall in this, Viva, maybe somewhere similar.
For someone like me, obviously, I was like a moderate liberal and I'm like, Trump's the guy, all these policies I want.
I'm not, I'm still voting for Trump.
I'm still voting likely for, well, I'm definitely voting Republican in the midterms because Riley Moore is my congressman.
He's amazing and he's a good friend and he skateboards.
But there are a lot of liberals we're seeing now with like Schultz coming out and being like super pissed off, Andrew Schultz, about Trump not publishing the Epstein files, attacking his supporters.
Do you think this could break that coalition where the kind of normy middle of the road went for Trump in 2024 and now the midterms come around and they're just like, I'm out?
Well, I mean, not to be doompilled.
I think that's kind of, that might have already happened with Iran, with the debacle in Iran.
You lose the people who said no new wars.
Oh, this one's not a war, except it's a 12-day war.
With no new regime change, oh, it's not regime change.
Well, there's a truth about regime change.
And people who didn't want to see any further involvement in any capacity, who were sold on that, might have left or might just be despaired to the point of, oh, the more things change, the more they stay the same, nothing ever changes.
So we might already be there.
The question is, how do you salvage that between now and the next midterms?
And you got Schultz, Theo Vaughn, Joe Rogan.
Rogan was already starting to turn somewhat on some of the deportations.
Like, would you have voted for Home Depot parking lot raids?
And he was starting to turn.
But the idea to turn around and say, I don't want your support anymore because you are, I don't understand it.
People say he's a petulant child, stubborn, can't admit when he's wrong, thinks he's going to get people to side with him by doing this.
At this point, nobody, I mean, at this point, I'm not one to demand apologies, but I think what it would take is an actual sit-down, long press conference, maybe a statement saying, look, things got carried away, but it's not going away.
And the problem is this might cost him all of his successes in the midterms.
And at the very least, for the time being, nobody's talking about the miracle that it is that he's even alive after the one-year anniversary.
Nobody's talking about the court victories.
Nobody's talking about the economic victories, the border victories.
They're talking about Epstein and why it now, I don't believe it.
But people are saying it's clear that he's on the list.
I mean, you know, the funny thing is there is an opportunity here that Trump may have inadvertently created in that Democrats are now demanding the release of the documents.
Roe Conna put forward that amendment, which I, you know, initially I said, this is fantastic.
Let's go.
I don't care if it's Roe or anybody else.
But in the morning, we got news that Republicans voted it down.
And I was like, why would they do that?
And I looked, oh, because it says any evidence must be published on the DOJ's website within 30 days.
And I'm like, well, there's no way anyone's voting for that.
Democrats know they're not going to win, so they vote yes.
Republicans are then trapped and can't vote yes on releasing all of this abuse material.
But Rep Conna spoke with me and said, you are right.
I'm going to fix the bill and we're going to change that.
We're going to make sure it's clear that will not be released.
He said, then you have my support.
I want to see that bill.
Let's get it done.
Republicans have no excuses.
That being said, Democrats for years, and even in the corporate press right now, are arguing the Epstein story is a conspiracy theory.
They're saying, you know, ABC put a story on July 1st, and this is about a week before the unsigned memo, saying, there's no Epstein videos.
We spoke with sources and intelligence.
None of this exists.
And I'm asking myself, why is the corporate press writing a story on a non-news item that the Epstein stuff wasn't in the news?
Why are they writing this up and publishing this?
A week before, then we get this weird memo coming out.
It's almost like they're trying to quash the story and claim it's a conspiracy.
So ultimately, my point is, let's pull up all of the articles from like, I don't know, maybe Rolling Stone had one or Variety or New York Times where they were like, the Epstein story is a crackpot conspiracy.
It never happened.
And now we can point at all the Democrats that are voting yes on it being like these fringe conspiracy QAnon Pizzagate politicians.
They will weasel out of it to say, we're not confirming the existence of it.
We're just saying, if it exists, release what you can.
Sure, but we can still call them Pizzagate QAnon people all night.
Well, I mean, now you got AOC confirming there's a list in her tweet for which she deserves to be sued for defamation.
Which tweet was that?
What did she say?
She said, who would have thought that electing a rapist would slow up the release of the Epstein files.
And I'm like, BITCH, you deserve to get sued for that.
And she tweeted it from her personal account.
Although I know the state of the law, there's vast immunity for government officials, even when they choose to maliciously defame other people, especially public figures like the president.
She has a personal account.
Yeah.
And she tweeted it.
It specifically says personal account from which she tweeted that defamatory per se tweet.
I saw the bit on Rokana's amendment.
I didn't agree that it would require or compel the production of criminal CP or CSAM, but I said if that's if that's the concern, and if the Republicans had like a little bit of political savvy, they would have said, we can't pass it like that.
Let's add an amendment that says, with the exception of any material, the publication of which would violate child pornography or CSAM laws and vote for it.
Instead, oh, we can't vote for that because I saw the talking point.
That would require the publication of criminal materials and we have to vote no.
Democrats get the talking point.
Republicans unanimously voted down the amendment.
Make the amendment that except inasmuch as publication would violate existing laws, and then you have your solution to the problem.
I think it's impossible.
I think even if Rep Khana, Ro Khanna does introduce an amendment saying the CSAM stuff, the child pornography, the issue is still going to be you'll create a circumstance where the Trump DOJ can redact whatever they want and make that argument and say, sue me.
And you're not going to know what to sue over because it's redacted.
Yeah, well, first of all, at the very least, you get some production of documents which might satisfy the base and you satisfy the concerns that nobody ever wanted to see CP or CSAM, despite that being the talking point as to why they weren't producing it.
Trump could just make a fake list.
Like, I don't know.
He could literally just put the JSICS committee on a list and be like, here's the Epstein list.
And here's the opportunity to do the funniest thing imaginable.
The reality is that, yes, that entire file has been tainted.
So how the heck then were we told to believe the file?
And it wasn't even, I mean, it's arguable as to whether or not they were drafting it or phrasing it in a way that based on our review of the file, he killed himself.
There is no list and there's no blackmail material.
I was like, okay, good.
The file's tainted.
I don't think anybody doubts that.
The whatever, was it 14 terabytes of video from Epstein's Island?
Where did that go?
Oh, it only involved Epstein?
Oh, the various rooms and the footage was only about Epstein.
I would like, I think everybody is within their rights to know who visited that island.
Gift by association be damned.
That island is sufficiently tainted that you can defend yourself, but everybody should be entitled to know who was there and under what circumstances what went down.
They can disclose that.
Apparently behind the scenes, this has been reported that Trump has told, I think it was like Dershowitz or somebody said this, that there's a lot of innocent people whose names are going to appear on having gone to parties or like Flown with Epstein, and that he doesn't, it's thousands of prominent individuals they don't want to damage who are not criminally implicated.
And my attitude is, I don't care.
No, I don't care.
That explanation itself doesn't make sense.
The black book is out already.
Everybody understands there are some people in that book who were just in there because they were numbers in a book.
So that excuse no longer flies because of the names that are already out there based on the file as it is, the black book, the Rolodex, whatever, the flight logs.
We know it.
So if there's guilt by association, so be it.
That's kind of what happens when you go to the private island of a man who's convicted of sex trafficking.
And if you're innocent, you know, not that you have to prove your innocence, but someone's going to have to prove your guilt.
But to say 14 terabytes, that island, Lord knows what they did on it.
We still don't know what they did on that island.
So how about this?
Don't tell us who was there.
Tell us what went down on that island.
And or who he was working for.
I mean, I think there's a fair point in one thing that has me worried.
I'm never adamant like 100% on anything fact-based.
It's always what we believe, what we think we know.
Is there a percentage chance in any way that Epstein was not working for intelligence?
We've made that assumption based off of evidence.
There was a statement from a prosecutor who gave him the sweetheart deal back in like 08 or whatever, who said, I was told to back off because intelligence owned him.
And so based upon these stories, we believe that to be true and correct.
I think he likely was intelligence.
I think CIA, Mossad, MI6 makes a lot of sense, maybe even others.
And that's the blackmail machine we were using.
But what if there's a real possibility that he was just a well-connected diddler who used his own personal resources for trafficking and blackmailed politicians so he could be a drug-fueled pedophile?
Well, but that would still be an explanation that people would be sad.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
But so this was Alex Acosta who struck the sweet plea deal back in 2009, who he's told it to the Daily Beast.
And so you could take it with a grain of salt.
I don't think anyone has officially contradicted it that he said it.
Yeah, I was told he's intelligence.
Leave him alone.
You know, I did have an interesting idea that to the extent that Mike Ben's talking about this with Charlie Kirk, say he was being used for money laundering, arms dealing.
Okay.
Then maybe he was a pedo and CIA was using that blackmail material on him to continue allowing them to have their operations for money laundering and arms dealing.
Imagine if it came out that the U.S. government was exploiting blackmailing a pedophile so they could use him for other military or intelligence purposes.
Yeah, the public might be up and arms to the point where they would want to overthrow the government.
So it could be that.
But Epc was a nobody, right?
He was a nobody.
And then all of a sudden he was this hedge fund guy that made no sense.
And so that's why it's hard to believe that he was the one being blackmailed, right?
Well, they could have caught him and then they could have used him and then they used it.
But also that implies the CIO was like, keep diddling.
Just, you know, we won't arrest you.
But it's look, that's within the realm of possibility.
Hey, hey, Jeffrey, we're going to use you.
And if you ever don't cooperate with us, we're going to release all of this, you know, pedo stuff.
It's going to put you in jail for life.
And we're going to use you to launder money to various places, various sources, sell arms to various places, various sources.
I'm not saying it's true.
It's just conceivable.
And if it were, if the American public discovered that their government was actually exploiting of a pedophile for its own intelligence purposes, they might be sufficiently irritated.
That's the point.
I think the likely scenario is Epstein was blackmailing other prominent individuals using pedophilia as his attack vector.
So Epstein himself seems to have been a diddler based on the evidence we've received.
And then the CIA said, we want you to get other people implicated in your activities to use as blackmail against them.
So it's like, that is the, I think that is the general theory most people believe is likely correct.
And I'm going to stress, considering all the other conspiracy theories everybody was right about, I was running maybe half of them.
Some of them I didn't believe myself.
And then the stories came out and they were confirmed.
It's like, oh, that was, wow, they were right about that one.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that the Epstein stuff is probably correct.
And the one thing I'll add real quick, sorry, is there was a funny, there's a couple of comments I saw in response to this story, people are commenting, and it's on Rumble saying Trump is 100% implicated in this.
Well, the question would be, what do you mean implicated?
Might it mean that there are prominent members of his administration that would be negatively affected by public disclosures?
Yeah, I don't believe for a second that you're going to hear some lawnmower going by.
I don't believe for a second that Trump is on the list.
If he were, that would have been disclosed years ago.
But can you hypothetically imagine that disclosing of Epstein's activities would either reveal that American foreign policy was dictated by blackmail or that American government was using blackmail to coerce foreign policy via the trafficking of underage children?
That would be earth-shattering.
Let me ask you a question.
So the theory that's presented, I think based on everything we've assessed, it appears that Epstein himself was a diddler, and that includes underage, like prebubescent as well as just teenage girls.
The typical theory as to how he operated was that he would bring on 16 and 17 year old girls, claim they were 18 or 19, film someone engaging in activity, and then say, they're underage and we filmed you.
We own you now.
And so one of the arguments that's come up is Trump doesn't want a prominent businessman to go to prison for hooking up with a 17-year-old that he was tricked and was told was of age.
So let me ask you that.
Do you think, like, I still think they should, we should publish it and the public can decide if they go to jail over that or not?
That's still illegal.
You can't be a 30, 40 year old man hooking up with 16, 17 year olds.
To be fair, actually, there are some jurisdictions I think where 16 is age of consent.
But one of the theories or arguments is that many of these people were thinking they were hooking up with 18 year olds because maybe, I don't know, they're sleazy businessmen.
But they were actually 16, 17.
Should those people be exposed and go to jail?
Well, go to jail is a separate thing.
Should they be exposed?
I can appreciate the arguments for and against.
If that's what happened, then the world needs to know what happened.
I agree completely.
The bottom line, we know that Epstein, unaccounted for how he made his millions, why Lex Wexner, Lex Westner, whatever his name is, gave him power of attorney over his vast estate.
We know that he had, after his conviction, intimate business dealings with Ehud Barak, who visited him like 30 times in his Manhattan apartment, took a million dollars to invest in Ehud Barak's business, which lo and behold was a live streaming, video streaming, and geolocation service.
So you can connect dots, whatever you want there.
Ehud Barak, former prime minister of Israel, says he didn't know about Epstein's conviction when they got into business together, where Epstein was giving him a million plus dollars.
Horse crap.
You know that Ghelaine Maxwell is the daughter of Robert Maxwell and all of his illustrious intelligence ties to the point where Masad shows up at his funeral after his suspicious death.
What was his name?
Seymour Hersch, you know, accused him of being a Massad agent.
The whole point is, you know, the way, what was it, Naftali Bennett put out a tweet and said, Jeffrey Epstein never worked for Massad.
All right.
Did he work with Mossad?
Did any intelligence exploit of or use Jeffrey Epstein for any purpose?
The bottom line is Alex Acosta made that statement years ago.
I don't think anybody denies it.
The question is, do you believe that he was only sex trafficking for himself and himself only, despite Prince Andrew's clear involvement somewhere along the lines?
They're selling us something that nobody's believing because we're not stupid.
And the 180 that Trump is doing, it's sort of like a dance.
It's a pirouette.
Believe the file.
He killed himself.
We'll release it.
It's on my desk, phase one.
Then it comes out, we can't release it.
Then it comes out, you can't trust the file.
And nobody's believing it.
And the question is, how do you get out of this situation?
If it were just a question of people not believing it, it would be serious enough.
But to burn the bridges with an electorate that you need in order to have a margin that is too big to rig, I sort of, he's taking the worst advice ever, or he's surrounded by too many yes men who are not saying Donald.
This is a big effing problem and you're not going to browbeat your way out of it.
And I say this with respect and admiration for Trump.
It's a bloody miracle that he's with us today.
It's a miracle that he's after everything.
And now some people are saying, Viva, God chose him and so let him cook.
I was like, first of all, God chose him.
God gave him ears to listen to the people that God put in place to elect him into power.
And so all of these things, God having a plan doesn't mean that we all sit idly by here while he ostensibly destroys it.
Maybe we're part of that plan.
Viva, thanks so much for joining and sharing your insights.
I do appreciate it.
Where can everybody find you?
Oh, at Viva Fry.
I got the three o'clock slot on Rumble.
So Viva Fry, live this afternoon with Susan Crabtree.
Tomorrow, Mike Benz is coming on.
And Friday, Vince from the Vince show is going to come on.
So it's a big week.
And vivabarnslaw.locals.com, where a lot of this would not be new to anybody.
If you follow our locals community, it's a good one.
Right on, man.
Thanks for hanging out.
We'll see you next time.
Thank you very much.
Take care.
Viva, always smart on point.
Great insights.
I was highlighting his tweet.
I actually misunderstood his tweet.
He was saying, they came out and said, Epstein killed himself.
We looked at the files.
That's all that's there.
And it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Why do you believe those files from a corrupt DOJ?
Interesting point.
We went a little bit over time, but it's cool, my friends.
We're going to gear up that raid for our friend Russell Brand, where he's talking once again about the Epstein story.
So let's send you guys on your way.
Smash that like button.
Share the show with everyone.
You know, follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.