Ghislaine Maxwell's denied appeal and Alex Acosta's controversial 2008 plea deal spark theories of intelligence cover-ups, with claims that redacted FBI affidavits hide a client list and suppressed emails from May 2007. While Attorney General Pam Bondi denies explosive revelations exist, conflicting reports suggest the administration protects co-conspirators, potentially involving Mossad or KGB ties, to shield figures like Donald Trump. This secrecy erodes public trust, framing the Epstein case not as a criminal matter but as a commander-in-chief decision to avoid exposing government sacrifices of individuals. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, Qwen/Qwen3-ForcedAligner-0.6B, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
GOP Drops Epstein Document Request00:11:11
Epstein's ex, Maxwell, getting some rather bad news in terms of her case.
I told you yesterday that there was this deadline that had been fast approaching for her.
The government had basically said all along, all right, well, we're going to look at it later, later, later, later.
And they had kind of run out the clock.
So yesterday was the deadline and they finally came through and they made the decision that no, they are not going to allow for her to appeal.
And that was kind of an interesting case.
I'm just saying it was a very, very interesting case because she wanted the appeal only because she said that the law. was different in different places.
In other words, they had that plea deal that they did or some kind of sweetheart deal with Alex Acosta, who went on to become the labor secretary for Donald Trump way back when.
Remember, actually, it was 2008.
And he was the AG of Florida at the time.
And he basically let Jeffrey Epstein get off really, really easy.
And there were allegations that surfaced and reports saying, well, Alex Acosta did this because somebody in the intel department called him up and said, hey, hey, be careful with him.
Go easy on him.
And he did.
But part of that agreement meant that they were not going to be able to go after any co-conspirators in the future.
And so Maxwell is saying, and her team is saying, well, wait a second.
Why is it that you went after him or her in the future?
And, you know, shouldn't the law be consistent throughout the land?
So this was her argument.
And I'll quote from the argument, this inconsistency in the law by which the same promise of the U.S. means different things in different places should be addressed by this.
Court.
So, this is why she wanted to appeal.
And the Trump administration had to weigh in on this.
And they had, as I said, avoided weighing in.
They said they were just very busy and the docket was very full and they really hadn't had a lot of time to pay any attention to it.
But eventually, coming to the conclusion that no, she's not going to get anywhere with this.
I mean, surprise, surprise, right?
But they're not giving her the time of day.
Can she still go through the process perhaps and try to get?
the Supreme Court to look at this, but I don't think it's going to happen.
I just don't think it's going to happen.
John Sauer, he's the Solicitor General pick.
He's the one who basically said, we need an extension.
He was the one who was kind of waiting and waiting and waiting.
And now she's in the situation where she's not going to get the appeal she wants.
So you've got to ask, is this why she's suddenly telegraphing that she's willing to sit down and testify and name names?
I mean, is she trying to sort of get in bed with the Democrats, if you would?
Because the Democrats are seizing this story.
And that's, as I've said all along, like, and I'm going to continue to caution this.
You have to be very careful that this doesn't do something to effectively destroy the MAGA movement, which is so powerful.
Wouldn't they just love that?
But she's now saying, okay, well, I'll come out and I'll say something.
I'll testify before Congress.
And that puts us as a party, I would say the GOP, in a kind of risky situation.
Well, not really because of the testimony.
I mean, I guess you could kind of say anything, but because the Democrats are going to try and really welcome that.
Now, that's not going to happen, of course, unless they were to win midterms.
And so they're looking at this and they're going, ka-ching, you know, this is our opportunity.
Oh, we see a divide in MAGA.
Oh, you get Tucker Carlson, you get Steve Bannon, everybody out there complaining.
Part of the reason.
Perhaps Charlie Kirk started to sort of, come around on this story and a few others, if you notice, yours truly, from the beginning, has been warning about this.
You got to be very, very careful, careful.
What you wish for, I understand, I understand everybody wants this information, but I have a feeling a lot of this information may be gone.
Or, if you listen to Alan Dershowitz, a lot of this information is still being controlled by judges.
We're going to get to his comments in a second, but it's either gone.
It's either destroyed.
If you believe that you know he was a spy for Massad or for the CIA or any of that, you're not going to get this like like, let's be honest right, and if they did their job and they did it well, then he, he's polished off, and maybe polished off to the point where even Dan Bongino legitimately thinks it all happened.
I mean, there's just you don't know what, you don't know in this case, but I would say so Maxwell, they're in prison and you got to say like, why is she in prison if you know there really was no list?
Well, she was in prison because of some of the things that happened, but why can't we find out who was actually doing this, and that's where it starts to get really interesting.
Okay, interesting and then some.
And, as I said, I want to get to what Dershwitz has said on this, because Dershwitz is Pointing to the judges and saying they're the ones who are in the way.
In the meantime, of course, the media is going where only the media can go.
And they're starting to ask the question well, wait a second, is this because of Trump?
Is Trump on the list?
And that's why it's not getting released?
They asked him that question just moments ago.
The Attorney General briefed you on what?
I want to share with you his answer.
The Attorney General briefed you on the DOJ and FBI review, the findings of that review.
On the DOJ and FBI review.
On what subject?
Epstein.
On Epstein, of the review of the files.
Attorney General Pambani.
A very, very quick briefing.
What did she tell you about the review?
And specifically, did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the file?
No, no.
She's given us just a very quick briefing.
I want to share with you his answer.
On the DOJ and FBI review, the findings of that review, the Attorney General briefed you on that.
On what?
On the DOJ and FBI review.
On what?
On what subject?
On FD, on FD, of the review of the files.
Attorney General Pampani.
A very, very quick briefing.
Can she tell you, what did she tell you about the review?
And specifically, can she tell you at all that your name appeared in the file?
No, no, she's given us just a very quick briefing.
And in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've done.
seen.
And I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey.
They were made up by Obama.
They were made up by the Biden, you know.
And we went through years of that with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, with all of the different things that we had to go through.
We've gone through years of it.
But she's handled it very well.
And it's going to be up to her.
Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release.
On Texas.
On Texas.
How many more?
Sue, that's.
Kind of interesting, don't you think?
I mean, he's sort of suggesting that there might have been some false stuff in there.
He didn't say whether or not he was in there, but this is going to cause even more questions.
And I think a lot of people are now going to be saying, wait, was this some kind of giant psychop?
I would say this.
If he was in there, wouldn't you think that the Democrats would have released that going into this election?
I mean, why would they wait until now, for goodness sakes?
I would think that that would have come out.
somehow, some way, right?
They would have taken that opportunity.
They took every other opportunity they could.
There's no reason to believe that they wouldn't have taken that opportunity, unless, of course, it's just, as I've pointed out, so, so, so, so damaging.
And so they just want to somehow pin this on him.
I would say what's interesting is that we just got moments ago news that the GOP is not going to do squat on this in terms of itself moving forward to ask for the release of these documents.
This just coming to us right now, we saw that they have voted against the release of the documents.
I want to show you this right now.
I move the committee make an order amendment number 50 to H.R. 3633 offered by Representative Khanna, which would require the Attorney General to preserve and release any records related to Jeffrey Epstein.
Madam Chair, on February 21, 2025, President Trump's own Attorney General, Pam Bondi, said on Fox News the Epstein client list was sitting on her desk, quote, right now to review, end quote.
Kash Patel, Trump's FBI director, said during His confirmation hearing that he would do everything, everything, if confirmed to make sure the American people knew, quote, the full weight of what happened, end quote.
Patel, who now leads the FBI, said on the Benny Johnson show that the FBI was hiding the Epstein client list.
Donald Trump Jr., the president's own son, tweeted out, and I quote, show us all the Epstein client list right now.
Why would anyone protect those scumbags?
Ask yourselves this question, and then the answer becomes very apparent, end quote.
And now, Forgive me, but suddenly these same people are telling us there's nothing to see here.
Trump is posting that we should all just move on.
Well, I want to know what the hell is in these files.
And I think we all want to know why Trump is suddenly changing his tune and is so desperate to sweep this under the rug.
But you know what?
This also gets at his credibility.
This is about trust.
Republicans said, trust us, vote for us, and we will release these files.
And here we are.
They are backtracking.
They said they aren't going to cut Medicaid, and they did.
They said they wouldn't add to the deficit and debt.
They exploded both.
They said that they would.
Okay, so now you see where this is going.
You see how they're going to use this as a huge political opportunity.
And then, you know, I'm looking at a piece of my mind saying, remember what happened with the Russian dossier and Russia, Russia, Russia, and how we spent all that time on that?
Is that where we're perhaps heading with this?
I mean, I just have to say, like, again, if they had anything, that would have come out.
Like, why would you be waiting until now?
But the way he answered this question was a little bit mysterious.
I'm going to play it again.
The Attorney General briefed you on the DOJ and FBI review, the findings of that review.
The Attorney General briefed you on what?
On the DOJ and FBI review.
Epstein.
On what subject?
On Epstein, of the review of the files.
Attorney General Pambon, you can tell me.
A very, very quick briefing.
Did she tell you, what did she tell you about the review?
And specifically, did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the file?
No, no.
She's given us just a very quick briefing.
And in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen, And I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey.
They were made up by Obama.
They were made up by the Biden, you know.
A very, very quick briefing.
Did she tell you, what did she tell you about the review?
And specifically, did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the file?
No, no, she's, she's given us just a very quick briefing.
And in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen.
And I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey.
They were made up by Obama.
They were made up by the Biden, you know.
And we went through years of that with the Russia.
Russia, Russia hoax, with all of the different things that we had to go through.
We've gone through years of it.
And it's going to be up to her.
But she's handled it very well.
Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release.
On Texas, on Texas, how many more seats?
Okay.
So he's actually since then come out and said, we may release some of this.
So in other words, they need to check the credibility of it.
It's something he actually brought up a while back.
I want to show you a clip from a Fox and Friends interview with Donald Trump talking about these Epstein files and expressing some concern that there might have been just a whole bunch of you know what in there.
Would you declassify the Epstein files?
Yeah, yeah, I would.
All right.
I guess I would.
I think that less so because, you know, you don't know.
You don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there because it's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world.
But I think I would.
So, interesting comment, right?
A lot of phony stuff with that whole world.
Well, of course we know there's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world.
If, in fact, he agrees that Jeffrey Epstein was part of that world, meaning the intelligence world, okay?
The intelligence world that was gathering something.
Now, don't forget, we've been asking this question all along.
For example, who is Maxwell?
Risky Front Person Strategy00:02:29
Who is she really?
She was refused her appeal here by the administration, so they're not going to go easy on her.
So she's got that 20-year sentence.
We'll see.
She's still going to probably make some noise.
And as I said, she wants to come in and testify.
I don't think anybody's going to invite her to testify, but, you know, if the Democrats were in charge, would any of that change?
I don't know.
I think that they themselves are probably at risk of various things nonetheless.
Um, you had the former head of Israel coming out yesterday and making very clear Jeffrey Epstein was never any kind of spy for the Massad and?
Um therefore, I guess, what are we to believe?
That Maxwell was not then.
I mean or, or maybe she was actually.
I'm just saying maybe she was the one that was running the whole thing right.
I'm kind of, if we were going to go down this rabbit hole and it's a big, if right, because We don't actually have anything other than a lot of hearsay and innuendo, et cetera, that would confirm this.
But don't forget, her father was believed to have been a spy for Israel, for the U.S., and possibly for the KGB, and had some very special software that he negotiated a deal with with Israel so as to enable Israel and the U.S. to kind of have backdoor entry into all of this software that was being sold all around the world.
And all these other countries bought it, and it basically gave us access to it so we could see what was going on.
And if you think this through and you consider all those deals that were going on and that she, of course, had this software, maybe possibly she had these contacts and she needed a front person for the whole shebang, right?
And maybe that front person happened to be a math teacher from Dalton who was down on his luck, kind of wearing out his welcome on Wall Street as a trader.
But Wexler, the guy from Limited Brands, Knew maybe of this guy's deviances and also that he was a huge big personality that could charm the socks off of anyone and literally more apparently off of anyone.
Okay Sadly So she knew all that and she were the mastermind in the whole operation Then she recruits Jeffrey he suddenly goes on to have fancy homes and fancy this and that and Gives him access to her contacts access to her father's software and now all of a sudden they're running an operation that was, shall we say, a little more than what daddy was doing?
Wexler's Hidden Connections Revealed00:15:38
Possibly.
I mean, it's a real question.
And so when she goes out there and says, oh, I'm going to talk, I'm going to talk, I'm going to talk, it's like, oh, careful.
Because that didn't work out so well now, did it?
for dad or for the ex-boyfriend, if we're to believe that they're in that family business, right?
So it's a little bit of a risky position for her to take at this moment in time, but perhaps she's taking it for various reasons.
Meanwhile, you've got a lot of people within the so-called deep state that want to cover all this up.
And Dershowitz talked about this recently.
So, you know Dershowitz, he was actually one of the people on the list.
He was one of the people that they kept talking about.
He's pretty angry about it.
He's like, Look, I didn't do anything.
I'm really angry.
I want to clear my name.
And in order to clear his name, he actually wants to bring up more of this information.
He knows that there's a so called list out there.
He explained it on News Nation just last night.
I want to show you a clip of this.
Is the government hiding a client list or anything that the Trump administration could release tonight?
No, there is no client list.
There never has been a client list.
A client list suggests that Jeffrey Epstein.
Made a list of people to whom he trafficked women.
What there is, is a redacted FBI affidavit from accusers.
There are several of them from accusers that accuse Jeffrey, that accuse various people of having improper sex.
And that has been redacted.
The names of the people accused have been blacked out.
Now, of course, because I was the lawyer and I did all the investigations, I know who all these people are.
I could figure out.
Based on everything that I saw, who Mr. X is, Mr. Y is, and Mr. Z, I can tell you right now, none of them are public figures who are currently in office.
Some of them were previously in office, some of them are dead.
But there is no client list.
And the redactions could be undone if you go to court.
So many of the things that are being suppressed are being suppressed by two judges in Manhattan.
And they're doing it largely to protect.
The alleged accusers who are, in their view, the judges' victims, even though we don't know what their actual status is.
But the judges have issued orders, which is why I can't disclose things I'd love to disclose, saying that you can't disclose this information.
But Pam Bondi and the Justice Department and Donald Trump are not responsible for that.
I don't know of any information that they could disclose that they haven't disclosed.
Now, maybe there is some, but I'm simply not aware of it.
And so I think it's important to place the blame where the blame deserves to be placed.
The vast majority of people who are in the files, and I know them all, I've seen all the names, the vast, vast majority of them have already been disclosed.
They're in articles all over the world.
They're in books that have been written.
So, if we got everything, everything, you would be shocked how few names are there that haven't already been disclosed.
The media hasn't, by the way, done a good enough job in finding the people who have been disclosed in the public record.
So, that's that list.
Hmm.
I mean, I think there are quite a few, right, that we sort of already know about.
One was a former president who actually I think Dershowitz represented.
Okay.
Just saying.
Did you hear him say something really, really interesting though?
He said no one is a current holder of political office.
Wow.
Okay.
So, you know, he could have just come out and said it.
Donald Trump's not on the list.
That's what he was trying to tell you.
Alan Dershowitz making it very clear.
Donald Trump is not on the list.
But Donald Trump is also saying, look, we don't know the authenticity of this because maybe.
It's a little crazy.
Like just because you're on the quote unquote list, like maybe you went to Jeffrey Epstein's house.
Does that mean bad stuff happened there?
How do we then prove that one out?
Maybe there are some documents or files or videotape somewhere.
I mean, Pam did say she was getting like tens of thousands of hours of videotape, right?
So there would be some homework to do.
They should probably do the homework.
And yet we're hearing, you know, over and over again, they're really not interested, I guess, at this point in time for whatever reason.
And this is what is so peculiar.
And this is why I get back to, gosh, was this really and truly us?
Like with cooperation of Israelis?
I mean, if it was a Mossad operation, I'm just saying, like we're not like allowing that to go on without knowing it's going on.
You think we're going to allow them to be gathering intel on our soil about our people?
No, of course not.
So we'd have to have known that.
And maybe that's what nobody wants to admit because if that comes out, I mean, we really look pretty.
Darn bad, do we not?
Anyway, Pam Bondi, let me see if I can get this for you.
Just moments ago today, saying this about all of it.
Madam President, on this matter of fentanyl, which is a priority clearly for the DEA, the Department of Justice, are you confident you're going to still be here to execute this because there's so many people calling for change?
I know it's hard to hear, so.
I'm going to be here for as long as the President wants me here, and I believe he's made that crystal clear.
It's four years.
Well, three and a half now, right?
We've got six months in.
And it feels like six years.
But I was with Director Patel this morning, and we are working on fighting violent crime.
We are working on all these issues that we.
Deeply care about to make America safe again and get these drugs off our streets.
You know, we've been working on this since my really last two years.
Fentanyl was coming on the market when I was state attorney general.
And now, with these cartels, it's coming back.
It's coming in more than ever.
So she's making it very clear.
She's not going anywhere, okay?
She's there to stay.
And Donald Trump making it clear that he's supportive of her, that he wants her to stay.
He came out over the weekend.
He's like, what's going on?
Why all the chaos?
Why are you guys all fighting?
What's the infighting?
Come on, people.
Like, we've got a mission to do.
And so you've seen a little bit of backing off, but I think that, I think Dan Bongino really felt burnt.
I mean, I know him.
I've known him a long time.
He's a really, really good guy.
And I think that he doesn't really know what's going on.
I mean, none of us really know what's going on, right?
I mean, we have a lot of suspicions and we think we know what's going on.
But the truth is, I don't think Pam fully knows what's going on.
Does Trump even fully know what's going on?
Somebody knows, I guess, maybe somebody knows that, and I get back to this.
This is worst case scenario, okay?
Just hear me out.
Worst case scenario is, yeah, this was an intel gathering operation.
And it effectively means that the U.S. government and whoever else was involved was willing to sacrifice people in a pretty extraordinary way.
I mean, it's one thing to have snipers, and it's a whole other thing to be doing this, okay?
That is just taking it to a level where, you know, that's not who we are, right?
Like, that's not the America we want to be.
So, It could be an effort to try and cover up some of that.
But Dan's having a hard time because Dan's a true blue kind of guy.
And Dan has spent much of his career criticizing the FBI and criticizing the administration, certainly within the Biden camp.
And now he's in a position where he's part of the system.
Not easy, right?
This is why I would never, you know, people were like, would you like to go work for the Fed?
How about Treasury?
I'm like, no, no, no, I'm way better over here because, like, to actually be in on it, then you. can actually call balls and strikes the way you want.
And Dan wants to be able to do that.
And so there he is now working for Pam.
Pam, who's never met a television camera that she doesn't want to get on, right?
Like that's a whole other thing.
We don't need people on TV this much.
Trust me.
Do your job.
Like let the TV people be the TV people.
We don't need people on TV as much as they are.
And now Bongino is getting put in this horrible spot because he's got to go out and give everybody the bad news.
And it sometimes doesn't really look like he believes it.
I'm like, you know, I can't imagine he would ever lie to us just because knowing him as I do.
But then again, It's a well run Intel op.
Maybe he believes it because you shouldn't have that many.
Well, this one does have a lot of holes, shall we say.
Anyway, Bongino is now expected to stay put for a little while.
He was back at work this week, came in a little bit late, but he went back to work.
And Trump is a heck of a negotiator.
I mean, heck, you know, if he can negotiate with China and with Canada and Mexico and Europe and all these countries around the world, you better believe he can negotiate with Dan, right?
Here he is.
Oh, I think so.
I did.
I spoke to him today.
Dan Bonzino is a very good guy.
I've known him a long time.
I've done his show many, many times.
And he sounded terrific, actually.
No, I think he's in good shape.
So that was yesterday.
Dan was back in again today.
So far, so good.
You heard from Pam.
She's not going anywhere, right?
She's in it to win it.
And what happens in the meantime?
with all of this.
I mean, Donald Trump's now saying, okay, well, maybe we release part of it if we're really, really confident that it's not just a bunch of hearsay.
Dershowitz, he's frustrated because he was implicated in all of this.
His name came out.
He wants to be able to speak up and say more, but he's restricted for legal reasons.
And so in the meantime, you know, Bongino and Cash, they went on.
And I want you to look at Bongino's body language, okay?
Because this is a guy who can't lie.
He just can't.
And just look at him as he's given this story.
Are we going to be surprised at what you learned?
You know what, Maria?
Cash is not kidding.
We've been personally briefed extensively on every single detail, nugget, tendril of this case.
One is actively in court right now, so out of respect for the case, it's probably more appropriate that I stay quiet on that.
However, I'm not going to tell people what they want to hear.
I'm going to tell you the truth, and whether you like it or not is up to you.
If there was a big explosive there, right, given my history, As a Secret Service agent, and my personal friendship as a director does with the president.
Give me one logical, sensible reason we would not have.
If you can think of one, there isn't.
There isn't.
In some of these cases, the there you're looking for is not there.
And I know people, I get it.
I understand.
It's not there.
If it was there, we would have told you.
Hmm.
Two things just breaking right now.
It has just come out that Pam Bondi said she's not going to release anything more.
Donald Trump, meanwhile, is encouraging her to release something.
So what's going on?
Okay.
The president of the United States, yeah, we might release some more.
Well, it turns out Attorney General Pam Bondi says there is absolutely no change in her position.
This is after Donald Trump suggested that some of these files could be released.
So she's sticking to her guns on this.
And one would have to think, well, I mean, she can't be really overridden by the president on this because this is DOJ.
They're supposed to be separate, but it's a little strange.
So, again, you know, he has praised Pambondi for this and for her handling of all of this.
He has suggested that there could be some funny business there.
You saw him the other day.
This is what he sent out on True Social saying, I don't understand why everybody's fighting over this.
He was really annoyed.
What is going on, guys?
You know, we're one team, we got to stick together, and then in the meantime, you've got the ex Maxwell who just learned her fate, which is that no, she's not going to get an appeal of her case at least not as easily as she thought.
And so now she's talking about coming in and releasing names, all while Pam Bondi is making the decision to absolutely positively not release anything else, anything else at all.
So it's just getting weirder and weirder.
And weirder, and don't forget, Bondi was totally willing like just a couple weeks ago.
Like, what changed?
What happened?
No, no, the FBI.
Yeah, the FBI, they're reviewing.
There are tens of thousands of videos of Epstein with children or child.
And there are hundreds of victims.
And no one victim will ever get released.
It's just the volume.
And that's what they're going through right now.
The FBI is diligently going through that.
I haven't seen that statement, but I'll call him later and find out.
And Martin seems to be facing a very tough situation.
We all did.
And the FBI handed over a couple hundred pages of documents.
But, you know, Sean, I gave them a deadline of Friday at 8 a.m. to get us everything.
And a source had told me where the documents were being kept Southern District of New York, shock.
So we got them all by hopefully all of them Friday at 8 a.m. thousands of pages of documents.
I have the FBI going through them.
Okay, okay.
They're all going through them.
And then, of course, I guess, you know, she had the FBI going through them.
Did the FBI tell her something that she wasn't comfortable with?
Because, you know, I do recall this one.
They're on my desk.
The list is on my desk.
DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients?
Will that really happen?
It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
That's been a directive by President Trump.
I'm reviewing that.
I'm reviewing JFK files, MLK files.
That's all in the process of being reviewed because that was done at the directive of the president from all of these agencies.
So have you seen anything that you said, oh my gosh?
Not yet.
Go ahead.
Sure, sure.
First, to back up on that, in February, I did an interview on Fox, and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed, meaning the file along with the JFK, MLK files as well.
That's what I meant by that.
To him being an agent, I have no knowledge about that.
We can get back to you on that.
Missing Minute in Suicide Video00:14:53
And the minute missing from the video, we released the video showing definitively, the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was showing he committed suicide.
And what was on that, there was a minute that was off the counter.
And what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year, every night, they redo that video.
It was old from like 1999.
So every night the video is reset.
And every night should have the same minute missing.
So we're looking for that video to release that as well, showing that a minute is missing.
Okay.
It just doesn't make sense.
So, for her, she needs to do less TV.
Okay.
Because every time you go on TV, we get a record of it.
There's this little thing called the internet.
And we can go back and we can look at what you said.
And when it doesn't add up, everybody starts getting really, really, really perplexed.
So now there's a new development at this moment coming out that I want to share with you, actually, from my good friend Benny, because Benny just sat down with Mike Johnson, and I think this is actually kind of important here.
You know, we talked yesterday about how Epstein's ex is ready to release this list, and maybe she was doing this to kind of jockey for position.
Who knows?
I mean, it could actually be if indeed she's one of the Intel ops that we've talked about, if that line of thinking is true.
Like, this is make sure she stays alive, okay?
Because, like, if she suddenly goes missing, I think then we really, really need to ask some questions.
But Mike Johnson, Speaker Johnson, just sat down with Benny and actually had some interesting things to say in kind of a very different approach, shall we say, than what we were just hearing from Pambondi.
Pambondi saying today to reporters, absolutely not.
She's not going to be releasing anything else.
That the memo she put out speaks for itself.
There is no list, et cetera.
It's like, let's make this go away.
Well, the more you tell us to make it go away, I'm sorry, the more we're going to ask questions.
Here's Mike Johnson and Benny.
Let's watch.
Speaker Johnson, this is sort of on the heels of something else that a lot of people are asking questions about.
And because we've been lied to by our federal government for so long, I feel like there's some type of like a pain point, right?
And a pressure cooker that gets heated up on issues like the Epstein issue, right?
And obviously, that's something that's taken over a lot of the online dialogue.
I have a question here about it.
That concerns either testifying or testimony for Jelaine Maxwell potentially before Congress, or if you would support members like Marjorie Taylor Greene or Anna Paulina Luna on the release of subpoena, subpoenaing the Epstein documents from the DOJ, whether you would support either of those.
Yeah, I haven't talked to Marjorie or Anna about that specific subject, but I'm for transparency.
We're intellectually consistent in this.
Look, Reagan used to tell us we should trust the American people.
I believe in that principle.
I know President Trump does as well, and I trust him.
I mean, he put together a A team of his choosing, and they're doing a great job.
It's a very delicate subject, but we should put everything out there and let the people decide it.
I mean, the White House and the White House team are privy to facts that I don't know.
I mean, this isn't my lane.
I haven't been involved in that.
But I agree with the sentiment that we need to put it out there.
And, you know, Pam Bondi, I don't know when she originally made the statement.
I think she was talking about documents, as I understood it, they were on her desk.
I don't know that she was specific about a list or whatever, but she needs to come forward and explain that to everybody.
I like Pam.
I mean, I think she's done a good job.
We need the DOJ focusing on the major priorities.
So let's get this thing resolved so that they can deal with violent crime and public safety and election integrity and going after Act Blue and the things that the president is most concerned about as we are.
So I'm anxious to get this behind us.
And he says he's ready for her to come in and testify if that's what, in fact, it takes.
So let's think this through for a second, guys, all right?
You got Maxwell, who's upset because she's not going to be able to appeal her case, saying, I'm ready to testify.
I'm going to give you more information.
You've got Donald Trump admitting that there's some sketchy stuff in there, perhaps, as sometimes these things are.
I mean, to me, that sort of speaks volumes about this being an Intel op, just the fact that he's like, okay, there's some sketchy stuff.
So he's like, okay, maybe we can release some of it.
And then Pam Bondi's like, no, You get Bongino who's like, I'm out of here.
Right.
And, you know, you're negotiating with Bongino to keep him in the seat.
In the meantime, you've got a MAGA movement that's kind of fragile right now.
And this was my concern.
This is my immediate concern.
I got kind of frustrated when I was watching all this stuff over the weekend.
Remember guys?
And you're like, oh, Trish, you don't get it.
Some of you said that, not all of you.
But I'm like, no, here's what I get.
Like this whole thing is going to go really south, really fast.
And that's going to be really, really bad for all the good stuff that we want to get done and that is getting done.
And that's what you also have to keep in mind.
As much as we want justice, don't get me wrong.
And we do.
And, you know, Maxwell deserves it.
And anybody who engaged in this behavior, this disgusting behavior, they deserve it.
But there's just so darn many questions.
I mean, remember when Dan said there was going to be this great tape?
Again, stop going on TV, everyone.
Those two cases obviously are of significant public interest.
I'm just telling you what we see in the file.
I just want to be crystal clear on this.
I am not asking anyone to believe me.
I'm telling you what's there and what isn't.
Right.
There is nothing in the file at this point on the Epstein case, and there's going to be a disclosure on this coming shortly.
We are working through some.
There is video.
That is something the public does not know.
There's video of him killing himself.
No, no, not.
Not the actual act, but the entire MCC Bay, it was only one camera.
There were other, there's video that when you look at the video, and we will release, that's what's taken a while on this.
We are working on cleaning it up to make sure you have an enhanced, and we're going to give the original so you don't think there were any shenanigans.
You're going to see there's no one there but him.
There's just nobody there.
So I say to people.
Except when they released the video, there was the missing minute, for goodness sakes.
On first right, like they just can't get out of their own way for some reason, and and I don't blame Dan with this um, somebody released this and they really should have been a little bit more cautious about what was being released, because there's an entire missing minute and you know the the, the tech people are all over this saying well, you know it was, it was edited like they believe it may have been, maybe it wasn't, but there's certainly ambiguities.
So what did they do with this tape?
Again, more questions, more questions, more questions, and this is not going well.
So now you've got the schism Right in MAGA, and that's what's really frightening in terms of where the movement goes.
I would tell everybody, I actually agree with my former colleague Megan Kelly.
I don't like that it became such a big thing over the weekend, and I think that again, it's scary for the movement.
But she was not wrong, right?
When she was like, Pam, for goodness sakes, get off the boob tube, okay?
I blame Pam Bondi.
I'll tell you why, okay?
I have nothing, yes, incompetence, yes.
She is the reason that things are unraveling around this story right now that virtually all of the Republican Party cares deeply about.
Who have you seen?
Pam Bondi.
She has never missed an opportunity to go on television and dangle sweet nothings that might be coming your way, try to lead you to believe that she's got it, it's on her desk, it's coming.
Tomorrow, you're gonna see something on Epstein.
And it was a tease.
So you either believe that Pam Bondi was telling the truth then or that she's telling the truth now.
But both cannot be true.
She was either lying when she went on Fox News all those times saying, I've got it.
I've got it.
We're looking at it.
Wait until you see it.
It's horrible.
Or she's lying in her two page memo that they released on a Sunday night at the tail end of a holiday weekend to Axios as if Axios is where we all go for our news.
Hell no.
She went to someone she knew would not kick the tires on the story and without signing the memo dropped it in the dead of night and said, That's it.
Take it.
Take the crumbs and be happy.
Refuse to come out and give a presser, come out and give a press conference.
Stand there for six hours to the point where people are dying of boredom.
They've asked all their questions.
That's how you put a scandal to rest.
But she wouldn't even sign her name to it.
And I'm telling you, I have dollars to donuts.
It's going to come out that there was internal consternation.
So I agree.
Less TV is more.
However, here's where Megan is not getting the whole story.
And granted, I didn't listen to the entire interview.
Maybe she went there with Charlie, but.
It's one thing to blame Pam, and I get it, you know, like maybe it's sexy, Megan versus Pam, a couple blondes, you know, with a good fight.
But where this winds up is on Trump's lap.
And so therefore, it's compromising him and it's compromising the administration.
And MSNBC is jumping all over it, and the mainstream media is jumping all over it.
And that's what starts to get me concerned.
Because it's one thing, and, you know, look, we've talked about this.
Maybe Pam's not the best at the job.
Maybe maybe Pam does spend too much time on TV.
And, you know, as a woman, it requires a couple hours of hair and makeup a day as well.
Like maybe we need somebody who does not want to be on TV, who just wants to do the job as kind of a kick-ass attorney and can get everybody motivated and, you know, take 100 Stephen Millers and send them out there and get them doing their jobs and doing them well.
So, you know, in terms of her leadership, I don't know.
I've been on TV a couple times with her in the past.
I don't know her in terms of how well she's able to motivate people, lead people.
I don't know how good of an attorney she is.
I would say we've had some wins thus far.
I mean, look with this.
Supreme Court keeps saying, and that's a feather in her cap.
Nonetheless, it's not entirely her fault, right?
Because at some point, the buck is going to stop with Trump and the mainstream media knows this.
I mean, this is what you're hearing over and over and over again.
In fact, it came up on CNN over the weekend.
This isn't something that's going to clean up quickly.
Yeah.
For.
I haven't really been following what his base thinks and wants.
Sometimes, even to the point that he.
I wouldn't say he's afraid of them, but he wouldn't do something that like, for instance, would make him a historic president with like a immigration agreement or something because the base would be mad at him for it.
But he keeps going against his base here.
Why?
I remember that press conference well, and I remember being in upper press in the West Wing and being a bit stunned by that statement because, to your point, the MAGA base has felt so strongly about Jeffrey Epstein since his crimes came to light.
And this has been sort of a rallying cry on the right.
There's been some of it, by the way, well documented his crimes, others that kind of turn over into the conspiracy space, thinking that prominent left wingers are going to get wrapped up in this sort of network that he was associated with.
But this is the first time I can really remember that Trump is sidestepping his base and not doing what they're very vocally asking him to do.
And so, as there are these calls now by some on the right for Pam Bondi to step aside or to resign and be fired, the thing I would say is if Donald Trump wants all of the information the government has on Jeffrey Epstein to be released, he can make that available.
He can direct the attorney general to release it.
He can move to whether it may be law enforcement sensitive to declassify that and make it public.
And there you have it, right?
So as much as we want to blame Pam, it's not just Pam.
Like someone's making a decision not to release this.
I keep getting back to, it's entirely possible that our intelligence agencies were involved and did some really heinous stuff.
And like, I don't know, like you can't put the genie back in the bottle kind of thing.
Like if we find that one out, and I know a lot of people hate the deep state and they're going to say, ah, we knew it all along.
But, but that's going to be a lot to find out.
And it's entirely possible that they, they're trying to make sure that that doesn't come out.
But i've told you before.
I'll tell you again.
It's what Benny was saying.
Listen, you keep trying to cover stuff up.
You're gonna find yourself in a whole, much worse of a situation, because then trust is already something that you need and and we were starting to regain it, right you're seeing this transparency with the Trump administration and then this hits and you're like, whoa wait, are we right back where we started?
But you know, Scott Adams um, for some of you, you may have seen this yesterday.
I played the sound by.
I liked it because He was saying, actually, what I was saying over the weekend was my first instinct.
Like my heart just sank because I saw everybody ganging up on Pam and I knew exactly what would happen.
That it's not just Pam, it's eventually the president who they're effectively ganging up on with this.
And from Tucker to Megan and Steve, you know, look, I love Steve and I get that he wants justice.
But at what point does it cost the president?
Here's what Scott said.
Would you agree that if the normal court system and the way we deal with crime is that we want full disclosure and we want the public to, you know, except for very special cases, we want the public to know everybody who's accused.
We want to know who the accusers are, who the victims are.
We want to know the names of the lawyers, the judge.
We want to know it all.
And that that's a reasonable standard for justice.
Would you agree?
That if Epstein is a criminal situation, and the way we handle criminal situations is we want maximum disclosure, it's worked before.
There's no reason this would be different.
Would you agree?
Theoretically, yes.
That's a perfectly reasonable take.
And that's what most of you have settled on.
And now I'm going to flip you to my point of view.
That's the wrong frame.
It is a criminal situation.
And everything you think about it fits that criminal situation frame.
Political Fallout from Maximum Disclosure00:05:09
But here's the frame I put on it.
It's a commander-in-chief decision.
Commander-in-chief.
Okay.
So if the commander-in-chief is making the decision not to do this, then what does that tell you?
And so him saying today, well, maybe we'll release some files and then Pam turning around and saying, no, no way in HELL are we doing this?
It's getting kind of weird.
I will say this.
That was a wake-up call, certainly for Donald Trump over the weekend.
You had Tucker.
You know, in there, you had Megyn Kelly going after Pam Bondi, you had Steve Bannon going after everyone.
And I think he got sort of jolted by that because he realized how serious this was.
And now you're starting to see people kind of calm down and come to their senses, which I think is important.
It's what I've been stressing all along.
Matt Gaetz, people were talking about Matt Gaetz.
Oh, he's going to take over Pam Bondi.
Well, that, you know, that was nothing.
It was just a rumor.
And in fact, we, we, we, we, Talked about those rumors over the weekend.
I said that's not going to happen.
And he had said, no, you know, he had to leave Charlie Kirk's thing early, but it had nothing to do with going to the White House to take over for Pam Bondi, as was being floated.
Matt Gaetz came out on his new TV show.
Everybody wants to be on TV.
What's the deal?
Say this to someone who's worked in TV forever.
It's not that great.
Anyway, Matt Gaetz came out on his TV show and he gave a very big endorsement for Pam, which is important to see.
Watch.
President Trump never stopped building a business empire, a media empire, a political empire.
We believe he has exactly the team to maximize success.
Let's start with Pam Bondi.
The attorney general always takes a lot of flack in any administration, but look at what she has accomplished.
The Bondi team successfully litigated away the judicial coup of nationwide injunctions.
They did that.
They won that for us.
They have created the legal infrastructure for highly effective deportations.
She's got the cartels self deporting.
She has targeted the criminals and the gang networks.
Attorney General Pambondi is a star and has our full admiration and support.
To those who don't share my enthusiasm, look at how far we've come.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions is the re.
I'm just going to say something funny.
Why does he always say our, our, our, our support?
Is it like you and your network?
I mean, your support, right?
Just to clarify.
Just so we get what he's saying.
Hillary Clinton got away with everything.
The statute of limitations is passed to hold her accountable.
Thanks, Jeff.
He got the unceremonious beating he deserved on the way out the door from Senator Tommy Tubberville.
After sessions, we got Bill Barr.
AG Barr is the reason legitimate questions about the 2020 election went uninvestigated by the Department of Justice.
I personally know of cases Bill Barr shut down that related to voter fraud that could have told us a lot more about the networks and the people who are trying to destabilize.
Okay, so he goes on about all the people he doesn't like, and then back to Pam, why she's the boss.
General, Donald Trump has had by a factor of 10,000.
And anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to come on this show and choose their fighter.
Which Trump AG would you replace Pam Bondi with?
Barr, Sessions, Rosen?
She's the best, and we appreciate her service.
Aww, so Mac is coming back to Earth, okay?
So Mac Gates coming out with a big, big endorsement.
And this is not going unnoticed by MSNBC.
and the New York Times and others.
They're all kind of finding it funny.
I mean, I'm glad, again, it's important for the movement that we kind of keep our eye on a target.
Well, simultaneously, maybe like slightly pressuring, right, the administration to give more.
But here's MSNBC reacting to all of it.
Contributor, your colleague, Jeremy, and I have to note you were laughing at some of those sound pieces from conservatives.
Your colleague, Sean LaCreche, called this a Mobius strip of paranoia and distrust within the base.
What do you make of what you're hearing?
And just because folks like Charlie Kirk are now saying, hey, let this go, are true believers going to do it?
So this is a moment of sincere political urgency for Trump.
Back in 2021, his lead pollster, Tony Fabricio, did a survey of the Republican electorate and found that there were a full 10% of the Republican voters who said that they believed in QAnon conspiracy theories.
The political fallout potential here is very real.
That's why the White House has, and President Trump himself, have been leaning on conservative influencers like Charlie Kirk.
The fact that Denise D'Souza, who has fanned so many outrageous lies about the stolen election, about Obama's birth certificate, he's saying back off this, that really shows you that the influencers are falling in line.
Intelligence Angle Buried by Barr00:05:11
That doesn't mean, however.
How does that happen?
Well, it happens because.
A very angry president of the United States gets on the phone and yells at you, or people from the White House really turn up the heat, which we know is exactly what's happening in this case.
But that doesn't mean that the average voter, the MAGA moms and dads, are just going to forget and move on.
Because for years, they were told, elect Trump, elect MAGA Republicans, and we won't lie to you.
We will get to the bottom of all of these cover ups that have disenfranchised you, that have Put these powerful people in positions to abuse their authority and to do the most egregious, unimaginable things possible, like sexually abuse children.
Okay.
So you get the idea, right?
Like they're going to use this movement and this moment to try to destabilize the GOP period.
That's just exactly where they're going.
And, you know, is Pam helping them?
Probably not.
Meanwhile, here's my question.
What about Acosta?
Okay.
I'm not talking Jim.
I'm talking Alex Acosta.
What about the guy who was the attorney general back in, what was it, 2008 when Jeffrey Epstein got off so easily?
According to some reports, including in the Daily Mail, Acosta allegedly let him off easy because he got a call from intelligence saying, be careful, he's one of us, he's an asset, etc.
And that is the reason why he didn't punish him the way he should have been punished.
Wow.
So, why is no one talking to Alex Acosta, right?
That's what I would like to know.
And I'm not the only one who wants to know that.
I, you know, somebody else brought this up recently.
I think it was on War Room, actually.
Yeah, let's go over to a gentleman who used to work over at State and who's been very involved in trying to be anti-deep states.
Listen to him explaining, like, the guy who may hold the key here to everything.
Is who we need to be talking to, the former labor secretary under the first Trump administration.
The very last piece we have on this was a formal investigation done by the Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility, which was supposed to put this to bed.
It's a 348 page report.
The only disclosure that they have asking Alex Acosta about the intelligence question was a random footnote, one footnote.
It's footnote 244 on page 169.
And they asked him if he had knowledge that Acosta was, quote, an intelligence asset.
And this is all summary description, by the way.
They don't give the transcript.
And they said Acosta told us the answer to that question is no.
But we don't know what exactly they asked about this.
And Epstein wouldn't have a 201 file on it.
You can belong to intelligence without being a formal asset.
I did a study recently of 10 financial fixers that the CIA had used to fix financing for various deals.
Eight out of the 10 folks never had a 201 file, never were formally classified as assets.
But there will still be traffic.
In the intelligence records.
And we need to know if the Justice Department even asked because they tried to put this story to bed by saying, oh, we did this OPR report and Alex Acosta walked back what he said to the Trump transition team or what he contradicted Vicki Ward's reporting.
Well, we don't know that because we never got the transcript.
We got a one line summary description buried in the 244th footnote.
Now, that OPR investigation is totally sweeping.
All of the audio files, all of the transcripts, All of the interviews can be made public.
Now, OPR reported directly to Bill Barr.
Bill Barr was the CIA's mop up man for Iran Contra.
He started his career in the CIA.
The Washington Post called him the CIA's fall guy because he blocked disclosures of CIA files.
It's very possible that the intelligence angle could have been buried by Bill Barr himself.
So, in that OPR investigation, get all of Bill Barr's email traffic because they deleted Alex Acosta's emails on this.
What that report showed was an 11 month data gap, mysterious technological glitch that deleted dog eight all of the Justice Department DOJ.gov emails of Alex Acosta starting May 2007, the very month that the FBI wanted to arrest Jeffrey Epstein and then Alex Acosta stepped in to stop it.
We need the full details of that November 2020 report.
Pam Bondi, you can walk down the hallway tonight and get those files and make them public.
Why Prosecution Was Blocked00:02:04
Yeah, but she doesn't want to, right?
There's a reason why nobody wants to.
Again, you know, Alex Acosta, he was the one that gave the easy peasy sentencing where, you know, Jeffrey Epstein didn't even have to go to like, you know, he's like playing cards with his friends as prison.
And not only that, there was a special provision in there that would not allow for him to be prosecuted again.
And not only that, not only not allow for him to be prosecuted again, Not allow anybody around him to be prosecuted again, which is exactly what Maxwell was trying to use in her appeal.
Because, in her estimation, in her lawyer's estimation, it's not fair that they said, okay, well, you're never going to get prosecuted again.
And it was an inconsistency in the law.
So you have like some jurisdictions, right, where the court is one way, you have jurisdictions where it's another way.
And that to her was not.
And by the way, I should point out that this is exactly what he thought he was going to get off on.
And I told you I spoke with a source, actually his doctor who talked to him the day before he was gone.
And He said he certainly didn't sound like a guy who was about to do what he did, not at all, and had some pretty minor concerns about constipation, not to be indelicate.
But he's like, you're not worried about that if you get these bigger issues, right?
And he thought he was going to get out.
He thought he was going to get out because, again, they thought that the inconsistency in the law was what they could actually work on here.
And so for some reason, someone let him off.
Alex Acosta let him off easy back in Florida.
And we need to understand why.
Okay, like that's a big why.
I mean, if we can get there, right?
Like, I'm really, I'm very concerned.
Like, this, I think that they just don't want us to know.
I just don't think they want us to know what was really, in fact, the genesis of all of this.
And I think, you know, you can put two and two together and kind of figure it out.