All Episodes
Previous Next
July 17, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
01:45:35
Live w/ Mike Benz! Was Epstein an Intelligence Tool? Maurene Comey FIRED? Ostrich Farm UPDATE & MORE
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Can talk over the intro video.
Behold, Garrett Ziegler from Marco Polo.
Quick shout out to Rumble.
We are later this week launching on the Rumble Cloud our Biden LaptopEmails.com database.
This is what got us on the map in May of 2022.
Over 10 million hits of our.
So, what we did was we were the first group to put all the emails online.
By emails, I mean 128,000 emails.
So, this is getting relaunched with bookmarking features, highlighting features.
You'll be able to see this ecosystem at a primary source level.
That's number one.
So, shout out to Rumble Cloud.
They just started Rumble Cloud.
It's not very old at all.
So, I'm hoping to maybe get a joint press release or something because it's going to get a lot of traffic.
That's point number one.
So, people will be able to see the ecosystem in its primary source native format.
And we're also going to build an app for it.
See, that was Garrett Ziegler very politely requesting a press release with Rumble.
He's using Rumble Cloud to put up the emails.
I don't open this.
Hold on, let me get this out of here.
Go check that out, people.
It's going to be amazing.
That's Marco Polo.
This is the laptop report.
I don't open it because when you open it, I open a page that doesn't look like soft or hardcore pornography.
This is the detailed breakdown of the Hunter Biden laptop in a bind.
It's so meticulous and so amazingly detailed, it'll blow your mind.
Marco Polo is going to put that on the cloud using Rumble Cloud and was in the Rumble studio making the announcement.
All right, people, we're going to get into it a little more today.
I saw Mike Benz on with Charlie Kirk the other day, and I'm like, you know, you think you not know everything about a subject, but you think you know the basics, like the essentials about a subject.
And then you hear things that you hear for the first time involving foreign arms dealers from various places of the world whose cousins or nephews go on to be journalists who get murdered by those countries and dismembered in the embassy.
And I'm like, okay, we're going to see if Mike Benz can come back on.
Mike Benz, if you don't know him, he's coming back on right now.
Mike, activate your camera and we shall say hello to the world.
Sir, how goes the battle?
It's battling.
We got a lot of wins.
Just today, USAID, NPR, PBS got defunded.
We're winning the Senate.
We're winning in a lot of ways, but there's some stinkers out there and the Epstein thing is one of them.
I was going to start the show off with Alex Jones on with Steve Benn and talking about like everyone is making it now like anybody who complains or criticizes about the rollout of this Epstein news or the debacle that the handling has been are now like anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, sowing Discord.
But you hurt the ones you love, but you also criticize the ones you love.
And this has been an abject disaster through and through.
And this is all constructive criticism.
But Mike, you've got an interesting angle for this.
Before we get into it, I mean, people know who you are, but just in case they don't, let them know your credentials so they don't write you off as a deep state quack.
I'm just a guy on the internet.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Look, I mean, I was a corporate lawyer, worked primarily in tech, but also in finance, worked on hedge funds and private equity, and then I went into government.
I worked for the Trump admin.
I was in the Trump White House and then ended up running the cyber portfolio for the U.S. State Department, then started a foundation on my own and active publisher, researcher, speaker on these topics, mostly focused on taking on the internet censorship complex and was one of the people who basically broke that whole complex open.
And in particular, by pointing to aspects of the U.S. government that people may hear about, but don't really know the mechanics of, such as the State Department, USAID, the Central Intelligence Agency.
And the reason that I've glommed onto this Epstein thing, particularly this month, is because this is the month that USAID has been folded up and rolled into the State Department.
And when you understand that USAID is an intelligence function, it is a covert soft power capacity in order to influence world events by pumping different institutions and geographic areas full of cash to be used by groups that advance an agenda.
That is the Epstein story to me.
me, the Epstein story is inseparable from the USAID one.
It's inseparable from the fight to reorganize the Central Intelligence Agency, because what you're dealing with with the Epstein network is the evolution of the CIA's massive reorganization from the late 1970s and early 1980s at a time when much of classic CIA work went from being done by CIA proprietaries that were set up by the CIA, to the CIA having to reach out to outside financiers and
outside business institutions because of the regulatory handcuffs put on them in the late 1970s.
And so this is really kind of the origin story of where Jeffrey Epstein was born.
I mean, he really started his career at the moment that Iran was lost to the U.S. in 1979.
This is, you know, Iran had been world's second largest raw reserves of oil, third largest raw reserves of natural gas.
And when the Iranian revolution happened in 1979, two things were happening at once.
There was a massive shockwave to Middle East politics as well as U.S. and U.K. interests in the region.
And you had a Jimmy Carter administration who had put massive handcuffs on the CIA, fired 30% of the operations division, required all sorts of regulatory hoops and blessings to get covert action done.
And so you had this scramble to put together an outside network to do the financing and the covert action.
And this is really like kind of the story of where Jeffrey Epstein appears on the map as a young guy at Bear Stearns who then goes on to represent the clients who were involved in this very Iran affair.
Okay, now, so flesh that out just for one second.
So the CIA gets their, in theory, gets their funding from the government, but they get, in turn, Limitations on what they can and cannot do ethically and legally.
And so the idea is then they go to outsource financing from off-the-books, off-the-books finances.
Yeah, and they've been doing this forever, by the way.
This is actually one of the main things that you do is really in any government agency, whether it's the State Department, USAID, CIA, DOD, so much of the job is being a fundraiser to get more money than you're allocated from Congress.
I mean, half of the job is convincing Congress to give you money.
Half of the other job is convincing your friends on the outside to kick in as well.
So you'll see this frequently, for example, with USAID.
We'll run some operation in Brazil, but they don't have enough just from the USAID grant, so they'll go to different foundations.
They'll go to the Knight Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Gates Foundation.
They will do outreach with them, the Open Society Foundation.
They'll do outreach with private companies who have a vested interest in the area.
For example, if they are trying to run a climate, they're trying to get the government of Brazil to do some climate resilience program.
They'll have USAID money for that purpose.
They'll have NGO money for that purpose.
And then they'll go to private companies who sell green energy products, like clean ethanol fuels, and they will try to get them to contribute money.
You see the same thing, for example, with Starbucks in USAID.
It's a subsidized industry where USAID floods the zone in the green diamond belt in basically the Sahel in Africa, where so much of the coffee is grown.
And there'll be millions of dollars of USAID money, but it'll be a joint partnership with Starbucks.
And a lot of this is going to mercenary rebels so that their side of a Sudanese civil war wins so that the U.S. maintains proxy geographic control over the area so they can keep growing coffee beans.
But the fact is, this has always been the case.
But what happened in the late 1970s was it became not just like, this operation will have a greater chance of success if we reach out to outside stakeholders.
It was, can we do this operation at all?
In Iran, there was an arms embargo after 1979.
We said that this was humanitarian abuses and not legitimate for the Ayatollah to rise to power.
We put an international arms embargo.
It was illegal to do it.
And it was also illegal under the Democrats-Bolin amendment to fund the Nicaraguan Contras.
And so the whole thing, you couldn't get any money from USAID for this purpose.
And so you had to go completely into this outside sphere.
And that is really where you also got the NGO explosion during this time.
It was William Casey, the same guy who's involved in this network at the CIA level.
He was the CIA director, who authorized the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, NED, the major prolific CIA cutout, who authorized the creation of the U.S. Institute of Peace, and who authorized the creation of Internews and all these different CIA-like NGOs in order to do through that mechanism what the CIA had been scandalized or barred from doing directly.
So I think you need to understand the Epstein history in order to avoid the problems that we're restructuring now.
I don't think this is a dead issue at all.
I think it's alive and well.
Okay.
And now also, you're taking some flack because people are saying you're in on it because you want to ignore or minimize the blackmail side in order to focus on the intelligence side.
Just to highlight two things, you're not an enemy of the administration.
You were a part of the 2016 administration and you are, I won't put words in your mouth, but I think not just a friend, an ally, someone who's looking out for the best interest of the Trump administration in terms of cleaning this up.
This is coming from a place of love.
This is constructive criticism.
I want to keep winning.
I see what's happening.
I got a nose to the grindstone.
I swim in these information currents all day.
I see that people get depressed and demoralized and say that they don't, you know, what's the point of voting, yada, yada.
And I can see there being a depressed 2026 turnout unless something is done.
And it doesn't mean you find a smoking gun.
With the JFK files with OD and I from Tulsi, no one expected to see a CIA email saying, yeah, we killed JFK.
We conveniently digitized this for you.
But what happened was, is we saw the amount of work that went into the investigation.
They put 80,000 emails digitized in a WikiLeaks-style index and said, here's what we looked at.
Make of it what you will.
And just yesterday, the fruits of that resulted in a major memo that had not been seen.
This is the Joe Maniti's memo that made the front page of the Washington Post A1 showing the CIA connection to the JFK story that that was 1963.
What's the 62 years and that never came out until this week?
Because we know they were putting in the effort.
When it comes to the Pambondi side here is, she's asked at a press conference last week, was Epstein an intelligence asset?
And like I say, that's the wrong question to ask anyway, because I don't think there's going to be a asset file.
I don't think it's a 201 human intelligence, you know, where he's, where there's a formal file number and a cryptonym and, you know, a whole sort of, you know, case history where he had been recruited at some point.
I think it would be a cooperative contact, a financial facilitator.
And those folks are caught in name traces.
There will be traffic, but they won't be technically not an asset.
They are voluntary.
But her answer was, we don't know.
We'll look into it.
We'll get back to you.
And it's like, okay, what did you do?
Did you ask?
The Attorney General has the authority to query the CIA to run a name trace.
Was one even run?
It only takes about two weeks to turn a name trace around.
I think Pam Bonnie's been in there for about four or five months.
So these are basic questions.
Like the DOJ OPR report, the Alex Acosta transcript with the Justice Department's own questions to Alex Acosta about Epstein's intelligence ties.
OPR reports directly to the Attorney General.
She can literally walk down the hallway, get that transcript, make it public, and give us something to go on to show that it's good faith.
That's what I'm saying.
And there's a lot of stuff that we're going to come back to bit by bit.
I'm just taking some notes also.
Start with one thing.
When you say like, you know, CIA gets a certain amount of budget from the government, but they don't get as much as they need for their operations.
So they got to go to outside sources.
Now, there's a distinction between outside sources and off-the-books sources.
And my question is, in terms of Epstein's history with the CIA, where that goes?
Is that outside sources for financing or is it off-the-books financing a la, you know, selling crack and using that to generate funds for stuff that is illegal that you don't want to have a trace on the records of?
Well, it's both.
I mean, so what Epstein specialized in, you know, I mean, his career history after Bill Barr's father recruits him to be the math and physics teacher without a college degree at the 100,000 a year tuition private school, the Dalton School in New York.
You know, as the legend goes, Epstein meets Ace Greenberg's son there because he's tutoring him at his home.
Ace Greenberg is the CEO of Bear Stearns.
After Epstein gets fired from the Dalton School, Ace Greenberg gives him a shot, brings him on as a junior floor trader to Bear Stearns.
Now, Bear Stearns is the most aggressive, known as the sleaziest investment securities firm on Wall Street, or at least it was until it was the flagship casualty of the 2008 financial crisis.
Bear Stearns is no more.
I believe it was absorbed by JP Morgan.
But Bear Stearns recruits him, or Ace Greenberg personally gives him a job.
He's got a corporate philosophy of what he calls PSD, poor, smart, driven to make money.
And so, because that's sort of how Ace Greenberg worked his way up.
And so Epstein moves very quickly from a junior floor trader to running the family account for Edgar Bronfman, who is a figure who also runs through this story and these networks in interesting ways.
And from there, Epstein becomes a partner at the firm in only about four years and then leaves Bear Stearns under a little bit of a cloud of uncertainty where there was reports that he had been involved in potentially fraudulent securities transactions, something called a Reg D violation for private securities offerings, but that either he left or got fired.
But either way, he went out on his own to start a one-person consultancy company, effectively, but remained very close with senior leadership at Bear Stearns and evidently remained a client there for services.
And that one-person company was called Intercontinental Assets Group.
And what it specialized in was sheltering assets for high-net worth individuals and governments so that they could not be found by other governments or creditors or finding assets that were attempted to be sheltered by others.
It was essentially the offshore banking and money laundering circuit.
And he bragged that he had various clients in this.
In 1987, he bragged that one of his clients was Adnan Khashoggi, who was the Saudi arms dealer, the wealthiest arms dealer in the world.
A lot of people said he was the wealthiest person in the world.
I mean, just for some perspective, he earned just at Lockheed Martin alone as a commissions agent for Lockheed Martin Weapons.
In a single year, he earned three times more in commissions than every other commissions agent for Lockheed Martin in the world combined.
That was in 1975, that was.
He had made like 200 million as a commissions agent just from one weapons company in a single year.
But what I'm getting at is Adnan Khashoggi was actually the guy who kicked off Iran-Contra.
He was the one who personally flew to Washington, D.C. to meet with the White House National Security Advisor, Robert McFarland, to pitch the idea of the U.S. sending weapons to Israel for Israel to sell to Iran, for the U.S. to get the proceeds of, and then skim the money to send to the Nicaraguan Contras.
And Adnan Khashoggi, in that case, was a facilitator on the deal side.
But you've got to, you know, whether or not Epstein was directly involved in Iran-Contra or just had Khashoggi as a client and was handling finances for Khashoggi that were not Iran-Contra adjacent, the fact is, is the entire Iran-Contra story during this time has Epstein's, it leaves its mark on Epstein's entire career.
Let me give you some examples of this.
Okay, the main airline that was used to transport guns, drugs, and cash to the Nicaraguan Contras by the CIA during this period.
And at the time, the CIA was using cocaine.
This is the famous Gary Webb and John Deutsch, the CIA director, had to go to Compton, Los Angeles, in order to do a Mia Culpa to Maxine Waters and the black community there.
This became a major scandal.
John Kerry actually led the commission investigating this.
But what happened was, is because you couldn't get USAID money and because you couldn't get DOD money, you had to create an economy for this.
And this was all done through a CI proprietary airline called Southern Air Transport, which was formerly Air America.
And this was a private chartered plane company that delivered the weapons.
This is all over the Walsh report.
Everyone can read about the history of Air America and Southern Air Transport in particular.
And this airline, not only did it service St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands, which is two miles from the island that Jeffrey Epstein would buy.
So Iran Contra was 1983 to 1988.
Epstein bought the Epstein Island in 1998, about a decade after that.
But the U.S. Virgin Islands was the front end of the CI's money laundering operation.
They would use U.S. accounts in the Virgin Islands to push on to Swiss and Panamanian bank accounts.
And so what happened was, is the Walsh report, the congressional investigators found that the CI was using the U.S. Virgin Islands as the front end of their money laundering hub because the banking regulations on the island were very lax.
The know-your-customer and anti-money laundering rules were much more relaxed than they were on the continental U.S. And this is exactly where Epstein would set up shop for his own banking scandals and would buy the island that is just two miles from the exact transport plate.
But then Jeffrey Epstein, in between that, in 1991, Jeffrey Epstein gets durable power of attorney over Les Wexner's entire financial empire, which means every financial transaction that Les Wexner, who was the head of limited brands, which at the time was the largest retailer in the entire country, the biggest, which means it ran one of the largest logistics and transport supply chains in the entire country.
1991, he gets power of attorney over Les Wexner's finances.
Now, likely the reason for this is because this gives a layer of plausible deniability to Wexner, because now the authorized signatory is Jeffrey Epstein.
It's Epstein who would be the fall guy if there's any nastiness or there's anything illegal.
It would not be done.
You would be able to effectively put, say, I didn't authorize that.
He did it on his own.
But the fact is, so it gets that in 1991.
In 1994, Epstein negotiates the transfer of Southern Air Transport from Miami to Columbus, Ohio, where the Limited is headquartered, where Jeffrey Epstein and Les Wexner both lived.
The CI proprietary airline that was responsible for gun and drug running during the Adenan Khoshogi Iran-Contra affair that Epstein claimed Khashoggi was his client personally moved for the explicit purpose.
The head of the development commission who juiced this deal by providing tax incentives for Southern Air Transport's move said that Southern Air Transport moved explicitly to service the limited.
So the CIA proprietary airline, which was the airline used to transport guns and drugs for illicit covert action by the CIA, was personally moved by Jeffrey Epstein to service Jeffrey Epstein and Jeffrey Epstein alone, effectively, the company he had power of attorney over running.
And there are so many things that flow from that.
I mean, you and I can't just personally negotiate the purchase of a CIA proprietary airline.
And then you look at all the other things around that.
During this exact period in 1994, Jeffrey Epstein, the limited purchases a string of weapons stores, these hunting stores that sell guns and firearms.
Well, they purchased that right as they are getting Southern Air Transport transferred to their headquarters.
They could have been running guns out of Southern Air Transport in a covert way in the 1990s, the same way they were doing in Miami with Southern Air Transport in the 1980s.
And it would have been all in-house in this closed loop between U.S. and foreign intelligence folks who were in on any of these joint operations and the Epstein network.
Now, what happened to Southern Air Transport in Columbus, Ohio, by the way?
It shut down, I believe it was October 1st, 1998, the very day that the CIA confessed that Southern Air Transport was responsible for guns and gun illicit gun and drug running.
The very day the CIA made that determination publicly was the day Southern Air Transport closed down operations in Columbus, Ohio, and declared bankruptcy.
Mike, I'm just getting started, by the way.
I'm not even in the Clinton era yet.
I mean, then you look at the activities of the Clinton Global Foundation.
Hold on, hold on.
Yeah, stop for one second here.
So to summarize just a little bit, Epstein gets fired for reasons we don't know from Dalton.
He gets fired for reasons we don't know from Bear Sterns.
He gets power of attorney over Lex Wexner, Les Wexner's estate.
He's intimately or say proximately involved tangentially with CIA entities.
And now the question I had was this.
This was the number one question I've been asking for a little while.
The FBI comes out and says, look, we don't really have much of a report on Epstein or we don't have a file on Epstein, et cetera, et cetera.
Have we heard the CIA come out and say, we either have no files on Epstein, we know nothing about him, or confirm that there's no ties of Epstein to the CIA as a distinct entity from the FBI?
Well, this is where it gets truly bizarre, in my view.
The answer, obviously, is no, we don't.
But the absence of that is absolutely mind-boggling.
And look, I don't want to have to do this.
I would prefer to focus on more immediate State Department, USAID, CIA problems than this one.
But the fact is, is the more you get into the lack of any queries or even public discourse about what was queried from CIA on this, the stranger the story gets.
Because in 2019, we had a casualty, a high-level cabinet secretary casualty of this scandal, Alex Acosta, who was the secretary of the Department of Labor.
The Department of Labor works with unions.
The unions are often involved in organized crime and the like.
But the fact is, is the secretary of the Department of Labor, Alex Acosta, sort of his tenure went down in flames.
He resigned because of unanswered questions about his role back when he was the head of the Justice Department's Epstein prosecution in Florida.
It was in May 2007 when Epstein was first arrested.
The FBI wanted to arrest him right away.
The lead prosecutor, Maria Villanueva, and the FBI told Acosta They were going to arrest Jeffrey Epstein the very next week at a beauty pageant in the Virgin Islands that he was a judge at.
And Alex Acosta put the brakes on it, stepped in, intervened, said, No, you're not going to do that.
You're going to observe the chain of command.
He then basically takes over the investigation.
This is at least as the OPR report line items this whole sequence.
And then has a series of secret meetings.
At least again, this is per the OPR report with defense counsel.
And then cuts without telling the prosecutors, without telling the victims, cuts the sweetheart deal of the century, which protects Jeffrey Epstein.
He basically gets a year and a half in prison where he even gets to leave the prison to do business affairs.
Gets rid of all the main charges, doesn't get anyone else's input effectively from the victims or outside of this small chain of command.
And then that plea deal also protects not just Jeffrey Epstein, immunizes him from federal charges or further federal charges, but also immunizes all co-conspirators, known and unknown.
Okay, so the FBI gives immunity.
I'm sorry, the DOJ under Alex Acosta gives immunity not just to Jeffrey Epstein and people the Justice Department knows about, but even to people the Justice Department doesn't even know about.
So this is unheard of before.
And it's not until 2018 that the contents of this secret plea deal spill open in a bombshell investigation by the Miami Herald, which then generates a huge amount of pressure on the Justice Department and on Alex Acosta himself to answer for why he cut this sweetheart deal.
OPR launches an investigation in February 2019, and then in July 2019, Jeffrey Epstein is re-arrested.
He's arrested a second time.
Three days after that arrest, Vicki Ward from the Daily Beast puts out an article saying that members of the Trump transition told Vicki Ward that when they asked Alex Acosta if the plea deal was going to cause problems at his Senate confirmation before they hired him for the cabinet secretary job, that he blithely replied that it wasn't really his fault.
He was told that Jeffrey Epstein belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone because it was above his pay grade.
And when that came out on July 9th, the very next day, Acosta held a press conference to explain himself.
And when he was asked by a reporter, I believe at Reuters, point blank, did you say Jeffrey Epstein belonged to intelligence?
Acosta sort of shuffles nervously and says, I actually am not allowed to tell you the answer to that.
There are Justice Department guidelines on this, and I can neither confirm nor deny.
And so that has been hanging out there like a fart under the blanket that just gets stinkier and stinkier.
And then there was this very curious event.
And this is where we now enter sort of the modern era.
If I may stop it for one second, because that was one thing is like, you know, the Daily Beast reporting that Acosta said that.
He didn't deny it when asked.
And they've never repudiated the fact that he said it.
He said, I'm just not allowed answering a question on my statement that I allegedly made.
New pieces of information.
I didn't know that he was a judge in a effing child beauty pageant contest in the Virgin Islands.
I mean, it's like sick irony.
It reminds me of Little Miss Sunshine.
Holy crab apples.
Okay.
So the Acosta plea deal and the unindicted co-conspirators, before we go on, it means there were other co-conspirators who were in fact unindicted.
You don't refer to unindicted co-conspirators unless they exist.
The question has always been, is that in sex trafficking or is that in his business at large?
Do you have any, do we have any info on that?
Well, these charges were about the trafficking, the prostitution charges.
But in that case, they said known or unknown.
So, I mean, it doesn't even matter whether or not they knew, if they had so much as a hint that there could be others involved in this operation, they immunized them anyway.
It wasn't just like, you know, hey, we're going to give immunity to you and a couple of other people who we don't have enough evidence to bring a criminal indictment against, but we're just going to put this to bed by giving these three people immunity under the plea deal.
It was like every person that we find out about in the future, we hereby pledge, even if we have smoking gun evidence that they did it, they are hereby immunized forever.
So that's what led to this giant kerfuffle over Epstein and the intelligence ties, because if Vicki Ward's reporting is true, then that would mean the explanation for the plea deal was because of his ties to intelligence.
Be they U.S., be they any other foreign government.
As I mentioned, the Epstein story has about seven or eight different governments involved just in the 80s and 90s alone, to say nothing before the Clinton Global Initiative era.
And then you have basically the whole world.
But what I'm getting at here is the way this story was attempted to be put to bed is the thing that I'm trying to give a narrow, very easy-to-do task to the Justice Department to earn back the American people's trust, which is that in November 2020, two weeks after Trump lost, but while Bill Barr was still the head of the Justice Department, now Bill Barr, you can read the New York Times, by the way, deeply involved in Iran-Contra.
He was the attorney general at the time of the Iran-Contra prosecutions, and he was referred to by the Washington Post as the cover-up general of Iran-Contra because he blocked inquiries into the CIA for its malfeasance.
Then he's the guy who OPR is reporting to about Epstein's potential intelligence ties, which, as I'm saying, date back to the Iran-Contra era and exact network.
But OPR puts out this 348-page report after taking 21 months to work on, you know, it's called the Office of Professional Responsibility Review of the Jeffrey Epstein 2006 to 2008 plea deal.
And you can no longer find this document, by the way, on the Justice Department website, but I have it downloaded and you can find it if you look in strange corners of the internet for it.
But this report, which took 21 months to make and is 348 pages long.
And the whole lynch bin, if the plea deal was because Epstein belonged to intelligence, you would think this would be quite a significant focus of OPR to simply walk next door to the CIA liaison to the Office of General Counsel to run a name trace on Jeffrey Epstein about whether or not Epstein belonged to intelligence in order to validate the truth or falsity of Alex Acosta's testimony to them.
But what they do is they say in a footnote, it's on page 169 of this 348-page report.
It's footnote 244.
It says, we asked Acosta if he had knowledge that Epstein was an intelligence asset.
And Acosta replied, quote, the answer is no.
And mainstream media ran with this to say, Acosta, Vicki Ward was wrong with her reporting.
Acosta walks back, you know, what was said.
We're putting the conspiracy theory to bed.
There was no intelligence ties because when the rubber hit the road and Alex Acosta was asked under oath by the Justice Department, he said no.
And that's a single footnote.
Now, let me explain the problems with this.
First of all, they don't give the transcript for what was asked and what was answered.
Intelligence asset, like I said, is not the word that would be used anyway.
In a deposition, you ask the narrow question asked of you, not the spirit of the question.
If you are trying to hide the fact that you didn't brush your teeth today and you were asked in a deposition, did you brush your teeth?
You say yes, because you brushed your teeth yesterday.
You've brushed your teeth before.
It's not unless they ask the specific question, did you brush your teeth today, that you are under penalty of perjury to say no to that question.
And in this case, it's very strange.
They don't quote in this footnote what they asked Acosta.
They only quote him saying, quote, the answer is no.
Now, if you ask me, hey, Mike, did you get a coconut boba tea at the boba tea shop?
And typically I wouldn't just start by saying the answer is no.
Usually I build up to the answer is no by saying, well, you know, I'm not really sure.
I mean, I didn't know firsthand that he was.
I didn't see a 201 asset file.
You know, I heard that he belonged to intelligence.
I wasn't sure how trustworthy the information was.
So I didn't, does that qualify as knowledge or not?
You know, what, what, and they said, well, if you didn't, if you didn't have firsthand knowledge about it, then you would say the answer is no.
And then he would say, oh, the answer is no.
We don't know how any of that conversation went.
They could have talked for an hour about that topic.
And also, we don't know how Bill Barr or the Office of General Counsel may have shaped that transcript or what they collected in terms of how it appears in the final report.
So it's relegated to a single footnote.
The other reason they cite and where this comes from in the footnote on page 169 is they say we had no reason to believe that Epstein was an intelligence asset, again, which is the wrong question.
He'd be a cooperative contact, not an asset.
But they say, because defense counsel would have told us, we looked through defense counsel emails about the case, and there were voluminous email traffic.
And defense counsel would have told us about if he was an intelligence asset.
And they don't say it in the emails.
And then about 100 pages later in the report, it says, oh, by the way, there was a data gap in Alex Acosta's emails.
Starting May 2007, the month that the FBI tried to want to arrest Jeffrey Epstein, the following 11 months of Alex Acosta's official JusticeDepartment.gov emails mysteriously disappeared in a technological glitch we can't understand.
So they say there's not even, we don't even know what conversation they had with Acosta.
All they do is like something that generates a headline.
The answer is no.
They quote that so that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, everyone runs with a headline.
Oh, no, conspiracy theories debunked.
And then they say, and we would have known because defense counsel would have emailed it to us.
And then they say, oh, actually, Acosta's emails all disappeared.
So, but this is not some giant mystery box.
It would like it was with Bill Barr in charge because Bill Barr was the CIA cover.
Bill Barr started his career in the CIA.
He was a CIA lawyer.
He told his high school guidance counselor per his own autobiography that his dream job was to be the director of central intelligence.
And he was attorney general twice, once during Iran-Contra under George W. H.W. Bush, and then again here.
This is the last guy you want.
I mean, talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
But now OPR reports to Pam Bondi.
Pam Bondi, walk down the hallway, get the Acosta transcript, have Tulsi Gabbard or ODNI do a unilateral declassification and let us see.
That was my question.
The transcript of Acosta's deposition, whatever it was, has never been released.
Nobody's ever seen that.
Right.
Okay, that's wild.
Okay.
Or any traffic from CIA OGC or Bill Barr or his deputy, Jeffrey Rosen, about shaping the queries about Epstein's intelligence ties for the whole 21 months they were investigating it between February 2019 and November 2020.
Acosta's plea deal is 2008.
It's between Bush and Obama.
So it only became a scandal under the Trump administration when this came to light yet again, and then Acosta had to step down in disgrace.
It was known, like they were asking questions, is this going to be a problem for the administration?
And he's like, you know, I was told he was intelligence, leave it alone.
And nobody thought this was going to blow up into the nuclear explosion that it turned into back then.
The question that I had was the plea deal with Acosta that has never been reopened.
Oh, the emails.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
The emails.
So Acosta, and I, again, you know, refreshing my memory, rediscovered this fact.
A year of his inbox at the time of the investigation missing.
The defense is that, well, it wasn't just his email.
It was a glitch that was office-wide or department-wide, and we somehow lost.
I don't know how it happens.
I don't believe it.
Has there ever been an investigation or a plausible explanation as to how Acosta's official inbox, a year of it during the Epstein period, magically deleted?
Not to my knowledge.
I mean, the report is very funny about it.
You know, they say it only hit like a limited, it wasn't entire Justice Department-wide.
I mean, the section, I believe, is called Acosta's Data Gap.
And I think it's him and two or three of his lieutenants.
And they chalk it up to a potential issue around a potential server migration, but they don't even say definitively.
And they don't make any, they don't say we have, you know, that they attempted to somehow forensically reconstruct them or even ask Acosta about the category of emails that would have been in the deleted ones.
So it sounded like they were perfectly content with the data gap.
They mention it as sort of almost offhand.
And so, you know, but to me, I mean, this is what happened with Crossfire Hurricane, right?
This was the whole Russiagate text messages when the FBI was running its operation against Trump with Crossfire Hurricane.
And then they do a server migration and the text messages from all the agents' phones all disappear.
So there's, I mean, this to me, it's like the data gap starts in May 2007.
That is the very month that Maria Villanueva tells Alex Acosta that they're going to arrest Jeffrey Epstein next week in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
That's the month the data gap starts?
What are the odds?
There are no odds.
It cannot be an accident.
And even if it were an accident in the ordinary run of things, it would be inexcusable.
It cannot be.
And I don't think people appreciate the timeframe on this or the timeline.
Can we actually, before we even get further into the present, back it up to how Epstein and Ghelaine Maxwell meet?
And not for nothing, we all know Ghelain Maxwell's father's history, ties to Mossad, ties to intelligence.
He dies under mysterious circumstances.
How his daughter gets involved.
If you are able to comment on the Ghelaine Maxwell's sister's company, Kileyad, and I looked up the pronunciation, it's Kileyad.
It means like a thousand or something.
They had a business which was data information gathering on the internet.
A decade ago, it's since been defunct.
How does Epstein meet Maxwell and how does she get involved in this?
Well, they're introduced and they're introduced.
This is the year that Robert Maxwell dies as well.
This is also the year that Jeffrey Epstein gets power of attorney over the Wexner finances.
And this is 1991.
This is the tail end of the George H.W. Bush story.
And then this really kicks off the era of Epstein and the Clinton universe.
I'm not sure which direction you want me to go on that because the Ghelaine Maxwell, Robert Maxwell thing is a huge topic unto itself.
But just to continue the intelligence side of things.
Yeah, I think the Clinton initiative is probably the most relevant for now.
Right.
Well, because what happens is, is Jeffrey Epstein, according to White House logs, visited the White House at least 17 times during the Bill Clinton presidency.
And when you go to the White House to have an in-person conversation with either the president or with high-level White House officials, you are going to the White House to have conversations that you don't want to have by phone.
You can make phone calls from the White House outside.
You go there because you want to have a private conversation about some mutual interest that you have.
And 17 times suggest to me that what Epstein was doing on the outside was arranging financing for an initiative that someone in the White House, whether that goes up to Bill Clinton himself or whether that's related to the National Security Council or whether that's related to the National Economic Council or any number of folks in charge of any number of White House initiatives,
that Epstein with power of attorney over the largest retail conglomerate in the U.S., its finances, its logistical chain and the like, was a partner of Bill Clinton White House activity.
Now, what's also instructive to keep in mind is that the 1990s was also.
So on the intelligence side, we've talked about the CIA and frequently when you talk about Robert Maxwell, obviously you're talking about the Israeli intelligence side of it, as well as the kind of UK connection.
Robert Maxwell was in the UK, a major publisher, and obviously came out after his death about his relationship with the Israeli government.
I presume Mossad doesn't show up to just anybody's funeral, but what do I know?
Well, okay, I was going to make a joke.
Right.
Right.
But this has happened...
You know, you have the Camp David Accords, you have the, this is the Yasser Arafat period, and you have a lot of contention between the U.S. and Israel around how to deal with a lot of these sensitive issues.
And I give the example of Bruce Rappaport here of what happened just a few years earlier in 1998 during Iraq Gate, the Iraqi pipeline fiasco, in which the Ronald Reagan White House,
Ronald Reagan, his National Security Council, and his CIA wanted to have a pipeline built from Iraq through Jordan right on Israel's border in order to make sure that Iraq was not exporting, that basically that the U.S. was in on Iraqi oil.
Bechtel, the major CIA contractor, was the one who was to get the billion-dollar contract to do this.
And so the U.S. wanted it done.
Iraq wanted it done so they could sell their oil.
Jordan wanted it done so they could get the transit fees.
But the big blocker was Israel.
Israel, there were many concerns that Israel would attack or sabotage the pipeline.
Everyone can look this up.
This is the Iraqi pipeline scandal under Ronald Attorney General Ed Meese, who was put under a special prosecutor investigation over this scandal.
Essentially, what happened was the U.S. government did not want to overtly admit that they were backing this Iraqi pipeline because it would have inflamed other regional partners like Turkey, who would have been cut out of the deal.
But they wanted the pipeline to be built on its own, but it couldn't be built on its own without the U.S. government nudging, and they couldn't admit to the nudging.
So what did they do?
They went to a financial fixer who had high-level ties within the Israeli government named Bruce Rappaport.
He was a Swiss banker, but he worked very closely with Israel, Israeli intelligence, as well as Israeli senior government leadership.
The CIA had a whole dossier on Bruce Rappaport that they kept hidden from other parts of the government, which showed that this was their own assessment of Bruce Rappaport.
And what happens in that case is Bruce Rappaport, because of his contacts and because of his access to money, he was tasked to secure a commitment from the Israeli prime minister, Shimon Perez, the head of the Israeli Labor Party, in order to promise in secret that Israel would allow this pipeline.
And Bruce Rappaport would strike whatever deal in the background needed to be struck.
And so this was a covert operation.
This is CIA working through an intermediary to get a brokered agreement with the Israeli government about something that touches three other countries' major economic concerns.
So what happens is part of the government gets very, other parts of the government get very squirrely about this.
The Development Finance Corporation, a U.S. agency who does insurance and development loans, was asked to put up $400 million.
And they said, why are you asking us to do business with Bruce Rappaport?
This is this highly scandalized, controversial guy.
We don't know what's going on in this deal.
Israel might attack this pipeline.
There's huge amounts of risk about this.
But the CI didn't want to tell them, tell the other side of the government, well, actually, Israel's not going to attack it because we have, because what Bruce Rappaport's actually doing, and the reason that we're using him is because he's got connections to the highest levels of the Israeli government, and he's striking a secret deal in the background.
And so, but so there, so because there's the allegation that there were payoffs and bribes to the Israeli Labor Party that were illegal, a special prosecutor is called.
And then what ends up coming out in the course of that is that, oh, no, it actually wasn't a bribe.
The secret agreement was that Israel would get a 30% revenue share on the pipeline.
So they wouldn't attack it because they would be making money off of it.
Anyway, this is an example where Jeffrey Epstein, you could see him playing the exact role.
He was in position and fit the profile to a T of Rappaport and 10 other people, I can tell you from the past 40 years who do this.
But for example, during the Bill Clinton presidency, you had the same concerns about Israeli economic and security problems with Bill Clinton's vision to reshape the Middle East.
And you had Epstein being evidently best friends with Ahud Barak, who was the successor to Shimon Peres in the UK Labor Party.
Ehud Barak was the president of it, was the prime minister of Israel in the Israel Labor Party during the Bill Clinton presidency.
Ahud Barak met over 40 times with Jeffrey Epstein, and Jeffrey Epstein met over 17 times with the White House while Ehud Barak was the prime minister of Israel.
And Jeffrey Epstein is representing the hundreds of millions slash billions of dollars of the Wexner enterprise as this is happening, as well as the whole Bear Stearns and potentially sawdy, high-level sort of sawdie shake capital pools in order to juice deals that Bill Clinton would have wanted.
And of course, right after Bill Clinton's presidency, Bill Clinton flies not just on Jeffrey Epstein's jet, but with Jeffrey Epstein in order to do travel throughout Africa.
They do this five-country tour, Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton on Jeffrey Epstein's jet to do, you know, for development work around public health programs.
And it's at this moment that Bill Clinton creates the Clinton Foundation.
And Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer wrote an affidavit in court saying that Jeffrey Epstein was the co-founder of the Clinton Global Initiative.
Well, if that's the case, then you've got, look at all, Hillary Clinton went on to be the Secretary of State who the CIA answers to.
The CIA does covert action to support a State Department objective.
It's a promotion.
Mike Pompeo was a CIA director and then got promoted to Secretary of State.
Was the Clinton Global Initiative doing work?
We know that it was working with the U.S. government.
They've got reconstruction work in Ukraine, the Clinton Foundation does to essentially do this kind of soft power work where they get government partnerships to do it.
Was any of that connected?
Were they arranging for financings in the same way that Bruce Rappaport, Adan Khashoggi, and a dozen others on this did?
But what I'm saying is, I don't think anyone's even looked in this Justice Department.
And Bill Barr wouldn't have told you.
He was the mop-up guy involved in the whole thing.
But now you have no excuses.
Now I'm telling you about this.
And the fact that it takes two weeks to turn around a CIA name trace where every mention of the person.
Like I said, I don't think it's going to be an asset.
I don't think Jeffrey Epstein was recruited to work.
So just the name Trace, because you use the term asset.
And when Naftali Bennett comes out and says, yeah, Epstein was never working for Mossad.
I'm like, okay, great.
No, no, no.
No, no, no.
I got to correct you.
Pull the tweet.
Yeah, let me see if I can get this.
I know I replied to it.
Naftali Bennett.
Let me see if I can find this.
Read it again.
Yeah.
How do I spell his name?
Naftali is N-A-F-T-A-L-I.
Naftali Bennett.
Now let me see where I can find.
Yeah, just go to the top.
Hit the magnifying glass search and then just type in Epstein.
Naftali.
That's Naftali Bennett.
And oh, come on.
It was on Monday.
Let me just scroll up.
It was in English.
She says, here we go.
As a former, let me make sure I'm not opening my DMs.
I was playing the legalese word game with it back on Monday.
As a former Israeli prime minister with Mossad reported directly to me, I can say this.
The accusation that Jeffrey Epstein somehow worked for Israel or the Mossad running, oh, I see, running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false.
The qualifier in there being the blackmail ring.
Yeah, that's quite a carefully worded statement.
That's not saying that he did not back channel deals with the Israeli government or that he was not involved in these sorts of financial fixer transactions of the kind that Bruce Rappaport and Adnan Khashoggi and the like were doing.
He's saying, listen, he didn't give us blackmail material.
That's a carefully worded state.
This is the sort of thing that I'm talking about with the Acosta side of it.
And listen, you mentioned this earlier.
You mentioned this earlier.
I mean, that is not a denial of Epstein back channeling or brokering deals with the Israeli government.
I went from the other angle.
He never worked for Israel, running a blackmail ring.
He just worked with Massad.
He worked with, he was used by, but we never paid him.
So he might have been running a blackmail ring, but it was never for.
It was just with or under the, you know.
Look, Bruce Rappaport, now the CIA highly classified dossier they hid for years from the Office of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which is a U.S. government agency that's now our Development Finance Corporation.
They hid that dossier where they said, actually, we do think that Bruce Rappaport is working with Israeli, is highly associated with Israeli intelligence.
But the fact is, is like in this case, Rappaport got a commission for doing this.
He made money for himself.
He did not get paid by the CIA to do this.
We don't know if he got paid by the Israelis or someone else, but he got a commission.
It's in his own interest to do it.
And he's doing deals that the partners on the deal will make money from.
He is a outside financier.
And the fact is, is he got his start during the period of intense U.S. and Middle Eastern, as well as UK and French, because a lot of this grows out of something called the Safari Club, which was the same network, except it also included Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Spain, France, and the U.S. and Israel were junior partners on that.
But that was in the 1970s for operations in Africa, which, as I noted, Epstein was involved in the Clintons.
But what I'm getting at here is there's something called a winning cooperative contact.
And this is also on, so there's a domestic contacts office at CIA to do this kind of outreach.
These are friends.
These are liaisons, facilitators, cooperative contacts.
They are not recruited.
They don't work for the CIA.
They don't get a paycheck for the CIA.
They can tell the CIA yes or no to any particular thing the CIA contacts them about.
I went through this on one of my private subscriber streams this week.
I went through CIA files that were declassified where it went through, for example, their contacts in European media in a list of like 25 different contacts and assets.
And it would say this person is a formal asset.
We recruited them blank.
This person is a witting cooperative contact.
They sometimes play stories for us, but this one only does it if it's been extremely well validated.
This one only does it if it's on his particular area of responsibility.
This one only does it if we really, really push that it's a matter of importance to run this story at his newspaper or magazine.
He's got autonomy is what I'm saying.
He's not owned by it.
But this is the sort of thing that allows you to have a kind of inside-outside where it's playing an essential, it's more important than an asset.
An asset who is recruited and handled by a case officer, you're not going to have a president who's just like a straight-up asset.
You're not going to have a high-level banker who's like running JPMorgan.
I mean, the heads of all the banking institutions, the major bankers, they are cooperative contacts for the most part.
You can look and see the head of JPMorgan Chase will be brought in to brief the Central Intelligence Agency on changes in the currency market.
The head of Citibank, this is a very, very common thing, a dialogue so that U.S. intelligence, now they do it on a voluntary basis, But they're doing a favor.
They can potentially expect a favor in return for being cooperative.
And the question is: was one of those favors the 2008 plea deal?
And even if it wasn't, I still think we have a right to know.
What's amazing is as you're talking about this, and I'm trying to piece together how Trump's recent statements can be true at the same time as what I believe.
And people faulty say like, oh, he was running a blackmail sex operation, getting videos of prominent politicians doing it with underage kids.
And that was his blackmail operation.
And if that gets revealed, it'll just take down the global system.
What I'm thinking is, as you talk about this, if it were to come out that the government was actually protecting someone that they knew was engaging in this because he was useful for other purposes, that itself might be so destructive, which might be a reason to conceal or not look into any of this any further that they knew that Epstein was up to no good, but he was such a useful asset or whatever term you want to use that they turned a blind eye and protected.
Now, so I mean, and now I can think like, okay, when they say there's no videos of other people having sex with underage kids, it's only him and it was only him.
So therefore, we're not releasing it.
Well, that could be true if the scandal here is that the government was protecting their own useful tool for the purposes of carrying out his own work and for the benefit of the government.
And that itself would be very scandalous.
Or they knew that he was guilty and they were using that as blackmail over him to continue cooperating with them.
And he could continue to collect the scraps of whatever he needed for money.
The name search.
Flesh that out so that people can understand what exactly you're talking about, how it takes two weeks to go and check the CIA databases for Jeffrey Epstein's name.
Yeah, that'll have all references.
It's not just the 201 file.
It will have all newspaper clippings, for example, that were collected where Epstein was mentioned because he was tangential to something.
It will have every time any station, whether in Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UK, Spain, Africa, Latin America, any time that it'll have all of his passport information every time, which is another thing that's funny because Epstein was caught with a fake passport when the FBI raided his safe.
It was issued in 1982 and expired in 1987.
So it corresponds exactly with Iran-Contra, which was 83 to 87.
And the passport listed a, it had his photograph on the passport, but a fake name.
It didn't say Jeffrey Epstein.
It was in Epstein's safe.
It was a passport from the 1980s with his photo, but a false name.
And it listed the residence as Saudi Arabia, exactly where Adnan Khashoggi was.
This is where the U.S. and Israel ran the Iran-Contra affair out of.
And it had four stamps on the passport showing that this fake passport was so good in the early 1980s that he managed to get in and out of four different countries with a fake passport and a fake name.
But, I mean, this is not a fake ID for a 19-year-old girl to get into a bar.
This is a passport at the height of the Cold War.
His name on the passport was Christian Brunel, unless I'm mistaken.
I want to go see if there's any relevance to that name.
Oh, sorry, go on.
Yeah.
Well, Jean-Luc Brunel in France, of course, would play an interesting role in the Epstein saga.
But it's like just tapping into little caverns of information every question that I ask you.
Sorry.
Well, can I address the blackmail thing?
Because you mentioned up top in the conversation that the chat was on fire about it.
And listen, I understand.
Listen, good luck.
If you guys want to pursue the blackmail angle, please, please do.
Run it down.
Really push the Justice Department on specific actionable things.
I'm giving specific actionable things that a Reuters journalist can ask at the next press conference.
Did you run the CIA name Trace?
Did you retrieve the Alex Acosta transcript with OPR from November 2020?
What I want to do is I want to change the nature of this conversation from being, you're not doing enough on Epstein, to saying, here's what you are under an obligation to do, but you haven't done.
Why haven't you done it?
And when can we expect to have it?
And because that's very, very different.
Because they can say, ah, you know, we don't, it's complicated.
People told us they're getting back to stuff.
You need to be able to speak the language.
And because these things are easy to do, but they're easy to not do if no one's asking you to do them.
Well, if there is, in fact, no blackmail sex video material, but what there was actually was overt protection of Jeffrey Epstein, of what they knew and could prosecute him for because he was a benefit for foreign negotiations and illegal arms dealing, then they can actually accurately answer the question.
No, there is no video of Prince Andrew or Ehud Barak doing something with an underage person, but we knew what he was up to and we didn't prosecute him for it because he was useful for it.
And so then you say, go back.
Do you not have an ear any longer to the administration?
Are they asking a question?
Are you on a blacklist of sorts because you are maybe not turning a blind eye to this?
No, I don't want to say too much about the level of chatter, but I'm certainly not on blacklist.
But let me just kind of flesh out this blackmail thing again, just to sort of calm the chat down.
Go ahead.
I'm not saying you shouldn't pursue it.
Please do.
Please make your version on the blackmail side of what I'm doing on the financial deal facilitator side.
I wish you genuinely the best of luck.
I do think that there is, certainly the stage was set for that sort of thing if that's what Epstein or folks at his network wanted to do.
Certainly between the cameras that they collected, the very precarious circumstances around it, I could see that that being possible, or I could see other people having access to that and then doing blackmail on their own.
But there is a little bit of a conflict here.
For example, I find it strange that with the thousands and thousands of people at the highest level of government, culture, finance, science that Epstein was doing parties with and bringing to the island and the like, that not a single one has come forward in the six years since Epstein's death.
Now that the black, now that Epstein, you're no longer under Epstein blackmail and said Epstein threatened to release this information on me.
You wouldn't even have to say what it was.
An easy pushback or see the easy retort to that would be the people who they had compromising compromise on politically powerful people.
Take a Prince Andrew, for example, is still alive and says if you mention that video, you'll end up like Virginia Gouffray in Australia.
Well, but there's first of all, after you've already broken the news, the cat's kind of out of the bag.
And the fact is, is it wasn't all these Prince Andrew types.
I mean, a lot of these were scientists from MIT.
Friggin' Stephen Hawking was flown down to Epstein Island for this sort of thing.
No one wanted to make an easy $10 million on a tell-all book about how they were blackmailed by Jeffrey Epstein with thousands and thousands of people who were involved in this.
I mean, so that's one.
The other is I think the blackmail side of it, listen, if you blackmail someone, a powerful person, you potentially jeopardize the entire operation if they tell their wife, oh my God, you know, babe, they've got this dirt on me.
I don't know what we're going to do.
The wife then tells her girlfriends.
The girlfriends tell their husbands.
Word gets around on that sort of thing.
And the moment there's a whiff of that, all of the access, all the deal brokering that Epstein is doing gets compromised.
If someone is getting blackmailed in that situation and word gets out around the network, then people talk.
And in that case, now you lose the actual, what I think more likely intelligence function of Epstein is, which is, and the other part of it is girls' juice deals.
everybody who's, who's ever, you know, thrown a cool party, uh, while trying to sort of, uh, attract people there, you want to do business with this, you know, that like a lot of this, you got these 50, 60, 70 year old high net worth, you know, old dudes, uh, who are not able to meet, you know, an 18, 19 year old girl at a bar anymore.
Um, they know that Epstein has lots of these girls around.
And last time they were at an Epstein party, it was a, it was quite a banger.
Hey, I'm going to do business with this guy so that I'm always invited to the Epstein parties.
And now I've got access to all the girls around him.
That is, that's, that is a reason.
And also remember like a lot of these folks, you know, in Saudi Arabia, in different, you know, parts of, uh, you know, the, the Arab world or developing countries, you know, you have like age of consent laws that are not what they are here.
And you know, the, the, the picture is, it doesn't mean it's sexual blackmail though.
Like, but if you have evidence, show it like, this is what I come back to.
like for example like I think Whitney Webb is absolutely fantastic as a researcher in this space, but the book is called One Nation Under Blackmail.
And I don't see any evidence of like where is you don't have a single witness.
You don't have like you need to gel this story.
Like you don't have a you don't have a human witness.
You don't have a notebook.
You don't have an email.
You don't have like the suggestion of that you have essentially means like because of the cameras or whatnot.
And look, what I'm saying is, is if you guys want to lead your own, you in the chat, you got a great idea for the one thing the Justice Department can request right now to get an answer on the blackmail side?
Post it in the chat.
Post it right now in the chat.
What is the one piece of evidence that Pam Bondi can walk down the hallway and collect to move the ball forward on that investigation?
Well, the answer might be disclose.
They're going to say that there is no sex video involving anybody other than Epstein, although they did allude to the fact that there was CP and CSAM, which presumably is stuff that Epstein procured for his own pleasure, which would have been produced by other people.
But they'll say, yeah, okay, so that's CSAM and CP.
Epstein's in some of the videos, but we don't, they'll say we can't produce videos of, let's just take Prince Andrew because he's the most guilty one of all of this.
We can't produce a video of Prince Andrew with an underage girl that would have been an example of potential blackmail.
That's what their answer is going to be.
Right, with an underage girl, I guess.
But I mean, I'm assuming that everybody had sex on the island was, you know, was in a camera.
This is the other thing is, you know, I don't know what proportion of these girls were underage where it was illegal.
I mean, obviously there were some that were underage and probably a large number, but I would imagine, I mean, what was the number that they cited?
Something like a thousand girls were like trafficked in this way.
We're all thousands underage.
But allegedly we're all thousand only for Epstein.
I guess one issue is people are going to ask where the videos went because.
Right.
But what I'm saying is, is like, let's just say, let's just say 50 of them were underage or something, like a huge number, but not anywhere close to what the total tally is.
I can see a world where Epstein has these girls around to pawn them off on the people who he wants to strike a deal with because girls choose deals.
And it doesn't mean that it's like a prostitution scenario in each of those cases.
It doesn't mean it was an illegal activity.
If the FBI is sitting on tape of Prince Andrew having sex with a girl on Epstein Island, it would only be illegal if either there was prostitution involved or she was underage.
So it wouldn't be really like a Justice Department law breaking unless that.
Now, if they have that, they would obviously be able to tell us, but it sounds like they've already given their official answer.
Well, that's one problem.
And it's like, in as much as anybody from the administration is ever listening to anything I have to say, it's that the answer has been changing from we're going to give you the files, whatever that meant, to we can't because we're not going to re-victimize the victims, to we don't have anything, to it's all been tainted because FBI under Comey and whatever have falsified the evidence like they did with Russia Gate.
And so, and I appreciate the way maybe Trump meant that statement, it's a hoax, but the idea now is, well, they don't have that video because if it ever existed, It sure as sugar is no longer in the file, given who had control of that file for the last four years, but maybe even before.
Maybe since Acosta's plea deal, that's where they started destroying a lot of the evidence, or at least making sure it never sees the light of day.
Well, let's say, let's just stick with this Prince Andrew example and just drill down into it because I want to press you on that.
Let's just, you are now Prince Andrew.
Give me the scenario in which you are being blackmailed for having, you know, sexual relations with like an underage girl in Epsy Island.
Is it Jeffrey who shakes you down over this?
Give me a scenario.
Let's just say that.
Let's say hypothetically, hypothetically, video exists, and now hypothetically, it's in the hands of a foreign government.
And Prince Andrew cannot come out and say, yes, I was blackmailed because other times they'll kill him.
Let's just say, kill him.
So he knows that that video is out there.
Nobody's disclosing it.
And he's shutting his big mouth after that stupid interview where he implausibly denied doing what he was accused of doing.
Wait, let's stick with this.
So you're saying, okay, so let's just say, you know, the Israeli government, for example, like in this scenario, you're saying, so Epstein's collected these tapes on Epstein Island, let's just say, of Prince Andrew having sex with an underage girl.
The Israeli government then makes contact with Prince Andrew to say, we have this tape.
Now do this for us.
Is that?
Yeah, well, I say the Israeli government could have been any intelligence, but we could pick on Israel for, or at least, that's the one that everybody wants to jump to.
We'll make the chat happy and let's just drill down.
I want you guys to really think about this for a second, okay?
So let's just say at the time, let me think, let's think about this.
Let's just say, okay, let's just stick with what you just said.
Okay.
So now let's just say it's an interlocutor.
We'll make it the most charitable situation possible for the chat's like, you know, theory that they're pushing on this.
Okay.
Let's just say it's an interlocutor who represents, because it would not come from, you know, a like, you know, mossad.gov, you know, email address or a phone call that says, hi, my name is I'm, but let's just say an interlocutor from Israeli intelligence makes a suggestion to Prince Andrew, hey, we got these tapes.
We need you to, you know, fork over some XYZ on some upcoming financing.
You know, we need you to change, you know, lobby the UK government to take some action about UK foreign policy on the Middle East.
Prince Andrew gets that call.
What does Prince Andrew do next?
Do you think he keeps that a secret for the rest of his life?
Or do you think at that moment he goes, okay, this is, I can't, first of all, the moment he is told that, he now knows exactly what the Epstein operation was, right?
He now has to retroactively think that every single thing that Epstein did this and Epstein leaked it to Israeli intelligence and Israeli and he did that so that Israeli intelligence could shake him down.
So now all the goodwill that he has with Jeffrey Epstein is completely burned.
All of the future dealings that he may have for the next 20 years with Jeffrey Epstein are completely burned.
He now may do what he is coerced to do, but under a seething resentment and duress the entire time.
Do you think that Prince Andrew keeps that completely a secret to himself?
He does not tell his wife.
He does not tell royal family crisis community.
They don't call a crisis communications internal meeting.
Super close hold, only three or four people in the room.
This is a matter of national security importance to the British crown.
This could potentially be used against the royal family for the next 40 years, 50 years, this blackmail, 100 years.
They'll be able to use this data point against this family to get us to everything.
You don't think crisis communicators are brought in at that point?
And all of them, not a single one of them told their wives, told hired.
But Mike, isn't that exactly how they controlled Jay Edgar Hoover?
Like they had compromising information on him and he was basically beholden for the rest of his life.
You know, the Prince Andrew might not be the best example, but let's take a simpler example.
It's not true because I don't think Neil deGrasse-Tyson ever went there, but a scientist goes there and they say, hey, by the way, I hope you had a good time at the party yesterday.
X, Y, you know, that girl that we said was 18 was 15.
And now you are going to forever pretend that their gender is a social construct and boys should be competing in girl sports.
And that's the line you're going to toe as a scientist.
I mean, that's the thought.
And then the other thought is also, if it's a Prince Andrew and he likes it, well, sure, one guy holds blackmail over him, but he can make more of those parties happen in the future.
And they get their sexual disgusting fetishes satisfied for the rest of their lives.
And they're living a life of debauchery and degeneracy.
Well, what's wild to me is you never even got a rumor from anyone.
Because it would be a hard thing to, like, you could see how the principal being targeted for blackmail would, you know, neither confirm or deny in that situation.
You know, someone around Prince Andrew says, you know, I heard a rumor that Prince Andrew was, I'm his, you know, I went to seventh grade, you know, I went to boarding school with him in seventh grade.
And, you know, I heard from a friend that Prince Andrew was being blackmailed.
You don't even have like the hints of a suggestion of a single person in thousands of these.
And meanwhile, you have like very active, like you have, you have Epstein having personal meetings during the Clinton presidency with both the head of the United States, the commander-in-chief of the United States, and the prime minister of Israel while they are brokering Middle East economic integration.
And it's like, I just like the two that this is like the world's greatest OPSEC.
I mean, in the J. Edgar Hoover case, at least then you've got like actual, you know, allegations.
You've got actual files about the, like, for example, what J. Edgar Hoover was, you know, you don't, where is that on the Epstein side?
Well, you know, but we could even sidestep this.
I appreciate what you're saying, by the way.
And I think it would allow for a reconciliation of people's, let's just say, you know, their deeper fears or what they've thought over the years and what might actually be the reality, which is, all right, there was no blackmail sex video sting, but intelligence authorities, FBI, CIA knew what Epstein was up to because he was definitively, by their own admission, a pervert, pedophile, convicted sex trafficker.
They knew what he was doing, but they protected him so that he could continue being a useful government pawn tool.
And that in and of itself, that could marry the two conspiracy theories in a way that's factually more tenable and equally, equally as outrageous.
Look, and we know that, for example, like this is not beyond the pale for the CIA to do.
If you go to the JFK files and you look at Robert Mayhew, who was a frequent CIA contact and operative in many of these cases, they had a whole sexual blackmail.
They had Robert Mayhew, in the JFK files, declassified in 2025.
They had him film a fake porn video simulating where he hired two Hollywood actors, one to have makeup to look like the prime minister of Indonesia and a blonde girl that he was rumored to be having an affair with to produce a CIA-produced fake porn video to distribute within Indonesia in order to drive a public scandal that the prime minister was cheating on his wife with this random blonde girl that he was seen in
a photo with.
I mean, this is like that sort of sexual blackmail, sexual stuff, like that's that's not unheard of.
I mean, that was in the late 1960s, but it's, you know, it's, you know, it's, it's not unheard.
But what I'm saying is, is I'm not poo-pooing you guys if you want to pursue this.
It's not my bag, though.
Like, I, like, I believe you're probably going to hit your head into a wall trying to track down forensic evidence of that.
That is, that is, I want to try to move the ball forward in places where I think it's impossible to argue that you, like, they can say we look for blackmail tapes.
We didn't see them, even if they have them.
And what are you going to do?
What are you going to do?
We know they have the Alex Acosta transcript.
That was from five years ago.
You know, it was November 2020.
This is not, you know, ancient history.
This is not the 80s or 90s or early 2000s.
And it was by the Justice Department office that reports directly to Pam Bondi.
You know, this is the CIA name trace is basic.
It's basic.
These are things that are small asks, but then they give you a launch pad in order to get further information.
And so that's really my principal purpose on this.
And I'm not trying to smack down the blackmail thing too hard on this because like I said, I've an open mind on that.
Certainly the stage was set for it.
Also, there's lots of reasons that you might want to collect information on highly influential persons, you know, proclivities and weaknesses and vices without necessarily proceeding to the blackmail stage.
You could exploit them for any number of reasons, blackmail.
But what I'm saying is, is I've listened to this blackmail story for so many years and I've watched everyone spin in circles, not actually putting forward something actionable and realistic to actually convince a government to turn over information.
And what I've been doing for the past two weeks is saying, listen, here is an alternative way of understanding this story, which is consistent with all the data points that are stipulated on record, that I think are more salient as a primary purpose than the blackmail story itself, and which are much more actionable on that.
And if you've got actionable items, you know, in order to just, you know, to move forward, like you feel free, every voice can do that.
But I would like to see more before I would commit to that because I've heard the arguments and I don't find it as persuasive as other people do, but I have an open mind.
If there's a breaking lead on this, then I'm happy to integrate that.
That is what I was going to say.
The breaking lead might come from the actionable items that you are arguing are more plausible, more immediate, and more difficult to say no to.
Mike, I know you said you got an hour and a half-ish.
We're getting close to that.
Let me bring up a bunch of questions, if I may.
First of all, my questions that I've been taking notes on in the back.
I did notice that Clinton, Bill Gates have been oddly silent in all of this.
If I were them and diabolical, I would want to be taking my dunks on Trump as well.
Do you deduce anything nefarious, suspicious about their dead silence on the matter?
You know who hasn't been dead silent is Kevin Spacey.
How funny.
Kevin Spacey and Gavin Newsom.
Right.
And actually, Jamie Raskin, did you hear that today?
No, what did Ratzkin suggest?
No, you know that Trump is in on the.
Oh, you know, yeah.
But, I mean, I think that the answer, I think, to most of the people in this network is you post through it.
I mean, what is Clinton going to say?
What is Gates going to say?
Everything he says is going to generate more questions than answers.
I mean, you know how extensive the dealings were.
You know how many times, well, I mean, at least you know the front end of that.
the tip of that iceberg.
I think all you can do is Does anyone in the chat remember?
He said that he met with him because Epstein said that he could arrange financing for a project that Gates wanted funding.
True, but we also know that Epstein was, in fact, blackmailing Gates about his relationship, not with an underage girl, but with someone who was not his wife.
We know that he was blackmailing him?
Do we not?
Is that not an accepted fact that Epstein was blackmailing Gates with his relationship with that pianist that he introduced him with that was 20 years old?
I don't mean to go Reddit mode, but like source?
Where's the source?
I'll get that in a second.
I'll pull it up because I did actually just see this on Monday when I was looking it up.
Okay, now hold on.
Let me bring up these from the chat.
If they don't fit all the way in, I'm going to finish them on the side here.
This was very eye-opening during the last days, just how much heavy lifting the blob surreptitiously Expects the people to do asset versus cooperative contact.
Let's make sure that difference is repeated by everyone and anyone speaking about CIA so it has the same reaction as when policies say Coke tastes the same as Pepsi.
Highly recommend, what is this?
I can't read the Fed.
Highly recommend subbing to Mike on X. Great content.
Then we got Pam Walker.
Ask Mike the name of the guy that puts his video clips and illustrations together.
Can't think of his name.
Oh, Vincent, Vincent Major.
He's at Ben's Pilled on X. He does these fantastic, it's Ben's underscore Pilled.
And he does these cartoon illustrations of my, I have like a, it's like my $5 a month premium thing.
I do these like four hour lectures every week.
And he takes like content from that and he does these like five, 10, 15 minute animated videos that break them down like on screen in a way that's that's super I recommend everyone follow.
He's at Benz Puild.
Ben's Puild.
Give me the link after this and I'll put it in the pinned comment.
Let me get through the locals questions.
Ask Mike Benz if it's not blackmail or evil coercion, then what does he think it is?
Well, I think we fleshed that one out pretty thoroughly.
Kiki Blue also.
Unless you want to add to that?
No, I was just going to say, I've never said it's not evil.
I mean, obviously what he was doing, you know, on the child sex tracker and stuff was evil.
But what I'm saying is, is you have authorized evil in this country.
You have, you know, every covert action is covert because either the government wants to deny it or because it's a violation of international law.
And the fact is, it's very, this is why we work with narco-cartels.
This is why we work with ISIS in Al-Qaeda and Syria.
You know, I'm not saying it is evil, but what I'm saying is, is it's also standard operating procedure.
Now, let me bring up all of the Rumble ones.
I see I have these on the backdrop here.
Okay, we got CNN.
Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gifted U.S. President Donald Trump a golden pager during their meeting.
Was it a pager or someone said a golden paper the other day?
It was a pager.
Is that like a reference to the pager explosion bombs that they hold on?
I'm going to look that up in a second because if it is, someone could misconstrue that as a threat.
Big hook PGH.
CPS is the reason it's federally funded national kidnapping organization.
They legally steal and sell your kids, family courts, and lawyers can't help.
CPS sells thousands of kids a year.
Paul Rose76, Israel bombed the only Catholic church in Gaza.
The only time Barnes has approved of Israel targeting civilians in Gaza.
King of Biltong, the highest protein snack boasting 50% protein, B12 creatine iron.
Go to Biltong.com.
Code Viva for 10% off.
Ask Benz about Sergio Gore.
The information that's coming out on him makes him look shady as fooz.
Claims, he says he was born in Malta.
Do you know who that is?
Oh, really?
I don't know who that is offhand.
Paul Rose76.
Did you check the account that actually posted that story?
It was, they retracted all the claims on the Sergio Gore thing.
They got the wrong guy.
Here, Jeffrey Epstein appeared to threaten Bill Gates, Wall Street Journal.
Let me see if I can bring this one up.
Not that I trust the Wall Street Journal just because it says something.
Jeffrey Epstein appeared to threaten Bill Gates over Microsoft Co-Founders of affair with Russian bridge player.
Well, at least I'm not going crazy.
Jeffrey Epstein discovered that Bill Gates had an affair with Russian Bridge player and later appeared to use his knowledge to threaten one of the world's richest men, according to people familiar with the matter.
Yeah, wait, I want to see this.
Can you plug that same link into archive.is?
I go to archive.ph.
I don't know what the difference is, but this one has been working for me these days.
Okay, three months ago.
Okay, now what should I look for here?
Yeah, no, just teach me about this.
Jeffrey Epstein, okay, the Microsoft co-founder met the woman in 2010 when she was in her 20s.
I think some people called in to question her age.
Epstein met her in 2013 and later paid for her to attend a software coding school.
In 2017, Epstein emailed Gates and asked to be reimbursed for the cost of the course.
According to people familiar with the matter, the email came after the convicted sex offender had struggled and failed to persuade Gates to participate in a multi-billion dollar charitable fund that Epstein tried to establish with J.P. Morgan Chase.
The implication behind the message, according to people who viewed it, was that Epstein could reveal the affair if Gates didn't keep up an association between the two men.
So again, this wouldn't go back to blackmailed video sex material.
This would be blackmail for the purposes of further financing.
Gates met with Epstein solely for philanthropic purposes.
Having failed repeatedly to draw Mr. Gates beyond these matters, Epstein tried unsuccessfully to leverage a past relationship to threaten Mr. Gates' settings.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Can you just scroll and see?
Do they actually show the text of the email?
I'd have to find that.
I remember seeing it once upon a time.
All right, too much real-time fact-checking, but I'll find the email.
But even I can appreciate.
Well, what I'm trying to say is, so the Wall Street Journal reported that someone who viewed an email interpreted it as being a threat to reveal the information if he didn't participate in a charitable organization.
But they didn't bother to ask the source for what in the email through that implication, because the way it's facially described is he asked Gates for a financial reimbursement.
And then you have a source who said that the implication of asking for the reimbursement was that if he didn't, I mean, what they didn't, they didn't say, because you can, even if you're not going to get the exact email, you could at least ask the source for what about the email implied an implication to disclose the secret affair.
I think it might be this.
Let me see if I'm just going to bring this up here.
I don't know if this is it right now.
In essence, this fund will allow Bill to reserve, to have access to hired people, investment, allocation, government, yada, yada, yada.
Epstein wrote on a, okay, fine, without upsetting either his marriage or the sensitivities of the current foundation employees.
Yeah.
That seems, that seems like.
Anyhow, but so that was my, that's, that's the evidence for, you know, suggesting that there is some evidence of blackmail from Epstein to rich and powerful men, just not with underage girls of videos that he took at his Epstein Island, which lore has exist, but authorities say never did exist or doesn't exist anymore.
You know, but even that, like, then again, I'm not trying to take Epstein's side here, but like, I read something like that, and there were clearly schisms between Gates and his wife about the administration of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
And, you know, you had this like, you know, scuffle afterwards around, you know, control.
I could see there being lots of reasons that Gates might want to pursue things philanthropically outside the remit of the marriage.
You know, like they jointly controlled the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
It might upset the marriage for him to pursue things with Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funds that are not, you know, that Melinda doesn't want to do with the Gates Foundation.
And this would be a different vehicle for him to pursue those while not, you know, jeopardizing the jointly married administrated foundation they run.
I mean, that to me is that's pretty deep code.
I don't know that that email itself justifies that headline.
But I see your point that you can make.
That's it.
They took him out.
I was just about to ask him what he thought of Trump's recent truth post.
I'll wait for Mike to get back unless his computer went dead.
While we're doing that.
Oh, no.
Well, he'll come back in a second.
In the meantime, King and Bill Tong I got to.
Please ask Mike briefly to comment about the Franklin cover-up.
Ooh, I didn't get to this one.
Did I ask this?
I see Mike in the back.
Give me a few seconds to bring him back or to have him come back because I don't have control over that.
Let me see here.
Well, let me bring up in our locals community the questions.
E gosh, what is that?
So what do we get here?
Let me see if I can see when he comes back.
I'll text him.
Let me see.
Give me one second here.
Did the FBI get you question mark LOL?
We'll see if he comes back.
I'm going to keep going because I've got some questions in our locals community that I did not yet get to.
What is this?
What is this?
I don't like that.
My teeth, I brushed my teeth and flossed maybe more than I should.
Okay, there was an email.
Okay, we got the email.
Pam Walker, thank you.
Christine Maxwell.
Oh, well, Mr. Meg.
No, I asked him about Chilead, but I don't know if we didn't get back to that.
Let me see if he's going to.
Logging back on.
Okay.
That's it.
I pissed him off after 90 minutes.
He's like, fuck this guy.
I've had enough amount of here.
He's coming back.
Okay, so we got Chrissy Maxwell.
So you can ask Mike Benz if it's not Black Miller.
Okay, I got that.
And I think I just heard him come back in.
No, I didn't.
Yes, but I have the DC Madam that.
Okay, yeah, but you have the DC Madam and that Boston prostitution and Ashley Maddox.
Oh, yeah.
And some other cases like Epstein, the only person that got caught up in it.
Okay, yeah.
Yep, no, no, for sure.
I can appreciate that.
And Viva, here's your fun in the sun Chilead animated two-minute pitch.
I think we saw that.
We brought this up.
I'll check that one out afterwards because I don't want to get copy claimed.
And also, I played the Chilead video the last time.
Oh, Mike is back.
Okay, there you go.
Okay, so what were we just talking about?
Emails.
I think someone in the chat may have like posted the full email or something.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
But we can move on from that.
Actually, I appreciate it.
It'll be interpretive and, you know, some people will just say it's good business to threaten people.
But let me get this out of here.
The flip side is now your action items, because the words, again, asset versus what was the term?
Contact.
Contact.
And then the name search within the DOJ and the transcript.
Oh, the question was this.
What did you think of Trump's truth post the other day?
Which one?
Well, the one where he says, I don't want your support anymore.
My past supporters.
I mean, that one was the most, the one that I could see being the most damaging.
The one he posted last week, like, my good boys, you know, Pam Bondi's doing a good job.
People can disagree with.
I don't want your support anymore if you keep pushing the Epstein story or the questions on Epstein.
That seems a little whatever.
You know him?
I mean, what do you see it?
Is it lashing out?
Do you see him regretting a tweet in as much as he might ever regret a tweet or a post?
Well, I mean, it certainly is lashing out.
But I mean, you can understand, I think from Trump's perspective, anyone who is named in Epstein disclosures will have schmutz on them, whether or not they were involved in malevolent activity or not.
I mean, there's a lot of things that Epstein funded that were totally mainstream.
There were a lot of financial deals in far-flung parts of the world as part of impact investing and development loans and the like that have nothing to do with child sex trafficking.
And I think that the feeling is there's so many people around Trump World, so many donors around Trump World.
Because again, Epstein comes from this network from the fall of Iran in 1979 and this whole foreign policy network from the Reagan era who are around now during the Trump era as Republican donors and as strong supporters of Trump.
I mean, take the Adnan Khashoggi thing, for example.
Trump bought Adnan Khashoggi's yacht for like $86 million in 1989.
All of these figures around this story were interlaced with Donald Trump and his business partners.
I could name dozens more.
It's frankly all over the cabinet.
But it doesn't mean that they were involved in sexual blackmail or child sex trafficking, but they were involved in Epstein's deals.
And these deals, like I said, have touch points to U.S. statecraft.
And I want to know if he was a financial facilitator for State Department activity that was done covertly through either the White House, National Security Council, or through the Central Intelligence Agency, as was done in the case, as I mentioned, of Bruce Rappaport and so many others like that.
But I do think, I mean, he did do after that tweet, an interview with John Solomon, where he said that credible information should be disclosed and that he was amenable to having a special prosecutor tasked in order to handle this.
And the special prosecutor, a lot of people say that that's a whitewash.
That's where investigations go to be covered up.
And there's truth to that.
But the fact is, in a special prosecutor investigation, you do at least generally have partial disclosures.
For example, everything I told.
The only problem is now he apparently recently stated that he's not interested in appointing a special prosecutor.
Oh, did that problem today?
Yeah, 48 minutes ago.
And I noticed people in the chat were telling me earlier.
Well, that doesn't surprise me, but that's unfortunate.
But I do think that it could be done without a special prosecutor through Ed Martin's new weaponization task force at DOJ.
Because here's the thing, like there's so many technical details on this.
Like the life and times of Jeffrey Epstein is like legitimately a lens through which you can tell American history for the past 40 years.
And I don't expect Pam Bondi, I don't even want Pam Bondi to dedicate the time to do that.
You need an in-house nerd, basically, who's on a task force, who is the keeper of all things Epstein investigation.
And that person should come forward in order to do press conferences with the American public about the status of the investigation, because that person, whoever the most knowledgeable person on Epstein is at DOJ, should be who's put forward by DOJ to answer our questions.
Pam Bondi's not going to know the intricacies of the Camp David Accords.
She's not going to know the intricacies of some development loan activity or some economic integration zone in Middle East, North Africa, nor should she, because her job is to administer the federal criminal justice system.
But she should use the muscle of her attorney general spot to clear the way for the task force that is handling it.
She should use the muscle to impose queries on the CIA.
Or if the CIA tries to stonewall the weaponization task force, Pam Bondi as Attorney General can use the various carrots and sticks at her disposal in order to force those disclosures, in order to have those meetings on an ad hoc basis.
So even if you don't have a special prosecutor, I think that you can still fold this under weaponization and move all these disclosures forward.
Amazing.
I don't want to keep you much longer.
I'm going to go over to our locals community.
If I can, one last question, and then we're going to raid Redacted.
Do you make anything of Lutnik's connection to Epstein?
I mean, this is another one of these things.
I mean, you can make the same argument about the Leon Black, you know, connection at Apollo.
You know, Leon Black was the largest client of Jeffrey Epstein after the 2008 conviction.
I think from about 2011 to 2016, Leon Black, a major Trump supporter, Trump donor, VIP at the inauguration, sort of Gadfly at Mar-a-Lago.
He was the guy who ran Apollo management, one of the biggest private equity hedge fund alternative asset managers on Wall Street.
He paid $170 million to Jeffrey Epstein between 2011 and 2016.
And his son, Ben Black, is now the head of the Development Finance Corporation, which is the exact agency I talked about earlier that was involved with Bruce Rappaport and the like.
And DFC is who's going to be handling much of the USAID work.
With USAID gone, DFC is going to be doing sort of on the contract side what USAID was doing with grants.
And there's a lot more than that.
But the fact is, it doesn't mean, like with Lutnik, it doesn't mean Lutnik was involved in child sex trafficking or sexual blackmail.
Epstein was a money man for a donor network and for a deal-making network.
And these deals have played a significant part of how we do diplomacy, how we do intelligence, how we do military.
And so it's one of these things where you can understand, for example, with the Lutnik side, why that would cause hesitation for Trump in terms of green lighting disclosures.
At the same time, what Trump said, this is also why I think the story that I'm trying to tell everyone about how to understand this issue so that you can speak Trump's language in terms of knowing what to ask for.
Because if the tenor of the conversation is everyone who's ever touched Jeffrey Epstein is a, you know, is a child sex predator, then obviously, like, Trump knows that.
Trump knows that's the heat of it.
That's why he's said so many times, you know, I just don't think that people are going to hear that name and there's going to be no context and they'll be reported without context because nobody ever asked for the context.
Like I'm trying to provide the context so that that nature of that conversation that Trump is hearing is more conducive to disclosures because those disclosures will be received in context.
Amazing.
Mike, send me whatever link is not intuitive that you want me to put up there.
But where can people find you?
You're on Cyber Mike Benz.
At Mike Ben Cyber on X. I also have a YouTube where I've got probably about 600 videos uploaded there.
It's Mike Ben Cyber on YouTube as well.
Also on Instagram at Mike Ben Cyber.
I don't want to say you're a savant.
Your brain is, I want to say idiot savant that has a negative.
Dude, it's amazing.
Please come back on whenever.
I'm going to stay live and go to locals and do some local.
You're like me with hair.
Dude, I say our stories are very similar, like lawyer, pianist.
It was weird the first interview we did in locals.
I didn't realize we had that much overlapping.
But no, it's amazing.
And I appreciate what you're saying.
And I think it's the right tack to go because you ask for the stuff that they can't reasonably say no to.
And then that might lead somewhere bigger.
And then everybody's going to be happy at the end of the day.
Happy as happy anybody can be in the circumstances.
Mike, amazing.
Thank you very much, man.
I'll talk to you soon.
Love you, chat.
All right.
Peace out, man.
Oh, yeah.
This is why you don't read the chat.
Although the chat was pretty good, but there were some specific country and people obsessed people in the chat, but that's where it typically goes.
Okay, we're going to go raid Redacted.
I'm a little late with them, but there was no way to end this prematurely.
And it's amazing.
It's an hour and 40 minutes, and I still feel like we've only scratched the surface of this subject matter.
Go raid the Redacted.
Let them know from whence you came.
If you're coming to vivabarnslaw.locals.com for the after party, we're going to cover those two other stories and then some stuff.
Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
VivaFry, if you want to get some merch, let me see, is the new merch up?
The new merch is not up.
Well, The newest of the new merch is not up.
You can go get some merch, vivafry.com.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, which is the new sign-off on all of Trump's truth posts.
And check out Mike Ben's.
Obviously, I'll put all the links in the pinned comment.
Come over to VivaBarnesBlock.com.
And if you're not, go raid.
Redacted.
Now, let him know from whence he came.
Say Viva's in the house.
Let me go over to their chat right now.
Viva has raided the stream.
Sorry.
I was late.
Viva raid booby.
Okay, Viva, good show, dude.
Awesome.
I can't take credit for that show.
It's Mike's big freaking brain.
And I do have to go reply to someone on Twitter who said, why would I have Mike on?
This is where you have triangles of people who don't get along.
Who do I have on that people did not like?
The whole Janstick stuff.
There was like, I didn't realize that there's triangulations of Discord.
We are going to end it on everywhere except vivabarneslaw.locals.com tomorrow.
Vince from the Vince Show is going to be on.
It's going to be another banger episode.
So see you all there.
But if you're not going to be there tomorrow and you don't want to come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, go raid redacted.
▲
Export Selection