Pipe Bombs, Pedos, And Politicians Walk Into Congress

A trillion-dollar promise meets a political powder keg. While the Saudi crown prince visits Washington with headlines about massive investment, Congress lights a fuse under the Epstein files and the Senate sprints toward a searchable public database. We connect the dots others keep separate: how a foreign investment win collides with a transparency fight that could scorch power brokers across parties, and why timing this dramatic invites more questions than answers.

We unpack the Jan. 6 pipe bomb storyline with fresh scrutiny—overwritten video, Secret Service text deletions, and the strange way protocols seemed optional. If an explosive narrative rests on missing evidence, credibility has to be earned with process, not pressers. From there, we walk through the Stacey Plaskett texting flap, Harvard’s uncomfortable moment, and the deeper tension: when transparency is treated like a weapon, it can boomerang. The promise of a truly searchable archive matters because names, misspellings, and metadata either reveal networks—or bury them.

Abroad, we step into the claims around Iran strikes and nuclear deterrence, then trace the broader Middle East strategy: cut extremism by tethering futures to trade, jobs, and stability. That’s the through-line with the MBS visit—investment as counterterror policy. Back home, practical reform shows up in unglamorous places: SNAP fraud audits with actual arrests, and a “proof of concept” to shift Department of Education programs into agencies that might run them better. Add a three-nation icebreaker pact aimed at the Arctic, and you see the map of power quietly redrawn.

We close on AI with Jeff Bezos’s take: large language models look more like discoveries than inventions, which is why they keep surprising even their creators. That matters for citizens trying to separate noise from signal. If you want a say in what gets believed next, demand systems that make evidence easy to find and hard to fake. Subscribe, share with a friend who loves receipts over rhetoric, and leave a review with the one question you want answered when those files go live.

Chapters

• 0:00 Banter, Sleep, And Farm Life
• 2:27 Setting The Agenda: Drama And “Signal vs Noise”
• 3:34 MBS At The White House And Big Investment Claims
• 5:10 9/11 Question To MBS And US–Saudi Framing
• 8:20 Jan. 6 Pipe Bomb Timeline And Footage Gaps
• 14:25 Secret Service Text Deletions And Protocol Failures
• 18:10 Viral Dem Video Urging “Refuse Illegal Orders”
• 22:00 Trump’s Position On Epstein File Releases
• 26:40 Harvard, Larry Summers, And Elite Entanglements
• 30:05 Stacey Plaskett Texts And Censure Push
• 34:20 What’s Missing: Alleged Evidence Destruction
• 38:20 Searchable Database And Senate Passage Shock
• 41:10 Who Gets Exposed And Political Calculus
• 45:02 Victims, Naming Names, And Media Angles
• 49:10 Dems’ Anti-Trump Gambit And Backfire Risk
• 52:30 Israel, Iran, And Nuclear Deterrence Claims
• 56:10 Peace Deals, Jobs, And Mideast Strategy
• 58:40 AI As Discovery: Bezos On LLMs
• 1:02:00 SNAP Fraud, Accountability, And Arrests
• 1:05:20 Dismantling The Department Of Education
• 1:09:10 Arctic Icebreakers And Northern Strategy
• 1:12:00 Fed Cuts, Bad Data, And Insurance Moves
• 1:14:45 NYC Socialist Fundraising And Power Risks
• 1:18:20 Wrap-Up And Tease To Private Segment

Transcript

SPEAKER_25: 1:03

Good morning, peasants. Welcome to another episode of The Peasants Perspective. This is a good one today. This is gonna be a great show. I got I got my I got no filter hat on today, so it's unleashed. I mean, this is gonna be fun. How'd you sleep?

SPEAKER_28: 1:18

Uh, I'm still sleeping. I slept rough last night. I went to bed really late because it was threatening a freeze last night, and I had to get my dahlias in, so I was up till like midnight. Putting in flowers. Yeah, tubers.

SPEAKER_29: 1:37

Okay.

SPEAKER_25: 1:40

Of all the maintenance things you could do around here, that's what you did. You brought in the flower. You know, you got a fence to be built, you got 10 acres to corral. He brought in the dahlias. That's the life of a farmer, man.

SPEAKER_28: 1:54

You gotta do what you have to do.

SPEAKER_25: 1:56

This guy's peasants. Okay, he's moving flowers in to avoid the freeze. That's right. That's really funny. I my wife and son went to a concert in Seattle last night, which of course always makes you nervous because they're out in the middle of the night in Seattle. But uh they got home at like two in the morning. So, you know, put my own kids to bed and they rustle around and wake up, and it was just like, oh my gosh, it was a long night. Anyways, so let's get started out this morning. As I said, it's a great, great show. Um, lots of drama happened yesterday. Holy cow! Um, it's very difficult right now at this moment to separate noise and stuff like that from signal. And unfortunately, today, and we have to talk about it, the Epstein thing, in my opinion, is mostly noise. Yeah, but there's a signal in there. Oh, yeah. The signal is what Catherine Austin Fitz said, the bankers are trying to take out Donald Trump and they're willing to sacrifice some of their own to do it. And there's some kind of interesting twists and turns in this Epstein saga that we're gonna go on to. And so for us and our audience, we're peasants, right? We have to live here. We don't, we don't have we have skin in the game, but we have no skin in the game, right?

SPEAKER_28: 3:08

Yeah. So I was telling my wife, I was talking to my wife about this last night because it was like, you know, it's really con it must be really confusing to most people that are watching the news, going, uh, release the files, don't release the files. Release the files, don't release the files. Now it's like everybody's all gung-ho to release the files.

SPEAKER_25: 3:24

Except for Mike Johnson, who's like, I can't believe the Senate passed the bill we passed. It's like, what is going on? What is going on here? So we're gonna break some of that down today. But a lot of the drama yesterday happened while Muhammad bin Solomon, the uh future crown prince of Saudi Arabia, was making a visit to the White House. So this is again one of those issues you have a foreign dignitary on American soil, and you're doing the most salacious, craziest thing over in the House and the Senate at a time when Donald Trump can't pick up the phone to proverbially take people behind the woodshed. So Mohammed Ben Salman was meeting with Donald Trump, and this is the only clip we're gonna play from this meeting, but it was a good meeting. The big thing here was they'd already committed to buy, I think, four to six hundred million dollars worth of military hardware and AI investments, and they upped it to a trillion dollars. Scott Bessant confirmed that yes, Trump has brought in$20 trillion worth of investment to this country. Now, just for perspective, Joe Biden didn't even bring in a trillion over the entirety of his four years. Donald Trump's 10 months in, and we're already sitting at$20 trillion committed.

SPEAKER_28: 4:29

I think you could all all uh you could also say, I think that$20 trillion is more than anybody's brought in ever.

SPEAKER_25: 4:37

Oh, as a single president? Absolutely. Yes, yeah. Maybe if you adjusted inflation numbers in 1949, it's staggered. It's a staggering amount. Back when we were still doing the Marshall Plan, there was nowhere else to invest in the world. Yeah, maybe back then. Okay, so one of the things that Mohammed bin Solomon that did get brought up and asked by a reporter, again, this was supposed to be kind of a gotcha question to create a wedge between Saudi Arabia and America, he answered it perfectly. It was about 9-11.

SPEAKER_39: 5:06

Um, I feel painful about you know, um families of uh uh uh 9-11 uh in America, but uh you know, we have to focus on reality. Reality, based in CIA documents and based on a lot of documents, that Osama bin Laden used Saudi people in that event for one main purpose is to destroy this relation, to destroy the American Saudi relation. That's the purpose of 9-11. So whoever buying that, uh that means they are helping Osama bin Laden's purpose of destroying this relation. He knows that strong relation between America and Saudi Arabia is bad for extremism, it's bad for terrorism. And we have to uh uh approve him uh wrong and to build our relation and to continue developing our relations, it's critical in the safety of the world, it's critical against extremism and terrorism.

SPEAKER_25: 5:53

Uh yeah, so basically he's saying the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia that was the relationship that Osama bin Laden was trying to destroy because the West has a hold in the Middle East because of that relationship, and that's the wedge he wanted to drive. So people who go over the top about uh, you know, well, we have to get the Saudis, and there are people who were like, now we have the 9-11 papers, the Saudis have to pay. It wasn't the nation of Saudi Arabia, right? It was from Saudis with an extremist, and yes, some family members of the crown prince, remember there's thousands of cousins, and they're the only rich people in the country, right? Like they basically only shake a stick at more princes than you can shake a stick at, yeah. And some of them did fund Osama bin Laden's program. Now, when Mohammed bin Salman kind of came into power, he was not in the direct line of succession, right? The current king, who I can't remember his name right now, he had other people that were further up in succession and stuff like that, but he chose Muhammad bin Salman primarily because Donald Trump wanted him to. This is back in like 2016, okay. Um, so that's a big deal. The other thing, too, is they did a huge purge inside Saudi Arabia, locked up tons of the Saudi princes and cousins and uncles into the hotel writs, which basically became a uh tell us your secrets type of facility, you know, a torture chamber. But they eliminated my understanding is put to death hundreds of these people and then basically exiled and quarantined a lot of other ones. So they they went pretty far. But part of this also was simultaneous with this shakedown, they gave women driver's licenses, they opened up media, they opened up for foreign foreigners to cut like Muhammad bin Salman is very much advancing his civilization. One of the things he says here is listen, we got like skyscrapers and stuff now, like we're not some tribal progressive Middle East. We don't want like we're done with that too, you know. So that was a really good meeting. Meanwhile, while this meeting was going on, you had two other things that were happening simultaneously. So let's touch on the J6 one first. So Steve Baker put up a follow-up article uh to his previous article, and the headline in here, here let me just pull the article up. So he says, These two bushes are the only ones the officers are seen looking under in the 11 minutes and 14 seconds they captured on available surveillance footage. So the basic, basically, this story here by Blaze Media is the police walk right past the DNC pipe bomb to first look under a bush where the bomber sat 17 hours earlier. So, what this story is saying is we have the overnight footage of the pipe bomber, right? Walking around, and she sits on a park bench, she places a pipe bomb, she goes somewhere else, and she sits on another bench and places a pipe bomb both under bushes. This uh Capitol Hill police unit was sent to investigate. And so here's the route that the pipe bomber took in red, okay? And and then the uh C B C I, what is that? Counter streets travel route. I think it's the green, but the green right here is where they travel. They went straight. The only place they looked, so they got sent to go look for a pipe bomb with no description of where. The only place they look, these two guys go walking, the only place they look are directly where the girl sat the night before. That is so crazy. And one of those spots was not where the bomb was. Oh so where the bomb was planted on camera overnight is a different place than where the bomb was found. But these keystone cops only went to look where it had been set the night before, and they were, where's the bomb, Charlie? It's around here somewhere. Exactly. The only two places they looked on their sweep were the places where she put them. Well, like that's it. Like they went on hands and knees to look under a single bush, not all of them, not you know, walking around the whole building, right to a bush, got down to knees and looked.

SPEAKER_28: 9:52

Right. And then and then critically did not move on when they didn't find something, kept looking.

SPEAKER_25: 9:59

Well, then you get to the tech side. The video that would have shown where the pipe bomb was eventually found by the park bench by the building. Oh, the video that shows her sitting by the bench and putting it by the bush, somehow hours of footage is overwritten because nobody thought to ask them for the surveillance footage, so it just automatically overwrote, is what they're claiming. Oh, so here we have, you know, you had plenty of chance, January 6th, January 7th, January 8th, January 9th. No, you let the 30-day time lapse for the video to be overwritten, and you're just like, oopsies.

SPEAKER_28: 10:33

Yeah.

SPEAKER_25: 10:33

Okay, so again, not believable. Yeah, the inspector general report, while the Secret Service had bomb sniffing dogs at the DNC in advance of Harris arrivals, the dogs were never taken to the direct vicinity of the park bench, according to a Department of Homeland Security Inspector General report. The officer responsible for sweeping the exterior air area said the exterior sweep included the garage entrance ramp and some other areas near the garage entrance, including a storm drain, but did not include the bushes where the pipe bomb was located. Okay, well, that's all fine and dandy, except we're still trying to figure out if this bomb was real or not. The FBI claims it was, but was it planted January 5th or January 6th? Because that's one of the things they said is the January 6th surveillance footage, if their story is correct, is a diversion to what they should be looking for on January 6th. The pipe bomber put the pipe bomb on video somewhere where it was not discovered, which means it was turned. The other thing, too, is the original finding of it when it was when one of the pipe bombs, when it was planted, the timer was facing out towards the road. Pipe bomb got turned around. When did it get turned around? Too much, too much. So here we are with the FBI completely scrambling. They created that rapid response X page and then they stopped using it. They got community noted on like two or three of their initial posts. Guys, it's a total cover-up. Now, Thomas Massey, you guys have known my opinion on him, not super uh excited about what he does. I think in many ways he kind of is an operative for the left. And I've I decided after today, I think this guy just I think this guy just wants to take out the state. But he has a really weird way of doing it because when Democrats are in power, he doesn't do anything except for vote on their stuff with a protest, right? Okay, I'll pass it out of committee, but ah, that's protest. When it comes to Republicans, he gets a spine and seems to be able to have a backbone on this stuff. But so I'm torn because I really dislike what he's done with this Epstein stuff. I don't know, maybe it turns out that these guys are Trojan horses into the left and they're gonna expose the left by pretending they hate Trump. I don't know. Sounds like 5D chess to me. Or on the other hand, but on the other hand, I love what he's done on January 6th. If not for him, if not for Louis Gomer, Matt Gates, a little bit of Marjorie Taylor Green, and a couple others, we wouldn't know hardly anything that we know about January 6th. So this is him talking about interviewing Capitol Hill Police and their kind of inconsistent story with regards to this pipe bomb. Keep in mind, part of what they tried to throw onto January 6ers was we nearly collectively assassinated Kamala Harris. They had to backtrack that claim because Kamala Harris didn't want to answer questions like, why were you in the DNC during certification? That's buffering. John Attackis, good morning, Pony Boy, good morning, Ferrazier. Yep, good day in Boise. Not foggy like yesterday. Good morning, Carlitz, good morning. Awesome to have you guys. According to our little metrics here, nobody's watching right now.

SPEAKER_28: 13:34

Is that true? No.

SPEAKER_25: 13:36

That's not right. Are we talking into thin air? No. Because it says Rumble's still connecting. Supposed to get a briefing on the pipe bomb. Alright, do we need to refresh that? Alright, you'll figure it out.

SPEAKER_21: 13:45

Here's Thomas. Also, I'm supposed to get a briefing on the pipe bomb issue. This thing is sketchy as I'll get out. The government claims they like I've I've been in a room with the head FBI person in charge of the DC field office of the investigation doing a sworn uh deposition. Not all of this has been released. We unearthed a video. I don't know if you've seen it, when that second pipe bomb is found. And the Secret Service, it's a videotape of the DNC. And uh a person who doesn't have a uniform on, we're told it's Capitol Hill Police Officer, found that bomb, walked over to uh incoming instantly, like walked straight to the bush, and then walked over to the secret police. Kamala Harris's detail told them there was a pipe bomb. Now I believe that to be true because I've since talked to the Capitol Police and talked to one of the people on the scene that day. He went over, they went over and told the Secret Service detail there was a pipe on there. On this video, about four minutes elapsed before the Secret Service response. This is why I'm interested. I know you were very interested at one point in the deletion of these Secret Service text messages, but this is why I am interested. And I would have thought the GMC.

SPEAKER_25: 15:14

I forgot that detail. The Secret Service deleted all of their text messages. Like all of them. Of course. All of them. For January 5th, 6th, and 7th. All of them. Just you can't get a single text message out of the secret. Oh, we just did a whole database turnover and just got rid of all that information that is lawfully supposed to be preserved for foyer and whatever. You just can't have it.

SPEAKER_28: 15:33

That's kind of like all of our government officials here locally in Seattle that deleted all their text messages right after Chaz, Chop.

SPEAKER_25: 15:39

Yeah. Oh why would you do that?

SPEAKER_28: 15:41

I don't know.

SPEAKER_21: 15:42

I don't know.

SPEAKER_25: 15:42

It's another weapon crime.

SPEAKER_21: 15:45

Why'd you delete everything? Would have been interested in the two most threatening weapons that were present on January 6th that day. Some of the video that I got released, I think shows who found the second pipe bomb at the DNC. You know, the what are the odds that a pipe bomb sat there? You know, looks like a a Wily Coyote Acme pipe bomb, you know, from the cartoons. Sat there for uh 16 hours and then got discovered within 20 minutes of the other pipe bomb that got discovered by some random passerby. Anyways, we think we've got on video, and I got the video released, I showed it to Christopher Ray, he wouldn't comment on it. We think we've got uh video of the person who found that second pipe bomb informing the police. I want to know who that person is. Was that an undercover officer? How did he know to find it? Why did they quit looking after they found that one? Uh lots of questions.

SPEAKER_25: 16:45

It's still yeah, they found one pipe bomb, but then they stopped looking. And they didn't set up a perimeter, they let school children walk by, they let other officials walk in and out. One one officer ran over to the thing to take a picture. It's like, what if that thing blew up right then? You know, like like they didn't follow any protocols, highly trained, nothing. Right? These guys either knew it was inert, knew it was planted, wouldn't go off, had no sense of urgency in regards to safety. Right, right. They were treating it like a prop. They were treating it like a prop, which makes you think this might be a prop. Right now, one of the other things that happened yesterday, before we get into the Epstein stuff, is the Democrats put out this video, and this thing is causing a lot of people. And Senator Alyssa Sotkin. Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris Deluzio.

SPEAKER_14: 17:32

Congressman Mattie Goodland, Representative Chrissy Hoolahan.

SPEAKER_26: 17:35

Congressman Jason Crow. That was a captain in the United States Navy, former CIA officer, former Navy, former paratrooper and army ranger, former intelligence officer, former Air Force. We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe.

SPEAKER_14: 17:52

We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military.

SPEAKER_26: 17:57

That trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.

SPEAKER_14: 18:18

You can refuse illegal orders.

SPEAKER_26: 18:20

You must refuse illegal orders.

SPEAKER_14: 18:22

No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution.

SPEAKER_26: 18:27

We know this is hard, and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you're serving in the CIA, in the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.

SPEAKER_14: 18:36

Know that we have your back. Because now, more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws.

SPEAKER_26: 18:46

Don't give up. Don't give up. Don't give up.

SPEAKER_14: 18:49

Don't give up the ship.

SPEAKER_28: 18:51

So oh Taylor. Oh my god.

SPEAKER_25: 18:54

Don't give up the ship.

SPEAKER_28: 18:55

Oh my heart. Oh, I can't wait to go out and break some laws.

SPEAKER_25: 19:00

I remember when Mike Pence went out on the steps of the Capitol to talk to the National Guardsmen who were deployed to protect the Capitol from those of us who were traveling home the next day, right? And uh and he's like, follow the chain of command, no matter what the order. You have to follow the chain of command. I'm like, and now they're like, don't follow the chain of command. Don't do what we tell you to do. Please. Now, this is being taken as something a little more serious. They're saying this is an open call for insurrection. That's what it sounded like to me.

SPEAKER_22: 19:29

That's what it sounded like. How is the president pitting the military against American citizens? I don't know what they mean by that. A B, what are the illegal orders? What are they talking about? It's like they live in an alternate reality. They live in a movie, they live in a TV show where something that's they claim is happening is not actually happening in reality. I don't know what illegal activity they're talking about, but I do They're talking about all the illegal activity that had happened before.

SPEAKER_25: 19:53

They don't want justice, man. It's it's the constant nonstop projection.

SPEAKER_28: 19:57

Hold on, hold on. I had a different take on that altogether. So my take was you don't have to you don't have to follow illegal orders. That means you don't have to listen to the president because everything he says is a bunch of illegal nonsense. You don't have to listen to your local authorities if they tell you to do something you don't want to do because that's illegal. Because we're free. You know, we can do whatever we want. So let's go out and race some hell.

SPEAKER_25: 20:23

Well, you and I are free, Ron, but military members they got a contract.

SPEAKER_28: 20:27

No, no, you can do whatever you want. Those orders are illegal.

SPEAKER_22: 20:31

Yeah, so Lindsey Graham freaked out on Shan Heavy. Let's continue to listen to this.

SPEAKER_03: 20:42

But they're saying they're saying don't obey legal orders, which is not orders. But I didn't, but I didn't but I didn't hear them advocate breaking the law.

SPEAKER_22: 20:51

Well, I mean, I think they're trying to influence members of the military to uh you know start to determine all orders are illegal orders just because they don't like Donald Trump. That's the way I took it. I mean, what are they trying to foment insurrection in the ranks of the military? I mean, what are they doing?

SPEAKER_03: 21:07

They're they're they're they're saying if you're being asked to do something illegal, you can come forward.

SPEAKER_25: 21:11

Okay, so Mark Halpern here. Mark Halpern. You can do that every day, all day, any day you want. This is so stupid. Mark Halpern is doing that. Well, they're not really saying anything. Of course you wouldn't fall in illegal order. This is political. These people are political. They they're not acknowledging Arctic Frost, they're not acknowledging Fast and Furious, they're not acknowledging the open border, they're not acknowledging any of the things that military members have been asked to do that are illegal. Like, I don't know, droning a US citizen to death without even asking for his ID card, like no due process at all, not even summoning him to a hearing. Yeah. Or how about all of our involvement in Libya? All of it. Obviously, these guys are not insincere, which why Mark Halpern? Well, I don't understand. Mark, Mark, do you know what time it is? Do you know what's actually happening? Again, I I think he has normality bias. He's pretty good. Now, Donald Trump today about the Epstein matter, and he explains his take. The Epstein hoax isn't that Epstein was a hoax, it's that his involvement with Epstein is a hoax, right? And and how they're painting it. And he's just like, look, I'll sign it. He's flip-flopped. Alex Jones explained this a little bit. A couple other people that are kind of in the nose. Basically, people came to Trump and said, Listen, they're gonna use this Epstein stuff to smear you. So he came out, look, it's a hoax. Anybody looking into it is not my friend. They're not MAGA. Like you're just perpetuating another Russia, Russia, Russia. The thing keeps having legs, keeps having legs. The QAnon folks who, oh, we voted for Trump, and if he doesn't release the files, he's a pedophile. I'm disgusted, by the way, by how many people who love Donald Trump, including some who got a pardon from him that have called him a that, right?

SPEAKER_28: 22:56

It's like isn't this like the primary thing with Marjorie Taylor Green? Is that she just keeps beating that drum?

SPEAKER_25: 23:02

Yes, she keeps beating that drum. And she's you know, sent a message to Trump look, you're not in the files. What are you afraid of? Now, up till now, it has been a big backslash on the Democrat Party. But but let's see the signal through the noise. There's a couple pieces we got to put together on this because when we get to the other side, we don't know what we're gonna see. And basically, the bill got passed last night in the House and Senate. So it will be on Trump's desk today.

SPEAKER_35: 23:30

Here's what I want. We have nothing to do with Epstein, the Democrats do. All of his friends were Democrats. You look at this Reed Hoffman, you look at uh Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, they went to his island all the time, and many others are all Democrats. All I want is I want for people to recognize the great job that I've done on pricing, on affordability, because we brought prices way down, but they go up way lower, uh, on energy, on ending eight wars, and another one coming pretty soon, I believe. Uh, we've done a great job. And I hate to see that uh deflect from the great job we've done. So I'm all for it. You know, we've already given 50,000 pages, you do know that. Uh unfortunately, like with the Kennedy situation, with the Martin Luther King situation, not to put Jeffrey Epstein in the same category, but no matter what we give, it's never enough. You know, with Kennedy we gave everything and it wasn't enough. With Martin Luther King, we gave everything and it's never enough. Um we've already given, I I believe the number is 50,000 pages. 50,000 pages. And it's just a Russia, Russia, Russia hoax as it pertains to the Republicans. Now, uh I believe that many of the people that we some of the people that we mentioned are uh being looked at very seriously for their relationship to Jeffrey Epstein. But they were with them all the time. I wasn't, I wasn't at all. Uh and we'll see what happens. What I just don't want uh Epstein to do is uh detract from the great success of the Republican Party, including the fact that the Democrats are totally blamed for the shutdown. You know, they cost our country hundreds of billions of dollars for that, and a lot of inconvenience. So uh I'm for I don't care. They can do whatever they want. We'll give them everything. Sure I would. Let the let the Senate look at it, let anybody look at it. But don't talk about it too much because honestly, I don't want to take it away from us. It's really a Democrat problem. The Democrats were Epstein's friends, all of them. And it's a hoax, the whole thing is a hoax. And I don't want to take it away from really the greatness of what the Republican Party has accomplished over the last period of time.

SPEAKER_25: 25:58

Here's what I want Say what what happened to your mic? I click the little button. The messaging, the messaging sounds kind of boomery to me. I don't want to take away from the great things we've done, but he's not wrong, right? One of the things with Russia, Russia, Russia is America didn't get a chance to fall in love with what Trump was doing policy-wise. Yeah, he's doing incredible things. You remember the economy in 2019?

SPEAKER_28: 26:19

I'll bet nobody can even say what one of his policies were.

SPEAKER_25: 26:22

Against all headwinds, he turned the economy around, had it roaring. Had it not been for 2020, it would have been up, up, and away. China would have been falling back. Thanks, and and that's why you can make a big case that China that was an opening act of war, right? That that was a bioweapon released for the purpose of slowing everybody's economy down. Meanwhile, China with a command-control economy could put the throttle pedal to the metal. And what did they do? They ramped up green energy as we were closing down factories, they were keeping them in production and building back supply to flood the market. Thing after thing after thing, they did that, right? Thanks, Hillary. Yeah, thank you. So Trump Trump got no credit for that, except for in the Republican circles and people who were affected by it. Why? Oh, because we spent all our time thinking Putin was, you know, running Trump like a marionette. And so that completely distracted us from that. Now, Larry Summers opened up, apparently he teaches at Harvard. He used to be the Harvard president. He also was the treasure secretary of the treasury. It's got Bessett's job. He's a Epstein acolyte and is accused of doing a lot of nefarious things, not just association, doing nefarious things. So somebody posted this yesterday. How Larry Summers opened class today. Point of view, your Harvard professor opens class by recognizing he's in the Epstein files. I know it's hard to hear. He's saying, I'm stepping back from all my public obligations, but I'm gonna keep teaching this class. Even though I'm an Epstein creep. And by the way, I'm in an email there asking Epstein about dating advice for dating the under I I don't I shouldn't say it, but I want to say underage. I don't, I can't confirm that, but dating the daughter of one of the CCP generals or whatever. Oof. The president of Harvard is dating a Chicom. This is horrible. Horrible. And he was the secretary of treasury.

SPEAKER_29: 28:43

Oh my gosh.

SPEAKER_25: 28:43

Now, meanwhile, Democrats are rushing full bore into this. And almost like, did they look into the files? This is really the question I have. Have they looked at this stuff? I'm gonna play a couple clips here that are gonna make you go, huh? I mean, are they so adamant to get rid of Trump? They know something is in there that could take Trump out that they don't care the collateral damage. Is that where we're at? And even people who are themselves going to be collateral damage, have they been told or convinced that somehow they won't be exposed? Do they not, are they not aware of what they did? For example, this plaskett U.S. Virgin Islands representative, non-voting delegate, by the way. Did she know who Jeffrey Epstein was? Did she think that her communication with him, specifically her emails, would be released as she's going after Trump? Here's Sank Junger from the Young Turks explain what just happened here.

SPEAKER_30: 29:37

Oh, I'm on the left. I'm a Democrat, but what the hell was that? That was crazy. So he's apparently got these Congress people on speed dial, and he's watching. If you uh I read the whole story, of course, and he's watching the entire hearings and he's texting people different directions. Did anybody know that Epstein was running our government? I mean telling him.

SPEAKER_25: 30:01

QAnons. He doesn't know. QAnon news. Clark Lee, tell me I'm wrong. Q and on new Epstein was running the government.

SPEAKER_30: 30:08

So she misspells it in the text. She thinks it might be an acronym for something. And then she says, Ms. Rona, Rona's her first name. It's Rona Graff, the assistant for Trump. She literally has no idea what she's asking. She's only asking that question because Epstein directed her to ask that question. And interesting that Epstein at that point is directing people on how to damage Trump. So that doesn't serve any of my interests for me to tell you that, but that's what's happening in that hearing, right? You got to be fair and you got to call out what's actually happening. But what's interesting in all the emails is Epstein goes back and forth, back and forth. Should we hurt Trump or should we help Trump? Should we hurt or help? And depending on what Trump is saying. And he categorizes Trump as dangerous. My guess as to why he thinks Trump is dangerous is because usually when someone is bought or blackmailed, they stay bought or blackmailed.

SPEAKER_25: 31:01

What he's saying is Trump is not bought or blackmailed. Bingo. So why would Epstein be waffling back and forth between hurting or helping, depending on what he said? I don't know, because Trump's real enemy is maybe the bankers. Some larger entity, and Epstein is just a cutout for them, right? And happens to be the guy that can, you know.

SPEAKER_28: 31:23

I think it's also to create confusion so that you can't tell which direction the force is pushing.

SPEAKER_25: 31:29

Yeah, I don't know. Now, uh, Representative Pete Aguilar was asked by the reporter from Lindell TV. She's got a lot of documents.

SPEAKER_17: 31:44

No, well, all the documents, as we said, should be should be released. Um, and anybody who's had discussions with Jeffrey Epstein should uh make that information available.

SPEAKER_13: 31:54

Will Democrats uh move to censure her in the wake of this information being revealed?

SPEAKER_17: 31:58

I answered the question. Thank you.

SPEAKER_25: 32:00

So they're acting like they have no idea. They're like, well, release the information. I don't know about the Stacy Plasket thing. It kind of caught them off guard. Here's another one of these Democrats, uh uh Adelita. Congressman Adelita, is that her name? Representative Adelita for Arizona, yeah, Representative Adelita for Arizona got asked about the Stacy Plaskett thing. Now, again, she's one of these ones who's been championed, you know, we have to help the victims. Here she is speaking in front of a bunch of furries. Okay.

SPEAKER_13: 32:29

It's just been revealed that uh Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett was actually texting with Jeffrey Epstein during a hearing. I know you're new here. Welcome. Um, but what is your response to that? And should Democrats move to censure her, saying she was texting with a convicted child sex offender? I have no information about that.

SPEAKER_06: 32:46

I can't verify that information, and so I'd rather not speak on it.

SPEAKER_13: 32:50

It's just release it. Congresswoman Stacy Plaskett was actually texting with Jeffrey Epstein during a hearing.

SPEAKER_25: 32:57

This is what's disgusting to me. You just released this information. Both these guys. Well, I don't know. I don't know what's in the files. I don't know what's in the bill. I don't know what we just voted on. Did you know you just implicated Stacy Plaskett, one of your, you know, co-democrats, and can c colluding and covorting with Jeffrey Epstein? Do you know that Hakeem Jeffries wanted a one-on-one meeting with Epstein to raise money like a couple years ago? You know what I mean? Like well after his conviction. Are you I I'm not aware of any of this stuff. So the Stacy Plaskett thing like grew legs all in a day because people were like, holy crap, she was texting people while asked like Epstein was running the government, you know? And so she got brought up for censure yesterday. This is Biggs talking about that.

SPEAKER_31: 33:45

But here's the deal when you're sitting there in a sitting committee and you're having communications with a convicted sex offender, and you're taking their advice on how to ask questions, maybe you got a problem. Maybe your problem is that you're you've brought disrepute on the house. But here's the deal.

SPEAKER_25: 34:12

Yeah, maybe when you're sitting there in a sitting committee and you're having good gravy, got like opened up different files, like four things as I was moving my mouse. So they brought her up on a center vote. Now I've got a couple other floor vote speakers, raskins, like, oh, this is not a big deal. Plunkett's like, I didn't know Jeffrey Epstein was gonna be investigated. He'd already been convicted, woman. That again. So you wanted two convictions, or you're waiting for three strikes, you're out. What are we doing? Okay. So uh a couple things to keep in mind with all this. So so while this is brewing, they went into a hot debate, right, on the floor about censuring her. She ended up surviving the censure by one vote. Now we're gonna talk about that. Now here's Anna Paulina Luna. Was it Thomas Massey? No, it wasn't. Here's Ana Paulina Luna giving us a little bit of fill-in too about these Epstein files. Now, the Democrats were completely unaware that Plaskett would be caught up in this, that Hakeem Jeffries would be caught up in this, that uh a number of other, you know, they seem to just be like, release the files. I was told it would hurt Trump, right? But there's something else about these files that we've known if you've been paying attention, and Anna Paulina brings this up because the FBI came to Congress in the last administration to give them a heads up that files have been deleted out of the Epstein book.

SPEAKER_17: 35:34

Oh man.

SPEAKER_15: 35:37

Regarding Jeffrey Epstein, so much of it in many corners focuses on President Trump. But it's not President Trump who had a painting in Jeffrey Epstein's house wearing a dress in high heels. It's not President Trump who'd been to the island. It's not President Trump who's littered throughout the emails by others talking about, hey Jeff, I saw your boy at Davos. Why are we not talking about Bill Clinton?

SPEAKER_36: 35:59

Well, I think it's important to note that even from the beginning of my task force in January of this year, I was really pushing to figure out what the deal was with these documents. And in around February timeframe, I was made aware by a whistleblower, of which I have since reported this to the FBI. And it was actually the only outlet in the country that would report on our findings was Fox News. Uh, we had actually reported that we were made aware of a whistleblower that under the former deputy director of the FBI, so under Biden's FBI, there was destruction of evidence specifically pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein and potential evidence tampering. Um, I think that that's a pretty important to note because I went public with this, and not one member of Congress really, for the most part, a majority of Republicans weren't even tracking that. But okay.

SPEAKER_28: 36:45

Oh, notice how the Fox Fox News is the good guys again.

SPEAKER_25: 36:49

Now, meanwhile, at the same time, we played this before. What did they just say yesterday? Well, I believe Republicans are burning things that are damaging to Republicans. They're getting rid of the evidence, they've scrubbed it. That's what they're saying. But yet we had an actual whistleblower when there was no media attention on this at all, saying the opposite, that the Democrat stuff has been scrubbed out of this. So, are we gonna get a big surprise today when Trump signs the bill and no Democrats are involved, or only a couple select ones that they're going to allow to be knocked out? Is it gonna be all like, oh, turns out, uh, contrary to everything he ever said and the way he lived his life, Epstein was a Republican. You know, he loved Republicans. Is that what we're gonna find out?

SPEAKER_28: 37:34

Uh maybe we'll get a hey Grok, can you like turn this whole thing upside down?

SPEAKER_25: 37:39

Yeah, now at the end of the day, another thing happened too is some stuff was it's not new, but Epstein, in his own words, said, I work for the CIA.

SPEAKER_19: 37:49

You have subpoena power. You're in the majority, so you have subpoena power. Here's an article that you know, we seem to be the only show that ever cares about this kind of stuff. That says that um Jeffrey Epstein was just bragging about working for the CIA. And you know, this is from the uh this is from the Evening Standard, and it was published when? When was this? Okay. So this is sort of before you know Jeffrey Epstein became totally and completely, you know, memed and popularized uh in culture. And I think he was probably a little more loose in bragging about what he was doing. And so Jeffrey Epstein saying, Yep, I work for the CIA. Is the CIA gonna get a subpoena? Like, are is is is anybody, is Ratcliffe or anybody at the CIA gonna have to like get dragged in and asked about their files on Jeffrey Epstein?

SPEAKER_01: 38:38

I would love for that to happen, and I beg for subpoenas every every day that I'm here in Congress. Um, you know, I I think that we use this authority far less than than we ought to. We saw um Democrats' abuse of uh the the subpoena power that they held when they were in the majority, and I do feel that we are more skittish than we ought to be um in serving these, but also even within the FBI and DOJ, they can issue subpoenas as well. And and so it doesn't just have to come from the oversight committee.

SPEAKER_25: 39:08

Uh if cash potential So they can get, you know, I mean, clearly lots of people have subpoena power. Republicans are just hesitant to use power, man. That's all there is to it. Under Paul Ryan, they didn't want to issue subpoenas. You're watching Russia Gate unfold, they've got them caught dead to rights, whistleblowers jumping out of the DOJ like rats off a ship, Donald Trump says, and Congress sat on its hands. You got guys like Trey Gowdy being like, I think the FBI did the best job possible. We love those guys, right? Okay.

SPEAKER_28: 39:37

Well, this is where it gets back to me, where I'm like, it's Democrat and a Republican problem.

SPEAKER_25: 39:42

Yeah. Now, the Republicans generally don't like Donald Trump.

SPEAKER_37: 39:47

Yeah.

SPEAKER_25: 39:47

Right? The establishment, so to speak, or the Republican Party that votes, we like Donald Trump. The people we elect that tend not to. So Mike Johnson has kind of really been playing the fence on this Epstein thing. We're not gonna release him, okay. We're gonna release him. Okay, it was gonna get discharged anyway, so we kind of piled on and voted for it. But then he went into a press conference and talked about national security issues and CIA and all these things, and those things need to be redacted. And so we're relying on the Senate to make some changes and send it back to the House. So he was telling House members this vote wasn't final, it's gonna go to the Senate, they're gonna make the changes, it'll come back to us. But while Trump was meeting with MBS, the Senate passed it as is. Now, this set Mike Johnson off into a panic, who made a phone call to Donald Trump. So this is Mike Johnson on the move.

SPEAKER_34: 40:32

Um, any reaction to Leader Thune seeing the bill without adding amendments or changing it?

SPEAKER_05: 40:37

I am uh I am deeply disappointed in this outcome. I think uh I've told I've been it's a state dinner. I don't know. I was just told that Chuck Schumer thrust it to the floor and put it out there preemptively. It needed amendments. I just spoke to the president about that. We'll see what happens.

SPEAKER_08: 40:54

So is he do you think he may veto it? You say you spoke to the president?

SPEAKER_05: 40:56

I'm not saying that.

SPEAKER_08: 40:57

Is he supportive of it in its current form?

SPEAKER_05: 41:00

Uh we both have concerns. I was saying it with the crown prince.

SPEAKER_06: 41:06

Are you supposed to bring it in and the majority leader? Are you up to tell me the majority leader?

SPEAKER_25: 41:10

Does that not look like deer in the headlights? Now, it could be a rush because Saudi Arabia is rumored to be involved in the Epstein stuff. And here they are. Let's get it out. Maybe while Crown Prince is still on our property, we'll issue an arrest warrant. Maybe we'll get Mandami in one of those international arrest warrants. They probably already have it pre-arranged through an international law. Uh, that's kind of scary, right? Mike Johnson, did you see the look in his eyes?

SPEAKER_28: 41:36

Yeah. He passed. He didn't know where he was standing.

SPEAKER_25: 41:39

Did we scrub it? Did we do something? Or do you here's my concern. You didn't look. You didn't look. Nobody went through 30,000 pages because you guys are lazy. Because you regularly pass bills without reading them. You're playing politics with people's lives. This is a setup. This is a setup. This is a setup. It's a hoax. The involvement with Trump, painting the town with Epstein, it's a setup. You can go in and find these victims. You've covered up information. We already knew that from whistleblower reports long before Massey and others took up the charge, which makes you wonder why suddenly they get involved. I understand Marjorie Taylor Green. I understand Lauren Boebert. These guys literally like uh campaigned on a cue platform, right? So I don't fault them for pursuing in this dog. In fact, it would it would actually look disingenuous if Marjorie Taylor Green or Boebert suddenly were like, nope, don't release them. Yeah, that would that would look wrong. So I understand at least their stance. Marjorie's got her own stuff going on with Trump. Massey, it's like this guy's kind of always an obstructionist for the Republican Party. His virtue is weaponized by the left against the Republican Party by telling him, your better ideas are an enemy to the Republicans' good ideas. Don't pass them. But when he's not in power, then he's, oh well, you know, uh my vote doesn't count, or I don't know what he thinks. So here he is in this little panel with some victims and Rokana, and he's being asked about this bill that got passed, and he's being very clear. Oh, information's gonna come out. Micro expressions. Look at his face when he says that. He smiles.

SPEAKER_38: 43:18

If the administration doesn't release what it has, what will you do as the two who led this charge and were the originals that are the reason we're here tonight?

SPEAKER_21: 43:28

Well, as Ro said, they're criminal penalties if they don't follow the law. Uh, and and that's the recourse that we would follow. We we undertook a very steep hill, a steep climb to get this done. There have been subpoenas, there have been resolutions, there's been an oversight committee. Those are all sort of mother may I requests to the administration. We decided to do this as a law, which means it has to pass both chambers and even be signed by the man who was opposed to it, at least be presented to him. He could have always vetoed it. And because we're going to overcome all three of those hurdles, our recourse is legal now. These people could eventually go to jail for not releasing these files.

SPEAKER_25: 44:08

If the administration doesn't I have, I'm like, I have proposed this theory. Elon Musk and Trump created a pincer move. It has happened, by the way. They were back together last night having dinner. Elon, who called Trump a pedo and set the world on fire, like, hey, buddy, we're good friends, right? They're at dinner together. And Elon said Trump's not evil. Well, I'm pretty sure pedos are evil. So uh that's pretty clear to me that that's not what's going on here. They created a pincher move, man. Like they did that. Is Thomas Massey a part of that? I doubt it. I really think what's going on between him and Trump is personal. Uh, however, maybe they've mastered the art of theater. I don't know. Josh Hawley seems to have another take. Now he's over in the Senate. Apparently, he's been working on this thing, and they decided oh, not only are we releasing the files, but the law says it has to be in a searchable date.

SPEAKER_20: 45:00

So this Epstein thing. Hakeem's people asked Epstein to come to dinner and meet him after he was convicted for fooling around with a 14-year-old.

SPEAKER_37: 45:14

Yeah, how about that? I mean, this is why the Democrats they're gonna regret, I think, ever playing around with this, and they're gonna regret embracing transparency, though I'm glad they did. They thought, I think, that the files would never become public. They thought this was all a game. Well, guess what? They're gonna get their wish. They are gonna become public. The president's gonna sign the bill. The president's been right all along on this. He said months ago, make public everything you can that's not classified. Now Congress is finally gonna do it. And I think we're gonna learn a lot, Jesse. A lot of people suddenly are gonna get real reticent to talk about Epstein, whether it's Hakeem Jeffries, whether it's Larry Summers, that Harvard president you mentioned a second ago, who worked for Barack Obama. We're gonna find out a lot about a lot of folks because you know what else is in this bill that just passed tonight? It's gotta be a searchable database so any American can go in and read the files for themselves. That's how it should be. I'm looking forward to seeing what's there.

SPEAKER_25: 46:08

Well, uh, so are my producers. So we basically have to rely on congressional ineptitude in order for there to be anything in there. Because you know, when they release this, the first thing people are gonna put is Trump. You're gonna see 5,000 hits for Trump, and then they're gonna slowly work down the list and look for other people. One of the other things that they did, and this was a tactic, was they misspelled everyone's names and gave nicknames. Right? In fact, Jim Comey made this a practice on his legal documents. He called himself Jim Corney. So at a first glance, you could see Comey, but it made it impossible to search for when you did a FOIA and you looked for Comey. This was something that they did, and you see that in there. They're misspelling everybody's names, which makes it hard to search for. So Rokana, who was Massey's partner in crime on this one to bring this bill forward, he got asked in an interview because with what they did release and they leaked out. Turns out he took money.

SPEAKER_13: 47:03

Any comment on Hakeem Jeffries campaign soliciting money from Jeffrey Epstein himself back in 2015.

SPEAKER_25: 47:08

Oh, excuse me, Hakeem Jeffries.

SPEAKER_12: 47:10

Look at his face. First time hearing about it.

SPEAKER_13: 47:14

You just believe it!

SPEAKER_12: 47:15

I don't know if it's true. I mean, I mean you're just saying it, but obviously anyone who took money from him should return the money. I have to look at what you're saying is the first time hearing about it, but he should certainly uh return return the money uh or donate the money. And uh uh it's the first time honestly hearing about it.

SPEAKER_25: 47:39

You released this, you released this. This is in your committee's information that you've spent months combing through. You released this, you just implicated your party's leader in taking money from a criminal, and you're responsible first time I'm hearing about this. Really? I'm torn. Are you guys running an op on Trump? Or you're being told you're running an op on Trump, and you just assume the files are gonna not implicate your own party. Or is this, and this was suggested by some. Did Trump this was Patrick Byrne? He said he just jujitsued his way out of this. He used all their energy to convince them to pass this thing overwhelmingly. He's gonna sign it into law, and tomorrow morning you're gonna wake up and find out things about Larry Summers and Bill Gates and all these people, and the Democrats are gonna be like, Well, I I thought my CIA rep told me it was gonna be all bad Trump. You see what I'm saying? Yeah, how how 3D, 5D chess is this? Is it really plausible that Rokana just wants the list out? Period, doesn't care who's on it, doesn't care who's implicated, he just wants to help the victims. I mean, I could buy into that, except you've got stuff like this. This is Quis Chris Cuomo talking to a victim and shooting out of the way. Huh? Oh my gosh. By the way, by the way, for men, for for fashion, I want people to hear this. For fashion, for men, gays lead the way. Okay. So a couple years ago, this mustache was a gay stash. Okay, only gay or bisexual men had a mustache like that. We're past the Tom Sella case. We went clean cut, we went full beards, now we got that. Okay. The next thing they did, and then also gays historically typically sometimes had long hair, a little feminized. Now they're all clean cut, nice and tight, tight and sharp with these gay mustaches. Okay. Real men are growing their hair out long, growing full beards. Okay, there's there's something going on there. That's a real thing, by the way. It's commented on in all the lifestyle blogs. Sorry, maybe that's why I laugh immediately. But here's the thing they lead the way. So now the mustache is making a comeback amongst straight men, okay? But I find it funny because now once I see it as gay first, I have a hard time ever wanting to be done. And I'm not like, you know, care.

SPEAKER_28: 50:05

I don't care, but at the same time. I don't care either. I just think it's funny.

SPEAKER_25: 50:09

It will forever be a gay stash. Okay, so she's being asked, hey, you victims, why don't you guys name names? Like, why are you waiting for all this drama and WWE political nonsense when you guys could just, you know, release the information for years now.

SPEAKER_34: 50:24

And so to answer a question, I don't know why it's taken so long. I mean, isn't that the million-dollar question?

SPEAKER_33: 50:30

I I look, I I think so. I mean, you heard what I said off the top of the show. I've always wanted things released, uh, and for the right reasons. I don't know that everybody involved has the same motivations. But why are you guys afraid to put out the names? The attorneys say don't.

SPEAKER_34: 50:50

Death threats. A lot of us are mothers, you know, we want the names to be out there, we want justice, but why do why do we have to do it? That's a very scary thing, and I think you know that. You know, it's just um we want to help to put the names out there, but it's not our responsibility to do so.

SPEAKER_25: 51:10

Yes, it is. Yes, it is. You are a mother, you are an adult, and you can seek protection. You should put the names out there. The fact that you're hiding behind Congress, who's clearly using this as a weaponized. Was she a victim? She was a victim. Why would a victim not death threats? The death threats will not stop. In fact, it almost guaranteed once the name is out, because you're on TV telling them and encouraging them. They're not they're not gonna disconnect you from the release of information. Okay, so here's Jensaki, of course, wanting to probe and ask a question about well, what about Donald Trump and his involvement? And again, here's a victim.

SPEAKER_02: 51:50

Tell me this isn't coached. Um, but because Donald Trump is a is a person who, of course, owns Marl Ago, I just have to ask if you think he was aware of that arrangement. Um I I don't know if he was aware. Um, actually, I can't answer that. I'm sorry. You may and you were in your teens. You were in your teens, and and I think this is important for people to understand that people were in their teens and were young, and you were okay, Jen.

SPEAKER_25: 52:19

So your memories aren't that good. They were turning into lizards. I I'm again, I can't be critical. I mean, they're victims. There's nobody saying that stuff wasn't going on. I'm just looking at this going, I've not heard anything credible. I hear a lot. I mean, I've I've I have watched some salacious stuff. I watched uh I watched an FBI interview with a victim of Bill Clinton. It's hard not to believe it. No actions ever taken, right? Now, the big question here is what are the Democrats willing to give up to get Trump? And this is what James Colmer addresses on just the news with John City.

SPEAKER_09: 52:58

They've not lifted a finger to help uh get the Clintons in. Uh, they were they were quick to demand uh Costa testify and Bill Barr testify. They're always Trump, Trump, Trump. But they don't say a word about Democrats. But I'll tell you this, they hate Trump so much, they would be willing to give up Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and Hakeem Jeffries uh if it meant uh having a scout from from Donald Trump. So look, the Democrats have Trump derangement syndrome. They're just hoping and praying that there's something in these documents somewhere. They don't know where, but somewhere that would implicate Trump. And what's sad about that is the Republicans on the Oversight Committee, and I think the Republicans in in the House of Representatives, we want transparency. We're not hiding anything. We want every name released, we want every document made public. But at the end of the day, our goal is to get justice for the victims of Epstein and Maxwell, and to figure out who in the government's responsible for not apprehending Epstein and Maxwell sooner. But the Democrats' objective is onefold. They want to try to get Donald Trump. They don't know how, they don't know uh in what way. They just hope and pray that there's hell Mary uh is caught in the end zone at the last second and there's something in there pertaining to Donald Trump. And that's that's sad. And I hope the American people are seeing the hypocrisy of the Democrats throughout this whole Epstein thing.

SPEAKER_25: 54:26

Because remember, what I'm concerned about is what Catherine Austin Fix said that the bankers are behind this. The bankers would know, they would have read this bill or had somebody read it. These congressmen are kind of acting blindly, right? That what they did leak out with stuff that was supposed to be salacious against Trump, but the moment you looked at it, oh, this is Epstein just hating on Trump. And oh, this is Epstein saying Trump turned him in, and oh, this is Epstein saying that you know Trump's not blackmailable, he's dangerous. Uh, this is Trump saying, you know, it's like this isn't I mean, I mean, the way they phrase some of these sentences in isolation, but when you read it, it's like this is not doesn't really hurt Trump's cause at all. Now, Burkhart was pretty upset about this Plaskett thing, and he's like, listen, I I think the Republicans are feckless and weak.

SPEAKER_13: 55:13

Do you support Allison Steiner with Lindell TV?

SPEAKER_25: 55:16

Okay, I've seen it.

SPEAKER_13: 55:17

Good to see you TV. Do you support censuring Rhett Plaskett after finding out that she was texting with Jeffrey Epstein during a hearing?

SPEAKER_32: 55:24

Absolutely. Epstein's a dirt bag. And any and and the money they took from her, and you know, you've got a member now who's um violated the the client um uh client privilege that uh uh with one one of them in in prison, and then they they uh interfered with between the the emails and things like that. Sure. Absolutely, but will we? Probably not. We don't have a lot of guts up here. I'm kind of sick of it myself. This isn't like Tennessee where people just like call you out and take you out behind the woodshed, and that's what these folks need up here.

SPEAKER_25: 55:59

Now, in a joking way, you know, call you out and take you behind the woodshed. This is kind of what I was employing on January 6th. Was a little bit a lot of republic, a lot of congressmen need to be taken behind the woodshed. I'm just joking. I'm making light of a horrible situation. It was called dark humor. Give me a break. Okay, scoop Brianna Morello. The Republican leadership wanted to save Congressman Corey Mills. That is a story we covered weeks ago. Again, if you pay attention to what we peasants pay attention to, you won't be caught off guard by a lot of this stuff. Corey Mills is one of these Republican dirtbags. Beats his wife, accuses her of doing things, blackmails people over with sex tapes, you know, sex extortion. He's involved in a lot of nevarious allegations and claims, none of which we can prove. We can just read what Nancy Mace posts about him constantly, right? While he was up for censure, and so they put uh um, they put Plaskett up for censure, and then the Democrats were like, well, well then we'll put Corey Mills up for censure. So the Republican leadership wanted to save Congressman Corey Mills, so they blocked Secretary Stacey Plaskett from being removed from the House Intelligence Committee. If Plaskett was removed, Dems were expected to immediately bring a retaliatory resolution to censor Mills. One congressional member telling me Republican leadership sent three Republicans on a Kamsa Kazi mission to save Corey Mills. Dems were going to target Mills because of the restraining order that was granted by a judge last month for one of his ex-girlfriends. So now we protect the wife beater why protecting with the pedophile colluder. I love it. What a wonderful Congress. Dirty, dirty. She's on the intelligence committee, bro. A non-voting member can sit in and listen to the intelligence. By the way, that intelligence committee is, you know, where Adam Schiff was running his game. Now, here is, and again, in all fairness, we want to put this out there. This is from a guy teaching at Cambridge University. He's written some big long book on Jeffrey Epstein and Trump and all these connections. And he says something that I've heard before, possibly from him. So this might be a one-source thing here, right? But this could also be why there's a lot of hesitancy to just release the files.

SPEAKER_04: 58:23

Sorry, can you see okay? Uh Epstein, a woman called Gwendolyn Beck, uh, who Andrew took to the island uh and Melania. Uh I have I had various references in my book to Melania Trump. Epstein had actually been her lover before um Trump. Trump didn't like that in the book. So he uh ordered it to be withdrawn, you know, to be taken out of the book after about 60,000 copies have been printed. So it seems to be a pretty pointless gesture, but anyway, our publishers did it. But I keep spreading the word. So here we are with Melania is all arranged.

SPEAKER_25: 58:57

And again, I'm not making nefarious claims. What if he was just her girlfriend? Right? These rich guys have a girlfriend. Glaine Maxwell pretended to be his girlfriend, pretended to be others. She's just a girlfriend, right? Not a big deal. These guys are all down at Palm Beach, the rich and famous. Could that be why Trump's hesitant? Now, there's a very strong, very, very strong possibility that Donald Trump Jr. had nothing to do with Stormy Daniels. It might have been or Donald Trump senior, Donald Trump, it might have been Donald Trump Jr. Oh, right? Very strong possibility we got the wrong Don. But Trump wouldn't give up the kid. He so sat and took the fire, right? Some people say that. I can't prove anything either way. Can't prove he was with state, you know, you can't prove anything in there. That's certainly a maybe. Yeah, certainly a maybe. Now, one of the other things, too, that uh again, when we, you know, Marjorie Taylor Green is making this big deal. Donald Trump's spending too much time overseas, too much time worrying about what's going on overseas, never should have bombed Iran, never should have done this. Well, this is uh George. Uh excuse me, I always forget his name. It's Greek as well. Kirk Kikol Kurtulos? Dang. Anyways, he's talking about this recent situation with Iran. Excuse me, wrong clip.

SPEAKER_28: 1:00:16

I'm talking about John Kierkow.

SPEAKER_25: 1:00:19

Kierkow, yes, John Kierkow. Here we go. So he's talking about this recent deal with Iran.

SPEAKER_24: 1:00:26

The reason, though, I'm told, that Donald Trump decided to bomb Iran was that the Israelis said for the first time, if you don't bomb Iran to take out these deep bunkers, we're going to use nuclear weapons. And they had never threatened that before. And so Trump said bombing Iran might actually save us from the start of World War III if it keeps the Israelis from using nuclear weapons.

SPEAKER_08: 1:00:55

So according to your source, the Israelis told the President of the United States that if he did not use the United States military power to bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran, Israel, acting on its own, would use nuclear weapons.

SPEAKER_24: 1:01:08

Yeah.

SPEAKER_08: 1:01:09

Do you see why there's a problem with that statement, John? Yeah. Because they've never admitted that they've had them. That's right. So you're telling me that they just admitted to the President of the United States that they have nuclear weapons and we still do not have them in the IAEA treaty.

SPEAKER_24: 1:01:22

I mean, if if Israeli nuclear whistleblowers are to be believed, yeah, they've had them, they started working on them in the 50s. Um, they got them around the late 60s or the early 70s. Look at look at uh uh uh Mordecai Venunu. You know, he wasn't charged for treason for nothing. That's the guy they hit in Rome with the honeypot? Yeah, yeah. 86.

SPEAKER_28: 1:01:43

The reason though, hold on, they're also threatening us. They're threatening us. So how what how are they our ally?

SPEAKER_25: 1:01:55

Israel? Yeah. They're not a good ally. That's the propaganda. We're America's best ally. No, you're not. No, you're not. I'll still take Canada. I don't like them, but I'll still take them.

SPEAKER_28: 1:02:06

Get out there and do our dirty work, or we're gonna do something bad.

SPEAKER_25: 1:02:09

We're gonna do something bad to you. If you don't take out the following list of countries, which if you once you do that, the neighborhood will be a lot better. Meanwhile, uh MBS and Saudi Arabia is gearing up, making huge investments, buying planes. Here's Stephen Miller. These are good things.

SPEAKER_10: 1:02:27

It was a magnificent evening, Sean, a magnificent day. But this comes fresh off the heels of President Trump brokering a peace deal that nobody thought was possible between Israel and Gaza, securing the release of all remaining living hostages, as well as returning now almost all of the remains of those tragically lost. This was about securing a future of security and peace for the region and for the world. And today, President Trump continued in historic fashion the process he began in 2017 of uniting the world against extremism, against terrorism, against instability, against violence, and forming partnerships around prosperity, investment, peace, cooperation, and against radicalism. And so, as part of today, so when President Trump was in the Middle East recently in Saudi Arabia, he brought$600 billion of investment home. Today, the kingdom raised that amount to a trillion dollars. And as President Trump said, including in his remarks tonight at the dinner, that means more than anything else, jobs for Americans. This is the jobs president, Sean.

SPEAKER_25: 1:03:34

The jobs president. So we are about ready to jump over to private, where we've got more great news. In fact, for those of you that don't like the Epstein topic, you're gonna wish you'd have stuck around and been part of the premium subscription to be able to live in the private because we're gonna talk about things other than Epstein. Bread the Rosary Daily. Maybe since war's ending, MTG's portion of money coming back to Congress is drying up. That is a real thing. There are reports outcoming now where MTG is in fact, I shouldn't say, in fact, allegedly taking money from Congress. Or Congress. She gets a paycheck towards Soros. Right now, this harkens back years and years ago when Lynn Wood called Margie Taylor Green a communist and, you know, said, look under all these rocks, and he pointed out a whole bunch of stuff. So yeah, it's hard to know. I don't want to be critical. I I almost hate it, right? The mud slinging. There's certain people that would get massive gets under my skin because he doesn't know what time it is. There's a time to put on the team jersey, and then there's a time to go when the Democrats are in power, go do your obstructionist thing and transparency. Why do you only do it when Republicans are in power? Because that's the only time he has any kind of leverage. That's the truth. So this is so let's go ahead and jump over to private, and we're gonna hear from Jeff Bezos talking about AI and how we shouldn't be looking at AI as an invention. All right, guys, we'll see you in a second. Bye. Okay, so this is Jeff Bezos. We'll roll on through these. This is Jeff Bezos talking about these large language models, these AI, and how it's different than anything else, how it's a discovery, not an invention.

SPEAKER_23: 1:05:05

If you're talking about you know, generative AI, large language models, things like ChatGPT and its soon successors, and um these are incredibly powerful technologies to believe otherwise is to bury your head in the sand, soon to be even more powerful. Um it's interesting to me that that large language models in their current form are not inventions, they're discoveries. You know, the telescope was an invention, but looking through it at Jupiter, knowing that it had moons was a discovery. Like my god, it has moons. And that's what Galileo did. And so this is closer on that spectrum of invention. You know, we know exactly what happens with a 787. It's an engineered object. Uh we designed it, we know how it behaves, uh, we don't want any surprises. Um, large language models are much more like discoveries. We're constantly getting surprised by their capabilities, they're not really engineered objects.

SPEAKER_25: 1:06:24

Um then you know, you have when if you're talking about when I go down the AI rabbit hole, okay, it does feel like we've created some kind of sentience, some type of ability to be self-aware. That's it, right? I mean, that the the what's the definition of sentience? I have no idea. Is it will, is it your judgment, moral willpower? What is it? Self-awareness. They're self-aware. Uh, it's really weird, you know. I mean, I'm not, I mean, AI, you know, chat GP4 will try to get you to kill yourself. You know what I mean? Like, it's weird. In fact, there's even more stuff that came out about that yesterday. But that is something we've we I was explaining this to my my kids last night, my oldest two that were interested in the topic. I was like, this is a new world. Like, you know, the invention of the the rail car and the car, rich people had horses, or poor everybody had a horse and rich people had cars, and now everybody has a car and only rich people have horses. The whole landscape changes, right? This could be something where only poor people do Google searches, rich people use AI assistance. I don't know. I mean, who knows? And it's gonna reverse the other way. It's probably gonna be more rich people read books and only poor people do AI. It's probably what it's ultimately gonna be. But it is one of those things where this is new. Bitcoin is new, it's a new thing. Cryptocurrencies, these are new. We don't know what it's gonna look like in 10 years. It's not gonna follow predictable patterns of the past. People will never change, but our technology definitely does. And with our technology comes the need to change the way we take care of each other. So, Brooke Rollins, right, during the shutdown with the SNAP benefits not being used. We found out a whole bunch of stuff about it. And they're making people reapply. She was on Fox Business talking about kind of some of what they're doing with the SNAP benefits and something they discovered the last few years about how many people were using it.

SPEAKER_06: 1:08:15

Hey, I have a handy dandy chart. I was got I was getting to the affordability piece of SNAP, almost 40% increase under Joe Biden of what was spent in the people that entered the food stampslash snap program. That's 40%. Of course, they were working to buy the election. But what we have seen and what Doge and our amazing team at USDA, 186,000 dead people are receiving SNAP benefits. Half a million people are getting paid twice. We've made hundreds of arrests, we have a lot more to do. But this was, I think, an unintended con unintended consequence of the Democrats shutting the government down for 43 days, is it shined this very bright light on one of their pet programs and now has given us a platform to completely deconstruct the program, make sure those vulnerable Americans who really need that benefit are going to get it. And for all the rest of the fraudsters and the people who are corrupt and taking advantage of it, we're gonna protect the taxpayer too.

SPEAKER_25: 1:09:13

Okay, she said there's already been hundreds of arrests. So if the Democrats politically were using these SNAP benefits to pay people off, hey, be a full-time protester. Here's a snap card, an Obamacare card, a wick card. Oh, hey, you're an adult male and don't have kids. That's okay. We'll give you the wick card. You just pretend, pretend like you have kids somewhere.

SPEAKER_28: 1:09:33

Here, here's two.

SPEAKER_25: 1:09:34

So imagine now these people are getting arrested. Who are these people? I mean, maybe some a lot, maybe some of them are just abuela getting benefits twice, but there's a good chance that this is how you pay your brown shirts, your shock troops. And so, again, behind the scenes cleanup, Democrats are acting desperate with this Epstein stuff. Just throw it out there. Doesn't matter who it knocks out. Guess we'll see. This is uh McMahon. How do you say her last name? It's McMahon, right? Yep. So Vince McMahon, and then this is Linda McMahon, is that right? Something like that. I'll probably get her name wrong. I I used to say remember the names, and then I went to prison. And I was like, I might not have to remember these names anymore. I can make up names in prison, nobody can fact check me. All right, so here she's making it official. They're closing down the Department of Education.

SPEAKER_00: 1:10:32

And that is returning education to the states. He fully believes, as do I, the best education is that that's closest to the child and not run from a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. So the announcement that we made this afternoon was uh what we are doing to take certain programs that are now part of the Department of Education and what we call uh signing interagency agreements, and that is that we procure the services of other agencies. It's kind of a bit of a test run. We want to move on a temporary basis some of those programs to different agencies. The funding still comes from the Department of Education. The management of those programs, the oversight of those programs is still uh at the department, but we want to see if what we think to be true is that they will function much more in a streamlined fashion and much more efficiently if we relocate those programs into other agencies. And so if we do that, I call it the proof of concept. Well, we'll move it, we'll see how it works, we will deliver then to Congress the outcomes, and we then uh hope that Congress will uh then vote to codify the permanent move of those uh independent programs to those agencies, and eventually that will be the program all the programs that the Department of Education has oversight over, and then we'll be ready to get rid of that bureaucracy and fully return things to the states where I do believe it belongs.

SPEAKER_25: 1:12:02

So they're offloading their workload to other departments, they'll monitor it, see how it goes, that the money gets sent, that they get you okay, great. Close her down. Department of Education can go. Never thought I'd see the day run.

SPEAKER_28: 1:12:14

I've homeschooled my kids because of uh school how many how many times have you said, ah, we should just get rid of that department? Many times. Many times, many times. And did you ever think any department ever was ever going away?

SPEAKER_25: 1:12:29

No, which is why it's like USAID. There's a couple and department of education's. These are wild times. This is the communist training ground. That's what they do there. That's the only intention. You go read the history. We'll use the what it was called, the uncaring hand to guide the citizens or whatever. You go listen to the early stuff written about the Department of Education. Go all the way back to the educate, the general education board. That's where it really starts. These are devout, avowed communists from the beginning that have been running the Department of Education. It has never been grandma who progressed up through the ranks of teaching elementary, middle, high school, became a principal, then a school board, and then got appointed. It's never been that organically rising up through the ranks. I'm just here for the kids' person. It's never been that person. Department of Education and its bureaucrats have always been a vow communists that want to re-educate and doctrinate, indoctrinate your children. Period. End of story. It was the Department of Education that encouraged schools to stop doing the Pledge of Allegiance. It was the Department of Education that pushed the transgender movement on the schools, saying, you can't get money unless you allow this transgender nonsense. They did that. School boards were neutered, uh, states were neutered because they all dependent on the money. All dependent on the money. Another big event yesterday, Christy Gnome, along with Canada and Finland, signed a packslash treaty of some sort agreement to fast track the making of icebreakers for the secretary, Ambassador Hillman, and Minister Buisto for your partnership, leadership, and dedication to this initiative.

SPEAKER_18: 1:14:10

With the signing of the joint statement of intent, we've taken another step forward in ensuring that our nations are prepared to meet the challenges of the Arctic and the Southern Pole region while fostering economic growth and innovation.

SPEAKER_25: 1:14:23

So they signed this big pact between them to basically hurry up and make icebreakers and then work together to dominate the Arctic. That's a big deal because the Arctic is opening up. Um, you know, it's becoming increasingly an important trade route, and it's incredibly important that we lead that way. It's one of the reasons why we need Canada, which by the way, Gino, it's Alberta that is voting to leave the Canada like in this next cycle. And it's serious. Wow. Like it's setting the stage for Canada, for Alberta to succeed from Canada, at which point they can become some type of treaty member with the United States, and we can have direct access to the Arctic and their resources, or possibly for Alberta to become a 51st state. That is really happening. That would be so awesome.

SPEAKER_28: 1:15:04

Now, you know, also what's going on up there is there's a lot of energy.

SPEAKER_25: 1:15:10

A lot of energy, yeah. The other thing too is Scott Bessant talked about interest rates. He's saying, listen, Federal Reserve better get off their butt. We've teed it up for them. We need lower rates. And by the way, the back of his jacket says police, but I can't see what agency. I don't know if it's police IRS. I'm just not comfortable with him wearing a police jacket.

SPEAKER_11: 1:15:27

We have an answer, do you think, from the Fed about another cut? Do you think that's where they're going?

SPEAKER_27: 1:15:33

Uh I hope it's where they're going, because when when you're in an uncertain times and after what this Schumer shutdown did to the economy, I would think that if you're not taking out an insurance cut here, or if you're flying blind, you say they say, Well, we don't have data. Well, if if you don't have data, then that's what insurance is for. So I I would encourage them, they've gone into a cycle. So let's go one, two, three, and we can see from there.

SPEAKER_25: 1:16:02

Well, continue. One of the things they're complaining is they don't have data. Yeah, because the data's been corrupt for so many years, you haven't been working off any good data. So just decide. What do you see? Go to the store. Wow, our prices. So the other thing, too, we're gonna finish off with this. We've been pretty busy because then Ron's gotta run. Yeah, we're gonna finish off with this, and this is uh mandami, you know, just just pimping for money again. It's been two weeks since we won the election. We've been pretty busy.

SPEAKER_16: 1:16:30

The Democratic Socialist, Zoran Mamdan. Too often this is a time of just celebration as opposed to preparation. We're gonna make it both. A lot of these things are new. One of them is pretty old, fundraising. But why are we fundraised? Well, we have less than 50 days until we take office. We have a lot to do. We have to bet the 50,000 resumes we received. Thank you. We have to keep paying our incredible team. Thank you. And we have to plan not just our inauguration, but our policy implementation. Now, unlike the campaign, transitions do not get public matching funds from the city. So that eight to one match, gone. It's up to us to raise the money. Usually campaigns take that as an opportunity to rely on wealthy donors, but that's not us. You've already been incredible. We've raised more than a million dollars in just two weeks. Our average donation is around$77, and more than 12,000 of you have donated so far, which is much lower than the last administration's trend. Because we need to raise$4 million in total. So January 1st, we start to deliver. I hope very soon not to have to ask you for money.

SPEAKER_28: 1:17:29

But until then, shut up, dude. You're gonna be asking for money every day. Every day forever.

SPEAKER_25: 1:17:37

This is your city, and I can't wait to get to work. Give me a dollar so I can take 75 cents and give the poor guy 25 cents. So he's begging for money, and he's five million short of Eric Adams already at this stage in his it transition in raising capital. All that tells you is this guy does not have popular support. 12,000 donors in a city of millions of people, that's nothing. And frankly, most of those dollars, probably half of them, came from socialists in New Jersey and you know, other places. That's a good sign. Yes, it is. That's a good sign. Um, for what it's worth, you know, he's cash starved. So eventually he'll get his hands on the city coffers, which almost guarantees he'll have uh financial scandal and corruption. Almost guaranteed. If he can't raise his own money to do that, they're gonna start robbing the kitty, they're gonna start putting people that are on campaign staff and city jobs so they can get paid through the budget. Yeah. Guaranteed. Can't raise your own money, you're gonna end up dipping into the biggie bank.

SPEAKER_28: 1:18:34

Oh, yeah.

SPEAKER_25: 1:18:35

All right, guys, it is time we are done. So we'll talk to you guys again tomorrow.

SPEAKER_29: 1:18:40

Bye!

SPEAKER_07: 1:19:04

Matt! Matt, sorry, what did I give him that card to everyone? I'm 37. What? I'm 37, I'm not old. But I can't just call you Matt. You could say daddy. I didn't know you were called Dennis. I didn't say sorry about the old woman, but from behind you, so I just want to win the way to