Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Two Hundred Seventy Three: The Real Housewives Of MAGA

Transcript

Episode Two Hundred Seventy Three: The Real Housewives Of MAGA · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to episode two hundred and seventy three of the
0:03
Speaker 1: Death of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm
0:05
Speaker 1: your host on today's show. The Epstein Files is finally released,
0:10
Speaker 1: sort of, and no one is satisfied. Dan Bongino quits
0:15
Speaker 1: at the FBI just nine months after being in way
0:20
Speaker 1: over his head. Trump takes his King Act to a
0:23
Speaker 1: new level of absurdity, the Maga media civil war goes nuclear,
0:30
Speaker 1: CBS News is embroiled in controversy, more of the foundation
0:35
Speaker 1: of college football gets destroyed, and my eight year old
0:38
Speaker 1: daughter Diana joins us for a pre Christmas interview. We
0:44
Speaker 1: begin this episode of the podcast with a programming note.
0:47
Speaker 1: You may have already noticed that we are out with
0:49
Speaker 1: this episode a day earlier than normal because of the
0:53
Speaker 1: holidays coming up. This will be the first of two
0:56
Speaker 1: consecutive weeks in which that will happen, where we will
0:59
Speaker 1: be out late on Tuesday night early on Wednesday morning
1:03
Speaker 1: to avoid both Christmas and New Year's Thanks to our
1:06
Speaker 1: executive producer Mike Gagavino for making that happen. So that's
1:10
Speaker 1: why you're hearing this episode a day earlier, or probably
1:14
Speaker 1: a day earlier than you're used to. But then in
1:17
Speaker 1: the new year we'll go back to our normal programming schedule.
1:20
Speaker 1: I want to begin this episode with a quick update
1:23
Speaker 1: on two topics that we discussed at the start of
1:26
Speaker 1: last week's episode of the podcast. The first is the
1:31
Speaker 1: Brown University and then attached to that, the MIT killer.
1:37
Speaker 1: And the reason why I want to mention this is
1:39
Speaker 1: not because I want to continue to pile on the
1:43
Speaker 1: authorities for having no clue, which a lot of the
1:45
Speaker 1: conservative media is understandably done, because this was a cluster
1:50
Speaker 1: fark from the very beginning. The case ended up getting
1:53
Speaker 1: solved by a homeless man via a Reddit post. How
1:57
Speaker 1: a homeless person can make a Reddit post, I don't know,
2:00
Speaker 1: but that's apparently what happened. This began as a school
2:05
Speaker 1: shooting at Brown. Two innocent people killed, several others very
2:10
Speaker 1: badly injured, and then there was an MIT professor that
2:15
Speaker 1: was also murdered, and there was speculation that the two
2:20
Speaker 1: were connected. It appears as if the two killings were
2:24
Speaker 1: in fact connected, actually three murders in all, but the
2:27
Speaker 1: two incidents were connected, and the person ended up killing
2:32
Speaker 1: themselves well before they were ever apprehended. Now, the reason
2:38
Speaker 1: I find this significant is not because of some massive conspiracy,
2:42
Speaker 1: but because it is so obvious to me what really
2:46
Speaker 1: transpired here, and yet the news media and apparently law
2:49
Speaker 1: enforcement are completely clueless about it. And this is something
2:54
Speaker 1: that I had been harpening on for years about a
2:58
Speaker 1: trend that I'm seeing in crime that for some reason
3:03
Speaker 1: no one's picking up on. Maybe it's just so obvious,
3:06
Speaker 1: but I don't think that it is. And I remember
3:10
Speaker 1: writing about this for Mediite after the Las Vegas massacre.
3:15
Speaker 1: Remember that horrific event that we've basically just forgotten. We've
3:18
Speaker 1: just pretended that the worst mass murder of its kind
3:23
Speaker 1: in American history just never occurred. I mean, frankly, Las
3:27
Speaker 1: Vegas has done a heck of a job, although they're
3:28
Speaker 1: doing poorly economically, but it's just amazing that somehow that event,
3:34
Speaker 1: as horrendous as it was, as horrific as it was,
3:37
Speaker 1: as unprecedented as it was, has this been basically forgotten.
3:41
Speaker 1: And part of that story was we never had any idea,
3:44
Speaker 1: at least officially, what the hell the motive was. And I,
3:50
Speaker 1: from the beginning, and this is what I wrote about Immediaite,
3:53
Speaker 1: said there was no motive. This wasn't the purpose of
3:59
Speaker 1: the killing. The killing was part of a plan to
4:05
Speaker 1: commit suicide. That's what this was. It starts as a suicide,
4:13
Speaker 1: and then because the person has nothing to lose, they
4:17
Speaker 1: decide how they want to go out. And if there's
4:20
Speaker 1: someone that doesn't believe in any sort of an afterlife
4:23
Speaker 1: and doesn't care about humanity, and you just want to
4:27
Speaker 1: go out with a bang, and you maybe hate humanity
4:30
Speaker 1: and you want to see how many people you can
4:32
Speaker 1: kill before you kill yourself, you create this intricate plan
4:38
Speaker 1: like what happened in Las Vegas. You kill an unprecedented
4:42
Speaker 1: number of people, you kill yourself for all intents and purposes.
4:45
Speaker 1: There's no accountability, there's no punishment because you already decided
4:50
Speaker 1: you were going to commit suicide. To me, now, obviously
4:55
Speaker 1: this could change if we somehow learn of a note
4:58
Speaker 1: or some other motive, but this feels very similar. Thankfully,
5:03
Speaker 1: the carnage wasn't as bad as Las Vegas, but it
5:07
Speaker 1: appears to me as if this forty eight year old
5:09
Speaker 1: guy decided he was going to kill himself and went
5:14
Speaker 1: on an attack on at least two entities to which
5:18
Speaker 1: he had a connection. He had been a student at Brown,
5:22
Speaker 1: and he apparently studied with this MIT professor. Now this
5:26
Speaker 1: is purely speculation on my part, but if at forty eight,
5:30
Speaker 1: you've decided you're going to kill yourself, you've had a
5:33
Speaker 1: life you're not very happy with. You're probably looking back
5:36
Speaker 1: on things and wondering how it could have turned out differently.
5:38
Speaker 1: Then you're looking for somebody or something to blame. So
5:42
Speaker 1: he blames Brown, and he goes after Brown University. I
5:48
Speaker 1: probably indiscriminately. I don't believe that those victims were targeted.
5:54
Speaker 1: And then you also, for whatever reason, we have no
5:57
Speaker 1: idea at this point what the nature of the relationship
6:00
Speaker 1: was with the MIT professor. But this is another part
6:03
Speaker 1: of his past. So he's already decided to kill himself
6:08
Speaker 1: and wants to take some others out with him because
6:11
Speaker 1: of his anger at humanity and his anger at the world.
6:16
Speaker 1: And I think to me, the proof of this is
6:18
Speaker 1: he ends up killing himself. This is all somewhat like
6:21
Speaker 1: the Las Vegas situation, extremely well planned. He gets away
6:25
Speaker 1: with it for all intentsive purposes. The authorities are totally
6:27
Speaker 1: lost until the Reddit post. They probably would have found
6:32
Speaker 1: him eventually, but he killed himself well before the jig
6:36
Speaker 1: was up. This was not a situation where he was
6:40
Speaker 1: running for the sake of trying to get away with this.
6:42
Speaker 1: He ran the first time because he wasn't done with
6:44
Speaker 1: his killing yet, But once he killed the MIT professor,
6:48
Speaker 1: then he killed himself. And to me, you know, this
6:54
Speaker 1: is pretty obvious. Maybe it's so obvious it's one of
6:58
Speaker 1: those things that people just can't grasp or don't want
7:01
Speaker 1: to think about, because it's a really frightening thought, especially
7:05
Speaker 1: in a world where more and more people are getting
7:10
Speaker 1: in a situation where either they're so old that they
7:13
Speaker 1: don't have anything else to live for, or they're in
7:16
Speaker 1: a situation like this guy apparently was, where they're done
7:19
Speaker 1: with living life and they don't believe in any sort
7:22
Speaker 1: of an afterlife, they don't believe in a morality, they
7:25
Speaker 1: don't believe that they're going to be punished in any
7:27
Speaker 1: sort of way for killing people on the way out.
7:31
Speaker 1: And frankly, I'm a little bit amazed this doesn't happen
7:35
Speaker 1: more often. I really am, because religion, you know, I'm
7:39
Speaker 1: an agnostic or an atheist, depending on what kind of
7:42
Speaker 1: day it is, So it's easy for me to see
7:46
Speaker 1: how people could come to this kind of conclusion. If
7:48
Speaker 1: you believe this is it and there's no punishment in
7:51
Speaker 1: an afterlife, and you don't like humanity and you're a
7:55
Speaker 1: sick person, then you know what's to stop you from
7:59
Speaker 1: doing this? And it's just a numbers game. The number
8:04
Speaker 1: of people that are in this boat is increasing. We're
8:08
Speaker 1: seeing more and more suicides all the time, partially because
8:12
Speaker 1: the media has suddenly decided it's okay to not just
8:15
Speaker 1: report on suicides, but sometimes even you know, somehow protect
8:20
Speaker 1: the person from being criticized at all. I mean, we've
8:23
Speaker 1: gone from suicide making you a persona non grata to
8:26
Speaker 1: sometimes making you almost a hero. We saw what happened
8:29
Speaker 1: with the Dallas Cowboy player who committed suicide earlier this
8:33
Speaker 1: year under very weird circumstances. So this is I think
8:37
Speaker 1: an incredibly troubling situation. It's only going to get worse,
8:41
Speaker 1: and it might get much much worse, because that's the
8:45
Speaker 1: situation where society falls apart where you know, I've always
8:49
Speaker 1: believed that that's a huge part of why religion is important.
8:54
Speaker 1: People need to believe, whether it's true or not, they
8:58
Speaker 1: need to believe that there's a higher power, that something
9:00
Speaker 1: happens after they die, because if they don't believe that,
9:02
Speaker 1: one they're going to lose hope in their own miserable lives.
9:06
Speaker 1: And two, if they decide to end their life, there's
9:08
Speaker 1: nothing stopping them from doing as much damage as possible
9:11
Speaker 1: on the way out. And it seems to me is
9:14
Speaker 1: that that is what happened with the Brown University and
9:17
Speaker 1: MIT killer. Now, there was another murders case that we
9:21
Speaker 1: talked about, obviously in the last episode of the podcast,
9:23
Speaker 1: and that was the Rob Reiner situation where he and
9:26
Speaker 1: his wife were brutally killed by their own son, Nick Reiner,
9:31
Speaker 1: via a knife and their Brent went home. And there's
9:35
Speaker 1: been a couple of interesting and I believe disturbing and
9:39
Speaker 1: ominous developments on that front that are not dissimilar from
9:44
Speaker 1: what I just talked about. It's a little bit different,
9:46
Speaker 1: but I think certainly in the same ballpark. The first
9:49
Speaker 1: is that it appears as if Nick Reiner and his
9:53
Speaker 1: legal team are going to go for an insanity defense.
9:56
Speaker 1: We don't know that for sure, but that seems to
9:58
Speaker 1: be where everything is heading on this. And I have
10:03
Speaker 1: to say, living in California now for over twenty years
10:08
Speaker 1: and seeing how crazy left this state has gotten and
10:11
Speaker 1: seeing what has transpired with the Menendez brothers who brutally
10:16
Speaker 1: killed both of their parents in cold blood for absolutely
10:20
Speaker 1: no reason other than the fact that they wanted their
10:23
Speaker 1: money and they thought that their dad was being a
10:27
Speaker 1: pain in the ass because they were being horrendous kids.
10:31
Speaker 1: That's what I think happened clearly with the Menendez brothers situation.
10:34
Speaker 1: It was only years later when they figured out they
10:37
Speaker 1: might be able to get sympathy by lying about their
10:40
Speaker 1: father that they killed and claiming that he sexually abused them.
10:44
Speaker 1: It's a complicated story. We've gone into it in the past.
10:48
Speaker 1: I don't believe that the evidence of sexual abuse is legitimate.
10:51
Speaker 1: The prosecutors did not believe it was legitimate. But it
10:54
Speaker 1: has been somewhat successful for the Menendez brothers, and they
10:58
Speaker 1: came within a whisker of being let out of prison
11:01
Speaker 1: this past year. Now that's not currently the case, but
11:05
Speaker 1: I still think eventually it will be. And I'm going
11:08
Speaker 1: to make a prediction now that for which there'll be
11:10
Speaker 1: almost certainly no accountability because I'll be long gone, certainly
11:14
Speaker 1: won't be doing a podcast at this time. But I
11:17
Speaker 1: am very confident that Nick Reiner is going to be
11:20
Speaker 1: a free man before he dies of natural causes. He's
11:26
Speaker 1: in his early thirties. I would be shocked if he
11:30
Speaker 1: is still given what we know about California and the
11:34
Speaker 1: nature of this case. I would be shocked if he's
11:37
Speaker 1: still in prison twenty twenty five years from now. I
11:41
Speaker 1: especially given the way that the country, especially in liberal
11:45
Speaker 1: parts of the country, is starting to view addiction as
11:48
Speaker 1: an ultimate excuse. And this is the connection to the
11:52
Speaker 1: Menendez situation. By the way, it wouldn't stun me if
11:55
Speaker 1: somewhere along the line, you know, Reiner tried to make
11:58
Speaker 1: an argument that he was abused by his parents, maybe
12:00
Speaker 1: not sexually but psychologically the pressure of celebrity and all
12:05
Speaker 1: that bullshit. Who knows, But it doesn't really matter, because
12:08
Speaker 1: Reiner is going to apparently have resources enough to defend himself.
12:13
Speaker 1: He clearly has the celebrity enough to do so, and
12:17
Speaker 1: he has an extremely liberal state, and he even has
12:21
Speaker 1: and this kind of blew my mind, even has the
12:25
Speaker 1: idea that his own parents were so liberal that they
12:30
Speaker 1: themselves would not have wanted him to be punished to
12:34
Speaker 1: the full extent of the law and have his life
12:36
Speaker 1: completely and totally ruined over what they would have perceived
12:39
Speaker 1: to be an illness. I saw a couple of different
12:42
Speaker 1: TikTok videos from Billy Bush, a guy I've dealt with
12:46
Speaker 1: in the past. I have a decent view of him.
12:49
Speaker 1: He's certainly not a liberal. He's actually for a Hollywood guy,
12:52
Speaker 1: he's rather conservative. But he appears to be connected to
12:56
Speaker 1: people in this case, and he says that that's driving
13:01
Speaker 1: part of the family dynamic right now, that they want
13:05
Speaker 1: to defend Nick because they don't think that their parents
13:09
Speaker 1: or in the case of Rob Briner and his wife Michelle,
13:12
Speaker 1: would have wanted Nick Reiner to be punished. Certainly not
13:15
Speaker 1: with the death pennel. He's never going to get the
13:17
Speaker 1: death penaly in California because we don't really have the
13:19
Speaker 1: death penalty anymore. But because of the addiction excuse and
13:25
Speaker 1: all the other factors in this case, and having the
13:28
Speaker 1: resources and the celebrity to consistently appeal down the road,
13:35
Speaker 1: I think there's a very good chance, as insane as
13:37
Speaker 1: it is, that Nick Reiner is walking the streets in
13:41
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five years, could even be sooner than that.
13:45
Speaker 1: With the rate of speed with which things are changing,
13:47
Speaker 1: especially in liberal California. But part of why I have
13:51
Speaker 1: come to this conclusion is because there is literally no
13:57
Speaker 1: outrage about this horrific crime. I mean, America lost an icon.
14:05
Speaker 1: Rob Reiner, an entertainment icon, one of the greatest movie
14:10
Speaker 1: directors of all time, a really good actor. Yes, he
14:13
Speaker 1: was very liberal, but he was in my opinion, well intentioned,
14:17
Speaker 1: if not wrongheaded. But it seemed by all accounts to
14:21
Speaker 1: be a good guy. I have problems with his parenting philosophy,
14:25
Speaker 1: which I went into in the last episode of the podcast,
14:28
Speaker 1: which I think helped facilitate the problem with his son Nick.
14:33
Speaker 1: But let me give you a really amazing example of
14:37
Speaker 1: how incredibly things have changed and how we just seem
14:42
Speaker 1: to be forgetting the basics, the basics of how a
14:47
Speaker 1: story is supposed to go. I told you last week
14:51
Speaker 1: that I was baffled and disturbed when watching the Los
14:55
Speaker 1: Angeles news coverage of this story, which is obviously a
14:59
Speaker 1: local story or having happened in the Brentwood section of
15:02
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, and honestly not being able to tell. If
15:07
Speaker 1: I didn't know for my own that Rob Reiner and
15:11
Speaker 1: his wife had been murdered, I would have thought he
15:15
Speaker 1: died and they died of natural causes because there was
15:19
Speaker 1: almost no connection to what happened, how it happened, or
15:24
Speaker 1: certainly not who who was the one that facilitated this murder,
15:29
Speaker 1: And that hasn't changed that much in the week since
15:34
Speaker 1: this happened, a week and a half since this happened.
15:36
Speaker 1: And the ultimate proof of this was CBS National television network,
15:41
Speaker 1: not local national. On Sunday Night, they put together pretty
15:46
Speaker 1: well produced but obviously extremely speedy production essentially recapping Rob
15:53
Speaker 1: Reiner's career. And I realize that in doing that, CBS
15:59
Speaker 1: was essentially ulogizing him. They were paying tribute to him. However,
16:05
Speaker 1: and I realized this was not about the murder. This
16:07
Speaker 1: wasn't a twenty twenty or a dateline, This wasn't about
16:10
Speaker 1: the murder. But I watched very carefully, and I swear
16:17
Speaker 1: to you that had you, you know, been in a
16:21
Speaker 1: coma for the last week or so, or just completely
16:24
Speaker 1: out of it with regard to the news coverage, and
16:26
Speaker 1: you tuned in to this CBS tribute for Rob Reiner,
16:31
Speaker 1: you would have had absolutely no idea how he and
16:36
Speaker 1: his wife died, and you would not have known that
16:40
Speaker 1: the son Nick had anything to do with it. There
16:43
Speaker 1: was a vague allusion to the son Nick having some issues.
16:47
Speaker 1: That's it. That's unbelievable. An hour long special on this
16:53
Speaker 1: man's life. He and his wife, another also a prominent person,
16:58
Speaker 1: get brutally murdered in their home by their son, and
17:02
Speaker 1: there's not even a mention of it, not a mention
17:05
Speaker 1: of it, and Nick Reiner doesn't get blamed at all. Now,
17:12
Speaker 1: to me, that was symbolic or emblematic or an indication
17:16
Speaker 1: of first of all, something's wrong. Something's wrong all across
17:21
Speaker 1: the board here, because we're just forgetting the basic steps
17:24
Speaker 1: of a story. Were just forgetting that we're supposed to
17:28
Speaker 1: express at least some basic level of outrage towards the
17:32
Speaker 1: person that committed a brutal murder. And I think there's
17:37
Speaker 1: a couple of reasons why it hasn't happened here other
17:40
Speaker 1: than the fact that things seem to be changing an
17:42
Speaker 1: incredibly quick speed, especially in the news media, when it
17:46
Speaker 1: comes to what provokes outrage. But the first is we
17:50
Speaker 1: have a guy who it's perceived, was struggling with addiction
17:55
Speaker 1: for most of his adult life, and therefore, somehow, whether
17:58
Speaker 1: consciously or subconscious, this gets him off the hook. Now
18:01
Speaker 1: I strongly, strongly disagree with that concept, but that seems
18:05
Speaker 1: to be what is greatly mitigating any sort of anger
18:09
Speaker 1: or outrage towards Nick Reiner. The other part of this is,
18:13
Speaker 1: unlike the Oj Simpson case, which happened literally right down
18:17
Speaker 1: the street from Rob Reiner's house, there are no photographs,
18:24
Speaker 1: no videos of blood literally running in the streets because
18:29
Speaker 1: Oj killed his ex wife and her friend Ron Goldman
18:33
Speaker 1: right out in front of the house, and the blood
18:35
Speaker 1: literally went down the sidewalk into the streets, and we
18:39
Speaker 1: all saw those photos and eventually we saw these horrendous
18:42
Speaker 1: photos of what happened to Ron and to Nicole. I
18:47
Speaker 1: don't know if we're ever going to publicly see these
18:49
Speaker 1: photos of Rob Reiner and his wife. So I think
18:53
Speaker 1: that's part of what doesn't make this real. That doesn't
18:58
Speaker 1: provoke nearly as much as outrage and anger as it should.
19:03
Speaker 1: But I think there's something even bigger than that. I
19:06
Speaker 1: think something is a miss. I think we're literally forgetting
19:12
Speaker 1: the basic steps of how we're supposed to deal with
19:15
Speaker 1: these kinds of situations, And as stupid as it sounds,
19:20
Speaker 1: the first step is identifying the culprit and making sure
19:25
Speaker 1: that that person is punished to the full extent of
19:27
Speaker 1: the law, and also that the public is made aware
19:33
Speaker 1: that this is the cause of the problem, that this
19:37
Speaker 1: shall not stand, that this is a person that should
19:40
Speaker 1: be obviously criticized as much as possibly could be, that
19:45
Speaker 1: there should be outrage and anger towards them, and that
19:48
Speaker 1: just doesn't exist. And that matters when eventually you get
19:52
Speaker 1: to a jury and a judge and later in later
19:57
Speaker 1: years an appeal, and if you don't start off with
20:01
Speaker 1: the anger now, I mean by the time this thing
20:05
Speaker 1: hits the legal system years from now, it's not going
20:08
Speaker 1: to exist, especially in a liberal state like California. And
20:13
Speaker 1: that's why I'm very confident that, as insane as it sounds,
20:18
Speaker 1: I don't think Nick Reiner is going to be in
20:20
Speaker 1: prison the rest of his life, and might not even
20:22
Speaker 1: be close to the rest of his life. Now, another
20:25
Speaker 1: big thing that happened in the last few days, which
20:28
Speaker 1: people have been eagerly anticipating, and we've talked about I
20:32
Speaker 1: believe far too much even on this podcast, but not
20:34
Speaker 1: nearly as much as a lot of other crazy people have,
20:37
Speaker 1: is the so called Epstein Files. And as you know,
20:41
Speaker 1: I have been predicting for a very long time that
20:44
Speaker 1: there will be no strong, real, significant evidence that anybody
20:52
Speaker 1: other than Jeffrey Epstein was guilty of crimes within the
20:57
Speaker 1: so called Epstein files. And I have come to that
21:00
Speaker 1: conclusion based upon all sorts of data, largely because of
21:06
Speaker 1: the lack of evidence that we already had that anybody
21:10
Speaker 1: else was involved in what most people seem to want
21:12
Speaker 1: to believe was a giant sex trafficking conspiracy, blackmail operation.
21:19
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not going to go through it all
21:21
Speaker 1: over again, because I've done so many times in the past,
21:23
Speaker 1: but this is a classic case where the absence of
21:26
Speaker 1: evidence is evidence of absence. We would have lawsuits. We
21:31
Speaker 1: would have lawsuits galore against prominent people, especially given the
21:36
Speaker 1: fact that the media has been blowing a hurricane win
21:38
Speaker 1: behind the so called accusers or survivors in this story
21:42
Speaker 1: for several years. I mean, so, I mean, there's no
21:46
Speaker 1: lack of interest from a lawyer to take a case
21:49
Speaker 1: in this situation for free pro bono and see where
21:53
Speaker 1: it goes. Yet that has almost entirely not happened. And
21:59
Speaker 1: that's just one one of many reasons why I've always
22:02
Speaker 1: been very dubious and increasingly dubious of the conventional wisdom
22:07
Speaker 1: narrative that both the left wing and the right wing media,
22:10
Speaker 1: for different reasons, have adopted. That this whole story, in
22:13
Speaker 1: my view, was blown way, way out of proportion, And
22:17
Speaker 1: it was blown way out of proportion largely, not totally,
22:21
Speaker 1: but largely because of the misperception surrounding his death. I've
22:27
Speaker 1: said many many times, I am positive that Epstein killed
22:31
Speaker 1: himself in prison, because the alternative scenario is impossible without
22:37
Speaker 1: there being massive amounts of evidence for it. But when
22:42
Speaker 1: people misperceived his death and claimed that he was murdered,
22:46
Speaker 1: I get it. If you think he was murdered, then
22:49
Speaker 1: that raises a whole series of new questions and possibilities.
22:54
Speaker 1: And why would he have been killed? How would he
22:56
Speaker 1: have been killed in a federal prison. This must have
22:59
Speaker 1: been done by powerful people. They must have had a
23:01
Speaker 1: lot to hide. I get that whole theory. However, it
23:06
Speaker 1: blows apart. It doesn't get out of the batter's box.
23:09
Speaker 1: If Epstein killed himself, and which the evidence is overwhelming
23:15
Speaker 1: that he did, and then this thing, this got completely
23:18
Speaker 1: out of control. I believe that the former Prince Andrew
23:21
Speaker 1: was completely railroaded and run over by a mack truck
23:26
Speaker 1: and Glenne Maxwell got convicted in a trial in the
23:30
Speaker 1: middle of the COVID panic that was an embarrassment to
23:33
Speaker 1: do process. Whether she was guilty or not, I don't know.
23:36
Speaker 1: I don't think we'll ever know. I have suspicions that
23:39
Speaker 1: she may not have been guilty at all, and that
23:42
Speaker 1: this was a one man crime. This was Epstein hiring prostitutes,
23:47
Speaker 1: many or some of whom were underage. Terrible criminal. He
23:54
Speaker 1: was brought to justice, he realized the gig was up,
23:57
Speaker 1: and he killed himself in prison, which would never have
24:00
Speaker 1: done if he had blackmail information, especially on President Trump
24:05
Speaker 1: because Trump was president at the time. It's just to me,
24:08
Speaker 1: it's just the dumbest theory ever and just amazing to
24:13
Speaker 1: me how many people, allegedly smart people on both the
24:16
Speaker 1: left and the right and throughout the media have just
24:20
Speaker 1: bought into this thing, and it just got bigger and
24:22
Speaker 1: bigger and bigger. And you know, once it becomes that big,
24:25
Speaker 1: it becomes too big to fail. And because it now
24:29
Speaker 1: has an audience on the left and the right. See,
24:33
Speaker 1: that's what's really been driving Epstein story in the last
24:37
Speaker 1: year or so, is that it's very rare for a
24:40
Speaker 1: story like this to have a built in audience on
24:43
Speaker 1: both the left and the right for different reasons. The
24:46
Speaker 1: MAGO people want, you know, their vindication that Epstein was
24:50
Speaker 1: murdered and that there was this sex trafficking ring, and
24:53
Speaker 1: they want the elites to be publicly executed. The left
24:57
Speaker 1: has deluded themselves into believing that Donald Trum was implicated
25:01
Speaker 1: in these things, and that's the reason why they haven't
25:03
Speaker 1: been released. And I have just never bought into that theory.
25:06
Speaker 1: I understand it. That's why we had David Schuster, you know,
25:11
Speaker 1: left wing media commentator on the podcast a few weeks
25:14
Speaker 1: ago to discuss this. I didn't think that David's explanations
25:18
Speaker 1: for why he believed this were particularly good, and I
25:24
Speaker 1: was very very confident. I told him so both on
25:27
Speaker 1: and off the air, that this was going to essentially
25:30
Speaker 1: be an ambush, that there was not going to be
25:32
Speaker 1: any evidence of Trump related crimes in the Epstein files,
25:37
Speaker 1: because if there was, he would have been sued a
25:41
Speaker 1: long time ago. By the way, one of the one
25:44
Speaker 1: of the elements of the you know, where the lawsuits
25:47
Speaker 1: against Trump issued that I haven't mentioned that I should have.
25:49
Speaker 1: And by the way, this relates to a lot of
25:51
Speaker 1: people potentially in the Epstein files or within his sphere.
25:56
Speaker 1: Is that a few years ago, New York infamously, I believe,
26:03
Speaker 1: completely absurdly dropped the statute of limitations on sex abuse cases.
26:09
Speaker 1: It was basically a law that said, hey, come out
26:13
Speaker 1: of the woodwork and go ahead and accuse any rich,
26:16
Speaker 1: famous person in the state of New York, and you know,
26:20
Speaker 1: roll the dice. You might win the lottery. I mean,
26:24
Speaker 1: it was completely ridiculous. There's a reason why the stattional
26:28
Speaker 1: limitations exist, especially in sex abuse cases, because it's impossible
26:32
Speaker 1: to defend yourself against a very old allegation in the
26:37
Speaker 1: realm of sex abuse. And yet that was just dropped.
26:42
Speaker 1: It was an invitation. And this all was, by the way,
26:45
Speaker 1: after Epstein was dead, and this became a massive story.
26:51
Speaker 1: And yet nobody filed a lawsuit at New York against
26:55
Speaker 1: Donald Trump related to the Epstein matter. Come on, people,
27:00
Speaker 1: use your brains. So the law was passed in Congress,
27:06
Speaker 1: a very poorly written law as far as I can tell,
27:10
Speaker 1: that the DOJ was forced to release the so called
27:14
Speaker 1: Epstein files the very last day of where that law
27:19
Speaker 1: indicated that these files could be released was last Friday,
27:25
Speaker 1: and there was a whole bunch of material released on
27:28
Speaker 1: that day, and of course none of it indicated, just
27:33
Speaker 1: like I've told you, that anybody else was guilty of
27:36
Speaker 1: any crimes and were just not indicted because they were
27:39
Speaker 1: being protected. There's absolutely, positively, as of this taping, not
27:44
Speaker 1: a shred of evidence that anybody else should have been
27:48
Speaker 1: indicted in the Epstein matter other than Jeffrey Epstein and
27:52
Speaker 1: maybe Gallainne Maxwell. That's it. Not even Prince Andrew, by
27:56
Speaker 1: the way, there's no evidence in there at all other
28:00
Speaker 1: than what we already know, which was incredibly dubious in
28:03
Speaker 1: my opinion, against Prince Andrew, which is why Prince Andrew
28:06
Speaker 1: has never been indicted or charged with a crime, either
28:10
Speaker 1: here or in the UK. And it's not because he's untouchable.
28:16
Speaker 1: It's been proven he's completely touchable. They destroyed his life,
28:19
Speaker 1: they took away everything he had. He's not even a
28:22
Speaker 1: prince anymore. His nuts have really literally been cut off
28:26
Speaker 1: in this whole situation for a complex series of reasons
28:29
Speaker 1: that I've gone into in the past that had absolutely
28:31
Speaker 1: nothing to do with him being guilty of a crime
28:35
Speaker 1: in the Epstein matter, and so in a rational world,
28:41
Speaker 1: I would be able to claim vindication, declare victory, say see,
28:46
Speaker 1: I told you so. This was a bunch of bullshit.
28:50
Speaker 1: This was much ado about nothing. It was very similar
28:53
Speaker 1: to the whole jfk assassination files and other files of
28:58
Speaker 1: prominent situations where the conspiracy theorists eventually have to go, well,
29:03
Speaker 1: you know, maybe I was wrong. Of course, the conspiracy
29:06
Speaker 1: theorists never admit they were wrong, because they'll always claim, well,
29:10
Speaker 1: the real good stuff wasn't released or it was destroyed
29:15
Speaker 1: by the way. That's part of this whole scenario that
29:18
Speaker 1: I find hilarious is that so the left believes that
29:23
Speaker 1: Trump is implicated, they also believe Trump is evil and
29:28
Speaker 1: a criminal mastermind. And so if that's all true, and
29:33
Speaker 1: which I fully understand, why people would believe that those
29:36
Speaker 1: in the DOJ are willing to do virtually anything to
29:39
Speaker 1: protect Trump. Why would we expect anything to come out
29:42
Speaker 1: publicly because it would just get destroyed. Of course, there's
29:47
Speaker 1: another element of this which everyone forgets is that there
29:49
Speaker 1: was a goddamn Biden administration which had this material for
29:53
Speaker 1: four years, So why the fuck didn't they release any
29:57
Speaker 1: of this? Kamala Harris was asked by Jimmy Kimmel one
30:02
Speaker 1: of the very few good questions. Jimmy Kimmel ever asked us, Hey,
30:05
Speaker 1: why didn't the Biden administration ever release any of this
30:07
Speaker 1: information on the Epstein files? And Harris rather meekly tried
30:11
Speaker 1: to claim was because we wanted to avoid a conflict
30:14
Speaker 1: of interest, which of course nobody is buying, because there
30:17
Speaker 1: were two federal indictments of Donald Trump during their administration
30:22
Speaker 1: and they knew damn right well he was going to
30:23
Speaker 1: be their opponent of the twenty twenty four presidential election.
30:28
Speaker 1: That's not the reason. The reason was because there was
30:31
Speaker 1: nothing in there. That's the Okham's razor explanation. There was
30:34
Speaker 1: nothing implicating Trump in there. But here we have this
30:40
Speaker 1: very upside down and I think very telling reality about
30:45
Speaker 1: the nature of conspiracies, and that is that the conspiracy
30:50
Speaker 1: theorists are enraged. And I get Look, I get why
30:53
Speaker 1: people are upset that there are far, far, far too
30:57
Speaker 1: many reactions in the relief of the Epstein files. I mean,
31:01
Speaker 1: some of this is utterly ridiculous. I think there's like
31:04
Speaker 1: one hundred and nineteen consecutive pages of nothing but reactions.
31:08
Speaker 1: That's absurd. That can't be taken seriously. So I get that.
31:12
Speaker 1: I'm not even trying to claim that people are overreacting
31:16
Speaker 1: to the reaction issue. But what I find to be
31:21
Speaker 1: telling and upside down is that the people that are
31:25
Speaker 1: screaming the most about this, whether they realize it or not,
31:30
Speaker 1: should be actually thrilled that there were this many reactions
31:34
Speaker 1: because it prevents them from having to admit they were duped,
31:39
Speaker 1: that they were wrong, that they bought a bill of goods,
31:43
Speaker 1: they sold a bill of goods. If they're in the
31:45
Speaker 1: media on this, they don't have to do that because
31:49
Speaker 1: they have the built in excuse for the idea that
31:53
Speaker 1: there was no evidence of anybody else involved in a
31:56
Speaker 1: crime here that there are pages and pages is the reactions.
32:01
Speaker 1: So the real evidence, the real evidence, is still there.
32:06
Speaker 1: It just hasn't been released publicly because I guess the
32:09
Speaker 1: Trump administration is trying to protect these very same powerful people.
32:14
Speaker 1: Now let me go back for just a second. The
32:17
Speaker 1: entire concept of the Epstein files is absurd on its
32:21
Speaker 1: face because what is the Epstein file. The Epstein Files
32:26
Speaker 1: is basically all the garbage that was accumulated in the
32:30
Speaker 1: course of this investigation. And when I say garbage, I
32:34
Speaker 1: mean garbage. I mean some of this stuff is ridiculous.
32:39
Speaker 1: And the people that were investigating this situation knew it
32:45
Speaker 1: was ridiculous. They didn't take it even seriously. I mean
32:49
Speaker 1: tips from whack jobs and videos of cgi, videos of
32:55
Speaker 1: Epstein actually killing himself. It is cell which somebody posts
33:00
Speaker 1: that went viral on the X the other day. Oh
33:02
Speaker 1: my god, what's this all about? Is this a video
33:05
Speaker 1: Epstein killing himself? No, this is a nutjob creating a
33:08
Speaker 1: very rudimentary siggim video of what it might have looked like.
33:13
Speaker 1: But they had to put that in there because that's
33:16
Speaker 1: all under the auspices of the Epstein investigation and the
33:20
Speaker 1: Epstein files. But the magic of this situation is that
33:26
Speaker 1: when you take garbage, which is what any grand jury
33:30
Speaker 1: investigation is, I mean grand jury investigation is almost inherently garbage,
33:36
Speaker 1: they throw everything they possibly can, just trying to get
33:39
Speaker 1: an indictment, trying to test it out, see what an
33:41
Speaker 1: edible stick. Inevitably, there's gonna especially in a situation like this,
33:46
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a lot of stuff that's not just false,
33:48
Speaker 1: it's ludicrously and absurdly untrue. But what happens is because
33:57
Speaker 1: it gets this name, the steam Files, and because people
34:02
Speaker 1: don't understand what a grand jury is. Grand jury sounds
34:06
Speaker 1: really prestigious. It's grand and it's a jury. It's the
34:11
Speaker 1: exact opposite of what reality is. But when you give
34:16
Speaker 1: it this name, the Epstein Files, and it takes on
34:20
Speaker 1: a magical quality and it's something that we haven't been
34:23
Speaker 1: allowed to see. This is really the key, because people
34:27
Speaker 1: always want what they can't have, and because it's being
34:31
Speaker 1: withheld in public perception, the fact that it's now being released,
34:36
Speaker 1: it gives it more power, it gives it more credibility.
34:39
Speaker 1: When all this is is still garbage, it's all bullshit.
34:46
Speaker 1: And so this thing finally gets released with massive amounts
34:50
Speaker 1: of reactions and people go crazy, desperately try to come
34:55
Speaker 1: up with something that is relevant and most importantly to them,
35:00
Speaker 1: vindicates what their prior belief about this story already was.
35:07
Speaker 1: I mean, some of the stuff that happened over the
35:09
Speaker 1: last few days was absolutely fucking hilarious. This is how
35:14
Speaker 1: desperate the conspiracy theorists and those that want to believe
35:18
Speaker 1: in this massive sex trafficking operation and that everything involved
35:22
Speaker 1: in this case is somehow inherently evil the lens to
35:25
Speaker 1: which they went. It wasn't just the absurd CGI video
35:29
Speaker 1: of Epstein killing himself in a prison, which was clearly
35:32
Speaker 1: fake if you looked at it for two seconds. My
35:36
Speaker 1: favorite was there was a photograph of a room with
35:41
Speaker 1: no people in one of Epstein's residences, and a couple
35:48
Speaker 1: of the chairs in the room appeared to be smaller
35:53
Speaker 1: than normal, and the person just imagined that this was
35:58
Speaker 1: somehow part of a child sex trafficking situation, with absolutely
36:04
Speaker 1: no evidence or logic, and people bought into this because
36:07
Speaker 1: they were so desperate. I told you, when people are
36:11
Speaker 1: promised an execution of the elites in public and it
36:16
Speaker 1: doesn't look like it's going to happen, they're going to
36:18
Speaker 1: get crazed. And so every little crumb that they could
36:23
Speaker 1: possibly find from the Epstein files got totally blown out
36:26
Speaker 1: of proportion. There were all sorts of photographs, many of
36:30
Speaker 1: which included Bill Clinton, and look, I think I've got
36:34
Speaker 1: ultimate credibility on this Bill Clinton aspect to this, I
36:38
Speaker 1: hated Bill Clinton. And my first major movie, which was
36:43
Speaker 1: called Blocking the Path in nine to eleven, was a
36:46
Speaker 1: bodified anti Bill and Hillary Clinton movie. My first documentary
36:51
Speaker 1: film and the impeachment saga I've talked about previously, the
36:56
Speaker 1: Harmonica Lewinsky Paula Jones situation. I think it was a
36:59
Speaker 1: seminal moment in the downfall of America. So I have
37:02
Speaker 1: no love for Bill Clinton at all. But the idea
37:06
Speaker 1: that some photographs of Bill Clinton swimming with Glenne Maxwell
37:12
Speaker 1: in bathing suits or in a hot tub just relaxing,
37:16
Speaker 1: or with a woman that appears to be young looking,
37:21
Speaker 1: you know, sitting cozying up to him, that that's somehow
37:25
Speaker 1: an indication that he was involved in Epstein's alleged sex
37:29
Speaker 1: trafficking ring is beyond absurd. It's ludicrous. Now does it
37:37
Speaker 1: mean that he should be asked some questions? Absolut fucking lutely.
37:41
Speaker 1: I have no problem with these. You know, it's funny.
37:46
Speaker 1: We used to understand what a clue was, or what
37:50
Speaker 1: a lead was. Now we go from a potential clue
37:54
Speaker 1: to aha, bum bum bum guilty. So what we we
38:00
Speaker 1: have in these photographs is, I agree, at times a
38:03
Speaker 1: little odd and worthy of an inquiry. So you ask
38:08
Speaker 1: a question, you don't just automatically go to, oh my god,
38:14
Speaker 1: he's a pedophile and look Bill Clinton's history, I get
38:18
Speaker 1: it makes him far more vulnerable to these kind of questions.
38:22
Speaker 1: I mean, he was having sexual relations with an intern
38:26
Speaker 1: named Monica Lewinsky, well president of the United States, I
38:29
Speaker 1: get it. So I'm not saying that this whole idea
38:32
Speaker 1: is crazy. I'm just saying there's no evidence of it.
38:35
Speaker 1: And Clinton, I think, smartly has put out a statement saying,
38:39
Speaker 1: release all the files, release it all. I got nothing
38:43
Speaker 1: to hide here, release all the information. And I believe,
38:49
Speaker 1: I believe. I can't believe I'm saying this. I believe
38:51
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton. I believe that if all the file information
38:55
Speaker 1: was released that there would be no evidence of any
38:57
Speaker 1: crimes related to Bill Clinton and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
39:01
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein had a lot of very very prominent friends.
39:06
Speaker 1: This was his moh, his business m He was able
39:10
Speaker 1: to snow the elites into believing he was the real deal,
39:15
Speaker 1: and he let them use his plane and his island,
39:19
Speaker 1: and this got him in the club. And once he's
39:23
Speaker 1: in the club, and he's a charming dude, and he's
39:25
Speaker 1: got Prince Andrew at the time, and Bill Clinton and
39:28
Speaker 1: Donald Trump all the other elites turn around and look
39:32
Speaker 1: around and go, oh wow, this guy's really cool, and
39:34
Speaker 1: he's got parties with all sorts of celebrities, and it
39:39
Speaker 1: just kind of feeds on itself. And a lot of
39:42
Speaker 1: these pictures are of celebrities. But I'll tell you the
39:45
Speaker 1: most evil part, and Clinton himself referred to this in
39:49
Speaker 1: his statement, the most evil part of the release of
39:54
Speaker 1: the Epstein files is not, as far as we can
39:57
Speaker 1: tell so far, the massive redactions. You know, the one
40:01
Speaker 1: hundred and nineteen pages. I would like to know what
40:04
Speaker 1: the fuck's going on there. I have a theory that
40:07
Speaker 1: I'm not super confident about, but I actually think that
40:10
Speaker 1: the most logical Ockham's razor explanation for that level of
40:15
Speaker 1: redaction is that they're actually protecting some of these Epstein
40:20
Speaker 1: accusers survivors from embarrassment because their stories were not deemed
40:26
Speaker 1: to be credible. That to me makes sense, as to
40:30
Speaker 1: you know, when you parse everything that the DJ is
40:32
Speaker 1: saying and you use your basic logic and you look
40:35
Speaker 1: at this case and it's totality that scenario well not satisfying.
40:40
Speaker 1: I think is at least plausible. But the worst part,
40:43
Speaker 1: in my opinion, based upon what we currently know underlying
40:46
Speaker 1: currently know about the reactions is the redactions in these
40:51
Speaker 1: photographs of people that were clearly not Epstein accusers or
40:59
Speaker 1: survivors or whatever you want to call them. They were
41:02
Speaker 1: just women or people that were underage. In fact, if
41:06
Speaker 1: you look carefully, the DOJ makes it very clear this
41:11
Speaker 1: is not a matter of controversy that they chose to
41:16
Speaker 1: redact almost anybody that was female and anybody that was
41:21
Speaker 1: a younger person in the photographs out of what they
41:25
Speaker 1: referred to as an abundance of caution. I hate that term,
41:30
Speaker 1: an abundance of caution. Well, what does that mean? That
41:33
Speaker 1: might sound this is a classic case of boy that
41:36
Speaker 1: sounds really good and well intentioned, but it creates an
41:39
Speaker 1: evil outcome because when ends up happening, you get pictures
41:44
Speaker 1: of Michael Jackson and Diana Ross where there are a
41:50
Speaker 1: bunch of other people redacted, and we only later find
41:54
Speaker 1: out the people being redacted were Diana Ross's kids. But
42:00
Speaker 1: when you redact someone's photograph in this situation, under the
42:04
Speaker 1: auspices of the Epstein files, which has taking on this
42:07
Speaker 1: magical quality, you get the bump bump bump, and somehow
42:13
Speaker 1: there's something the farious going on. They did the same
42:15
Speaker 1: thing to Bill Clinton. They did the same thing that
42:18
Speaker 1: Prince Andrew. They did Prince Andrew so wrong in this
42:21
Speaker 1: whole situation. Why because they know no one's going to
42:25
Speaker 1: defend Prince former Prince Andrew. But there's a photograph of
42:28
Speaker 1: him in the lap, fully dressed. They're clearly at a
42:34
Speaker 1: black tie event, it looks like, but they're taking this
42:37
Speaker 1: gag photograph where Prince Andrew is laying posing on the
42:42
Speaker 1: lapse of what appear to be four or five clearly
42:46
Speaker 1: adult you know that you can't be sure because their
42:49
Speaker 1: faces are redacted, but it certainly appears to be adult women.
42:53
Speaker 1: Glenne Maxwell is looking over the thing, laughing, Andrew is laughing.
42:57
Speaker 1: It's a gag photo with a adults. But because they
43:01
Speaker 1: blocked the faces of the other women out for I'm
43:05
Speaker 1: sure absolutely no reason other than this abundance of caution,
43:10
Speaker 1: the photo somehow looks nefarious to the idiots out there,
43:15
Speaker 1: when the reality is when you look at the what
43:17
Speaker 1: has been released and I read to you an email
43:22
Speaker 1: exchange between Epstein and then Prince Andrew where Prince Andrew
43:25
Speaker 1: first learns of the allegation against him, which I think
43:28
Speaker 1: is as exculpatory as could possibly be from Andrew's perspective,
43:32
Speaker 1: it basically convinced me almost one hundred percent that Andrew
43:36
Speaker 1: never committed any crime here. I'm not even sure he
43:38
Speaker 1: ever had sex with the woman in question, and so
43:42
Speaker 1: this random and I believe, even if it was well intentioned,
43:47
Speaker 1: effectively nefarious use of redactions and photographs really has done
43:53
Speaker 1: a lot of people wrong. And this is what leads
43:57
Speaker 1: me to maybe the most ironic part of this whole
44:00
Speaker 1: Epstein's situation, and that is that I honestly believe that
44:04
Speaker 1: the guy that comes closest to getting this what's really
44:08
Speaker 1: going on in this situation, might be Donald Trump. I know,
44:13
Speaker 1: coming from me, that sounds crazy, right. I'm as strong
44:17
Speaker 1: as a Trump critic as any conservative that still exists today,
44:21
Speaker 1: and I believe, I believe very dim. I have a
44:26
Speaker 1: very dim view of Trump's own morality, his lack of principles,
44:30
Speaker 1: his narcissism, his lack of truthfulness. But I'm sorry. And
44:36
Speaker 1: when this goes back to what Marjorie Taylor Green told
44:39
Speaker 1: sixty minutes about what Trump told her involving the Epstein
44:44
Speaker 1: files and why he was against them being released, he
44:47
Speaker 1: told her, and she begrudgingly told sixty minutes. That is
44:51
Speaker 1: because he thinks people are going to get hurt, the
44:54
Speaker 1: implication meaning innocent people. Well, here was Trump. He understands
45:00
Speaker 1: people are pissed off about the redactions, which you know,
45:04
Speaker 1: we don't have any evidence he was directly involved with.
45:07
Speaker 1: I'm not naive. I fully understand that those doing this
45:11
Speaker 1: were clearly doing this in a way that they felt
45:15
Speaker 1: would be best for Trump, or at least bad for Trump.
45:18
Speaker 1: But I go back to the whole idea of okay people,
45:21
Speaker 1: which is it are these criminal, evil masterminds or are
45:26
Speaker 1: they complete idiots? Because there was some stuff in there
45:30
Speaker 1: about Trump that was not appealing at all. I mean,
45:34
Speaker 1: there was a story in there of Epstein at mar
45:37
Speaker 1: A Lago with a fourteen year old girl telling Trump, Hey,
45:41
Speaker 1: she's a good one, isn't she and Trump nodding or
45:44
Speaker 1: something like that. It wasn't, you know, anything close to criminal,
45:47
Speaker 1: but it was embarrassing for Trump. Why wasn't that redacted?
45:52
Speaker 1: If the redactions were done purely for political reasons, why
45:56
Speaker 1: wasn't that redacted? Then we have this bizarre situation where
45:59
Speaker 1: there's a series of photographs in a photograph and one
46:03
Speaker 1: of those photographs has Trump with a bunch of women,
46:06
Speaker 1: and that was originally posted, then it got taken down,
46:10
Speaker 1: then it got reposted, and the explanation actually, to me,
46:16
Speaker 1: made some sense if you understand how overly sensitive the
46:21
Speaker 1: DOJ is being to the accusers or the so called survivors.
46:26
Speaker 1: So they put that up. It's a photo of a photo.
46:30
Speaker 1: Someone misses that there might have been somebody theoretically protected
46:34
Speaker 1: under their rules for redaction. So then it gets taken down.
46:38
Speaker 1: But the fact that it got taken down alerted people
46:41
Speaker 1: on the internet, Oh my god, what's going on here?
46:44
Speaker 1: Is this a cover up of Trump's involvement? Then they
46:49
Speaker 1: re evaluated, and I believe they reposted it. Which is it?
46:54
Speaker 1: Is it these people are incredibly competent, criminal masterminds pulling
46:59
Speaker 1: off this cover up or are they fucking idiots chasing
47:02
Speaker 1: their tails because they're terrified of offending this protected class
47:07
Speaker 1: of Epstein accusers and survivors. I think it's the latter.
47:12
Speaker 1: And everything Trump has said is consistent with my view. Now,
47:17
Speaker 1: I fully get that being a human being, if someone's
47:20
Speaker 1: saying something consistent with your view, you're going to be
47:23
Speaker 1: more likely to believe it, even if it's someone you
47:26
Speaker 1: don't like personally like Donald Trump, but this statement that
47:30
Speaker 1: Trump gave rings true to me. This is him talking
47:33
Speaker 1: about their inactions, even defending weirdly Bill Clinton. I think
47:37
Speaker 1: this is a bit disingenuous because Trump has, once he
47:40
Speaker 1: realized he was going to lose on the release of
47:43
Speaker 1: the Epstein files. He has made it clear that people
47:46
Speaker 1: like Clinton and Democrats ought to be worried because this
47:49
Speaker 1: was a Democrat scandal. So I'm not buying his sympathy
47:52
Speaker 1: for Bill Clinton. But in the overall scheme of things,
47:56
Speaker 1: I think Trump's explanation is at least co at least
48:00
Speaker 1: makes some sense, is at least plausible, and it's consistent
48:04
Speaker 1: with all the known evidence. And here's what Trump said
48:07
Speaker 1: in the aftermath of the release of the Epstein files.
48:11
Speaker 2: Thank you, mister president. We're you surprised by the number
48:13
Speaker 2: of photos of Bill Clinton and the Epstein files, and
48:16
Speaker 2: you can you commit to their full and were you
48:19
Speaker 2: surprised in the number of photos of Bill Clinton in
48:21
Speaker 2: the Epstein files? And can you commit to their full
48:24
Speaker 2: release by the end of the year. Some of the
48:25
Speaker 2: victims were protesting that too many of them were retacted.
48:28
Speaker 3: I know there are a lot of people that are
48:30
Speaker 3: angry about all of the pictures of other people, you know,
48:34
Speaker 3: But I think it's terrible. Look, I don't like the
48:37
Speaker 3: I like Bill Clinton. I've always gotten along with Bill Clinton.
48:40
Speaker 3: That've been nice to him, He's been nice to me.
48:41
Speaker 3: We've always gotten respect him. I hate to see photos
48:45
Speaker 3: come out of him. But this is what the Democrats,
48:48
Speaker 3: mostly Democrats and a couple of bad Republicans, are asking for,
48:51
Speaker 3: so they give you their photos of me too. Everybody
48:54
Speaker 3: was friendly with this guy, either friendly or not friendly.
48:57
Speaker 1: But then you know, he was around.
48:58
Speaker 3: He was all over Upon Beach and other places. The
49:00
Speaker 3: head of Harvard was his best friend, Larry Summers, and
49:03
Speaker 3: Bill Clinton was a friend of his.
49:05
Speaker 1: But everybody was I.
49:06
Speaker 3: Actually threw him out of mari A Lago and as
49:09
Speaker 3: a you know, as a person that was in Mara Alago,
49:12
Speaker 3: I threw him out of mar A Lagos. This is
49:14
Speaker 3: mari Alaga. It's the hottest place in I think it's
49:17
Speaker 3: the hottest place in the world. But it's the hottest
49:19
Speaker 3: place in Florida, and everybody would come here, he'd come here.
49:22
Speaker 3: We actually threw him out. But no, I don't like
49:25
Speaker 3: the pictures of Bill Clinton being shown. I don't like
49:28
Speaker 3: the pictures of other people being shown. I think it's
49:30
Speaker 3: a terrible thing. I think Bill Linton's a big boy,
49:34
Speaker 3: he can handle it. But you probably have pictures being
49:38
Speaker 3: exposed of other people that innocently met Jeffrey Epstein years ago,
49:42
Speaker 3: many years ago, and they're you know, highly respected bankers
49:47
Speaker 3: and lawyers and others.
49:50
Speaker 1: Now, is it possible that what Trump said there is
49:54
Speaker 1: not going to hold up over time? Yeah, that's possible.
49:57
Speaker 1: But I have to say, based upon every thing we
50:00
Speaker 1: currently know, that explanation sounds very plausible to me. It
50:06
Speaker 1: is consistent with all the known evidence. And that gets
50:11
Speaker 1: me back to my basic theory currently, based upon what
50:16
Speaker 1: we know today about why there are so many reactions,
50:20
Speaker 1: It's the opposite. It's the so often in these cases,
50:25
Speaker 1: the truth is the opposite of perception. The perception is,
50:28
Speaker 1: oh my god, they're protecting the perpetrators. They're protecting the perpetrators.
50:33
Speaker 1: That that's what you know, Thomas Massey and and you
50:36
Speaker 1: know people like that are screaming and yelling because they've
50:39
Speaker 1: been embarrassed. They've been promising. You know this al Capone,
50:44
Speaker 1: Heraldo Rivera, you know al Capone Vault situation, the vault
50:47
Speaker 1: is empty. So right now, I actually think they were smart.
50:51
Speaker 1: They would decide, Okay, you know what, we're just going
50:53
Speaker 1: to claim that these redactions are evidence of the conspiracy
50:57
Speaker 1: we told you about and move on. But they're not
51:00
Speaker 1: going to do that. They want everything released, And in
51:02
Speaker 1: my opinion, while I'm sure there's going to be because
51:06
Speaker 1: it's so easy to have this happened, and because the
51:09
Speaker 1: media is so desperate for this narrative to be vindicated,
51:13
Speaker 1: that if all of this information eventually does come out,
51:16
Speaker 1: I'm sure they're going to be people that are unfairly implicated.
51:19
Speaker 1: They're going to come up with some way of finding
51:22
Speaker 1: a new criminal in all this. They have to that
51:24
Speaker 1: narrative is just too big to fail. But I think
51:27
Speaker 1: that the more logical scenario is they're not protecting the perpetrators.
51:33
Speaker 1: They're protecting the accusers from embarrassment and ridicule and being exposed.
51:40
Speaker 1: A lot of them, not all of them, but a
51:42
Speaker 1: lot of them is frauds. I mean, the New York
51:45
Speaker 1: Times got duped into, you know, doing an entire story
51:50
Speaker 1: about one of the allegations that's in the Epstein files
51:53
Speaker 1: that goes back to the nineteen nineties and that this
51:59
Speaker 1: was a porn operation and they gave it total credibility
52:03
Speaker 1: simply because it was in the Epstein files. And Michael
52:06
Speaker 1: Tracy we've had on this podcast previously, who I have
52:10
Speaker 1: some problems with in his beliefs about this case, but
52:14
Speaker 1: has done a really good job on the nuts and
52:15
Speaker 1: bolts and the facts. He just eviscerated that article and saying,
52:20
Speaker 1: if you know who that accuser is and you know
52:22
Speaker 1: the story behind it, she's fucking crazy, as is her sister.
52:27
Speaker 1: And the story was disregarded by the authorities, by the
52:32
Speaker 1: FBI at the time because it was fucking crazy. This,
52:36
Speaker 1: of course, you know, hearkens back to the whole Jerry
52:38
Speaker 1: Sandusky case where everything in retrospect gets looked at totally differently.
52:43
Speaker 1: Once you buy the idea that Jerry Sandusky was a
52:47
Speaker 1: forty year pedophile being protected by the entire Penn State
52:51
Speaker 1: football and administration complex at Penn State, which of course
52:56
Speaker 1: is not true. But once you believe that, then every
52:59
Speaker 1: little story that happened way back in the day is
53:03
Speaker 1: seen completely differently and far more nefariously, and it somehow
53:07
Speaker 1: gets more credibility than it deserves because at the time,
53:11
Speaker 1: it was deemed not credible and for very very good reasons.
53:16
Speaker 1: But this is what happens. I predicted this from day one,
53:20
Speaker 1: partially because of my experience in the Sandusky case. When
53:23
Speaker 1: a narrative is too big to fail, you're going to
53:26
Speaker 1: buy into a whole lot of bullshit. And that's what
53:29
Speaker 1: happened here. And I could be wrong, and I'm i
53:33
Speaker 1: unlike the conspiracy people, I will be the first to
53:36
Speaker 1: acknowledge if I'm ever proven wrong on this, I don't
53:39
Speaker 1: think I will be. I don't know what's in all
53:41
Speaker 1: that redacted information. Again, I'm acknowledging there's probably some stuff
53:46
Speaker 1: in there protecting people who were unfairly accused by allegations
53:51
Speaker 1: that were not credible. That to me, is the scenario
53:55
Speaker 1: that makes the most sense. It doesn't satisfy anybody, and
53:58
Speaker 1: it's not possible to prove that theory as of yet.
54:02
Speaker 1: Whether or not we're ever going to get all this information,
54:04
Speaker 1: I don't know. I have no idea. I'm so tired
54:07
Speaker 1: of this fucking story. And what's most frustrating about it
54:11
Speaker 1: is I think I've been more right than anybody. I
54:14
Speaker 1: don't know of anybody has been more correct in their
54:17
Speaker 1: analysis of what's really going on with the Epstein story
54:20
Speaker 1: than me. I mean, Michael Tracy's been really good on
54:22
Speaker 1: the nuts and bolts, but he's way off based on
54:25
Speaker 1: the issue of how Epstein died, and he's not even
54:29
Speaker 1: sure that the main accuser is even dead even though
54:33
Speaker 1: she committed suicide. So I don't get Michael on some
54:36
Speaker 1: of those issues, But on the actual nuts and bolts
54:40
Speaker 1: facts of the case, he's been very, very good. He
54:42
Speaker 1: knows way more than anybody else does. But even he,
54:45
Speaker 1: I don't think has been nearly as dead on about
54:48
Speaker 1: what really did and did not happen in this case
54:51
Speaker 1: as I have. And it's not because I'm a genius.
54:53
Speaker 1: It's partially because of my Santotski experience. And the two
54:56
Speaker 1: stories are remarkably similar, the biggest difference being Jeffrey Eppstay,
55:01
Speaker 1: just to be clear, was guilty of the crimes that
55:03
Speaker 1: he was accused of, which is why he killed himself
55:07
Speaker 1: in a federal prison. But this story, unfortunately, is not
55:11
Speaker 1: going away. I have no idea how much longer it's
55:14
Speaker 1: going to continue to go on. It's probably for quite
55:17
Speaker 1: a while, and I'm quite certain that those that are deeply,
55:20
Speaker 1: deeply invested in their narrative, are going to keep trying
55:23
Speaker 1: until they find something to justify their investment in their narrative,
55:28
Speaker 1: because once the narrative becomes too big to fail we
55:30
Speaker 1: saw it during COVID, it can't fail, especially when the
55:34
Speaker 1: left and the right wing media, for different reasons, are
55:37
Speaker 1: allied here in this just absolutely batshit crazy, stupid conspiracy
55:44
Speaker 1: for which there's no evidence or logic. Thanks for listening
55:47
Speaker 1: to today's free drop of the abbreviated show. If you're
55:50
Speaker 1: interested in listening to the entire show, you must become
55:54
Speaker 1: a patron. Please go to Patreon. That's pat r EO
56:00
Speaker 1: dot com. Patreon dot com slash the Death of Journalism
56:06
Speaker 1: with John Ziggler. My name is j H H n
56:10
Speaker 1: z I E g L e R. That's patreon dot com.
56:15
Speaker 1: Slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler. Good luck
56:20
Speaker 1: to you on that. But that's how you can subscribe