Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Eric Swalwell Didn’t Advocate for Epstein Survivors—He Used Them As Props (7/4/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Eric Swalwell Didn’t Advocate for Epstein Survivors—He Used Them As Props (7/4/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:03
Epstein Chronicles. There are moments when the mass doesn't just slip.
0:08
It fractures, not all at once, not in some clean
0:11
cinematic reveal, but in pieces, small contradictions. At first, a
0:17
tone that doesn't quite match the message, a gesture that
0:20
feels just a little too polished, a little too perfectly placed,
0:25
And if you're paying attention, and if you've been watching
0:28
long enough, you start to feel it before you can
0:30
even articulate it. Something isn't right, something doesn't line up.
0:35
Because power, real power, doesn't just operate behind closed doors.
0:40
It performs, It speaks, It positions itself as a solution
0:44
to the very problems it quietly benefits from. That's the trick,
0:49
that's always been the trick. Wrap yourself in the language
0:52
of justice, stand next to the right people, say the
0:55
right things at the right time, and suddenly you're not
0:58
just part of the system. You're a above it, untouchable,
1:02
beyond question. But here's the problem with that kind of performance.
1:07
It only works as long as nobody looks too closely,
1:10
as long as the image holds, as long as the
1:12
story you're telling the world doesn't collide with the story
1:15
that's actually unfolding behind the scenes, because when those two
1:19
things meet, when perception and reality crash into each other,
1:23
it doesn't create confusion. It creates something else entirely. It
1:27
creates anger, and not the kind of outrage that burns
1:30
hot and fades fast. I'm talking about the slow, simmering kind,
1:34
the kind that builds when people start to realize they've
1:37
seen this before. Different names, different faces, same pattern, the
1:42
same playbook dressed up in a different suit, the same
1:46
moral posturing, followed by the same uncomfortable questions at nobody
1:50
in power, ever, seems eager to answer. And those questions
1:53
have a way of leading somewhere people don't want you
1:56
to go. The political persona can struct Eric Swalwell was
2:01
not accidental, It was not subtle, and it certainly was
2:05
not modest. In its ambition, he deliberately cast himself as
2:09
a moral prosecutor in the court of public opinion, especially
2:12
when it came to issues involving abuse of power and
2:15
elite corruption. In the aftermath of the Epstein scandal, that
2:20
positioning carried immense currency because the public was desperate for
2:23
accountability that never seemed to materialize, and Swalwell did not
2:28
approach that moment cautiously. Instead, he leaned into it with force.
2:32
Framan himself is someone willing to confront what others avoided.
2:36
He spoke with certainty, with indignation, and with a tone
2:39
that implied he stood firmly on the side of victims
2:42
and survivors. That posture was not just rhetoric, It was branding,
2:47
and it was reinforced repeatedly through media appearances, congressional statements,
2:52
and symbolic gestures. When a politician chooses to operate at
2:56
that level of moral clarity, they are not simply offering commentary.
3:02
They're staking their credibility on their own alignment with the
3:05
values they espouse. That alignment becomes a foundation upon which
3:10
their authority rests, and once that foundation is called into question,
3:14
everything built on top of it begins to destabilize. The
3:18
public does not grant moral authority lightly, but when it's
3:22
claim so aggressively, it invites equally aggressive scrutiny. That scrutiny
3:27
is now focused squarely on Swallwell in a way that
3:29
cuts directly through the image he spent years cultivating. And
3:34
when that kind of scrutiny is combined with allegations that
3:36
contradict the persona, the result is not confusion but outrage,
3:42
and his decision to bring Teresa Helm to the State
3:44
of the Union was presented as an act of solidarity,
3:48
but in political terms, it was far more than that.
3:52
It was a calculated, highly visible move designed to signal
3:55
alignment with survivors on one of the largest stages available
3:59
in American policy. That kind of gesture carries enormous symbolic weight,
4:05
particularly when tied to a scandal as expansive and disturbing
4:09
as Epstein's. By placing Helm in that spotlight, Swalwell was
4:13
not just amplifying her story. He was implicitly tying his
4:16
own credibility to the cause she represented. That is the
4:20
unspoken contract behind those gestures. It's what gives them their power.
4:25
But that same contract also creates vulnerability because it demands
4:29
consistency between the message and the messenger. When a politician
4:33
elevates a survivor in this way, they're making a statement
4:36
about who they are and what they stand for. That
4:39
statements not limited to the moment itself. It extends into
4:43
every aspect of their public and private conduct. If that
4:47
conduct later becomes the subject of serious allegations. The original
4:51
gesture is no longer viewed in isolation. It's re examined, dissected,
4:55
and ultimately reframed through a much harsher lens. What once
4:59
appeared as swlarity begins to look like performance, and what
5:03
was presented as advocacy begins to resemble political theater. And
5:08
that shift in perception is not subtle, and it's not
5:11
easily reversed once it takes hold. Now consider the emergence
5:14
of allegations that strike directly at the core of the
5:16
image Swallwell projected over the years. These allegations, while not
5:21
adjudicated facts, are not occurring in a vacuum and can't
5:24
be dismissed as irrelevant noise. They exist in direct tension
5:29
with the persona of a man who positioned himself as
5:32
a defender of survivors and a critic of abusive power structure.
5:37
That tension is what transforms this from a routine political
5:40
controversy into something far more volatile, because when the accusations
5:45
against a public figure mirror the very behavior they claim
5:49
to oppose, through reaction is not neutral. It's immediate, visceral,
5:54
and often unforgiving because it speaks to a perceived betrayal
5:58
of principle. The distinction between allegation and proof remains critical
6:04
from a legal standpoint, but in the court of public opinion,
6:07
the existence of credible claims is enough to trigger a reassessment,
6:12
and that reassessment is not about determining guilt. It's about
6:15
evaluating consistency and integrity, and in this case, the gap
6:19
between the projected image and the alleged behavior is so
6:22
stark that it becomes impossible to ignore, and that gap
6:27
is where the accusations of hypocrisy take root and begin
6:30
to spread. It's also where the public trust begins to erode,
6:34
often at a pace that outstrips the ability of any
6:37
response to contain it. And of course, the resignation from
6:41
Congress as another layer of complexity that cannot be separated
6:44
from the broader narrative. Politicians don't relinquish power lightly, especially
6:49
those that have built their careers on visibility and confrontation.
6:53
When a resignation occurs in the shadow of serious allegation,
6:57
it's inevitably interpreted as a signal. Whether that that interpretation
7:00
is fair or not. It suggests that the situation has
7:04
escalated beyond the manageable political problem and into something more consequential.
7:10
That perception matters because it shapes how every preceding action
7:14
is reevaluated. In hindsight. The speeches, the appearances, the symbolic
7:19
gestures all take on a new meaning when viewed through
7:22
the lens of what followed. The act of stepping down
7:25
does not establish guilt, but it does amplify the seriousness
7:29
of the moment in a way that can't be ignored.
7:32
It tells the public that the stakes are no longer theoretical,
7:36
that something significant has shifted behind the scenes, And when
7:40
that shift occurs in the context of a figure who
7:42
claim moral authority on issues of abuse and accountability, the
7:46
contrast becomes even more pronounced. That contrast is not just political,
7:52
it's reputational in a way that cuts directly at the
7:55
core of what was previously presented as credibility. What often
8:00
gets lost in the noise of political fallout is the
8:03
human impact on individuals like Teresa Helm who are pulled
8:06
into these moments. Helm is not an abstract symbol or
8:10
a rhetorical device. She's a survivor whose experience was brought
8:14
into the public sphere as part of a broader message
8:17
about justice, and that act carries an implicit expectation of respect, sincerity,
8:24
and alignment from the person extending the platform. When that
8:28
same figure becomes the subject of allegations that echo the
8:32
very abuse being condemned, the emotional consequences are immediate and profound.
8:38
It forces a reevaluation of the intent behind the original
8:41
gesture and raises questions that are difficult to answer. Was
8:45
the invitation extended out of genuine solidarity or was it
8:49
part of a calculated political strategy designed to reinforce a narrative.
8:55
That question becomes unavoidable once the context changes, and it
8:59
lingers in a way that cannot be easily dismissed. For
9:03
a survivor, that kind of uncertainty is not just uncomfortable,
9:06
it's deeply destabilizing because it reframes a moment that was
9:10
supposed to represent support. The political implications of that shift
9:14
are significant, but the personal implications are far more important,
9:19
because at the center of all this is a person
9:22
who trusted that their story would not be used as
9:25
a tool and now has to grapple with the possibility
9:28
that it was and the anger that surrounds. This situation
9:33
doesn't exist in isolation. It's not limited to one individual
9:37
or one set of allegations. It's part of a broader
9:40
exhaustion with the political class that repeatedly presents itself as
9:44
morally outraged while operating within systems that rarely reflect that
9:49
outrage and practice yo people have watched for years as
9:53
powerful figures condemn abuse in public while quietly benefiting from
9:57
the very structures that enabled it. That disconnect has created
10:01
a deep reservoir of skepticism that now colors how every
10:05
new controversy is interpreted. When someone like Eric Swalwell builds
10:09
a career on calling out misconduct and then becomes entangled
10:12
in allegations of his own, that skepticism hardens into something sharper.
10:18
It becomes less about the specifics of the case and
10:20
more about the perceived pattern that continues to repeat itself.
10:25
The public begins to see not individual failures, but systemic
10:29
ones that transcend party lines and ideological boundaries. And that's
10:33
what makes the reaction so intense, because it feels like
10:36
confirmation of something people already suspected. It reinforces the idea
10:42
that the rules are different for those at the top,
10:44
even when they claim to be fighting against that reality,
10:48
and once that perception takes hold, it's incredibly difficult to reverse.
10:52
Regardless of how the underlying allegations are ultimately resolved, the
10:56
damage is not just to one reputation, but to the
10:59
creditability of the broader conversation about justice and accountability and listen.
11:05
There's also an uncomfortable truth about how survivor advocacy is
11:09
often deployed in political spaces, and this situation forces that
11:12
truth into the open. Survivors are frequently elevated during moments
11:18
of heightened detention, brought forward as living evidence of the
11:21
harm that powerful systems can inflict. Their stories are powerful,
11:25
and rightly so, but they are also emotionally charged in
11:29
a way that can be leveraged for political gain. That
11:33
leverage is not always explicit, and it's not always malicious,
11:36
but it exists nonetheless. When a politician places a survivor
11:41
in a high profile setting, it sends a message that
11:43
goes beyond the individual story being told. It signals alignment, credibility,
11:48
and moral seriousness, all of which carry political value. The
11:53
problem arises when that alignments later called into question by
11:57
allegations that undermine the very message being convey In that moment,
12:01
the survivor's presence is no longer just about their story.
12:05
It becomes part of a larger narrative that may not
12:08
reflect their intentions. That's where the line between advocacy and
12:12
exploitation becomes dangerously thin. It's not enough to simply provide
12:18
a platform. The integrity of the person providing the platform
12:22
matters just as much, and when that integrity is questioned,
12:26
the entire gesture is recontextualized in a way that can
12:30
feel deeply unsettling, and the media environment surrounding cases like
12:33
this only amplifies the volatility of the situation. Every developments dissected,
12:39
every statement parsed, every omission scrutinized for meaning. In an
12:43
era where information moves at an accelerated pace, the distinction
12:47
between allegation and confirmation can become blurred in the public consciousness.
12:53
That does not eliminate the importance of that distinction, but
12:56
it does complicate how stories are received and interpreted. When
13:00
allegations against the public figure align with a broader narrative
13:04
of hypocrisy, they tend to gain traction quickly, regardless of
13:07
their ultimate outcome that tractions driven by a combination of
13:12
existing distrust and the emotional weight of the issues involved.
13:15
Abuse of power is not an abstract concept. It's something
13:19
that people understand viscerally, especially in the context of the
13:23
Epstein scandal. As a result, any story that echoes those
13:26
themes is likely to resonate strongly, even before all the
13:30
facts are established. That resonance creates a feedback loop where
13:34
perception begins to shape reality in real time. The longer
13:38
the story persists, the more entrenched those perceptions become, making
13:42
it increasingly difficult for any single piece of information to
13:45
shift the narrative. And in that environment, the burden on
13:48
the individual at the center of the controversy becomes almost
13:52
impossible to manage. And what makes this situation so combustible
13:57
is the intersection of personal conduct, public messaging, and the
14:01
legacy of one of the most notorious abuse scandals in
14:04
recent history. The Epstein case didn't simply expose individual wrongdoing.
14:09
It revealed the network of influence, protection, and systemic failures
14:12
that continues to reverberate. Anyone who aligns themselves with that
14:17
issue is stepping into a space that is already charged
14:20
with unresolved anger and distrust. When Eric Swalwell chose to
14:25
position himself as the voice in that space, he was
14:27
implicitly accepting the weight that comes with it. That weight
14:31
includes not only the responsibility to speak out, but the
14:34
expectation to embody the principles being advocated. Allegations that challenge
14:40
that embodiment do more than create controversy. They destabilize the
14:44
entire framework within which the individual was operating. It becomes
14:49
impossible to separate the message from the messenger when the
14:52
two are so tightly intertwined. The result is a kind
14:56
of narrative collapse, where previous actions are reinterpreted through the
15:00
lens of current events. That interpretation is not always fairer,
15:04
but it's inevitable given the circumstances, and once it begins,
15:08
it tends to accelerate rather than dissipate. And when we
15:12
talk about accountability in this context, it becomes multifaceted concept
15:17
that extends beyond legal definitions and into the realm of
15:20
public trust. Legal accountability is determined through investigation, evidence, and
15:25
due process, and that process must be respected regardless of
15:29
public sentiment. But political and moral accountability operate on a
15:34
different timeline and according to different standards, their shape by perception, consistency,
15:39
and the alignment between stated values and observed behavior. When
15:44
a public figure builds a reputation on holding others accountable,
15:48
they implicitly accept the heightened level of scrutiny for themselves.
15:52
That scrutiny is not optional, and it does not disappear
15:55
when it becomes uncomfortable. It intensifies because the credibility of
15:59
their previous positions is now tied to how they respond
16:02
to the allegations against them. If there is a perceived
16:05
discrepancy between the standards they apply to others and the
16:08
standards they apply to themselves, the backlash is immediate. That
16:13
backlash is not just about punishment. It's about restoring a
16:16
sense of balance that people feel has been disrupted. Whether
16:19
that restorations justified or not is a matter of perspective,
16:23
but the demand for it is undeniable. So what are
16:27
the broader implications of a situation like this that extends
16:30
into how future cases of alleged misconduct or handled both
16:34
politically and culturally. Each in every high profile controversy contributes
16:38
to a cumulative understanding of how power operates and how
16:42
it's challenged. When patterns are perceived hypocrisy or merge, they
16:46
shape expectations of how similar situations will unfold in the future,
16:51
and this can create a kind of anticipatory cynicism, where
16:54
people assume that any expression of moral outrage is at
16:57
least in part performative. That assumption is not always accurate,
17:02
but it becomes more difficult to dispel with each new
17:04
example that appears to confirm it. For survivors, this environment
17:09
can be discouraging because it complicates the decision to come forward.
17:13
The risk of being drawn into political narratives that may
17:16
later shift or collapse is a real consideration. That risk
17:21
does not negate the importance of speaking out, but it
17:23
does add another layer of complexity to an already difficult process.
17:27
In this way, the fallout from situations like this extends
17:31
far beyond the individuals directly involved. It influences the broader
17:35
ecosystem in which issues of abuse, accountability, and justice are addressed.
17:41
All right, folks, we're going to wrap up part one
17:42
right here, and in the next episode we're going to
17:45
finish this bad boy off. All the information that goes
17:48
with this episode can be found in the description box.
17:51
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
17:54
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we
17:57
left off talking about Eric Swalwell and his hypocrisy. What
18:03
we're watching on fold is not just a controversy tied
18:05
to one individual, but a stress test of the credibility
18:08
economy that modern politicians operate within. Credibility in this context
18:14
is not built solely on policy positions or legislative achievements,
18:18
but on perceived moral alignment with the issues a politician
18:22
chooses to champion. When Eric Swalwell positioned himself as an
18:26
aggressive voice against abuse of power, he was accumulating that
18:31
form of credibility in large amounts. That accumulation creates expectations
18:36
that go far beyond the normal boundaries of political behavior.
18:41
It demands not just consistency, but a kind of perceived
18:44
immunity from the very behaviors being condemned. When allegations emerge
18:49
that challenge that perception, the reactions not measured because the
18:52
expectations were never modest to begin with. The public does
18:56
not simply reassess the individual. It reevaluates the entire framework
19:01
through which that individual was understood. That reevaluation is often
19:05
brutal because it involved dismantling a narrative that was built
19:08
over time and reinforced repeatedly. It forces people to confront
19:13
the possibility that what they believe to be principled advocacy
19:17
may have been something more complicated. That confrontation is uncomfortable,
19:23
and discomfort often manifests his anger, and that anger is
19:27
not easily contained once it finds the target. There's also
19:31
a structural issue at play here, involving the incentives that
19:35
drive political behavior in high profile environments. Politicians are awarded
19:40
for visibility, for strong messaging, for aligning themselves with emotionally
19:44
resonant issues. The Epstein scandal provided a perfect storm of
19:48
those elements, combining moral outrage, systemic failure, and public fascination
19:54
into a single narrative. Aligning with survivors in that context
19:58
offered both moral and political capital, and many figures move
20:02
quickly to occupy that space. But those incentives do not
20:05
account for long term consistency. Because of political cycle rewards
20:09
immediacy over durability. When someone builds a reputation on those
20:14
short term gains, they may not fully account for how
20:17
that reputation will be tested over time, allegations, whether proven
20:22
or not, become the ultimate test of that durability because
20:25
they force a comparison between words and conduct. In the
20:29
case of Eric Swalwell, that comparison is now unavoidable. The
20:33
incentives that once elevated them are now contributing to the
20:37
intensity of the backlash. What was once seen as a
20:40
strength is now being reinterpreted as potential overreach. And that
20:45
shift is happening in real time, and it's a reminder
20:49
that the same forces that build political identity can also
20:52
accelerate its unraveling. The role of narrative control becomes critical
20:58
in moments like this, because whoever shap the story often
21:01
shapes the outcome in the public mind. Initially, the narrative
21:05
around Swolwell was tightly controlled and reinforced through consistent messaging
21:09
about accountability and justice. That narrative was effective because it
21:14
aligned with the broader public desire to see powerful figures,
21:17
how responsible for their actions. But narratives are fragile when
21:22
they depend heavily on perception rather than verifiable consistency. Once
21:27
allegations enter the picture, control begins to slip, and competing
21:31
narratives emerge rapidly. Some will frame the situation as a
21:36
case of political targeting or opportunism, while others will emphasize
21:40
the perceived hypocrisy and moral contradiction and look, the truth
21:45
may lie somewhere within that spectrum, but the public rarely
21:48
waits for a definitive conclusion before forming opinions. Instead, it
21:53
gravitates towards the narrative that best fits existing beliefs and frustrations.
21:58
In this case, the hypocrisy now arrative has strong traction
22:02
because it aligns with the broader distrust of political figures
22:05
who present themselves as morally superior. That alignment gives it
22:10
momentum that is difficult to counter even with careful messaging,
22:15
and once a narrative gains that kind of momentum, it
22:18
tends to persist regardless of how the underlying facts evolve.
22:22
And this is why using survivors and political messaging is
22:26
sensitive in the irreversible nature of the exposure it creates.
22:30
Once a survivor steps into the national spotlight, there's no
22:33
simple way to step back out of it. Their story
22:36
becomes part of the public record, subject to interpretation, commentary,
22:41
and at times exploitation. That exposure carries risks that extend
22:47
far beyond the initial moment of visibility. When a politician
22:50
invites a survivor into that space, they're assuming a responsibility
22:55
that goes beyond the immediate optics. They're effectively vouching for
23:00
the integrity of the platform that they're providing. If that
23:03
integrity is later questioned, the survivor is left to navigate
23:07
the fallout in a way that is entirely outside their control.
23:11
In the case of Teresa Helm, the context surrounding her
23:14
appearance has shifted dramatically due to the subsequent developments That
23:19
ship forces a reevaluation of the original moment, not just
23:23
by the public, but by Helm herself. The trust that
23:27
underpin that appearance is now subject to scrutiny, and that
23:30
scrutiny is deeply personal. It's one thing to share a
23:35
story in the pursuit of justice. It's another to feel
23:38
that the platform for that story may have been compromised.
23:42
That distinction is critical, and that highlights the ethical stakes
23:46
involved in using survivor narratives in political contexts. Now, the
23:51
broader political environment amplifies these dynamics because it thrives on conflict,
23:56
contrast and rapid shifts in perception. Negations against high profile
24:01
figures are not just reported, they're debated, amplified, and weaponized
24:05
across multiple platforms simultaneously. This creates a situation where the
24:10
narrative evolves at a pace that outstrips the ability of
24:14
a single actor to control it. In such an environment,
24:18
the initial framing of the issue becomes crucial because it
24:21
sets the tone for everything that follows. When the framing
24:25
center is on hypocrisy, it tends to dominate because it
24:28
offers a clear and emotionally satisfying explanation for complex events.
24:34
It allows people to reconcile conflicting information by placing it
24:38
within a familiar pattern of behavior. That pattern, in this case,
24:43
involves a public figure who condemn certain actions now facing
24:46
allegations that echo those same actions. The simplicity of the
24:51
narrative gives it power even if the underlying reality is
24:54
more nuanced, and once that narrative takes hold, it becomes
24:58
the lens through which also subsequent developments are viewed, and
25:02
that lens is not easily removed and continues to shape
25:05
perception long after the initial allegations have been reported. Look,
25:11
what's at stake here is not just the reputation of
25:14
one individual, but the credibility of a broader approach to
25:17
political advocacy. When politicians align themselves with deeply personal and
25:23
traumatic issues, they're entering a space that demands a higher
25:26
level of integrity and consistency. The use of survivor narratives
25:32
is not inherently problematic, but it becomes problematic when it's
25:35
perceived as strategic rather than sincere. That perception is difficult
25:41
to avoid when subsequent events cast doubt on the motives
25:44
or behavior of the person leading the charge. In the
25:47
case of Eric Swalwell, the allegations have created a situation
25:51
where every prior action is being re examined through a
25:55
more critical lens. That re examination is not just about
25:59
to term what happened, it's about understanding what those actions
26:03
meant in the context of the broader narrative. It raises
26:07
questions about authenticity, intention, and the relationship between public messaging
26:12
and private conduct, and those questions they don't have easy answers,
26:17
but they're central to how the situation is being understood,
26:21
and until they're addressed in a way that satisfies public concern,
26:24
the perception of hypocrisy will continue to dominate the conversation now.
26:28
The final layer of this shit sandwich is the unavoidable
26:32
reckoning between narrative and consequence, because at some point, every
26:36
constructed image is forced to answer to reality. For years,
26:41
Eric Swolwell operated within a narrative that presented him as
26:44
a force against abuse and corruption, someone willing to confront
26:48
the powerful without hesitation. That narrative was not imposed on them,
26:53
It was cultivated, reinforced, and repeated until it became inseparable
26:57
from his political identity. When allegations emerge that directly contradict
27:03
that identity, the resulting conflict is not theoretical. Its immediate
27:07
and destabilizing. It forces a confrontation between what was said
27:13
and what is now being alleged, and that confrontation rarely
27:17
resolves cleanly, even if the allegation remains unproven. Their existence
27:22
alone is enough to fracture the narrative because it introduces
27:25
doubt where certainty once existed, and that doubt spreads quickly,
27:30
particularly in an environment already saturated with distrust toward political figures.
27:36
It creates a situation where every prior statement is revisited,
27:40
every gesture reevaluated, and every claim of moral authority questioned,
27:46
the narrative that once elevated them now becomes a standard
27:49
against which he is judged, and that standard is unforgiving.
27:55
The collapse of that narrative is not just a personal setback.
27:58
It's a public event that how his entire career is understood,
28:03
and once that reshaping begins, it becomes nearly impossible to
28:06
return to the original framing. And for me, what makes
28:10
this collapse particularly striking is how directly it intersects with
28:14
the issue of power, which was central to the original messaging.
28:17
Power in the context of abuse is not just another
28:20
authority or position. It's about the ability to influence, to control,
28:26
and to operate without consequence. When Swolwell spoke about abuse
28:31
of power, he was tapping into a deeply rooted concern
28:34
about how that dynamic plays out among elites. Now, with
28:38
allegations casting a shadow over his own conduct, the conversation
28:42
shifts from abstract critique to personal implication. It raises uncomfortable
28:47
questions about whether the same dynamics he criticized may have
28:50
existed closer to home, and those questions do not require
28:54
definitive answers to have an impact. They operate in a
28:58
space of possibility, which is often enough to shape perception.
29:02
The public does not need a completed investigation to begin
29:06
drawing conclusions about credibility. It looks at patterns, contradictions, and
29:10
the alignment between words and actions. In this case, the
29:14
alignment appears fractured, and that fracture is what people are
29:17
responding to most strongly, not just the allegations themselves, but
29:21
what they represent in the context of everything that came before.
29:26
And that representation is difficult to reconcile with the image
29:29
that was so carefully constructed, and that also leads to
29:33
a deeper issue here about the cost of political theater
29:35
when it intersects with real human suffering. The use of
29:39
survivors and high profile moments is often defended as a
29:42
way to bring attention to important issues, and in many
29:45
cases that defense holds weight. But attention is not the
29:49
same as respect, and visibility is not the same as integrity.
29:53
When those moments are later recontextualized by events that undermine
29:57
the credibility of the person orchestrating them, the cost becomes
30:01
painfully clear. The survivors are left to navigate a narrative
30:04
that is shifted without their consent. One that may now
30:07
include elements they never agreed to be part of. And
30:11
that's not just a political problem, it's an ethical one
30:15
that goes to the heart of how power is exercised
30:17
in these situations. The platform that was supposed to amplify
30:21
their voice now carries an additional layer of complexity that
30:25
they did not choose, and that complexity can feel like
30:28
a betrayal, even if no such intent existed at the outset.
30:32
Because intent does not erase impact, and the impact in
30:35
cases like this can be profound. It alters how the
30:39
original gesture is remembered, not just by the public, but
30:42
by the individual at the center of it. So I
30:45
think that the broader lesson that's emerging from this is
30:48
not limited to one figure or just this controversy. It
30:51
speaks to the structural vulnerabilities of a system that rewards
30:56
moral performance without always demanding moral consistency. Politicians are incentivized
31:02
to take strong stances to align themselves with emotionally resonant
31:06
causes and to present themselves as champions of justice. Those
31:10
incentives are powerful, and they could lead to genuine advocacy,
31:14
but they can also create conditions where image outpaces substance,
31:19
and when that happens, the gap between perception and reality
31:22
becomes a liability of waiting to be exposed. Allegations, whether
31:26
proven or not, act as a catalyst that forces that
31:29
exposure into the open. In the case of Eric Swalwell,
31:32
that catalyst is triggered a reevaluation that extends far beyond
31:37
the immediate controversy. It's prompted questions about how and why
31:41
certain narratives are constructed and what happens when they begin
31:45
to unravel. Those questions are uncomfortable because they challenge not
31:50
just individuals, but the systems that elevate them. They suggest
31:54
that the problem is not isolated, but embedded in the
31:57
way political credibility is built maintained, and addressing that problem
32:02
requires more than reacting to individual cases. It requires deeper
32:07
examination of the incentives that drive the entire system. So
32:11
when you chop it all up, what you're left with
32:14
is not a clean resolution, but a fractured landscape where perception, allegation,
32:18
and past behavior collide in ways that resist simple interpretation.
32:23
Eric Swalwell is no longer operating within the narrative he
32:26
wants controlled, and that loss of control is itself a
32:29
defining element of the story. The allegations may still be unresolved,
32:34
but their impact on his public image is already undeniable,
32:38
and the gestures that once reinforced his credibility are now
32:42
being re examined as potential components of a different, more
32:45
troubling narrative. And that shift is what gives the situation
32:49
it's enduring power, because it changes how everything is understood
32:52
moving forward. It's no longer just about what was said
32:55
or done, but about how those actions align with the
32:59
expectation that were created. And when that alignment breaks down,
33:03
the result is not just disappointment, but a deeper sense
33:06
of disillusionment with the structures that allowed it to happen.
33:10
And that disillusionment does not fade quickly, and it does
33:13
not limit itself to one individual. It spreads, influencing how
33:18
future claims of moral authority are received and evaluated, and
33:23
in that sense, the consequence of this moment will extend
33:26
far beyond the immediate controversy, because once people begin to
33:30
question the authenticity of those who claim to stand for justice,
33:34
the entire conversation becomes more fragile, more contested, and far
33:39
more difficult to trust. Because listen. At some point, the
33:42
noise fades, the statements, the denials, the carefully worded a responses,
33:46
the spin, it all starts to blur together. And what's
33:50
left is in talking points. What's left is the pattern.
33:53
What's left is the gap. And once you've seen it,
33:56
once you've walked through it piece by piece, you can't
33:59
pretend it's not there. Because here's the part they never
34:01
say out loud. The higher you climb on that moral platform,
34:05
the less room there is to stumble. Not because people
34:08
expect perfection, but because you've told them exactly who you were,
34:12
You define the standard, You drew the line in the sand,
34:15
and now, whether you like it or not, you're standing
34:18
on that same line with everyone watching to see if
34:21
it holds. And here's the truth that cuts through all
34:23
of it. This isn't about what can be proven in
34:26
a courtroom tonight. That process is going to take its course,
34:30
and it should. This is about something else entirely. It's
34:33
about credibility. It's about trust. It's about whether the words
34:37
that were spoken actually meant what they were supposed to mean,
34:41
or whether they were just another layer in a very
34:43
familiar act. Because people are tired tired of watching the
34:47
same script play out with different names, tired of being
34:50
told that this time is different, that this time the
34:52
outrage is real, that this time the system is finally
34:55
going to hold itself accountable, and then watching it bench
35:00
and recalibrate the moment the spotlight gets a little too close,
35:03
And that's where the anger comes from, not just the allegations,
35:06
not just the resignation, but the realization that the distance
35:10
between what was promised and what is now being questioned
35:13
might be wider than anyone wanted to admit. And when
35:17
that realization hits, it doesn't fade, It sticks, It lingers.
35:21
It changes how everything that came before is understood, because
35:26
once that trust is cracked, it doesn't quietly heal. It breaks.
35:30
And when it breaks, in a situation like this, it
35:32
doesn't just take down one narrative. It sends a message,
35:35
a loud one, a clear one, that the same rules
35:39
still don't apply the same way, that the same lines
35:42
that get drawn so aggressively can still be crossed when
35:45
it matters most. That's the door, and tonight it's not
35:49
being left open. All the information that goes with this
35:53
episode can be found in the description box what's up, everyone,
35:57
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein. One of
36:01
the biggest problems that we've had throughout the years when
36:04
it comes to accountability with Jeffrey Epstein are people like
36:08
Nancy Pelosi who have refused to really lift the lid.
36:13
And the problem, obviously for people like Nancy Pelosi is
36:17
the fact that their friends are caught up. So when
36:20
people talk about how, oh well the Biden administration they
36:23
had this information and they wouldn't release it, there was
36:26
no stomach for it. Do you really think somebody like
36:30
Nancy Pelosi is going to let these files come out?
36:33
Somebody that's as ensconced in politics and in the swamp
36:37
of DC as Nancy Pelosi. Zero chance, especially if that
36:41
means giving the other side a political cudgel or some
36:45
kind of information that's going to be hurtful to the
36:48
only thing that matters to Nancy Pelosi, which is the
36:51
Democrat Party. Not Epstein's survivors, Not the fact that they
36:55
were abused, Not the fact that Bill Clinton and Hillary
36:58
Clinton were great friends with dude and were around him
37:01
while he was in the middle of this trafficking. No,
37:03
none of that matters. All that matters is making sure
37:06
that the party stays protected. And unfortunately it's not just
37:09
Nancy Pelosi. There's a lot of people on the left
37:12
that are acting like the Clintons are untouchable. I have
37:15
news for you though, they are not, and they shouldn't be.
37:19
Today we have an article from CNN and the headline
37:22
exclusive Pelosi privately blasts Democrats for a vote the whole
37:26
Clinton's in contempt in the Epstein probe. This article was
37:30
authored by Annie Grayer and Eric Bradner. Former House Speaker
37:36
Nancy Pelosi was disappointed after nearly half of the House
37:39
Oversight Committee's Democrats voted Wednesday the whole bill and Hillary
37:43
Clinton in contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas and it's
37:47
Jeffrey Epstein investigation. And on Thursday she let them know it.
37:51
What a vile lady. Imagine being so worried about politics
37:56
that you're up in arms that the Clintons are going
37:58
to be subpoena and brought before Congress just to answer
38:01
some questions. God forbid, And for all you wise guys
38:04
out there that are wondering why these files weren't used previously,
38:08
it was because of mutually assured destruction. That's why none
38:11
of this stuff has ever come out, and the only
38:13
reason it's coming out now is because some of these
38:16
people that are in Congress now are willing to throw
38:18
people like the Clintons to the wolves to try and
38:21
further whatever narrative they're trying to pitch. And that narrative
38:26
right now is that Epstein was an absolute scumbag who
38:30
was a lot more powerful than the official narrative lets on.
38:34
But in order to do that, it has to be
38:36
accountability for everybody. So I give credit to the Democrats
38:40
that are stepping up here and attempting to hold the
38:42
Clinton's accountable because it's been a long time coming. And look,
38:45
as you all know, I don't give a shit about
38:47
what aboutism around here. I don't play those games. Everybody
38:50
has their moment, everybody's on the clock, and nobody gets
38:53
a pass around here when it comes to Epstein. It
38:56
just so happens that the Clintons are a talking point
38:58
right now. And if you've been listening to this podcast,
39:02
I've been saying from day one that any investigation has
39:06
to include Bill Clinton at the very least, and as
39:09
far as Hillary goes, I don't think it's as urgent,
39:12
but I think she has some questions to answer as well,
39:15
starting with why was Glenn Maxwell at your daughter's wedding?
39:19
Why did you give Glenn Maxwell's nephew a job at
39:22
the State Department. You know, some basic questions. That's all
39:25
anybody's asking for here, at least anyone who's serious. Now,
39:29
of course, there's going to be political partisans on the
39:31
right that are trying to use this as a cudgel
39:33
to go after the Clintons, and they're wrong for doing it.
39:37
Everything should be based on evidence, not on your feelings,
39:40
and just going off the evidence alone. Here, there is
39:42
no doubt that the Clintons should be put under oath
39:45
so they can spill the beans about what they know
39:47
about Jeffrey Epstein. In a private meeting, Pelosi said she
39:52
was upset with Democrats that supported the contemned vote because
39:56
the former president and former Secretary of State were still
39:59
negotiating with the committee over the terms of a possible
40:02
future appearance, two sources in the room told CNN. One
40:06
of the sources in the room described Pelosi as emphatic
40:09
and said the former speaker's remarks when she speaks, she
40:13
means it. She knows her voice has power, does it
40:15
though these days? Does her voice really have the power
40:19
it used to have. If it did, I doubt that
40:23
these Democrats would have made this vote in the first place,
40:26
because there's no doubt that Nancy Pelosi was a kingmaker
40:28
for a very long time, and if you didn't have
40:31
her blessing, you weren't going very far in the Democratic Party.
40:36
But I think that's waning a bit now, and I
40:38
think more of the power is moving to people from
40:41
you know, the squad, people that are more democratic socialist,
40:44
if you will. That seems to be the new future
40:47
of the party. So Nancy Pelosi obviously is losing some
40:51
power and she's not going to be the king maker
40:54
that she once was. But in the past, there's no
40:56
doubt that she was gatekeeping, and there's no doubt that
40:59
Nancy Pelosi would have killed any investigation, real investigation into
41:03
Jeffrey Epstein. She would have done her best because she
41:06
knows that some of her faives are going to get
41:09
caught up. The former Speaker suggested no proceedings should move
41:15
forward against the Clintons until after the Justice Department has
41:19
released all of the Epstein investigative files. Well, look, I
41:23
can understand that line of thinking, but it comes from
41:25
a place of demagogery. If you look at this with
41:28
a clear perspective and you don't have any faves, then
41:31
you understand that all of that needs to happen. The
41:34
files obviously have to be released, but we need to
41:37
know what the Clintons knew about Jeffrey Epstein and how
41:40
deep those ties really run. And she rejected the argument
41:43
that they should be treated the same as Steve Bannon
41:46
and Peter Navarro, two Trump allies in first term administration
41:50
officials who were held in contempt of Congress for failing
41:53
to comply with subpoenas from the committee investigating the January sixth,
41:57
twenty twenty one attack on the US capital. After being
42:01
held in contempt, both were later prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced
42:05
to prison terms. Yo, look, you have to be consistent, right,
42:09
and if it's good for the goose, it's good for
42:11
the gander. Now, I'm not willing to go that far
42:13
yet as far as oh, let's put the Clintons in jail,
42:17
but I think that if they don't show up for
42:20
a deposition after some negotiation, that should be the next step.
42:24
I mean, how can you run around yelling for what
42:26
eight ten years, nobody's above the law, and then get
42:29
bummed when the Clintons get called on the carpet. CNN
42:33
has reached out to Pelosi's office. Pelosi's frustration under scores
42:37
the Democratic fracture after the Clintons failed to comply with
42:40
the subpoena in the Epstein case. The Clintons had cast
42:44
the effort to compel their separate appearance on Capitol Hill
42:48
to answer questions under oath as unfair and legally unenforceable,
42:52
and they frame their refusal as a principled stand for America. Well,
42:56
we all know that the Clintons have never taken a
42:58
principled stand about any thing, and we know that this
43:02
is about self preservation and has nothing to do with America.
43:06
They know that if they go under oath, they could
43:08
easily get caught up. That's the truth. That is the
43:12
Colhart truth. And frankly, people like Nancy Pelosi don't even
43:17
know a fraction of this story. They don't know the nuance,
43:20
they don't know how deep the ties run. And that's
43:22
because they've been woefully blind. And really it just circles
43:24
back to the same problem that we've had from the beginning.
43:28
Nobody on either side is willing to hold their people accountable.
43:32
So if nobody's willing to hold their people accountable, how
43:35
do you think there's going to be accountability across the board.
43:38
Every person has to decide when they have seen or
43:41
had enough and are ready to fight for this country,
43:43
its principles, and its people, no matter the consequences for us.
43:47
That time is now, the Clintons wrote in a letter
43:50
at the time of their refusal, imagine framing this shit
43:53
as protecting the country and not as protecting yourselves and
43:57
Jeffrey Epstein's friends, Because that's what it really comes down to.
44:01
And for two people who claim to have all these morals,
44:04
they sure don't ever display it, do they. But as
44:07
Republicans on the panel were quick to note, even Democrats
44:10
had sign off on the subpoenas, and the Clinton strategy
44:13
in dealing with demands that they testify about the late
44:15
convicted sex offender has put them in a tough legal position,
44:19
experts say, in addition to the political fallout it's created
44:23
for them and their political party, the Clintons are in
44:26
a very difficult position because these cases are very straightforward.
44:30
There are pretty much did you get a subpoena and
44:32
did you go testify, said former attorney John Fishwick, a
44:35
Barack Obama appointee. The courts are going to say that
44:39
Congress has broad discretion on who they want to ask
44:42
for a deposition. And I think that when all of
44:44
a said and done, I think that some agreement's going
44:46
to be worked out with Congress and the Clintons will
44:49
give a deposition one way or the other. But them
44:52
going to jail, I highly doubt that's going to happen.
44:57
Fishwick pointed to Bannon and the Varro receiving sentences and
45:01
said the Clinton's run the risk that judges would feel
45:03
they need to be consistent. Well, whatever the law calls for, right,
45:07
that's all I'm asking for. I'm not asking for retribution.
45:11
I'm not asking for revenge. I'm not asking for any
45:13
of that. I'm asking for a robust investigation, and then
45:17
based on that investigation, then we move to indicting people
45:21
and talking about jail. But we haven't even done the
45:25
very basics. Right, there's not even a real investigation. So
45:28
for me, I'm not calling for anyone to go to jail,
45:30
as far as the Clintons or anyone like that. But
45:33
I am calling for a robust investigation with indictments to follow,
45:38
and to get to the bottom of it, you're going
45:40
to need to hear from people under oath. David Ropollo,
45:43
professor at Georgetown Law and former House Oversight Committee Democratic
45:46
staff director under the late Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings, said
45:51
that as a legal matter, Congress clearly has authority to
45:54
issue subpoenas, including for depositions, and if witnesses refuse to
45:58
comply with those subpoenas, they can be held in contempt. Well, yeah,
46:02
that's what the law says. Is it going to happen
46:04
with the Clintons. I doubt it. And people can talk
46:07
about Bannon and the Varro all they want, but I
46:11
don't think it's going to be the same situation. Now
46:13
that said, I think it should be. If they don't
46:16
come to some kind of agreement and they're not in
46:18
compliance with the subpoena, then yeah, I think that they
46:22
should be prosecuted, But I just don't think it's going
46:25
to get to that point. Their perceived unfairness is not
46:29
necessarily a legitimate basis to refuse to comply with a
46:32
legal requirement. Although it does appear the Clintons are being
46:35
singled out when others like the Attorney General have not
46:39
produced information required by law, he said, well, the real
46:43
problem here is that the real people that need to
46:46
be deposed aren't being deposed. And I'm not even talking
46:49
about the Clintons. I'm talking about the Core four. I'm
46:52
talking about Indike in Con, I'm talking about Alan Dershowitz,
46:56
I'm talking about everybody that was in Jeffrey Epstein's circle,
47:00
just Daily, Leon Black, all of them. That's where the
47:04
real meat and potatoes are. And the Clintons, well, they're
47:06
a side dish for sure, but they're not the main course.
47:10
Anybody saying they are is not being honest. And look,
47:13
I am not a fan of the Clintons, as you
47:15
well know, but I'm also calling the balls and strikes
47:18
how I see them. And there's no doubt that there's
47:20
people that are more of a priority to have deposed
47:23
than the Clintons. The problem is those people haven't even
47:27
been sent subpoenas yet, So how can I complain that
47:30
they're not being compliant? All I can work with is
47:33
what we have right, and what we have is a
47:35
gigantic shit sandwich. CNN has reached out to representatives for
47:40
Bill and Hillary Clinton for comment. The Clintons have sought
47:44
to negotiate over how they would participate in the House
47:47
Oversight Committees Epstein Probe. On January sixteenth, the Clintons attorney
47:52
offered to make the former president available for an interview
47:55
with Republican chairman James Comer and the top Democrat on
47:58
the panel, Robert Garcia, on areas within the scope of
48:02
the panels Epstein Probe. That's unacceptable. They have to be
48:06
treated just like a bar, just like a costa, and
48:09
just like anybody else that's going to be deposed. You
48:12
rejected those offers, and rather than provide counter offers, chose
48:16
the spectacle of a contemper seeding. Clinton attorneys Ashley Callen
48:20
and David E. Kendall wrote to Comer, Remember Democrats are
48:24
on board, too, so it's not just like it's Republicans.
48:28
Democrats want the Clintons to get up there and be
48:31
deposed as well. I think that the issue is how
48:35
they go about that. Is it going to be forced,
48:38
is it going to be a negotiation. What's it going
48:40
to be? Comer called the Clinton's offer unreasonable and said
48:45
it made clear they believe their last name entitles them
48:48
to special treatment. He said he planned to move forward
48:51
with contemproceedings. Ahead of Wednesday's vote, House Democratic leadership made
48:56
clear that it did not want the party members on
48:59
the panel spport the effort. Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin held
49:03
a call with Oversight Committee Democrats to lay out why
49:06
he felt contempt for the Clintons was not necessary, Two
49:10
sources familiar with the conversations told CNN. Yet, nine House
49:14
Democrats voted with Republicans to move forward with holding the
49:18
former president in contempt, and three Democrats supported the effort
49:22
against Hillary Clinton. And I know I sound like a
49:24
broken record at this point, but if we want transparency,
49:27
it has to be wrap around. It has to be
49:29
everybody on board, both sides of the aisle, with no
49:32
favoritism for any of these people. We're going to get
49:36
through this thing, Raskin said when asked if he was
49:38
disappointed that a number of his Democratic colleagues voted with
49:41
Republicans on Wednesday. Jamie Raskin's another one, another guy that
49:47
talks a big game, but when it really comes down
49:49
to it, just another slimy ass snake oil salesman. I
49:54
know we shouldn't be surprised. The dude's a lawyer, but
49:57
he talks a big game and he never puts up,
50:00
especially when it comes to holding his own people accountable.
50:02
It's always somebody else's fault. It's always somebody else did this,
50:05
or somebody else did that. Well, mister Askin, you got
50:08
your own problems. Writ in your own caucus might be
50:11
a good idea to clean up your own yard before
50:13
you start crying about other people's yards. Congressional Democrats have
50:19
now found themselves in a political bind. They have fought
50:22
vigorously for transparency in the Epstein investigation, often criticizing President
50:27
Donald Trump and his administration for not releasing material fast enough,
50:32
but at the same time they are treading carefully as
50:34
Republicans seek to shift the spotlight to the Clintons and
50:37
highlight the former president's long relationship with Epstein. Yeah, that
50:41
should be part of the story, not the whole story, though,
50:45
And anybody that's trying to make this or Donald Trump
50:48
the whole story is somebody that has other motivations and
50:51
That's what I've told you from the jump. Yo. I
50:53
could side here every day and make content about Trump
50:57
and get thousands and thousands and thousands of down loads,
51:00
because that's the end thing. But that's not what we
51:04
do here. We follow the story wherever it goes, and
51:07
whoever becomes a topic, well, they're on the clock. I
51:11
think that this story is too important to play games with,
51:14
and certainly too important to play politics with. House Democratic
51:18
leaders want to avoid a floor vote where more members
51:20
in their ranks would likely to support contempt. They hope
51:23
to find a resolution between Comer and the Clintons before
51:27
the vote would occur in two weeks. That is the
51:29
most likely outcome, and I would be absolutely shocked if
51:35
it went further than the few weeks and the Clintons
51:38
ended up in real contempt. I just have a hard
51:41
time believing it. So there'll be some kind of negotiation
51:45
and they'll come to an agreement. What that agreement is, well,
51:48
that's anyone's guess. Somehow's Democratic staff conveyed to the Clinton
51:52
team Wednesday that Comber indicated that there's still an opening
51:56
for them to avoid being held in contempt of Congress.
51:59
On familiar with the matter told CNN. Comer similarly suggested
52:04
to reporters Wednesday that there's an opportunity for the two
52:07
sides to reach an agreement. I think that's the best
52:10
result for everybody involved. Come to an agreement, get them
52:13
up there, get them deposed, get them under oath, and
52:15
let's keep it moving. Remember the side shows I was
52:18
talking about, this is one of them. This is one
52:20
of those side quests. It's part of the story, but
52:23
it's not the whole story. Democratic leaders have said that
52:27
they want the Clintons to give testimony as part of
52:29
the investigation, but they have argued that Republicans are treating
52:32
the Clintons unfairly because they are not allowing them to
52:35
submit written testimony like some of the other witnesses subpoenaed
52:39
in their probe. Well, I don't want written testimony. I
52:43
want them to do the same thing that Acosta did
52:46
and Bill Barr. Nothing more, nothing less. They also claim
52:51
that Republicans are politicizing the issue by moving forward with
52:54
contempt against the Clintons and not for individuals like Attorney
52:57
General Pam Bondi, who has yet to make public all
53:00
the Epstein files that Congress required by law to be
53:03
released by December nineteenth. Well, maybe people like Nancy Pelosi
53:07
should take a hint here, because I want all of
53:11
that too. Every single person that needs to be deposed,
53:14
every single file that needs to be released, every single
53:18
person involved in this cover up, they need to be
53:21
under oath. Todd Blanche, Pam Bondi, Cash Patel, and drag
53:26
that sweat and ass clown Dan Bongino up there and
53:28
put his bitch ass under oath too. What'd you see, buddy?
53:32
Must have been pretty horrible to make your bitch ass
53:34
run for the doors the way you did, to the
53:38
extent that anyone in this town or country should be
53:40
held in criminal contempt. It is the Attorney General of
53:43
the Department of Justice. House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries tot
53:47
reporters on Thursday. Well, that's true too, And guess what
53:51
when Aqim Jeffries is pushing for that, I'll back his play.
53:55
But what I won't engage in is what about is them?
53:58
Because everybody has a part to play. This isn't one person,
54:02
this isn't one institution. This is systemic and it's ongoing.
54:07
That's the issue. And the more people like Hakeem Jeffries
54:11
act as obstructionists protecting their quote unquote faves the harder
54:16
it's going to be to get to the bottom of this.
54:18
But believe me when I tell you, the second they
54:21
start calling for a BONDI to be under oath, you
54:24
better believe I'll be adding my voice to that. Asked
54:26
by CNN if the Clintons need to answer questions, Jeffries
54:30
said that the former president and Secretary of State are
54:33
working in good faith to try and reach accommodation with
54:36
the Oversight Committee in order to sit down and offer
54:39
their testimony. Representative Rocana, a California Democrat who co led
54:45
the legislation that forced the Justice Department to release all
54:48
the files, was one of the Democrats who sided with
54:51
their leadership and voted against holding the Clintons in contempt.
54:55
He said Bill Clinton should testify after the full Epstein
54:58
files were released. Yeah, I don't agree with that. Sorry.
55:03
It should all be happening at the same time. So
55:06
why wasn't bar or Acosta deposed after the files were released.
55:12
We have to have consistency, ro Conna, don't fall into
55:14
the trap. The only person we should be holding in
55:19
contempt right now is Pam Bondy, who is refusing to
55:22
release the files. The Clintons have called for the full
55:25
release of the files and Bill Clinton should testify after
55:28
the files are released with Donald Trump. But for Comer
55:31
to threaten them with gel now it's pure political theater. Well,
55:35
come on, Conna, what you're doing right here is political
55:39
theater as well. And you know Conna likes to talk
55:42
about the survivors all the time. Well, how does he
55:45
think the survivors feel about Bill Clinton getting a pass?
55:48
I promise you, if you pulled them, the overwhelming majority
55:52
want Bill Clinton to get up there and answer questions
55:55
under oath. So if Rocanna cares so much about the
55:58
survivors like he says he does, then he wouldn't be
56:01
giving the Clintons an escape patch. Instead, he'd stand firm
56:04
and demand accountability. Democratic Representative Melanie Standsberry of New Mexico, however,
56:10
said she voted with Republicans to hold both Clinton's in
56:13
contempt to preserve congressional subpoena power. I feel very strongly that,
56:18
especially in this moment, when the Oversight Committee plays such
56:21
a critical role in investigating wrongdoing, especially by the administration,
56:25
that it's crucial that we protect the power of the
56:28
subpoena and Congress authority to be able to subpoena current
56:31
and former presidents, that we hold the hard line in
56:35
terms of making sure the integrity of our ability to
56:38
do that is maintained. She said, Well, what she's saying
56:41
there is that she's going to want to pose Donald
56:44
Trump after he gets out of office. And if they
56:46
don't go through with Bill Clinton, well how they going
56:48
to do it with Trump? So I'm not stupid, right,
56:52
I'm not naive. And one thing I understand is politics. Now,
56:56
we might not talk about it here too often, because
56:58
the truth is, the vast major of people that are
57:01
yapping about it have no clue what they're even talking about.
57:05
The vast majority of these people they don't know the
57:07
fucking magna carta from Wayne Carter, And with all the noise,
57:11
why even bother right, no sense even getting involved in
57:14
that shit. But there's no doubt that for people like
57:16
Melanie Stansbury, this isn't about survivors, it's not about accountability.
57:21
It's about having the ammunition later on down the road
57:24
to go after Trump. Even though she supported the effort,
57:29
Stansbury argued that Republicans are not standing on firm legal
57:32
ground because there has been cooperation from the witnesses, and
57:36
similarly claim that the GOP specific focus on the Clintons
57:40
is political theater as she tries to sell some snake oil.
57:44
These people have zero shame. Why do you keep voting
57:48
for the same people over and over? That's the question
57:51
I really have. Garcia, who voted against holding the Clintons
57:55
in contempt, said during Wednesday's meeting that he does want
57:58
to hear from the former Democratic president in Let's be clear,
58:02
we want to talk to President Bill Clinton. We want
58:04
them to answer our questions. We also want Gallayne Maxwell
58:07
to answer our questions. We also want to understand why
58:10
Pam Bondi refuses to release all the files. He said, Well,
58:15
if you wanted to hear from Clinton, Garcia, why didn't
58:17
you vote for it. You see, folks, what they want
58:20
to do is play the hero, but never step up
58:23
when it's time to step up. And we've seen it
58:26
with people on the right time and time again, you know,
58:29
going with the whole qaan on going with Oh kids
58:32
are being trafficked and wayfair. We have kids that are
58:35
being held at pizza shops, all kinds of crazy shit, right,
58:39
But then they're confronted with real evil and they're nowhere
58:42
to be found, or when you do find them, they're
58:44
writing editorials in the New York Post. But the truth
58:47
is both sides are still playing politics. And that's why
58:49
I always say that it's up to you to demand
58:52
accountability and to demand that both sides do the right
58:55
thing and hold people accountable no matter what party they're in.
58:59
And unfortunately we still haven't arrived at that point. So
59:02
it's up to you to keep the pressure on. And
59:05
as far as Nancy Pelosi goes, does it shock anybody
59:08
that she's trying to protect the Clintons. I mean, you
59:11
remember what her own daughter said, right, some of our
59:13
faiths are gonna be caught up in this story. Well,
59:17
some of your faiths are caught up. So now the
59:20
question is what are you willing to do about it.
59:24
All of the information that goes with this episode can
59:26
be found in the description box.