Trump team CAUGHT in new Epstein coverup
by Brian Tyler Cohen
8/8/25
BREAKING #news - Trump team CAUGHT in new Epstein coverup
Transcript
Another day, another lie at the hands of
the Trump team when it comes to Epstein.
Now, to set the stage here, you might
remember that a couple of days ago, it
was reported that Vance, Bondi, Patel,
and Susie Wilds, among others, would be
meeting at JD Vance's residence to
discuss strategy on the Epstein scandal,
which is to say how they're going to
continue on with their cover up. When
Trump and Vance were confronted on that
reality, here's what they said. And bear
with me here because I promise there is
a payoff that's worth it. President, is
the Vice President Vance hosting a
gathering this evening to talk about how
to respond to the Epstein situation?
Is he working on what?
Is he hosting some kind of gathering of
top advisers this evening to talk about
how to respond to the Epstein situation?
I don't know. I could ask you that
question.
I don't know of it, but I think uh I I
Here's the man right here.
I saw a reporter today and it's
completely fake news. We're not meeting
to talk about the Epstein situation and
I think the reporter who reported it
needs to get better sources.
Look, the whole thing is a hoax. It's
put out by the Democrats because we've
had the most successful 6 months in the
history of our country. And that's just
a way of trying to divert attention to
something that's total
That's right. They don't need to divert
attention to something that's total
They don't need to do a
meeting at Vance's house. That's fake
news.
They just did the meeting right there in
the White House. That's right. After a
fullthroated condemnation of even
humoring the idea that the White House
would be meeting with the DOJ to discuss
strategy on Epstein, they literally met
to discuss it that very night. According
to reporting, quote, "A much anticipated
meeting between Attorney General Pam
Bondi, FBI Director Cash Patel, Vice
President JD Vance, and others was moved
from Vance's residence to the White
House Wednesday after the intense media
coverage." A source familiar with the
logistics told CNN. They discussed a
number of topics, including the Jeffrey
Epstein case and the potential next
steps. The source said the meeting was
originally planned to take place at
Vance's DC home and was also supposed to
include White House Chief of Staff Susie
Wilds and Deputy Attorney General Todd
Blanch. The administration's handling of
the Epstein case as well as the need to
craft a unified response was expected to
be a main focus of the dinner. So I
guess when Trump denied that there would
even be a meeting to discuss quote
unquote what he meant was that
just a few hours from that very moment,
the highest ranking officials in the
United States government would indeed be
meeting to discuss that very I
can see where the confusion would come
in. What's most egregious here is that
I'm old enough to remember when
Republicans lost their collective minds
when former President Bill Clinton met
with Attorney General Loretta Lynch for
a few minutes on the tarmac. He wasn't
even president at the time and yet
Republicans were so committed to the bit
of caring about the separation of the
White House and the DOJ that they talked
about it on an endless loop.
I don't know about that. What do you
think he was doing with the attorney
general? remember he said, "Oh, I just
happened to see she was I was here to
play golf. It was 120 degrees out." I
don't know.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with
President Clinton at the Phoenix airport
on Monday because of the ongoing federal
investigation into Hillary Clinton's
emails. That meeting has now become a
major problem. Judicial Watch has just
released FBI documents on that
clandestine meeting between Bill Clinton
and Loretta Lynch on the Phoenix tarmac
at the airport there. 29 pages of emails
previously withheld by the Justice
Department. They detail a frenzied wild
hunt within the FBI looking for a source
who talked to a reporter about the
controversial 2016 meeting. Uh that is
they were looking for the leaker. The
messages show almost no concern over the
actual meeting itself, its propriety,
and what was discussed.
Astonishing.
Listen, I I've been I don't believe it
was a coincidence at all. just to be
crystal clear. But well, Loretta Lynch
is is is bright. This is not an ignorant
person. She's very bright. She I I
worked with her at one point when I was
a federal agent. She knows what she's
doing. Uh
did for her to do this and then to claim
somehow that yeah, this was just an
innocent conversation, not understand
the ramifications of it. I mean, do you
think she gets that people are going to
ask questions about this? They were
investigating Bill Clinton's wife,
Hillary Clinton, while she's meeting on
the tarmac, and it's a 20-minute
meeting. Although, I guess we shouldn't
be surprised when Dan Bonino pretends to
be furious about something only to
suddenly ignore it when it's
inconvenient for him. Dan Bonino's
entire MMO is getting rich, pretending
that he gives a about stuff only
until the moment he can be in a position
where he can actually fight back against
it, and suddenly he goes completely
quiet. Snake oil salesman of the highest
order. I spoke with former federal
prosecutor Glenn Kersner about this
egregious hypocrisy. Here's what he had
to say. The reason this is so bad is
because we want the American people to
have confidence in the Department of
Justice when it exercises its
prosecutorial discretion. What do I
mean? We want DOJ awesome powers to
criminally investigate and prosecute
people and organizations, businesses,
companies, nonprofits. We want them to
make prosecutorial decisions based
exclusively on the facts and the law,
not on politics. And that is why for,
you know, as long as the Department of
Justice has been around, there has been
a traditional separation between the
White House, the president and his, you
know, closest adviserss and the
Department of Justice, the the attorney
general, the deputy attorney general,
and all of the people making the
prosecutorial decisions. Because what
you don't want to have happen is for the
American people to come to believe that
the people prosecuted by the Department
of Justice are being prosecuted for
political reasons because they are the
president's enemies. The people who who
commit crimes who go unprosecuted
are getting that break, that protection
because they're the president's friends
and donors. So figuratively, there's
been a wall, a wall that's erected
between the Oval Office, the president
and his closest adviserss and the
attorney general and the Department of
Justice. And there are all kinds of
rules, procedures, and prohibitions in
place in writing that say, you know, DOJ
employees and officials are not
permitted to meet with folks from the
Oval Office, from the White House. Only
under very circumscribed
um uh uh situations can the attorney
general, the the deputy attorney general
meet with somebody from the White House.
Usually it's to talk about policy
priorities, not to talk about who should
or should not be prosecuted. But they
have so blown through all of those
safeguards, that wall that is erected to
give people confidence in the
independence of the work of the
Department of Justice. They've blown
through it. They've blown up that wall
entirely. And now, Brian, gosh, as you
just related, they're having strategy
sessions, the Oval Office, and the DOJ
leadership about how to best cover up
for Donald Trump. So the Trump Epstein
Maxwell scandal goes away or doesn't do
him any harm. I mean it doesn't get any
more wrong for DOJ leadership to be
participating in that kind of activity.
You know that it is more wrong than
anything I saw in my entire career with
the Department of Justice.
But frankly, the fact that this meeting
took place despite the historic
separation between the White House and
the DOJ isn't even the worst part. The
worst part is that clearly this meeting
between people who are supposed to be
defending the law, including the
nation's top law enforcement official,
is to decide how to perpetuate their
cover up of a crime. If they truly
wanted transparency, there's an easy
solution. Release the Epstein files.
That's it. That is the whole ball game.
Just release the files that Pam Bondi
herself admitted were on her desk. But
she won't and Trump won't. So instead,
they have strategy sessions to decide
how to handle this issue. Because their
top priority isn't accountability for
the criminals involved in this pedophile
ring. It's not transparency on behalf of
the victims of this pedophile ring. It
is protecting one man, Donald Trump.
That's it. Trump ran on a platform of
exposing wrongdoing and instead he is
entrenching the very system that enabled
that wrongdoing in the first place. The
reality is that we already know Donald
Trump was involved. We know that Pam
Bondi told Trump months ago that he was
in the Epstein files. We know that they
directed the FBI to redact any mention
of Trump's name. We know that he's
likely gotten Gain Maxwell to cooperate
with him, which was the whole purpose of
that meeting with Todd Blanch, which
resulted in her getting a cushy new
minimum security prison stay in Texas as
opposed to the decidedly less
comfortable highsecurity prison that she
was staying at in Florida. The fix is
in, and it could not be more obvious.
And now these people are figuring out
how to keep the cover up going. Trump's
voters thought that they were getting
accountability. Instead, they voted to
protect the very people they thought
they were going to expose. And the
person at the top of that list is Donald
Trump himself.
Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat Aug 09, 2025 3:10 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37971
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat Aug 09, 2025 6:04 am
Trump Gets RAN OUT OF Florida as Judge SHUTS HIM DOWN
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
Aug 7, 2025 The Intersection with Michael Popok
A Federal Judge just ruled against the Trump Administration's continued build out of the Florida Everglades ICE detention center run by Florida cruelly officially named Alligator Alcatraz. Popok explains why this ruling matters and how this Judge has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in the last 30 days for her prior ruling against Trump and DeSantis on criminalizing immigration.
Transcript
Well, I'm back on the microphone on my
home studio. There's many different ways
to attack Donald Trump's abuse of power
in collaboration with the state of
Florida and Governor DeSantis with
alligator Alcatraz. There's two
different lawsuits. One has a hearing
scheduled for the 18th of August about
the fundamental civil rights violations
on display with putting other human
beings in tents in 100 degree weather
surrounded by alligators and mosquitoes
without proper sanitation without proper
hygiene without proper air conditioning
with no air conditioning under a tent
without a hurricane plan. That's for
another day. But today, federal judge
Williams, Kathleen Williams, who's made
a couple of rulings against Trump's
depraved immigration plan. I'll talk
about that in a minute. But um uh
federal judge Kathleen Williams at least
for the next two weeks sided with the
friends of the Everglades and the
Mkasuki Indian population group tribe
that um argued that not only is it a
civil rights violation what's going on
at this ICE detention center run by
Florida, but it is also destroying the
Everglades, destroying billions of
dollars of restoration programs and
money to have the Everglades and the
wetlands from Lake Okachchobee all the
way down which is what keeps Florida
from shriveling up under the sun and
burning and burning up in our
atmosphere. It's that that that group of
that constellation of the Everglades and
tributaries and water and waterways and
Lake Okachchobee and the rains that are
necessary and you don't stick a federal
detention center in the middle of it
without any regard to environmental
impact. In fact, they argue in their
lawsuit, and this was persuasive for
Judge Williams, that it it violates
national environmental policy along with
other things such as the Administrative
Procedures Act. And she has ruled, this
is the top breaking news right now, stop
the expansion of Alligator, Alcatraz,
that detention center. Don't continue to
expand it to hold 3,000 people. Now it
holds about 900 people at least for two
more weeks as the parties continue to
litigate in front of Judge Williams. And
you're going to like Judge Williams.
She's the judge about a month and a half
ago that found the attorney general of
Florida to be in contempt because he
undermined her her temporary restraining
order and her preliminary injunction
which was affirmed to the United States
Supreme Court. So she was right. um in
which she said that Florida's attempt to
create its own criminal immigration laws
ran a foul of what Congress is empowered
to do. States can't regulate in the area
where they've been ousted by the federal
government and our system of federalism.
And she put a big X on the Florida state
criminal law found the attorney general
of Florida in contempt because he tried
to undermine it. It we're talking about
the same judge. We're doing it here,
right here on Legal AF. Take a minute,
hit the free subscribe button as I as I
give you the breakdown of this
particular story.
I don't want to call it Alligator
Alcatraz, so I won't. It's a detention
center that was built by Florida, but
with federal money. ICE claims that it
is not under their jurisdiction, but it
is. Florida built it for the federal
government, and ICE places people there.
Now, the problem is if you're a lawyer
and you're representing somebody in
there and you need to see your client
who has habeus corpus rights,
immigration law rights, administrative
lights, rights, due process rights,
sometimes you can't find them because
they're not in the ICE database because
ICE points to Florida and Florida points
the finger to the feds and you see the
shell games with other human beings that
the two state the state and federal
government are playing.
So, it's let's just call it what it is.
It's a federal detention center that's
run by Florida for the feds that sits in
the Everglades. That's hence its name.
There's approximately 900 people there,
although there have been reports from
immigration lawyers on the ground that a
couple hundred people have already been
removed from there and we don't know
where they are. Again, not in the ICE
database. Now, Kathleen Williams, the
federal judge here, is no stranger to
the Trump administration or to uh the
state of Florida and immigration policy.
As I said before, Florida has an
attorney general. I don't know, he's
like 33 years old. Um I'm not sure how
long he practiced, but he's a buddies
with uh with Ronda Santis. So, he got
the top job. Uh and he will be
challenged by a Democrat at the
midterms.
He crafted this legislation passed by
the Florida legislature to criminalize
people coming into the state with
undocumented status. The problem with
that is there's an entire federal
scheme, an entire federal set of laws
that mean that states can't also
regulate in the area where Congress
means to to reign supreme. The states
can regulate everything else. That's
this that's the 10th amendment. um
powers devolved to the state that aren't
grabbed by the federal government. But
once the once the Congress has spoken in
a certain area, it's it's called
preeemption or ouster. They ousted the
state regulation on that same subject
matter. So that was relatively easy for
her to rule on it. But of course, uh the
attorney general for Florida didn't like
that. He started writing memos to people
like state troopers and and law
enforcement and other enforcement like,
"Well, I don't agree with her order and
I technically can't give you the command
uh not to continue to to arrest these
people." Allegedly, like 25 people were
arrested, illegally illegally arrested.
She didn't like that. She found out
about the letter that he sent telling
all of the people under him and in the
state of Florida to ignore the federal
judge's order. and she found him in
contempt. And then that decision by her
got affirmed not only by the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in
Atlanta, which leans right, but by the
United States Supreme Court. So, she's
right and she's going to be right here
as well. But, uh, the takeaway from this
particular hottake is this is not the
case I'm talking about. This is not the
case about the substantive due process
human rights violation that's going on
in this same facility. This is about a
federal judge stopping the continued
development of it and building out of
it. Uh but she's not stopping the
continued operation of it with the 900
people. She's just not going to allow it
to be built out for two or three
thousand more until the environment is
addressed. I mean the Mkasuki tribe
which is a powerful powerful political
body in Florida along with uh along with
others like the semol tribe you know
they are they are stakeholders in
Florida from their legacy and they said
this is sacred land to the Mkasukis
uh and the fact that it's being it's
being spoiled by the by the Trump
administration and the Dantis
administration troubles them. So they
joined along with the some Florida
Everglades environmental groups. The
friends of the Florida Ever Everglades
joined with the Mkasuki tribe um in
order to bring this particular lawsuit.
They are the plaintiffs in the case.
I'll continue to follow it right here on
Legal AF.
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
Aug 7, 2025 The Intersection with Michael Popok
A Federal Judge just ruled against the Trump Administration's continued build out of the Florida Everglades ICE detention center run by Florida cruelly officially named Alligator Alcatraz. Popok explains why this ruling matters and how this Judge has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in the last 30 days for her prior ruling against Trump and DeSantis on criminalizing immigration.
Transcript
Well, I'm back on the microphone on my
home studio. There's many different ways
to attack Donald Trump's abuse of power
in collaboration with the state of
Florida and Governor DeSantis with
alligator Alcatraz. There's two
different lawsuits. One has a hearing
scheduled for the 18th of August about
the fundamental civil rights violations
on display with putting other human
beings in tents in 100 degree weather
surrounded by alligators and mosquitoes
without proper sanitation without proper
hygiene without proper air conditioning
with no air conditioning under a tent
without a hurricane plan. That's for
another day. But today, federal judge
Williams, Kathleen Williams, who's made
a couple of rulings against Trump's
depraved immigration plan. I'll talk
about that in a minute. But um uh
federal judge Kathleen Williams at least
for the next two weeks sided with the
friends of the Everglades and the
Mkasuki Indian population group tribe
that um argued that not only is it a
civil rights violation what's going on
at this ICE detention center run by
Florida, but it is also destroying the
Everglades, destroying billions of
dollars of restoration programs and
money to have the Everglades and the
wetlands from Lake Okachchobee all the
way down which is what keeps Florida
from shriveling up under the sun and
burning and burning up in our
atmosphere. It's that that that group of
that constellation of the Everglades and
tributaries and water and waterways and
Lake Okachchobee and the rains that are
necessary and you don't stick a federal
detention center in the middle of it
without any regard to environmental
impact. In fact, they argue in their
lawsuit, and this was persuasive for
Judge Williams, that it it violates
national environmental policy along with
other things such as the Administrative
Procedures Act. And she has ruled, this
is the top breaking news right now, stop
the expansion of Alligator, Alcatraz,
that detention center. Don't continue to
expand it to hold 3,000 people. Now it
holds about 900 people at least for two
more weeks as the parties continue to
litigate in front of Judge Williams. And
you're going to like Judge Williams.
She's the judge about a month and a half
ago that found the attorney general of
Florida to be in contempt because he
undermined her her temporary restraining
order and her preliminary injunction
which was affirmed to the United States
Supreme Court. So she was right. um in
which she said that Florida's attempt to
create its own criminal immigration laws
ran a foul of what Congress is empowered
to do. States can't regulate in the area
where they've been ousted by the federal
government and our system of federalism.
And she put a big X on the Florida state
criminal law found the attorney general
of Florida in contempt because he tried
to undermine it. It we're talking about
the same judge. We're doing it here,
right here on Legal AF. Take a minute,
hit the free subscribe button as I as I
give you the breakdown of this
particular story.
I don't want to call it Alligator
Alcatraz, so I won't. It's a detention
center that was built by Florida, but
with federal money. ICE claims that it
is not under their jurisdiction, but it
is. Florida built it for the federal
government, and ICE places people there.
Now, the problem is if you're a lawyer
and you're representing somebody in
there and you need to see your client
who has habeus corpus rights,
immigration law rights, administrative
lights, rights, due process rights,
sometimes you can't find them because
they're not in the ICE database because
ICE points to Florida and Florida points
the finger to the feds and you see the
shell games with other human beings that
the two state the state and federal
government are playing.
So, it's let's just call it what it is.
It's a federal detention center that's
run by Florida for the feds that sits in
the Everglades. That's hence its name.
There's approximately 900 people there,
although there have been reports from
immigration lawyers on the ground that a
couple hundred people have already been
removed from there and we don't know
where they are. Again, not in the ICE
database. Now, Kathleen Williams, the
federal judge here, is no stranger to
the Trump administration or to uh the
state of Florida and immigration policy.
As I said before, Florida has an
attorney general. I don't know, he's
like 33 years old. Um I'm not sure how
long he practiced, but he's a buddies
with uh with Ronda Santis. So, he got
the top job. Uh and he will be
challenged by a Democrat at the
midterms.
He crafted this legislation passed by
the Florida legislature to criminalize
people coming into the state with
undocumented status. The problem with
that is there's an entire federal
scheme, an entire federal set of laws
that mean that states can't also
regulate in the area where Congress
means to to reign supreme. The states
can regulate everything else. That's
this that's the 10th amendment. um
powers devolved to the state that aren't
grabbed by the federal government. But
once the once the Congress has spoken in
a certain area, it's it's called
preeemption or ouster. They ousted the
state regulation on that same subject
matter. So that was relatively easy for
her to rule on it. But of course, uh the
attorney general for Florida didn't like
that. He started writing memos to people
like state troopers and and law
enforcement and other enforcement like,
"Well, I don't agree with her order and
I technically can't give you the command
uh not to continue to to arrest these
people." Allegedly, like 25 people were
arrested, illegally illegally arrested.
She didn't like that. She found out
about the letter that he sent telling
all of the people under him and in the
state of Florida to ignore the federal
judge's order. and she found him in
contempt. And then that decision by her
got affirmed not only by the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in
Atlanta, which leans right, but by the
United States Supreme Court. So, she's
right and she's going to be right here
as well. But, uh, the takeaway from this
particular hottake is this is not the
case I'm talking about. This is not the
case about the substantive due process
human rights violation that's going on
in this same facility. This is about a
federal judge stopping the continued
development of it and building out of
it. Uh but she's not stopping the
continued operation of it with the 900
people. She's just not going to allow it
to be built out for two or three
thousand more until the environment is
addressed. I mean the Mkasuki tribe
which is a powerful powerful political
body in Florida along with uh along with
others like the semol tribe you know
they are they are stakeholders in
Florida from their legacy and they said
this is sacred land to the Mkasukis
uh and the fact that it's being it's
being spoiled by the by the Trump
administration and the Dantis
administration troubles them. So they
joined along with the some Florida
Everglades environmental groups. The
friends of the Florida Ever Everglades
joined with the Mkasuki tribe um in
order to bring this particular lawsuit.
They are the plaintiffs in the case.
I'll continue to follow it right here on
Legal AF.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37971
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat Aug 09, 2025 6:57 am
Gilbert Doctorow: Russia Calls U.S. Peace Plan Acceptable, Trump-Putin Meeting Is Confirmed
by Glenn Diesen
Aug 8, 2025
Dr. Gilbert Doctorow discusses Witkoff's visit to Moscow and the decision to organise a meeting between Putin and Trump. Gilbert Doctorow's new book "War Diaries. Volume 1: The Russia-Ukraine War, 2022-2023" is now available on Amazon:
Transcript
Hi everyone and welcome back. We are joined today by Gilbert Doctorow, a historian, international affairs analyst
and also author of books such as uh the war diaries, the Russia Ukraine war.
So um I'm I tend to be more pessimistic than you in terms of the future of this
war, the ability to reach some peaceful settlement. But uh I was struck a bit by
some optimism now with um uh with this recent meeting that is Witkov going to
Moscow and uh again anyone familiar with the NATO Russia relation over the past 30 years are probably aware that
deception has been a key component and uh but what we saw is the deadline
expired that is the what began as a 50-day then became a 10day
uh uh deadline and uh instead of sending weapons and sanctions at least for now with Koff to Moscow and his peers we're
getting a meeting with between Putin and Trump. Uh what are you reading into this
uh quick development? Do you see something which has happened uh behind the scenes or is this just noise? Well,
a lot of things clearly have happened behind the scenes and for that reason it's difficult to judge the degree of
agreement that Bitco reached with his Russian counterparts
Putin and and this umakov
and who else was there? A kid Ditri. Um, look, in recent my recent interviews, I
look at comments. One of them was, "Oh, Dr. has become really an apologist for
Trump." I consider this progress because before six months ago, they would have said Dr. was an apologist for Putin.
So, we're we're getting there. Uh, I tried not to be an apologist for anybody. And um if Trump is doing
something stupid, I will not hesitate to say that. If he's if what he's doing is
unlikely to succeed to my knowledge, I will also say that. There is one
troubling note here uh in the the the brief information that has been has been
sent out as to what was discussed and how our preparations are being made for
the Trump Putin meeting in the near future meaning possibly in the coming week. that the what I find disturbing is
the notion that um Zilinski would have been invited
because that goes contrary to what I understood was the hopeful
sign coming out of the Vitkov uh Putin talks. The hopeful sign being that the
discussions would go far beyond the particulars of the Ukraine crisis, the
territories that each side would retain or have to give up. uh the question of Ukraine and NATO and the rest of it and
they were talk about bigger issues. Um constructive discussion they had a um I
think Rushov said it was um there there was um the probability
likelihood of discussing strategic cooperation. Well yes that would
definitely interest the Russians and would bring Mr. Putin together with Mr. Trump but Mr. Zilinski doesn't fit into
that at all. And so if indeed Zilinski were to be invited, then that puts in
question the first point. Are they discussing only Ukraine and only the terms of the ceasefire or are they
discussing the issues which the Russians really want to talk about? Now what are the issues the Russians want to talk
about? one of your recent guests um just um put out some ideas and uh he is
wellinformed. I'd say he's he's probably a centrist person within the the
American foreign policy establishment. and he was saying yes, they would talk
about um oh cooperation in the Arctic and they would talk about uh uh ending
the sanctions and reintegrating Russia into the greater world, the western
world because as he said Russians in general are are consider themselves to
be Europeans to be part of Western civilization and they are very disappointed that they are excluded uh
from that context from that place where they believe they belong to be by the
sanctions which are caused by the war. Uh here I disagree completely. Um five
years ago, yes, that would have been an accurate statement. Um as I have been saying for some time, the and this is
not just my own observation. Uh the Russians have been talking about it uh for uh with great insistence. The war
has brought together brought forward new elites. the war has made even among the
intellectuals who are almost by definition not supporters of the Putin
regime so to speak uh that they have become patriotic and uh that they are were less u
concerned that they couldn't spend a summer vacation in Paris or um elsewhere
in Western Europe or re visit the states um so if they could come back with a lot of stories to discuss with their
But that's over. Uh Russia may not feel comfortable with Chinese cars. That's
now being discussed how how the car these cars are being accepted or rejected by the Russian consumers. They
may not feel comfortable with spending a summer vacation on North Korea's latest
uh tourist beaches, but they certainly will not exchange the
loss in treasure and in life of the last three years for the sake of going back
to the status quo anti and being integrated into rest into western
economy and society. That's gone. That is over and it will not come back. There will be some accommodation with the
West, but not in the sense that existed before. No one talks about it, but I'll
say it right here now. Russia had a big inferiority complex.
Across the board, anyone you spoke to, other than a handful of of super patriots before this war, the
predominant feeling in Russia was uh we can't make anything.
This takes me back to the late 1990s. I remember uh very smart uh taxi driver
was taking my wife and me around downtown Petersburg and he remarked, "We Russians, we make very cute babies, but
we're lousy at making cars." Now that uh that was a widespread belief
and I think that the last three years and the reindustrialization of Russia and the import substitution in Russia
and the takeover of Western companies by um Russian entrepreneurs or the Russian
state producing virtually the same products under a different name. That's changed at all. Russia didn't produce
any cheese before. Ridiculous. They didn't produce cheese. In 1912,
Russia was supplying butter to Denmark. This is not my guess. I have a yearbook
on the my library uh shelf. A 1912 yearbook was published in the UK all
describing all the trade relations between Russia and UK and the West. And they were exporting butter to Denmark.
Well, they can't they weren't making any cheese. Well, they're making all kinds of cheeses now. the um as as I said
before uh what Mr. Trump wants to do with his tariffs is to imitate what what
the Russians have done thanks to Western sanctions to re-industrialize. So the
game has changed the idea that this could be an issue for the discussion that would bring Mr. Putin, Mr. Shakov
Ditrif to the table and yeah well let's let's get it on with it. will uh we'll have an immediate ceasefire because and
you'll put us back into into the Russian into the European and and American
markets. That's gone. So what could they talk about? What is the big issue that would have that would have persuaded Mr.
Putin and his close advisers that they should meet with Trump now? What could Mr. Vidkov have brought with him? Well,
I think he had have had to have addressed the core issues. what he could have done to make the whole thing
palatable to all sides, meaning also the Ukrainians if they uh if they are strong
armed and the Europeans, is to speak about phasing in what is essentially the
Russian solution and presenting it in such a way that it would not look like what it is, which is
virtual surrender. Virtual surrender is not accepted with NATO. is not accepted to the United
States. Mr. Mr. Trump will be pillaried if he does nothing to sweeten the
settlement and to make it seem as though he's in control. All the news we see of
every on every pestal subject these weeks has one news maker and his name is
Donald Trump. It gives you the sense that he's in control of things even if he absolutely is not. and he is
certainly not in control of how this war will end but he has to have the appearance of that
and so he has decided that he should meet with with Mr. Putin and Mr. and Mr.
Putin has responded over. If you read yesterday's and
today's financial times, oh no, sorry, if you listen to the BBC this morning,
you would understand that Putin was eagerly pursuing Trump for a meeting because that will re that will restore
his prestige as an international player. That's how they turn everything on its head. Well, coming back to what this
answer to your question, I've been a bit longwinded, but the answer to your question that the the Americans probably
brought a phasing in stage one, stage two, stage three,
which makes it possible to sit and negotiate. The end result will be very much in accordance with the Russians
demands, which are not maximalist. They haven't changed one one iota from where
they were in June 2024 when Mr. Putin reiterated what he first said in
February 2022. what Russia's ambition is although we put it more clearly in uh
easier to understand terms but essentially came to the same thing what this denoxifications well that's regime
change uh the the demilitaration well the Ukrainian army goes but mostly it's
evaporating front of our eyes so these things are being achieved and now they want to codify it but they can't they
cannot do it in one session that will be too awful for the west so I think the
issue to discuss is how to phase this in in a way that leaves Mr. Trump at least
with an offramp that's respectable and the Europeans can go to hell.
They'll have to accommodate to whatever the Americans and the Russians agree
because they will have no weapons to supply to the Ukraine and Ukraine will sink. So that is what I see coming a
discussion of the timetable for arriving at the Russians uh
their requirements for a peace treaty.
Yeah, I was told by a well a credible American source that uh that uh not only
was uh you know Washington becoming much more eager to find a settlement or
because of the well the disaster happening on the front that is it looks like a total collapse could happen
within the next few months. But uh was also told that Sinski that he had
apparently changed a bit as well that this uh you know while in the past viewed himself as uh being this new
Churchill who will bring back the glory of Ukraine and defeat Russia like all of this is now begun to fade away and he's
if if the Americans put something in front of him and pressured him he would likely sign. So it's again it's none not
a certainty and indeed the Russians are asking for a lot but uh but now um this
uh yeah Kremlin advisor Yuri Ushakov he was uh in the news arguing that the
Americans had put forth a proposal which they which he said was seemingly
acceptable to Moscow. This is I never heard this language before. And given how far the parts the two different
sides have been apart, it seems as if something something significant must
have must have shifted because my first impression was perhaps this uh Witkov going to Moscow talking about a Trump
Putin meeting is just a way to get Trump uh well save face after he made this uh
silly uh you know 10day deadline which I don't understand but uh but there seems
to actually be some substance in place here. Uh but did you read the comments
by Ushakov the same way? And if so, what do you think such a deal must include?
Because um again, the Russians aren't going to after 30 years of struggling
over the European security architecture, more than 3 years of losing uh men on
the front lines, now finally at the cusp of victory, it's going to just throw it
away. Um, you know, I I assume that there's a reason why they're able to put these
harsh demands. So, what do you think might be in this deal that uh Ushakov is
referring to? I'm not quite sure, but there are sticking points here. Um again to to
address that question of being an apologist for Trump um I have no
illusions about the humanitarian motives that are absent from his peace seeeking
and nor do I accept the notion that the man is so vain that he's doing
everything for the sake of getting the Nobel Peace Prize. I don't think even Mr. Trump is that vain to have to put
aside national interest of the United States uh and the lives of all the other parties to this conflict for the sake of
his getting that piece of paper or that little little award which Obama received for doing nothing whatsoever just not
being for not being Bush the um I think there's much more to it but uh it's it's
in conflict in my mind what exactly the overall overarching concept could
separate the Russians from the Chinese so we can proceed with taking on China.
However, that falls falls flat. Uh the there is no way conceivable that Russia
is going to betray Trump. No way. Uh when I said the other day that one that
Mr. Whitov could have been talking to Dimmitri about getting access to Russian
produced uh rare metals, rare earth metals uh as the point for negotiation or
preparing for negotiation with the Chinese in the coming week or two uh where the Chinese are withholding those
uh those urgently needed materials to to um uh
frustrate any plans of punishing tariffs or or uh any limitations on export of
technology to China by Mr. Trump. It is inconceivable that the that Mr. Putin
will give free access to Russian rare rare earth metals
uh after spite China. That is off the off the table. So what exactly Mr. Trump
hopes to achieve um considering that Russia and China are inseparable.
I'm not quite sure. So, uh where we really have to look a
little bit further and I'm not sure that Mr. Trump is his advisers are blind to that reality.
I also have mentioned the timing coming back to why 10 days or what 50 days
because September 3rd is inconvenient. is too close to the convening of this
end of the Pacific uh war uh for World War II. The 80th anniversary
celebrations will be in Beijing to which Mr. Trump presumably is desperate to be
invited. U that's a re that is possible. It
suggests that the um yol type meeting that we all thought might possibly
happen where Moscow celebrated the 80th anniversary of the end of the European
war and didn't happen. Maybe would happen now in the Pacific in Beijing.
It's possible. I as I've said recently, I don't have a microphone under Mr. Putin's pillow. We
really don't have a microphone under Mr. Trump's pillow and there are contradictory
objectives when you look at what he says and even what he does. Um
uh to complicate our reading of these tea leaves are trying attempting to make
sense out of it all. Uh it could be that they still have some some illusions or
delusions with respect to separating Russia from China. I I find it hard to believe, but
Americans can be peculiar. The um uh
what else could be going through their minds? What else they could be using to to reach a quick accommodation with Mr.
Putin uh without looking like they've lost the war? And I think Putin will be
very amenable to helping them off on the offramp. He's certainly smart enough. He
did that with Obama with respect to the the bombing Syria uh over the alleged
use of chemical weapons. So he knows how to let his opponents off the hook
getting what he wants without embarrassing them to the point where he's got enemies.
But um for me right now it's a bit hard to say just how this will be how this
this trick will be done. Yeah, I would have been more reassured
if I heard some talks about actual actually the European security
architecture because so far there's been too much reference to an unconditional
ceasefire and Trump still in his language I mean there's a contradiction his language is still refers to this as
uh as if it would be a war between Ukraine and Russia uh which is
problematic for the peace efforts if it takes NATO NATO and America's role out of this. On the other hand, he calls it
uh he calls the war Biden's war, which Biden began by pushing NATO. So, it's
very it's not very consistent. If it's Biden's war, how is it only limited between Ukraine and Russia? But again,
with Trump, you never know what is the noise and uh what does he actually know? Uh, I was wondering though how how you
read his uh if if you think Trump is misinformed either deliberately or just
out of ignorance by his high his adviserss because from Trump we hear these comments such as uh I think he
said that there's 20,000 Russians dying a month which is
yeah it doesn't well it doesn't make any sense in any way. it it's quite
outlandish and also when he was asked about uh what's happening in Ukraine people elderly peeping people being
dragged to the front uh and uh he he said oh I don't know anything about that
and um now of course putting this deadline to begin with the 10day
deadline what if he knows that Russia considers this to be an existential threat they're
willing to fight this all the way why why would he think that they would
capitulate now. Uh, in other words, accept freezing the front lines and uh
allowing NATO to re revive the conflict in the future if they would need to put
pressure on Russia. I mean, it doesn't make any sense like this was always ridiculous that the Russians would
accept this. Is this misinformed or is it just uh you know talking to his own
base or what is he I have a very hard time understanding some of the strange
information and decisions which are coming out well confused the other side but don't
confuse yourself I I would take as an operating assumption that he is not confused and
that all of these confusing and often times very bizarre statements that come
out of him are intend And it's partial demonstration of his contempt for the press and and for his opponents who are
the most vocal uh um elements of of society at large. The
silent majority doesn't say much. The his opponents say a lot and are heard a lot and that what they say is kicked up
by media. Um there are contradictions here and I think it's much too early uh
for us to to um present with clarity
what is going to happen when they meet and what is the intended uh outcome
uh why the Russians would have agreed to this meeting when it goes against all of their rules. Um Russian television's
tell is informing us that yes contrary to the general rule of preparing
uh in great detail and over considerable time for summit meetings. The Russians
are prepared this time to make an exception and to hold this very quickly and they're working working like mad and
the Americans are working like mad to observe this shortened schedule.
Supposedingly, it's about agreeing a ceasefire, but I don't believe that. The
There's no way that the Russians can accept uh a ceasefire when the Europeans
are not present to this. The Americans by definition are not going to be supplying further weapons to Ukraine.
The Europeans are and the Russians do not accept under any condition that a
ceasefire will take place while weapons are being dispatched into Ukraine. So,
that is a non-starter. there's something else going on. We don't know it. But I
think it's best not to assume that people are illinformed. Uh that some maliciousness is at work. The advisers
to Putin to which to Trump or I should say even to Putin. Uh one of one very s
well-known former economist and at a high level in American politics
is insisting that Mr. Putin is being deceived and misled by his adviserss. Uh
I think it would be safe just to hold back and let's see what happens at this meeting. But there are definite
contradictions in structure of a meeting which I just called out now. How can you agree on a ceasefire when Europeans
aren't present? Uh the only person who's who's called out the need for Europeans
has been Orurban who came out yesterday with a statement that um that Meritz and
um uh and French the French Macron
should go to Moscow now or after the meeting that Trump has with with Putin
and present the European position to Moscow because the EU institutions are
totally incapable. of doing that. Well, I agree with him on that point, but
whether or not much will be achieved by Mcronone and merits going to Moscow, well, better to talk than not to talk.
uh they can't see a solution on the ceasefire without the Europeans being brought in but obviously not at the
first meeting just as it's senseless to have Zilinski there when the only thing that could have motivated the Russians
to agree to a meeting is has nothing to do directly with the Ukraine conflict.
It has to do as as you said with revising the security architecture of Europe for which Mr. Zilinski has no
place at the table. So there are confusing signals that you you and I
have detected and I suppose others as well which make it difficult to predict what the outcome of this meeting would
be. Yeah, I got that impression both from some Americans and Russians that they
need to first get the big pieces in place that is the European security order which effectively means the
relationship between the Americans and the Russians and then once this is in order then the Ukrainian issue can be
resolved. So you want to deal with it in in in the right order. And I also been told that uh yeah that they have the
same both the Moscow and Washington the same views of the Europeans that uh yes they have to be brought in but first
after the decisions have been made. So and then you know if you can get the Washington Moscow and then get the KE to
sign under then the yeah the Europeans will just be a formality I guess. Um but
uh but let's say this I wonder what the post-war settlement might look like when when is
uh when the war is done because in terms of the wider European order if you thought about this let's say next week
the they hash out the deal. I'm not so that optimistic but and and the war can
come to an end within a few weeks. Uh the the the Russians make the point that
you know they have to deal with the Americans because they have to uh this is you America will is remains uh
increant part of the international system and also if you want the world to function and have stability Russia and
America always have to work together. But as you suggested before there this
uh longing to return to Europe it seems to been gone indeed when you talk to
migrants from Russia in Europe they many said that they were initially surprised
they knew that Russia was always a bit mocked for you know being economic mess but they were surprised about how much
hatred there is towards Russians but now of course this uh inferiority complex it's more or less gone. Uh I guess this
is what happens when you defeat NATO on the battlefield. But but it's also the sense of ad admiration for Europe which
is gone. I mean throughout the cold war uh yes there was some animosity towards western governments as you would but but
overall there was uh some admiration for the way society was organized
the economies we had the social systems the technologies there seem to be some
moral or values. But now of course a lot of this is seen as decaying the decaying
and indeed the culture wars we're having where everything have to be deconstructed. This has become a source
of mockery in the in the Russian media. I'm just how much
uh what do you think or your sense what kind of relationship do you think the Russians want with Europe once this war
is actually over? No, I think they would very happy to go back to their position
as um as very close economic partners of Europe without taking it to the
embarrassing extreme that Mcronone described several years ago. Russia was
big great supplier of raw materials. Uh that I think that notion is not
satisfactory or sufficient for uh restoring uh economic ties with Europe.
But let's let me just make an attempt. What could they possibly have said to uh
to President Putin? What Vitokov could have brought with him that would be considered constructive and could
justify this meeting? And let's put it in a historical context. What do the
Americans and Russians who disliked one another, who didn't necessarily respect one another always put forward as the
first topic for discussion? Arms control. arms control. That is the most valuable
thing that they could discuss next week, which would set the tone for solving all
the other issues, which would receive the undeserved acclaim
in Europe and the United States. if they were to discuss restoring the
intermediate and short-range missile agreement in a new form and preventing
or withdraw removing the advanced positioned Russian missiles
and the plans for stationing American
missiles in Germany next year that would be hailed by everybody
and from that good atmosphere, they could proceed to the really tough uh and miserable
discussions about concluding the the the Ukraine war. So there are there might be
something he said is completely off the table, but no, there were nobody's talking about because kept very highly
secret from all of us as it should be till now. So I I wouldn't eliminate the
possibility some concrete, positive and promising could come out of a meeting between uh Putin and Trump next in a
week's time. One which has no need whatsoever for Mr. Zalinski or for the
Europeans to be present and that could set the tone I'd say for uh dealing with
the really tough questions that of resolving the Ukraine war and also revising European architecture. If you
take off this these five minute uh long delivery time or strike times of
missiles within the European theater, uh life gets a lot easier. You can breathe much easier and the tension over
European security would be uh would be um toned down considerably. So that
could be it. But we're it's a guess. It's nothing more than a guess. Well, yeah. No. Well, this is a problem
when all when the diplomacy of course is behind the closed doors. Uh just my last question though is if if this peace
agreement goes through, if they actually deal with uh the European security architecture, uh what happens to NATO?
Again, I think that one of the reasons why the Europeans are um or seem to
prefer keeping the war going is as long as you have a conflict and NATO will
still have a purpose and it will keep the Americans on the continent. And you
and I discussed before that the fear of the Europeans is once the Americans get
to leave Ukraine, they will also likely leave Europe to a large extent. both you
know resource priorities and everything going to Asia. So uh do you think
peace in Ukraine could destroy NATO again if if if it's taken by itself?
Yes. if it's put in a broader context such as I just was mentioned and just on
the arms control or uh also with regard to u new
technologies and putting the lid on uh drone warfare, putting a lid on AI
warfare, robotics, putting a lid on these new technologies which are awesome,
frightening and and drive the anxiety on all sides.
Then these other issues, the traditional issues of territory and language rights
and the rest of it become much uh easier to deal with and NATO's
fading away is almost an afterthought rather than the first urgent concern
which it is today for Europeans. So I don't know how smart these people
are. I don't know how wide broad their perspective is whether they've taken in
in a sense that I just presented it or not. But I would give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't think uh unlike
Craig Roberts, I don't think Mr. Mr. Putin uh is is being managed by his
adviserss uh who are all lovers of of uh Fuagura
and and the Mediterranean coast. I think that um there are some serious people on
the Russian side. I hope they're equally serious people. I don't consider Bitco
and I don't think he would have wasted his time uh on this mission. um if he saw it as as as hopeless.
Well, I'm I'm being an optimist. I don't deny the right of pessimists to to also
claim the same territory. No. Well, this week at least I
close much closer to your optimism. uh as uh yeah there seems to be some
movement which you suggested in the past as well that there are things happening in the in the background
but um yeah well as you said before you used to be referred to as a Putin apologist now
you're a Trump apologist I I do think this is one of the wider problems we're having though is always during wars you
see that if you're not sufficiently for example anti-Russian then you can be accused of being pro-Russian. So
everything is uh so polarized. It's either black or white and all gray is just eliminated. So it's um this is one
of the things I'm most fearful of now in the west as well. The the inability to uh yeah to consider the the security
concerns of opponents. Uh I always make this comment that the media, the politicians, I never hear anyone talk
about the Russian security concerns, the Iranian, the Chinese, it's always uh
it's always colored in the language of just being belligerent and evil essentially. I think this is uh makes it
much more difficult to understand our opponents. But uh unfortunately, if you try to understand Trump, uh that label
fits as well than your Trump apologist. So yeah. Well, to be as we gather today,
the tea hasn't even been poured. One week from today, we can weal it.
Well, as always, thank you so much for your insights and um yeah, have a great weekend.
You too. Thanks.
by Glenn Diesen
Aug 8, 2025
Dr. Gilbert Doctorow discusses Witkoff's visit to Moscow and the decision to organise a meeting between Putin and Trump. Gilbert Doctorow's new book "War Diaries. Volume 1: The Russia-Ukraine War, 2022-2023" is now available on Amazon:
Transcript
Hi everyone and welcome back. We are joined today by Gilbert Doctorow, a historian, international affairs analyst
and also author of books such as uh the war diaries, the Russia Ukraine war.
So um I'm I tend to be more pessimistic than you in terms of the future of this
war, the ability to reach some peaceful settlement. But uh I was struck a bit by
some optimism now with um uh with this recent meeting that is Witkov going to
Moscow and uh again anyone familiar with the NATO Russia relation over the past 30 years are probably aware that
deception has been a key component and uh but what we saw is the deadline
expired that is the what began as a 50-day then became a 10day
uh uh deadline and uh instead of sending weapons and sanctions at least for now with Koff to Moscow and his peers we're
getting a meeting with between Putin and Trump. Uh what are you reading into this
uh quick development? Do you see something which has happened uh behind the scenes or is this just noise? Well,
a lot of things clearly have happened behind the scenes and for that reason it's difficult to judge the degree of
agreement that Bitco reached with his Russian counterparts
Putin and and this umakov
and who else was there? A kid Ditri. Um, look, in recent my recent interviews, I
look at comments. One of them was, "Oh, Dr. has become really an apologist for
Trump." I consider this progress because before six months ago, they would have said Dr. was an apologist for Putin.
So, we're we're getting there. Uh, I tried not to be an apologist for anybody. And um if Trump is doing
something stupid, I will not hesitate to say that. If he's if what he's doing is
unlikely to succeed to my knowledge, I will also say that. There is one
troubling note here uh in the the the brief information that has been has been
sent out as to what was discussed and how our preparations are being made for
the Trump Putin meeting in the near future meaning possibly in the coming week. that the what I find disturbing is
the notion that um Zilinski would have been invited
because that goes contrary to what I understood was the hopeful
sign coming out of the Vitkov uh Putin talks. The hopeful sign being that the
discussions would go far beyond the particulars of the Ukraine crisis, the
territories that each side would retain or have to give up. uh the question of Ukraine and NATO and the rest of it and
they were talk about bigger issues. Um constructive discussion they had a um I
think Rushov said it was um there there was um the probability
likelihood of discussing strategic cooperation. Well yes that would
definitely interest the Russians and would bring Mr. Putin together with Mr. Trump but Mr. Zilinski doesn't fit into
that at all. And so if indeed Zilinski were to be invited, then that puts in
question the first point. Are they discussing only Ukraine and only the terms of the ceasefire or are they
discussing the issues which the Russians really want to talk about? Now what are the issues the Russians want to talk
about? one of your recent guests um just um put out some ideas and uh he is
wellinformed. I'd say he's he's probably a centrist person within the the
American foreign policy establishment. and he was saying yes, they would talk
about um oh cooperation in the Arctic and they would talk about uh uh ending
the sanctions and reintegrating Russia into the greater world, the western
world because as he said Russians in general are are consider themselves to
be Europeans to be part of Western civilization and they are very disappointed that they are excluded uh
from that context from that place where they believe they belong to be by the
sanctions which are caused by the war. Uh here I disagree completely. Um five
years ago, yes, that would have been an accurate statement. Um as I have been saying for some time, the and this is
not just my own observation. Uh the Russians have been talking about it uh for uh with great insistence. The war
has brought together brought forward new elites. the war has made even among the
intellectuals who are almost by definition not supporters of the Putin
regime so to speak uh that they have become patriotic and uh that they are were less u
concerned that they couldn't spend a summer vacation in Paris or um elsewhere
in Western Europe or re visit the states um so if they could come back with a lot of stories to discuss with their
But that's over. Uh Russia may not feel comfortable with Chinese cars. That's
now being discussed how how the car these cars are being accepted or rejected by the Russian consumers. They
may not feel comfortable with spending a summer vacation on North Korea's latest
uh tourist beaches, but they certainly will not exchange the
loss in treasure and in life of the last three years for the sake of going back
to the status quo anti and being integrated into rest into western
economy and society. That's gone. That is over and it will not come back. There will be some accommodation with the
West, but not in the sense that existed before. No one talks about it, but I'll
say it right here now. Russia had a big inferiority complex.
Across the board, anyone you spoke to, other than a handful of of super patriots before this war, the
predominant feeling in Russia was uh we can't make anything.
This takes me back to the late 1990s. I remember uh very smart uh taxi driver
was taking my wife and me around downtown Petersburg and he remarked, "We Russians, we make very cute babies, but
we're lousy at making cars." Now that uh that was a widespread belief
and I think that the last three years and the reindustrialization of Russia and the import substitution in Russia
and the takeover of Western companies by um Russian entrepreneurs or the Russian
state producing virtually the same products under a different name. That's changed at all. Russia didn't produce
any cheese before. Ridiculous. They didn't produce cheese. In 1912,
Russia was supplying butter to Denmark. This is not my guess. I have a yearbook
on the my library uh shelf. A 1912 yearbook was published in the UK all
describing all the trade relations between Russia and UK and the West. And they were exporting butter to Denmark.
Well, they can't they weren't making any cheese. Well, they're making all kinds of cheeses now. the um as as I said
before uh what Mr. Trump wants to do with his tariffs is to imitate what what
the Russians have done thanks to Western sanctions to re-industrialize. So the
game has changed the idea that this could be an issue for the discussion that would bring Mr. Putin, Mr. Shakov
Ditrif to the table and yeah well let's let's get it on with it. will uh we'll have an immediate ceasefire because and
you'll put us back into into the Russian into the European and and American
markets. That's gone. So what could they talk about? What is the big issue that would have that would have persuaded Mr.
Putin and his close advisers that they should meet with Trump now? What could Mr. Vidkov have brought with him? Well,
I think he had have had to have addressed the core issues. what he could have done to make the whole thing
palatable to all sides, meaning also the Ukrainians if they uh if they are strong
armed and the Europeans, is to speak about phasing in what is essentially the
Russian solution and presenting it in such a way that it would not look like what it is, which is
virtual surrender. Virtual surrender is not accepted with NATO. is not accepted to the United
States. Mr. Mr. Trump will be pillaried if he does nothing to sweeten the
settlement and to make it seem as though he's in control. All the news we see of
every on every pestal subject these weeks has one news maker and his name is
Donald Trump. It gives you the sense that he's in control of things even if he absolutely is not. and he is
certainly not in control of how this war will end but he has to have the appearance of that
and so he has decided that he should meet with with Mr. Putin and Mr. and Mr.
Putin has responded over. If you read yesterday's and
today's financial times, oh no, sorry, if you listen to the BBC this morning,
you would understand that Putin was eagerly pursuing Trump for a meeting because that will re that will restore
his prestige as an international player. That's how they turn everything on its head. Well, coming back to what this
answer to your question, I've been a bit longwinded, but the answer to your question that the the Americans probably
brought a phasing in stage one, stage two, stage three,
which makes it possible to sit and negotiate. The end result will be very much in accordance with the Russians
demands, which are not maximalist. They haven't changed one one iota from where
they were in June 2024 when Mr. Putin reiterated what he first said in
February 2022. what Russia's ambition is although we put it more clearly in uh
easier to understand terms but essentially came to the same thing what this denoxifications well that's regime
change uh the the demilitaration well the Ukrainian army goes but mostly it's
evaporating front of our eyes so these things are being achieved and now they want to codify it but they can't they
cannot do it in one session that will be too awful for the west so I think the
issue to discuss is how to phase this in in a way that leaves Mr. Trump at least
with an offramp that's respectable and the Europeans can go to hell.
They'll have to accommodate to whatever the Americans and the Russians agree
because they will have no weapons to supply to the Ukraine and Ukraine will sink. So that is what I see coming a
discussion of the timetable for arriving at the Russians uh
their requirements for a peace treaty.
Yeah, I was told by a well a credible American source that uh that uh not only
was uh you know Washington becoming much more eager to find a settlement or
because of the well the disaster happening on the front that is it looks like a total collapse could happen
within the next few months. But uh was also told that Sinski that he had
apparently changed a bit as well that this uh you know while in the past viewed himself as uh being this new
Churchill who will bring back the glory of Ukraine and defeat Russia like all of this is now begun to fade away and he's
if if the Americans put something in front of him and pressured him he would likely sign. So it's again it's none not
a certainty and indeed the Russians are asking for a lot but uh but now um this
uh yeah Kremlin advisor Yuri Ushakov he was uh in the news arguing that the
Americans had put forth a proposal which they which he said was seemingly
acceptable to Moscow. This is I never heard this language before. And given how far the parts the two different
sides have been apart, it seems as if something something significant must
have must have shifted because my first impression was perhaps this uh Witkov going to Moscow talking about a Trump
Putin meeting is just a way to get Trump uh well save face after he made this uh
silly uh you know 10day deadline which I don't understand but uh but there seems
to actually be some substance in place here. Uh but did you read the comments
by Ushakov the same way? And if so, what do you think such a deal must include?
Because um again, the Russians aren't going to after 30 years of struggling
over the European security architecture, more than 3 years of losing uh men on
the front lines, now finally at the cusp of victory, it's going to just throw it
away. Um, you know, I I assume that there's a reason why they're able to put these
harsh demands. So, what do you think might be in this deal that uh Ushakov is
referring to? I'm not quite sure, but there are sticking points here. Um again to to
address that question of being an apologist for Trump um I have no
illusions about the humanitarian motives that are absent from his peace seeeking
and nor do I accept the notion that the man is so vain that he's doing
everything for the sake of getting the Nobel Peace Prize. I don't think even Mr. Trump is that vain to have to put
aside national interest of the United States uh and the lives of all the other parties to this conflict for the sake of
his getting that piece of paper or that little little award which Obama received for doing nothing whatsoever just not
being for not being Bush the um I think there's much more to it but uh it's it's
in conflict in my mind what exactly the overall overarching concept could
separate the Russians from the Chinese so we can proceed with taking on China.
However, that falls falls flat. Uh the there is no way conceivable that Russia
is going to betray Trump. No way. Uh when I said the other day that one that
Mr. Whitov could have been talking to Dimmitri about getting access to Russian
produced uh rare metals, rare earth metals uh as the point for negotiation or
preparing for negotiation with the Chinese in the coming week or two uh where the Chinese are withholding those
uh those urgently needed materials to to um uh
frustrate any plans of punishing tariffs or or uh any limitations on export of
technology to China by Mr. Trump. It is inconceivable that the that Mr. Putin
will give free access to Russian rare rare earth metals
uh after spite China. That is off the off the table. So what exactly Mr. Trump
hopes to achieve um considering that Russia and China are inseparable.
I'm not quite sure. So, uh where we really have to look a
little bit further and I'm not sure that Mr. Trump is his advisers are blind to that reality.
I also have mentioned the timing coming back to why 10 days or what 50 days
because September 3rd is inconvenient. is too close to the convening of this
end of the Pacific uh war uh for World War II. The 80th anniversary
celebrations will be in Beijing to which Mr. Trump presumably is desperate to be
invited. U that's a re that is possible. It
suggests that the um yol type meeting that we all thought might possibly
happen where Moscow celebrated the 80th anniversary of the end of the European
war and didn't happen. Maybe would happen now in the Pacific in Beijing.
It's possible. I as I've said recently, I don't have a microphone under Mr. Putin's pillow. We
really don't have a microphone under Mr. Trump's pillow and there are contradictory
objectives when you look at what he says and even what he does. Um
uh to complicate our reading of these tea leaves are trying attempting to make
sense out of it all. Uh it could be that they still have some some illusions or
delusions with respect to separating Russia from China. I I find it hard to believe, but
Americans can be peculiar. The um uh
what else could be going through their minds? What else they could be using to to reach a quick accommodation with Mr.
Putin uh without looking like they've lost the war? And I think Putin will be
very amenable to helping them off on the offramp. He's certainly smart enough. He
did that with Obama with respect to the the bombing Syria uh over the alleged
use of chemical weapons. So he knows how to let his opponents off the hook
getting what he wants without embarrassing them to the point where he's got enemies.
But um for me right now it's a bit hard to say just how this will be how this
this trick will be done. Yeah, I would have been more reassured
if I heard some talks about actual actually the European security
architecture because so far there's been too much reference to an unconditional
ceasefire and Trump still in his language I mean there's a contradiction his language is still refers to this as
uh as if it would be a war between Ukraine and Russia uh which is
problematic for the peace efforts if it takes NATO NATO and America's role out of this. On the other hand, he calls it
uh he calls the war Biden's war, which Biden began by pushing NATO. So, it's
very it's not very consistent. If it's Biden's war, how is it only limited between Ukraine and Russia? But again,
with Trump, you never know what is the noise and uh what does he actually know? Uh, I was wondering though how how you
read his uh if if you think Trump is misinformed either deliberately or just
out of ignorance by his high his adviserss because from Trump we hear these comments such as uh I think he
said that there's 20,000 Russians dying a month which is
yeah it doesn't well it doesn't make any sense in any way. it it's quite
outlandish and also when he was asked about uh what's happening in Ukraine people elderly peeping people being
dragged to the front uh and uh he he said oh I don't know anything about that
and um now of course putting this deadline to begin with the 10day
deadline what if he knows that Russia considers this to be an existential threat they're
willing to fight this all the way why why would he think that they would
capitulate now. Uh, in other words, accept freezing the front lines and uh
allowing NATO to re revive the conflict in the future if they would need to put
pressure on Russia. I mean, it doesn't make any sense like this was always ridiculous that the Russians would
accept this. Is this misinformed or is it just uh you know talking to his own
base or what is he I have a very hard time understanding some of the strange
information and decisions which are coming out well confused the other side but don't
confuse yourself I I would take as an operating assumption that he is not confused and
that all of these confusing and often times very bizarre statements that come
out of him are intend And it's partial demonstration of his contempt for the press and and for his opponents who are
the most vocal uh um elements of of society at large. The
silent majority doesn't say much. The his opponents say a lot and are heard a lot and that what they say is kicked up
by media. Um there are contradictions here and I think it's much too early uh
for us to to um present with clarity
what is going to happen when they meet and what is the intended uh outcome
uh why the Russians would have agreed to this meeting when it goes against all of their rules. Um Russian television's
tell is informing us that yes contrary to the general rule of preparing
uh in great detail and over considerable time for summit meetings. The Russians
are prepared this time to make an exception and to hold this very quickly and they're working working like mad and
the Americans are working like mad to observe this shortened schedule.
Supposedingly, it's about agreeing a ceasefire, but I don't believe that. The
There's no way that the Russians can accept uh a ceasefire when the Europeans
are not present to this. The Americans by definition are not going to be supplying further weapons to Ukraine.
The Europeans are and the Russians do not accept under any condition that a
ceasefire will take place while weapons are being dispatched into Ukraine. So,
that is a non-starter. there's something else going on. We don't know it. But I
think it's best not to assume that people are illinformed. Uh that some maliciousness is at work. The advisers
to Putin to which to Trump or I should say even to Putin. Uh one of one very s
well-known former economist and at a high level in American politics
is insisting that Mr. Putin is being deceived and misled by his adviserss. Uh
I think it would be safe just to hold back and let's see what happens at this meeting. But there are definite
contradictions in structure of a meeting which I just called out now. How can you agree on a ceasefire when Europeans
aren't present? Uh the only person who's who's called out the need for Europeans
has been Orurban who came out yesterday with a statement that um that Meritz and
um uh and French the French Macron
should go to Moscow now or after the meeting that Trump has with with Putin
and present the European position to Moscow because the EU institutions are
totally incapable. of doing that. Well, I agree with him on that point, but
whether or not much will be achieved by Mcronone and merits going to Moscow, well, better to talk than not to talk.
uh they can't see a solution on the ceasefire without the Europeans being brought in but obviously not at the
first meeting just as it's senseless to have Zilinski there when the only thing that could have motivated the Russians
to agree to a meeting is has nothing to do directly with the Ukraine conflict.
It has to do as as you said with revising the security architecture of Europe for which Mr. Zilinski has no
place at the table. So there are confusing signals that you you and I
have detected and I suppose others as well which make it difficult to predict what the outcome of this meeting would
be. Yeah, I got that impression both from some Americans and Russians that they
need to first get the big pieces in place that is the European security order which effectively means the
relationship between the Americans and the Russians and then once this is in order then the Ukrainian issue can be
resolved. So you want to deal with it in in in the right order. And I also been told that uh yeah that they have the
same both the Moscow and Washington the same views of the Europeans that uh yes they have to be brought in but first
after the decisions have been made. So and then you know if you can get the Washington Moscow and then get the KE to
sign under then the yeah the Europeans will just be a formality I guess. Um but
uh but let's say this I wonder what the post-war settlement might look like when when is
uh when the war is done because in terms of the wider European order if you thought about this let's say next week
the they hash out the deal. I'm not so that optimistic but and and the war can
come to an end within a few weeks. Uh the the the Russians make the point that
you know they have to deal with the Americans because they have to uh this is you America will is remains uh
increant part of the international system and also if you want the world to function and have stability Russia and
America always have to work together. But as you suggested before there this
uh longing to return to Europe it seems to been gone indeed when you talk to
migrants from Russia in Europe they many said that they were initially surprised
they knew that Russia was always a bit mocked for you know being economic mess but they were surprised about how much
hatred there is towards Russians but now of course this uh inferiority complex it's more or less gone. Uh I guess this
is what happens when you defeat NATO on the battlefield. But but it's also the sense of ad admiration for Europe which
is gone. I mean throughout the cold war uh yes there was some animosity towards western governments as you would but but
overall there was uh some admiration for the way society was organized
the economies we had the social systems the technologies there seem to be some
moral or values. But now of course a lot of this is seen as decaying the decaying
and indeed the culture wars we're having where everything have to be deconstructed. This has become a source
of mockery in the in the Russian media. I'm just how much
uh what do you think or your sense what kind of relationship do you think the Russians want with Europe once this war
is actually over? No, I think they would very happy to go back to their position
as um as very close economic partners of Europe without taking it to the
embarrassing extreme that Mcronone described several years ago. Russia was
big great supplier of raw materials. Uh that I think that notion is not
satisfactory or sufficient for uh restoring uh economic ties with Europe.
But let's let me just make an attempt. What could they possibly have said to uh
to President Putin? What Vitokov could have brought with him that would be considered constructive and could
justify this meeting? And let's put it in a historical context. What do the
Americans and Russians who disliked one another, who didn't necessarily respect one another always put forward as the
first topic for discussion? Arms control. arms control. That is the most valuable
thing that they could discuss next week, which would set the tone for solving all
the other issues, which would receive the undeserved acclaim
in Europe and the United States. if they were to discuss restoring the
intermediate and short-range missile agreement in a new form and preventing
or withdraw removing the advanced positioned Russian missiles
and the plans for stationing American
missiles in Germany next year that would be hailed by everybody
and from that good atmosphere, they could proceed to the really tough uh and miserable
discussions about concluding the the the Ukraine war. So there are there might be
something he said is completely off the table, but no, there were nobody's talking about because kept very highly
secret from all of us as it should be till now. So I I wouldn't eliminate the
possibility some concrete, positive and promising could come out of a meeting between uh Putin and Trump next in a
week's time. One which has no need whatsoever for Mr. Zalinski or for the
Europeans to be present and that could set the tone I'd say for uh dealing with
the really tough questions that of resolving the Ukraine war and also revising European architecture. If you
take off this these five minute uh long delivery time or strike times of
missiles within the European theater, uh life gets a lot easier. You can breathe much easier and the tension over
European security would be uh would be um toned down considerably. So that
could be it. But we're it's a guess. It's nothing more than a guess. Well, yeah. No. Well, this is a problem
when all when the diplomacy of course is behind the closed doors. Uh just my last question though is if if this peace
agreement goes through, if they actually deal with uh the European security architecture, uh what happens to NATO?
Again, I think that one of the reasons why the Europeans are um or seem to
prefer keeping the war going is as long as you have a conflict and NATO will
still have a purpose and it will keep the Americans on the continent. And you
and I discussed before that the fear of the Europeans is once the Americans get
to leave Ukraine, they will also likely leave Europe to a large extent. both you
know resource priorities and everything going to Asia. So uh do you think
peace in Ukraine could destroy NATO again if if if it's taken by itself?
Yes. if it's put in a broader context such as I just was mentioned and just on
the arms control or uh also with regard to u new
technologies and putting the lid on uh drone warfare, putting a lid on AI
warfare, robotics, putting a lid on these new technologies which are awesome,
frightening and and drive the anxiety on all sides.
Then these other issues, the traditional issues of territory and language rights
and the rest of it become much uh easier to deal with and NATO's
fading away is almost an afterthought rather than the first urgent concern
which it is today for Europeans. So I don't know how smart these people
are. I don't know how wide broad their perspective is whether they've taken in
in a sense that I just presented it or not. But I would give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't think uh unlike
Craig Roberts, I don't think Mr. Mr. Putin uh is is being managed by his
adviserss uh who are all lovers of of uh Fuagura
and and the Mediterranean coast. I think that um there are some serious people on
the Russian side. I hope they're equally serious people. I don't consider Bitco
and I don't think he would have wasted his time uh on this mission. um if he saw it as as as hopeless.
Well, I'm I'm being an optimist. I don't deny the right of pessimists to to also
claim the same territory. No. Well, this week at least I
close much closer to your optimism. uh as uh yeah there seems to be some
movement which you suggested in the past as well that there are things happening in the in the background
but um yeah well as you said before you used to be referred to as a Putin apologist now
you're a Trump apologist I I do think this is one of the wider problems we're having though is always during wars you
see that if you're not sufficiently for example anti-Russian then you can be accused of being pro-Russian. So
everything is uh so polarized. It's either black or white and all gray is just eliminated. So it's um this is one
of the things I'm most fearful of now in the west as well. The the inability to uh yeah to consider the the security
concerns of opponents. Uh I always make this comment that the media, the politicians, I never hear anyone talk
about the Russian security concerns, the Iranian, the Chinese, it's always uh
it's always colored in the language of just being belligerent and evil essentially. I think this is uh makes it
much more difficult to understand our opponents. But uh unfortunately, if you try to understand Trump, uh that label
fits as well than your Trump apologist. So yeah. Well, to be as we gather today,
the tea hasn't even been poured. One week from today, we can weal it.
Well, as always, thank you so much for your insights and um yeah, have a great weekend.
You too. Thanks.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37971
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat Aug 09, 2025 7:22 am
Scott Ritter: Russia Ends Limits on Intermediate-Range Missiles & Changes the Balance of Power
by Glenn Diesen
Aug 8, 2025
Scott Ritter is a former Major, Intelligence Officer, and UN Weapons Inspector. Ritter argues that the balance of power in Europe will shift as Russia announces it will no longer abide by the self-imposed restrictions on the deployment of nuclear-capable intermediate-range missiles.
Transcript
Hi everyone and welcome back. We are joined again by Scott Ritter, a former US Marine, a major and a UN
weapons inspector. Uh so thank you for coming back on the program.
Oh, thanks for having me. So um the INF treaty uh from 1907, it
eliminated an entire category of nuclear weapons, well that is missiles with the intermediate range of between 500 to
5,500 km. and it was quite significant in terms of mitigating the security
competition indeed contributing also to negotiating an end to the cold war. Um
but in 2019 the US withdrew from it although the Russians said they would
not station any missiles which would have been in breach of the INF treaty uh to avoid escalation unless the Americans
did so. Now Putin now announced that Russia will no longer abide by these uh
self-imposed restrictions on the deployment of uh these uh intermediate
uh range missiles nuclear capable as well. Uh again this seems to be very
serious and I thought who better to ask than a former UN weapons inspector. So
uh why why did Russia take this step and uh what are the consequences?
Well, you know, I'm not just a former UN weapons inspector. The the reason why I
was selected as a UN weapons inspector is that before that, I was an INF
inspector. Um, I worked for the on-site inspection agency and was one of the
initial cadre of inspectors to implement the INF treaty. In fact, I was the first
US inspector on the ground in the Soviet Union when the treaty went into force back on July 1st of 1988.
So, I know this treaty inside and out. Um, and I also understand the importance
of this treaty. Just a little bit of history. the um you know intermediate range you know forces
have been part of the military reality of Europe for some time now uh but they
they weren't seen as you know gamechanging uh they were just part of
an overall range of military options available to both sides of the uh
military equation NATO and the Warsaw pact but uh the Russians had,
you know, relatively older systems, the SS4, the SS5, liquid fueled systems that
were not responsive to um, you know, emerging situations. Um, they had other
systems that they deployed later like the SS12, which was a solid rocket system, but it was a single warhead. It
was seen more of a being a um, you know, a a a glamorous Scud missile. Um the the
the whole situation changed however in the late 1970s when Russia deployed this
new missile the SS20 uh RS10 the Pioneer
three warheads road mobile um and just an absolute gamecher. Uh it basically it
guaranteed the physical destruction of Europe in case of any war between the Soviet Union and Europe and there was
nothing Europe could do to defend themselves from it. Um and so this created sort of the ultimate form of
deterrence and from the European and American standpoint the deployment by the Soviets of the SS20
also created an imbalance um when it comes to the pressure that can be placed
on nations. The whole concept of nuclear deterrence is that no nation would be able to use its nuclear force to
intimidate other nations to achieve certain geopolitical outcomes. Uh because the other nations would have
their own nuclear capabilities that could um you know be used in retaliation. There was parity mutually
assured destruction things of this nature. The SS20 being a solid rocket system with the ranges that it had with
multiple warheads literally could blanket all of Europe with um with nuclear weapons eliminating the totality
of NATO's, you know, capability. And then the question comes from a NATO perspective, would the United States
commit suicide on behalf of Europe? Meaning that if the the the Soviets took
out NATO, would the United States implement Article 5, implement its
nuclear doctrine, knowing that the Russians, the Soviets had their own strategic nuclear forces that would
destroy the United States? Or would the United States being confronted with this say, "Well, so sad. Too bad wouldn't be
wouldn't want to be a European today." Um, and so that there needed to be a counter. And so the counter was the
deployment by the United States in the early 1980s of its own intermediate range systems, the ground launch cruise
missile and the Persian 2 solid rocket missile. The Persian 2 in particular was
deemed to be um very threatening to the Soviets because when launched from a
position in West Germany, uh the Persian 2 missile nuclear capable um would be
able to strike Moscow within 12 minutes um creating a potential decapitation
scenario. And you combine that with what was going on in
the further development of American strategic nuclear forces, namely the Ohio class submarine armed with Trident
um nuclear tipped missiles. Um and if these Trident missiles came up close to
the shore, uh they could launch a flat trajectory um and and do decapitation.
It it it you have a very dangerous situation where one mistake and the
whole world ends. one mistake, one miscalculation, one misjudgment. And so the decision was made um by both the
United States and the Soviet Union that um we needed to bring these systems
under control. And through a negotiating process, they came up with the zero option, which means not just limiting
the deployment and the numbers of INF and short-range systems, but getting rid
of them all together. And this was the treaty that you you mentioned and it was a very successful treaty. Within three
years of implementation, all of the INF systems possessed by the nations
involved, the Soviet Union, United States were eliminated, gone. Um, and then we had an effective monitoring
regime in place to ensure that these uh that these weapons never came back. Um,
fast forward, the the inspection aspect of this treaty was 13 years in duration. And when that ended, there were no more
physical inspections, but the treaty was still very much in play, in force. And
um what you had was monitoring using national technical means. Um the you the
Russians had their concerns about American compliance. Um if you take a look at the development of our ballistic
missile defense shield um that weapons that are used as the uh targets um are
intermediate range missiles and they've been flight tested. They're they sort of
technically violate the um the INF treaty, but the United States says no, it doesn't apply because these are targets, not real systems. uh but you
know they simulate an INF system because they are an INF system. So the Russians
had some issues but uh the bigger issues came from the American side where we had
concerns about two particular systems in question. One was um what we called the RS26 or Rubier. Um I guess the the the
NATO designation at the time was SS 26X or something of that nature. Um, it this
was a a a missile that was designed to fill the gap created by getting rid of
the SS20. Um, and the what you what the
Russians were trying to achieve was a missile that didn't meet the INF threshold that if it got launched, it
would be under the INF range. And you could do that with certain warhead configurations. But if it was configured
for inance with a single warhead or you know more advanced avanguard hyper you know hypersonic re-entry vehicle it
would fly to INF ranges and become covered by the INF treaty. Um so in 2017
the Russians put a stop to the deployment of this. It was it was done pretty haphazardly because they were
getting ready to do under uh the treaty uh they were going to getting ready to do an inspection of this. I'm sorry. It
wasn't short range. Under certain ranges, it could fly as a ICBM. It'd be
counted as an ICBM, but the if it if you had a a different warhead configuration,
it would count as an INF system. And the Russians didn't want to be seen as violating the INF treaty. Um, this one
wasn't really the game changer. The game changer came with a system known as the 9M
927. Maybe uh I could be off on this number, but it was basically um a
development of the Escandonder M um cruise missile uh that uh the United
States claims the Russians tested as a ground launch cruise missile um in
violation of the INF treaty. The Russians say that this didn't happen. I've reviewed as much of the data as
humanly possible and without having access to classified information. I'm convinced that the
United States got it wrong on this one. That the Russians, the same design bureau that was doing the 9M927 was
doing the caliber missile, uh, which is a sea launched missile. You're allowed to test sea launch missiles from a
ground station. Um, the the the development of the caliber
was taking place in parallel with the development of 9mm 927. Um, and I just
believe the United States got it wrong, that we misread the intelligence. Um, and you know, there might have been some
compatibility of components of the missiles so that when things are being tested on a caliber or or if they were
tested on the 9M927, u, they would uh, you know, the US intelligent, you know, analysts could
say, "Oh, that's that's really a cruise missile, a long range cruise missile." The Russians tried to um assuage our
concerns by holding a um a demonstration. They uh they actually
laid out um the original uh 9M uh the
the original um Iscander M and then they put the this this advance and what you
see it's it's the same booster, the exact same propulsion system. The only thing that changes is the warhead and
the guidance package. And actually with this new system, the warhead and the guidance packages are larger. So if you
have a larger guidance package and a larger warhead and you're using the same propulsion system, that means it's
probably going to fly less than the range of the other system. Uh and there are ways, you know, that this could have
been tested. But the United States wasn't interested in this because while Russia was doing everything possible to
be compliant with the INF treaty, um the United States wasn't. uh we wanted out of this treaty uh because not because of
Russia per se but because of China. China had developed the whole range of intermediate range systems uh that we
believe gave China an advantage in any potential conflict in the Pacific and we wanted something that would be able to
counter the Chinese INF. We couldn't do it because of the INF treaty we had with Russia. Um we claimed that there were no
you know violations but there were the the the Mark 41 Aegers system uh uses a
containerized um launch platform that on board an Aether ship can not only fire
the SM3 or SM6 service to air missile but also the ship launch cruise missile.
Now you take the same system and put it on the ground and the Russians are like, "Well, you can launch ground launch cruise missiles from here." And we said,
"Oh, no, no, we're not going to do that. That we're not interested in doing that. Don't worry about that." Well, one week
after we pulled out of the INF treaty, we tested the Aegis shore system using a
ground launch cruise missile. We're liars. Um, you know, we were planning on this all the time. Anybody who's been involved in ballistic missile testing
knows that you don't jin up a test within a week. that we had been planning this test for some time now and we're
simply waiting to get out of the treaty to do this. So that's where we are today that there is no treaty and there is no
trust between Russia and the United States. The Russians um again they have
better memories than we do. They understand the destabilizing aspect of these weapons. So the Russians told the
United States that even though the treaty was no longer in force, it would not develop or deploy INF systems so
long as the United States didn't deploy systems into the European theater. Well, a couple years ago, the United States
deployed one of these containerized systems into Denmark to participate in a um in an exercise. The Russ, you know,
the United States said, "Well, we only had the um SM6 missile in there," which is a short-range missile. But the
Russians don't know that it's a system capable of launching cruise missiles, having tested to fire a cruise missile. So the Russians have to assume the
system when deployed has cruise missiles. And they said, "Well, you violated it." So they began developing
missiles. At the same time, the United States was also pursuing uh the development and deployment of a new hypersonic intermediate range system
called the Dark Eagle. Um and so now Russia's looking at a situation where the United States by developing these
systems and deploying these systems was changing fundamental changing altering the balance of power in Europe giving
the United States hypersonic preemptive strike capabilities at a time when uh tensions between NATO and the United
States were on the rise with Russia because of Ukraine um and the you know
the Ukraine conflict showed the importance of you know long range strike systems. Just imagine putting Dark Eagle
or putting the SM6 Typhoon on Ukrainian soil and the kind of destabilization of
impact that would have on Russia, which is one of the reasons why the Russians are fighting this war and ensuring that Ukraine never becomes part of NATO. But
um the Russians needed a counter. So they began development of at least one system, I believe more than one. Um and
the system is a follow on to the RS26 Rub that we talked about. This is what
we call the archnik system. The archnik is an amalgam of technologies uh using
advanced solar rocket boosters borrowed from the cedar ICBM. Uh second stages
borrowed from the YARS ICBM. Um a modified YS um M uh re-entry vehicle,
new warheads uh using new technologies. Um, and it was tested, flight tested,
and the Russians launched what they call an operational test of the Archnik in November of 2024, targeting the Nepro uh
factory uh in Yeprosk. Um, but even when they did that, they just were saying we
have this capability, but they hadn't operationalized it as a as a weapon
system. It was estimated they had between four and six additional archniks in the pipeline to be used for testing,
but that's not serial production. Um, but then again, the the Russians said
they're going to begin serial production over the Urashnik. Well, recently Vladimir Putin announced in the
aftermath of um uh a mean tweet exchange between um uh Lindsey Graham and uh
Dmitri Midv, the former president of Russia in which Lindsey Graham threatened a decapitation strike against
Russia. threatened outright threatened the Russians saying if you don't believe that Donald Trump's serious about his um
intent to punish Russia for failing to bend the knee to Trump's demands about a ceasefire just ask the Ayatollah what
happens meaning that you know ask the Iranian leader who was subjected to a decapitation strike during Israel's
12-day war a decapitation strike that the United States knew about and facilitated with an intelligence
information um so that's a direct threat against the Russian government responded saying Um, we have the dead hand. So,
you'll die. The dead hand is an illusion to a cold war um era system. The perimeter. Remember when I talked about
the Ohio class submarine being moved up close with flat trajectories? Um, this
was a real problem. So, the Russians developed a dead hand to ensure that if there was ever a decapitation strike um
and you took out the Russian leadership, a system was in place using a a variety of sensors, radiation detection, seismic
sensors, etc. um and missiles equipped with a communication system that they would
launch these missiles that would fly over Russian territory broadcasting launch codes and the totality of
Russia's nuclear arsenal will be fired against the United States. So what mediev was saying is we have the dead
hand so you why are you talking decapitation? Well Trump didn't understand and so he immediately ordered
this is the genius of Donald Trump two Ohio class submarines armed with Trident missiles closer to Russian shores. So if
you're trying to convince the Russians that you're not looking to decapitate their leadership, the last thing you would do is deploy two Ohio class
submarines um closer to Russian shores. And um so the Russians now because of
all of this have said we have put Arashnik in serial production and we are
beginning the active deployment of these systems not just in Russia but also in Barus. Belarus is going to get a
regiment that's nine launchers um of archniks. The archnik is a dual capable
system. It can fire a a a conventional warhead uh actually cluster warheads or
it can fire nuclear warheads. Um it this is the archnic is that SS20 like
gamechanging weapon. Um there is no analog in the in in NATO. There's nothing that can counter it, nothing
that can defeat it. And once the arrnic reaches full operational deployment, um,
as Dimmitri Miev said in a follow-on tweet, all of the cathedrals of all of the cities of Europe are now at risk
because like the SS20, the arric will be able to blanket Europe with destructive power, conventional and nuclear, which
gives it an added dimension of military flexibility. Now Russia can destroy all of Europe just using conventional
weapons. They don't need nuclear weapons. Um and and we can thank Donald
Trump for this. Um Demetri Midv in announcing this um he also alluded to
other systems and um this is where we go back to the cold war. Um in addition to
the SS20, the Russians were concerned about the Persian 2 missile and its ability to
strike Moscow. And so they wanted a counter to that and they were developing a um a short-range system called the
Skorost or the quick the quick missile. And the purpose of the Skorost was when
uh Persians were detected leaving their garrisons going to deployment areas, the Skoros could be rapidly sent to the
field, fire and take out the Persian 2. Right now the arric like the SS20 is not
that flexible in terms of its targeting. So if the United States deploys Dark Eagle to uh Germany, um the Russians
don't have the ability to interdict Dark Eagle with assurance of um of success. So I believe
that as was the case of you know pulling out you know the RS26 to create the
arric I believe that the Russians have pulled out Skorost and they're developing a follow-on system and MV
have said there are other systems in play and when you look at the operational requirements facing the Russians and you mirror that with the
operational requirements facing the Soviets back in the 80s skost is an absolute necessity so I think we're
we're we're seeing that and the Russians may come up with others they had another system that was under development, the Courier small ICBM um actually ready to
go into serial production um but was stopped back in 1991
uh by Gorbachov and interesting fact of history. The the coup that was launched
against Gorbachev in August of 1991 was triggered by Gorbachov signing a um an
an order um ending the courier small ICBM system. Uh this created an economic
crisis for the Ministry of Defense Industry um and and the other industries involved in this. Um that's when the
head of the KGB got together with all these different ministers and said Gorbachov's got to go. But that was the straw that broke the camel's back. That
shows you how important uh these missile systems are to Russia overall.
Well, there seems to be a lot of um well, incremental escalation on the nuclear front that is uh the the US is
supposed to station these new longrange precision missiles in Germany next year.
We have the golden dome uh and of course a few weeks ago this attack on Russia's
nuclear forces uh which was met with joy, mockery if not celebration from the
political media establishment across the west. And there's also this uh tendency,
at least in Europe, to start to dismiss Russia's nuclear deterrent by essentially rejecting it as nuclear
blackmail. The best thing we can do is pretend it's not there or ignore it, which is a very strange social
constructivist approach to nuclear security. Uh but is this the the ornic
the introduction of it, especially now that it's going under serial production? Is this the why is it a changing wars or
changing the battles of power Europe? Is it because it also I guess allows a different step on the escalation ladder?
So it's not either conventional war or you know nuclear war with the world because what often makes nuclear weapons
less credible as a deterrent is that they're so destructive. But is this the I guess the secret of the this middle
step? Yeah, it it it provides um the Russians
with the ability to dramatically escalate without using nuclear weapons. And so if you're
looking at a to give you an example, um let's say that Germany did use the
Taurus missile uh gave it to Ukraine and it struck Moscow and let's say Moscow
followed up by attacking uh the Dusteldorf production facility of Ryan Metal and maybe some other places. right
now uh it would have to strike using you know air launched missiles like the
Kinszal um maybe Scanders but there there are limitations to what Russia can
do um and the the strike it it's not
decisive enough to deter Europe and so Europe will then begin an an escalation
ladder that would lead to nuclear uh if you're going to escalate You want to escalate in a way that just intimidates
the crap out of the person you're escalating against. So now imagine the following that uh Russia fires the
archnik and totally eliminates uh Dusseldorf hits Ramstein eliminates that
and then demonstrates that it has a 100 archnik ready to blanket all of Europe
instantly and there's nothing Europe can do to defend themselves. U does Europe now go to nuclear weapons?
Do they take do they go up to that step or will there'll be pressure put on Europe to say back down? The arric is a
gamecher because it puts all of Europe at risk. The United States just deployed B612
bombs to England. The arric will take out that site within 15 minutes of being
launched. It won't exist. There's some speculation that the archnik that was used against Nepro was um a uh a version
that had a non uh it it was a test a test warhead. And what I mean by that is
while the submunitions were coated or manufactured out of this new um exotic
ceramic alloy, uh there was no explosive material inside. So basically these were
duds that hit hit the ground. Um, and one of the reasons the Russians did that is to disguise the true destructive
capacity of Archnik. Um, because the Russian sources that I've spoken to have
said that the true destructive capacity of archnik is far different than what was demonstrated. Um, and that the
archnic when fired, uh, let's say you take a battalion of archnik, that's
three archnic missiles. um that's of 108
um submunitions and that you you bring those down in a concentrated area. They
say that the um the it's the damage done is the equivalent of a um of a nuclear
weapon. Um and now if the Russians are deploying I don't know um you know 10
regiments of a of a rashnik each regiment has three battalions.
You see where I'm going on this? Europe doesn't stand a chance. Literally. Um it
was the dumbest move in the world was to get out of the INF treaty and the second dumbest move in the world was to provoke
the Russians. Now the Russians have, you know, taken this step. How do we get out of this mess? It's a
it's a huge arms control problem. A huge arms control problem. Um,
and unfortunately I I don't think we're getting out of it unless we replicate the sense of urgency that came from the
1980s where, you know, there was a crisis um, you know, crisis mentality
that if we don't sign this treaty, we are all going to die. Um, we need the West to feel the urgency. And that means
the West has to deploy systems that make Russia feel at risk. And then now
there's a a joint reason for both nations to get rid of the Persian 2 is what made the Russians get rid of the
SS20. Is Dark Eagle going to be the system that makes Russia get rid of Arshnnik? I
don't know. Does Russia want to get rid of Archnik? Um you know the thing about the INF treaty and one of the reasons
why I talked about the the courier small ICBM is
we in the west speak about the INF treaty is that this is this great thing you know arms control. We we began the
process and as you said it began a process that ended the cold war.
Most Russians don't view it that way. The Russians say began a process that brought about the collapse of the Soviet
Union and the weakening of Russia. Uh from the Russian perspective, the INF
treaty um gutted Russia's military capabilities by getting rid of three
systems produced in Vodkin. The SS20, the SS12, and the SS23.
Um it also led to the new to the star
treaty uh which brought limits to the production of SS25 which was the system
and the courier the small ICBM was eliminated. This was economically
devastating for the city of Vaude Kench which is all sensor purposes a factory town. They get paid by the missile. And
when you come in and you eliminate all of their missile production, severely except one, and you severely reduce the
numbers of missiles being produced, they went from producing 60 to 80 SS25s a
year to producing six SS25s a year. They didn't produce, they were producing, you
know, 100 SS20s a year, maybe less, but you know, 80 to 100 to zero. SS12s, zero
SS23s, zero. And um you know it's economically
devastating and that resonates across all of the military towns where these uh
generals and these ministers get their power. This you know their their their their ability to influence. Nothing
happened in Vodkinsk without the Vodkin machine building plant the Vodkkins factory saying it was going to happen.
They built the schools, they built the roads, they built the the hospitals.
They built the the markets. They brought in the food. It was the director general of Vaude Kinsk in as late as 1976
or 78 that brought natural gas to Vodkin. Remember Vodkin is out in the middle of nowhere.
700 and some odd miles away from Moscow in the foothills of Euro mountains. There was no natural gas. So the
citizens of Vodkin suffered through some of the coldest winters imaginable. It was the director who went out there and
took the profits from the factory, tapped into the the big pipeline, personally overseeing that, putting his
life at risk because it's very difficult to pump tap into a functioning gas pipeline. But they did it and they
brought gas to Vodkinsk. The factory was the city was the life. And it's not just
in Vodkin, but in other cities across. And when I go in and I talk about the
the the validity of the INF treaty, the Russians are like, "We hate that treaty. We hate arms control because a it
brought down it brought down the Soviet Union and B it made us weak because you guys cheat. You guys lie. The INF treaty
was the one pure treaty while it was being implemented. Both sides benefit. But look at what the United States did
later on. We used the INF treaty to promote the unilateral to the unilateral advantage of the United States. Um and
that's what the Russians accuse us of doing with strategic arms reductions as well. Cheating. And we do. We're cheaters. Straight up cheaters. We cheat
in a sly way by not being honest in our negotiations. We claim to want one thing, we do another. Look at ballistic
missile defense in 2008 when it was being negotiated 2008 2009 when it was
being negotiated. Um the Russians said it has to be done in the context of um
of missile defense. You can't have a strategic arms reduction treaty without missile defense. And the Obama
administration uh who took over from Bush said, "No problem. We'll do that. But you got to we got to do it
separately. Anatoli Antinov at the time was the lead negotiator. Um he said that he was
assured by Rose Gut Miller that they would deal with this separately. They signed the treaty was implemented. But
when Antinov called up Gut Miller and said I'm ready to move forward on a missile defense said we're not doing
that. We lied. We straight up lied. And and so this is what makes arrnik
even more dangerous is that the normal mechanisms that could be used to mitigate the the the danger from the
system don't exist. There are no arms control talks taking place today. The new start treaty expires in February of
next year. When it expires, we're going to instantly go from 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads on each side to around
four to 5,000 because we're going to bring the reserve warheads out. And then we're going to start manufacturing new pits, new weapons. We're going to get
back up to 20 to 30,000 strategic nuclear forces per side. That's cold war level madness.
This is how dangerous this arric thing is. It's a very dangerous situation. I think this was a problem with the
hegemonic era though. There's no incentive for mutual constraints when uh one side dominates and arms controls
tend to suffer often if you don't have any balance of power. Anyways, Scott
reader uh thank you so much. I it's a it's a frightening time that arms
control is not taken more serious than this and one hopes that uh we get a grasp on it soon before as you said
especially in February things might really go out of control. So this could something good could come out of this
though if it does incentivize both sides now to start to rethink about the weapons that could kill us all. So
thanks again. Thanks for having me.
by Glenn Diesen
Aug 8, 2025
Scott Ritter is a former Major, Intelligence Officer, and UN Weapons Inspector. Ritter argues that the balance of power in Europe will shift as Russia announces it will no longer abide by the self-imposed restrictions on the deployment of nuclear-capable intermediate-range missiles.
Transcript
Hi everyone and welcome back. We are joined again by Scott Ritter, a former US Marine, a major and a UN
weapons inspector. Uh so thank you for coming back on the program.
Oh, thanks for having me. So um the INF treaty uh from 1907, it
eliminated an entire category of nuclear weapons, well that is missiles with the intermediate range of between 500 to
5,500 km. and it was quite significant in terms of mitigating the security
competition indeed contributing also to negotiating an end to the cold war. Um
but in 2019 the US withdrew from it although the Russians said they would
not station any missiles which would have been in breach of the INF treaty uh to avoid escalation unless the Americans
did so. Now Putin now announced that Russia will no longer abide by these uh
self-imposed restrictions on the deployment of uh these uh intermediate
uh range missiles nuclear capable as well. Uh again this seems to be very
serious and I thought who better to ask than a former UN weapons inspector. So
uh why why did Russia take this step and uh what are the consequences?
Well, you know, I'm not just a former UN weapons inspector. The the reason why I
was selected as a UN weapons inspector is that before that, I was an INF
inspector. Um, I worked for the on-site inspection agency and was one of the
initial cadre of inspectors to implement the INF treaty. In fact, I was the first
US inspector on the ground in the Soviet Union when the treaty went into force back on July 1st of 1988.
So, I know this treaty inside and out. Um, and I also understand the importance
of this treaty. Just a little bit of history. the um you know intermediate range you know forces
have been part of the military reality of Europe for some time now uh but they
they weren't seen as you know gamechanging uh they were just part of
an overall range of military options available to both sides of the uh
military equation NATO and the Warsaw pact but uh the Russians had,
you know, relatively older systems, the SS4, the SS5, liquid fueled systems that
were not responsive to um, you know, emerging situations. Um, they had other
systems that they deployed later like the SS12, which was a solid rocket system, but it was a single warhead. It
was seen more of a being a um, you know, a a a glamorous Scud missile. Um the the
the whole situation changed however in the late 1970s when Russia deployed this
new missile the SS20 uh RS10 the Pioneer
three warheads road mobile um and just an absolute gamecher. Uh it basically it
guaranteed the physical destruction of Europe in case of any war between the Soviet Union and Europe and there was
nothing Europe could do to defend themselves from it. Um and so this created sort of the ultimate form of
deterrence and from the European and American standpoint the deployment by the Soviets of the SS20
also created an imbalance um when it comes to the pressure that can be placed
on nations. The whole concept of nuclear deterrence is that no nation would be able to use its nuclear force to
intimidate other nations to achieve certain geopolitical outcomes. Uh because the other nations would have
their own nuclear capabilities that could um you know be used in retaliation. There was parity mutually
assured destruction things of this nature. The SS20 being a solid rocket system with the ranges that it had with
multiple warheads literally could blanket all of Europe with um with nuclear weapons eliminating the totality
of NATO's, you know, capability. And then the question comes from a NATO perspective, would the United States
commit suicide on behalf of Europe? Meaning that if the the the Soviets took
out NATO, would the United States implement Article 5, implement its
nuclear doctrine, knowing that the Russians, the Soviets had their own strategic nuclear forces that would
destroy the United States? Or would the United States being confronted with this say, "Well, so sad. Too bad wouldn't be
wouldn't want to be a European today." Um, and so that there needed to be a counter. And so the counter was the
deployment by the United States in the early 1980s of its own intermediate range systems, the ground launch cruise
missile and the Persian 2 solid rocket missile. The Persian 2 in particular was
deemed to be um very threatening to the Soviets because when launched from a
position in West Germany, uh the Persian 2 missile nuclear capable um would be
able to strike Moscow within 12 minutes um creating a potential decapitation
scenario. And you combine that with what was going on in
the further development of American strategic nuclear forces, namely the Ohio class submarine armed with Trident
um nuclear tipped missiles. Um and if these Trident missiles came up close to
the shore, uh they could launch a flat trajectory um and and do decapitation.
It it it you have a very dangerous situation where one mistake and the
whole world ends. one mistake, one miscalculation, one misjudgment. And so the decision was made um by both the
United States and the Soviet Union that um we needed to bring these systems
under control. And through a negotiating process, they came up with the zero option, which means not just limiting
the deployment and the numbers of INF and short-range systems, but getting rid
of them all together. And this was the treaty that you you mentioned and it was a very successful treaty. Within three
years of implementation, all of the INF systems possessed by the nations
involved, the Soviet Union, United States were eliminated, gone. Um, and then we had an effective monitoring
regime in place to ensure that these uh that these weapons never came back. Um,
fast forward, the the inspection aspect of this treaty was 13 years in duration. And when that ended, there were no more
physical inspections, but the treaty was still very much in play, in force. And
um what you had was monitoring using national technical means. Um the you the
Russians had their concerns about American compliance. Um if you take a look at the development of our ballistic
missile defense shield um that weapons that are used as the uh targets um are
intermediate range missiles and they've been flight tested. They're they sort of
technically violate the um the INF treaty, but the United States says no, it doesn't apply because these are targets, not real systems. uh but you
know they simulate an INF system because they are an INF system. So the Russians
had some issues but uh the bigger issues came from the American side where we had
concerns about two particular systems in question. One was um what we called the RS26 or Rubier. Um I guess the the the
NATO designation at the time was SS 26X or something of that nature. Um, it this
was a a a missile that was designed to fill the gap created by getting rid of
the SS20. Um, and the what you what the
Russians were trying to achieve was a missile that didn't meet the INF threshold that if it got launched, it
would be under the INF range. And you could do that with certain warhead configurations. But if it was configured
for inance with a single warhead or you know more advanced avanguard hyper you know hypersonic re-entry vehicle it
would fly to INF ranges and become covered by the INF treaty. Um so in 2017
the Russians put a stop to the deployment of this. It was it was done pretty haphazardly because they were
getting ready to do under uh the treaty uh they were going to getting ready to do an inspection of this. I'm sorry. It
wasn't short range. Under certain ranges, it could fly as a ICBM. It'd be
counted as an ICBM, but the if it if you had a a different warhead configuration,
it would count as an INF system. And the Russians didn't want to be seen as violating the INF treaty. Um, this one
wasn't really the game changer. The game changer came with a system known as the 9M
927. Maybe uh I could be off on this number, but it was basically um a
development of the Escandonder M um cruise missile uh that uh the United
States claims the Russians tested as a ground launch cruise missile um in
violation of the INF treaty. The Russians say that this didn't happen. I've reviewed as much of the data as
humanly possible and without having access to classified information. I'm convinced that the
United States got it wrong on this one. That the Russians, the same design bureau that was doing the 9M927 was
doing the caliber missile, uh, which is a sea launched missile. You're allowed to test sea launch missiles from a
ground station. Um, the the the development of the caliber
was taking place in parallel with the development of 9mm 927. Um, and I just
believe the United States got it wrong, that we misread the intelligence. Um, and you know, there might have been some
compatibility of components of the missiles so that when things are being tested on a caliber or or if they were
tested on the 9M927, u, they would uh, you know, the US intelligent, you know, analysts could
say, "Oh, that's that's really a cruise missile, a long range cruise missile." The Russians tried to um assuage our
concerns by holding a um a demonstration. They uh they actually
laid out um the original uh 9M uh the
the original um Iscander M and then they put the this this advance and what you
see it's it's the same booster, the exact same propulsion system. The only thing that changes is the warhead and
the guidance package. And actually with this new system, the warhead and the guidance packages are larger. So if you
have a larger guidance package and a larger warhead and you're using the same propulsion system, that means it's
probably going to fly less than the range of the other system. Uh and there are ways, you know, that this could have
been tested. But the United States wasn't interested in this because while Russia was doing everything possible to
be compliant with the INF treaty, um the United States wasn't. uh we wanted out of this treaty uh because not because of
Russia per se but because of China. China had developed the whole range of intermediate range systems uh that we
believe gave China an advantage in any potential conflict in the Pacific and we wanted something that would be able to
counter the Chinese INF. We couldn't do it because of the INF treaty we had with Russia. Um we claimed that there were no
you know violations but there were the the the Mark 41 Aegers system uh uses a
containerized um launch platform that on board an Aether ship can not only fire
the SM3 or SM6 service to air missile but also the ship launch cruise missile.
Now you take the same system and put it on the ground and the Russians are like, "Well, you can launch ground launch cruise missiles from here." And we said,
"Oh, no, no, we're not going to do that. That we're not interested in doing that. Don't worry about that." Well, one week
after we pulled out of the INF treaty, we tested the Aegis shore system using a
ground launch cruise missile. We're liars. Um, you know, we were planning on this all the time. Anybody who's been involved in ballistic missile testing
knows that you don't jin up a test within a week. that we had been planning this test for some time now and we're
simply waiting to get out of the treaty to do this. So that's where we are today that there is no treaty and there is no
trust between Russia and the United States. The Russians um again they have
better memories than we do. They understand the destabilizing aspect of these weapons. So the Russians told the
United States that even though the treaty was no longer in force, it would not develop or deploy INF systems so
long as the United States didn't deploy systems into the European theater. Well, a couple years ago, the United States
deployed one of these containerized systems into Denmark to participate in a um in an exercise. The Russ, you know,
the United States said, "Well, we only had the um SM6 missile in there," which is a short-range missile. But the
Russians don't know that it's a system capable of launching cruise missiles, having tested to fire a cruise missile. So the Russians have to assume the
system when deployed has cruise missiles. And they said, "Well, you violated it." So they began developing
missiles. At the same time, the United States was also pursuing uh the development and deployment of a new hypersonic intermediate range system
called the Dark Eagle. Um and so now Russia's looking at a situation where the United States by developing these
systems and deploying these systems was changing fundamental changing altering the balance of power in Europe giving
the United States hypersonic preemptive strike capabilities at a time when uh tensions between NATO and the United
States were on the rise with Russia because of Ukraine um and the you know
the Ukraine conflict showed the importance of you know long range strike systems. Just imagine putting Dark Eagle
or putting the SM6 Typhoon on Ukrainian soil and the kind of destabilization of
impact that would have on Russia, which is one of the reasons why the Russians are fighting this war and ensuring that Ukraine never becomes part of NATO. But
um the Russians needed a counter. So they began development of at least one system, I believe more than one. Um and
the system is a follow on to the RS26 Rub that we talked about. This is what
we call the archnik system. The archnik is an amalgam of technologies uh using
advanced solar rocket boosters borrowed from the cedar ICBM. Uh second stages
borrowed from the YARS ICBM. Um a modified YS um M uh re-entry vehicle,
new warheads uh using new technologies. Um, and it was tested, flight tested,
and the Russians launched what they call an operational test of the Archnik in November of 2024, targeting the Nepro uh
factory uh in Yeprosk. Um, but even when they did that, they just were saying we
have this capability, but they hadn't operationalized it as a as a weapon
system. It was estimated they had between four and six additional archniks in the pipeline to be used for testing,
but that's not serial production. Um, but then again, the the Russians said
they're going to begin serial production over the Urashnik. Well, recently Vladimir Putin announced in the
aftermath of um uh a mean tweet exchange between um uh Lindsey Graham and uh
Dmitri Midv, the former president of Russia in which Lindsey Graham threatened a decapitation strike against
Russia. threatened outright threatened the Russians saying if you don't believe that Donald Trump's serious about his um
intent to punish Russia for failing to bend the knee to Trump's demands about a ceasefire just ask the Ayatollah what
happens meaning that you know ask the Iranian leader who was subjected to a decapitation strike during Israel's
12-day war a decapitation strike that the United States knew about and facilitated with an intelligence
information um so that's a direct threat against the Russian government responded saying Um, we have the dead hand. So,
you'll die. The dead hand is an illusion to a cold war um era system. The perimeter. Remember when I talked about
the Ohio class submarine being moved up close with flat trajectories? Um, this
was a real problem. So, the Russians developed a dead hand to ensure that if there was ever a decapitation strike um
and you took out the Russian leadership, a system was in place using a a variety of sensors, radiation detection, seismic
sensors, etc. um and missiles equipped with a communication system that they would
launch these missiles that would fly over Russian territory broadcasting launch codes and the totality of
Russia's nuclear arsenal will be fired against the United States. So what mediev was saying is we have the dead
hand so you why are you talking decapitation? Well Trump didn't understand and so he immediately ordered
this is the genius of Donald Trump two Ohio class submarines armed with Trident missiles closer to Russian shores. So if
you're trying to convince the Russians that you're not looking to decapitate their leadership, the last thing you would do is deploy two Ohio class
submarines um closer to Russian shores. And um so the Russians now because of
all of this have said we have put Arashnik in serial production and we are
beginning the active deployment of these systems not just in Russia but also in Barus. Belarus is going to get a
regiment that's nine launchers um of archniks. The archnik is a dual capable
system. It can fire a a a conventional warhead uh actually cluster warheads or
it can fire nuclear warheads. Um it this is the archnic is that SS20 like
gamechanging weapon. Um there is no analog in the in in NATO. There's nothing that can counter it, nothing
that can defeat it. And once the arrnic reaches full operational deployment, um,
as Dimmitri Miev said in a follow-on tweet, all of the cathedrals of all of the cities of Europe are now at risk
because like the SS20, the arric will be able to blanket Europe with destructive power, conventional and nuclear, which
gives it an added dimension of military flexibility. Now Russia can destroy all of Europe just using conventional
weapons. They don't need nuclear weapons. Um and and we can thank Donald
Trump for this. Um Demetri Midv in announcing this um he also alluded to
other systems and um this is where we go back to the cold war. Um in addition to
the SS20, the Russians were concerned about the Persian 2 missile and its ability to
strike Moscow. And so they wanted a counter to that and they were developing a um a short-range system called the
Skorost or the quick the quick missile. And the purpose of the Skorost was when
uh Persians were detected leaving their garrisons going to deployment areas, the Skoros could be rapidly sent to the
field, fire and take out the Persian 2. Right now the arric like the SS20 is not
that flexible in terms of its targeting. So if the United States deploys Dark Eagle to uh Germany, um the Russians
don't have the ability to interdict Dark Eagle with assurance of um of success. So I believe
that as was the case of you know pulling out you know the RS26 to create the
arric I believe that the Russians have pulled out Skorost and they're developing a follow-on system and MV
have said there are other systems in play and when you look at the operational requirements facing the Russians and you mirror that with the
operational requirements facing the Soviets back in the 80s skost is an absolute necessity so I think we're
we're we're seeing that and the Russians may come up with others they had another system that was under development, the Courier small ICBM um actually ready to
go into serial production um but was stopped back in 1991
uh by Gorbachov and interesting fact of history. The the coup that was launched
against Gorbachev in August of 1991 was triggered by Gorbachov signing a um an
an order um ending the courier small ICBM system. Uh this created an economic
crisis for the Ministry of Defense Industry um and and the other industries involved in this. Um that's when the
head of the KGB got together with all these different ministers and said Gorbachov's got to go. But that was the straw that broke the camel's back. That
shows you how important uh these missile systems are to Russia overall.
Well, there seems to be a lot of um well, incremental escalation on the nuclear front that is uh the the US is
supposed to station these new longrange precision missiles in Germany next year.
We have the golden dome uh and of course a few weeks ago this attack on Russia's
nuclear forces uh which was met with joy, mockery if not celebration from the
political media establishment across the west. And there's also this uh tendency,
at least in Europe, to start to dismiss Russia's nuclear deterrent by essentially rejecting it as nuclear
blackmail. The best thing we can do is pretend it's not there or ignore it, which is a very strange social
constructivist approach to nuclear security. Uh but is this the the ornic
the introduction of it, especially now that it's going under serial production? Is this the why is it a changing wars or
changing the battles of power Europe? Is it because it also I guess allows a different step on the escalation ladder?
So it's not either conventional war or you know nuclear war with the world because what often makes nuclear weapons
less credible as a deterrent is that they're so destructive. But is this the I guess the secret of the this middle
step? Yeah, it it it provides um the Russians
with the ability to dramatically escalate without using nuclear weapons. And so if you're
looking at a to give you an example, um let's say that Germany did use the
Taurus missile uh gave it to Ukraine and it struck Moscow and let's say Moscow
followed up by attacking uh the Dusteldorf production facility of Ryan Metal and maybe some other places. right
now uh it would have to strike using you know air launched missiles like the
Kinszal um maybe Scanders but there there are limitations to what Russia can
do um and the the strike it it's not
decisive enough to deter Europe and so Europe will then begin an an escalation
ladder that would lead to nuclear uh if you're going to escalate You want to escalate in a way that just intimidates
the crap out of the person you're escalating against. So now imagine the following that uh Russia fires the
archnik and totally eliminates uh Dusseldorf hits Ramstein eliminates that
and then demonstrates that it has a 100 archnik ready to blanket all of Europe
instantly and there's nothing Europe can do to defend themselves. U does Europe now go to nuclear weapons?
Do they take do they go up to that step or will there'll be pressure put on Europe to say back down? The arric is a
gamecher because it puts all of Europe at risk. The United States just deployed B612
bombs to England. The arric will take out that site within 15 minutes of being
launched. It won't exist. There's some speculation that the archnik that was used against Nepro was um a uh a version
that had a non uh it it was a test a test warhead. And what I mean by that is
while the submunitions were coated or manufactured out of this new um exotic
ceramic alloy, uh there was no explosive material inside. So basically these were
duds that hit hit the ground. Um, and one of the reasons the Russians did that is to disguise the true destructive
capacity of Archnik. Um, because the Russian sources that I've spoken to have
said that the true destructive capacity of archnik is far different than what was demonstrated. Um, and that the
archnic when fired, uh, let's say you take a battalion of archnik, that's
three archnic missiles. um that's of 108
um submunitions and that you you bring those down in a concentrated area. They
say that the um the it's the damage done is the equivalent of a um of a nuclear
weapon. Um and now if the Russians are deploying I don't know um you know 10
regiments of a of a rashnik each regiment has three battalions.
You see where I'm going on this? Europe doesn't stand a chance. Literally. Um it
was the dumbest move in the world was to get out of the INF treaty and the second dumbest move in the world was to provoke
the Russians. Now the Russians have, you know, taken this step. How do we get out of this mess? It's a
it's a huge arms control problem. A huge arms control problem. Um,
and unfortunately I I don't think we're getting out of it unless we replicate the sense of urgency that came from the
1980s where, you know, there was a crisis um, you know, crisis mentality
that if we don't sign this treaty, we are all going to die. Um, we need the West to feel the urgency. And that means
the West has to deploy systems that make Russia feel at risk. And then now
there's a a joint reason for both nations to get rid of the Persian 2 is what made the Russians get rid of the
SS20. Is Dark Eagle going to be the system that makes Russia get rid of Arshnnik? I
don't know. Does Russia want to get rid of Archnik? Um you know the thing about the INF treaty and one of the reasons
why I talked about the the courier small ICBM is
we in the west speak about the INF treaty is that this is this great thing you know arms control. We we began the
process and as you said it began a process that ended the cold war.
Most Russians don't view it that way. The Russians say began a process that brought about the collapse of the Soviet
Union and the weakening of Russia. Uh from the Russian perspective, the INF
treaty um gutted Russia's military capabilities by getting rid of three
systems produced in Vodkin. The SS20, the SS12, and the SS23.
Um it also led to the new to the star
treaty uh which brought limits to the production of SS25 which was the system
and the courier the small ICBM was eliminated. This was economically
devastating for the city of Vaude Kench which is all sensor purposes a factory town. They get paid by the missile. And
when you come in and you eliminate all of their missile production, severely except one, and you severely reduce the
numbers of missiles being produced, they went from producing 60 to 80 SS25s a
year to producing six SS25s a year. They didn't produce, they were producing, you
know, 100 SS20s a year, maybe less, but you know, 80 to 100 to zero. SS12s, zero
SS23s, zero. And um you know it's economically
devastating and that resonates across all of the military towns where these uh
generals and these ministers get their power. This you know their their their their ability to influence. Nothing
happened in Vodkinsk without the Vodkin machine building plant the Vodkkins factory saying it was going to happen.
They built the schools, they built the roads, they built the the hospitals.
They built the the markets. They brought in the food. It was the director general of Vaude Kinsk in as late as 1976
or 78 that brought natural gas to Vodkin. Remember Vodkin is out in the middle of nowhere.
700 and some odd miles away from Moscow in the foothills of Euro mountains. There was no natural gas. So the
citizens of Vodkin suffered through some of the coldest winters imaginable. It was the director who went out there and
took the profits from the factory, tapped into the the big pipeline, personally overseeing that, putting his
life at risk because it's very difficult to pump tap into a functioning gas pipeline. But they did it and they
brought gas to Vodkinsk. The factory was the city was the life. And it's not just
in Vodkin, but in other cities across. And when I go in and I talk about the
the the validity of the INF treaty, the Russians are like, "We hate that treaty. We hate arms control because a it
brought down it brought down the Soviet Union and B it made us weak because you guys cheat. You guys lie. The INF treaty
was the one pure treaty while it was being implemented. Both sides benefit. But look at what the United States did
later on. We used the INF treaty to promote the unilateral to the unilateral advantage of the United States. Um and
that's what the Russians accuse us of doing with strategic arms reductions as well. Cheating. And we do. We're cheaters. Straight up cheaters. We cheat
in a sly way by not being honest in our negotiations. We claim to want one thing, we do another. Look at ballistic
missile defense in 2008 when it was being negotiated 2008 2009 when it was
being negotiated. Um the Russians said it has to be done in the context of um
of missile defense. You can't have a strategic arms reduction treaty without missile defense. And the Obama
administration uh who took over from Bush said, "No problem. We'll do that. But you got to we got to do it
separately. Anatoli Antinov at the time was the lead negotiator. Um he said that he was
assured by Rose Gut Miller that they would deal with this separately. They signed the treaty was implemented. But
when Antinov called up Gut Miller and said I'm ready to move forward on a missile defense said we're not doing
that. We lied. We straight up lied. And and so this is what makes arrnik
even more dangerous is that the normal mechanisms that could be used to mitigate the the the danger from the
system don't exist. There are no arms control talks taking place today. The new start treaty expires in February of
next year. When it expires, we're going to instantly go from 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads on each side to around
four to 5,000 because we're going to bring the reserve warheads out. And then we're going to start manufacturing new pits, new weapons. We're going to get
back up to 20 to 30,000 strategic nuclear forces per side. That's cold war level madness.
This is how dangerous this arric thing is. It's a very dangerous situation. I think this was a problem with the
hegemonic era though. There's no incentive for mutual constraints when uh one side dominates and arms controls
tend to suffer often if you don't have any balance of power. Anyways, Scott
reader uh thank you so much. I it's a it's a frightening time that arms
control is not taken more serious than this and one hopes that uh we get a grasp on it soon before as you said
especially in February things might really go out of control. So this could something good could come out of this
though if it does incentivize both sides now to start to rethink about the weapons that could kill us all. So
thanks again. Thanks for having me.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37971
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sun Aug 10, 2025 2:38 am
BOMBSHELL: EPSTEIN REVELATION
Jim Acosta
Aug 9, 2025 #TruthMatters #DemocracyDefenders #IndependentMedia
MARK EPSTEIN AND VICTIMS' RIGHTS ATTORNEY KEVIN KUVIN JOIN JIM FOR THIS SPECIAL REPORT.
Transcript
All right, welcome to the Jim Acosta show. It's another day that ends in why in the Epstein gate cover up. Trump said
he would release the Epstein files. That hasn't happened. He's now claiming it's not unusual that his personal attorney
is meeting with Epstein's ex-girlfriend behind bars just before she was moved to a minimum security prison. Not unusual.
Everything is unusual and how Donald Trump is handling all of this. And that's putting it mildly. My big guest
for this hour is Spencer Kubin. He is a personal attorney for several of the uh
survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. Uh Spencer, it's good to talk to you. Really appreciate your time. Um I guess
first of all, how has been the reaction uh from some of these Epstein survivors
that you're in contact with? Uh, I guess ever since this controversy got started, what was it about a month ago when the
Justice Department put out that memo saying there's nothing to see here with the Epstein files and they tried to sweep it under the rug.
Yeah. Well, thank you for having me on, Jim. I do appreciate it. You know, a lot of times what gets forgotten in this
whole story is frankly the victims. We're talking about, you know, the drama surrounding Epstein and all the people
involved with Epstein, but it's really about the victims and what happened to them now going on almost 20 years ago,
right? So, this story has been around since the inception about 20 years ago
when this when this whole thing broke out. You know, these are victims who have been disappointed by the federal
government on repeated occasions. Right? If we go back to the origination of the
story, these victims were disappointed because the state attorney refused to prosecute the case originally. Then the
FBI picked up the case and promised them they would prosecute it and they didn't. And then they're disappointed because
the FBI enters into a sweetheart deal with the US attorney's office in Epstein.
And then they're disappointed again years later when he's rearrested and they allow him to somehow die in jail.
And now they're just being disappointed yet again by the Trump administration promising to release information about
co-conspirators that we know exist. We know they're out there and they're still
playing hide the ball. It's frustrating. They have been continually frustrated
and now for most of their adult lives they have just they've had no justice.
Yeah. And it's very strange the way Trump has behaved in all of this. I mean, you know, he he looks like
somebody who has something to hide. I've said that repeatedly on this show. I I I don't think that that's a stretch. I think that's a perfectly fair thing to
say. I mean, this is somebody who said during the 2024 campaign and before that that he was fine with releasing the
Epstein files. Multiple people who now serve as administration, Cash Patel, Pam Bondi, and so on, all said the same
thing. JD Vance, um, who's apparently having this strategy meeting tonight.
And then, you know, uh, to talk about this FC stuff and how they're going to roll it out, I suppose. But, you know,
then Todd Blanch, Trump's, uh, personal attorney, now Justice Department lawyer,
you know, top lawyer at the Justice Department, uh, goes down to meet with Gain Maxwell, and just a few days later,
she's moved to a minimum security prison. And I'm sure you've seen this, Spencer, but let's play it for the viewers. Trump was trying to blow this
off yesterday. Is no big deal. said it's not unusual that this this whole thing took place. Let's listen to that.
just a very highly thought of person respected by everybody and uh I didn't
talk to him about it but I will tell you that uh whatever he asked would be totally appropriate and it's not an
uncommon thing to do that and I think he probably wants to make sure that you know people that should not be involved
or aren't involved are not hurt by something that would be very very unfortunate very unfair to a lot of
people but I will say this uh Todd Blanch is one of the most highly respected people you'll ever meet. So, I
know this. I didn't discuss it with him, but anything he talked about with her or the fact that he did that, not unusual,
number one, and most importantly is uh something that would be totally above board.
Yeah, not unusual, Trump says. What do you think? I mean, how many different things about
what he just said are just not correct? I I would start with the not unusual part. It is unusual. It's highly
unusual. You know, look, the transfer of her from one facility to another, that
did not occur or the fact that that was going to happen didn't happen after the
interview. My guess is in dealing with these exact kind of cases. In fact, I
had a sex trafficking case where I had to conduct a deposition, sworn testimony of a sex trafficker that was behind bars
in jail just last week. And he came out of his cell. He showed up for the deposition, says, "I'm not talking to
you." They don't have to talk to anyone. Glenn Maxwell did not have to talk to the DOJ. She could have just refused it.
My guess is her lawyer probably said, "If you want her to talk to you, you
better give her something. What can you give her to convince her to talk to you?" and they probably rolled out the
offer of transfer to a nicer facility in Texas and said, "Look, if she gives us
the time and talks to us, we'll agree to a transfer so that she can go to a nicer facility." So, it was a strictly quid
proquo. That's how these things work. When you have a bargaining chip, even if you're an inmate, you're going to play
it. But, yeah, you don't conduct an interview with someone who is a convicted liar. Nothing
that woman says can be trusted. Nothing. Yeah. The only thing that we can trust and the
only thing the victims want to see is the evidence, the physical evidence, the videotapes that we know the FBI has over
thousands of hours of videotapes taken inside the mansions, the documents, right? All of those investigative memos
that the FBI has done. That's what needs to come out. not a lying convicted sex
predator who is going to get up and lie to save her own tail.
Yeah. And and what do you think um they're they're trying to hide here? I mean, what what do we think is in those
files? I mean, is there anything that you can share in terms of what your knowledge is? I mean, I know you
probably can't get into names and that sort of thing, but maybe you can. I don't know. But what what can you share?
What do you think they're hiding? Here's what I can say with certainty because this is generally in the public domain
at this point after this many years of, you know, little bits of information leaking out.
Yeah. We know that a number of people visited the mansions that he had in Manhattan, in Palm Beach, in New Mexico, and in the
Virgin Islands. We know that a number of very famous people, politicians, you
know, actors, um, notable individuals have flown on his jets back and forth to
different locations. royalty, you know, including and up to royalty. So those
people that are out there already, we know that they traveled and were traveling within his circle.
Epstein's orbit always contained young girls wherever he went.
Yeah. Wherever he went, he had young teenage young girls around him everywhere. So if
you're traveling with Jeffrey Epstein to Jeffrey Epstein's home, it would have
been impossible for anyone in that orbit to not see what is happening around you
with these young girls. It's odd, right? Yeah. You should never, if you're a politician
or a famous individuals, want to be caught around somebody who has a cache
of young girls around him. It's just odd. That's even if they didn't do
anything inappropriate. It's just inappropriate to be friends with a guy. And then we know that there
were individuals, including royalty, that were socializing with him. Even after he was convicted here in South
Florida, after my cases were finished and he then plead guilty and got the sweetheart
deal, he still had people that were socializing with him and pretending like it never happened.
Yeah. Well, and and I mean, you know, it's been reported that Donald Trump flew on the plane. Uh, and you know, I I
don't know what you can say about that, but in in the cases that you dealt with, the the victims, the survivors that you
represented, um, were there any dealings with Gla Maxwell? Was she in the picture at that point? And what what what do
those folks, and I feel terrible for them, the these victims, these survivors, what do they say about
Maxwell? So there were two groups of victims um back in the original cases
that I handled in 2007208. Those were all very young local girls
that went to a local high school called Royal Palm Beach High School here in the western community in Palm Beach County.
These girls were ages 14 to 16 years old who were convinced to come out to the
mansion on Palm Beach Island back in the early 2000s and ended up in a situation
where Epstein had them, you know, get undressed and naked massages and whatnot
at his home here in Palm Beach. They did not interact with Maxwell. They interacted with recruiters that were
working in the Palm Beach mansion that were young girls in their 20s who had recruited them essentially working in
this recruiting scheme. Yeah. Those recruiters would work with Maxwell
directly and Maxwell would train the recruiters how to get young girls and
from time to time Maxwell would also reach out and find young girls to recruit and bring back to Epstein and
again to become victims. We had evidence in one of our cases where Miss Maxwell literally was in a car with another
witness and stopped the car in the middle of the streets and saw a young girl walking on the street in a little
high school school uniform. Stopped her, gave her her number and said, "You should call me. I work for uh a guy that
handles models and and we love, you know, you're beautiful and you need to come visit us." That's what she was
doing. She was hunting. In addition to that, I had one victim uh who went
public, Caroline Kaufman in New York, and she was recruited out of a horse show in upstate New York and brought to
the home in Manhattan. And she was actually attacked sexually by not only
Epstein, but in addition, Miss Maxwell. So Maxwell was not only just recruiting
victims, but she was playing a part actively in the abuse of victims. And so
what are your clients saying when when they hear that there's this very strong speculation that Donald Trump is going
to pardon her, that there's going to be a quid proquo? I mean, according to uh according to ABC News during her
interview with Blanch, she said nothing would be harmful to Donald Trump telling
Blanch that Trump had never done anything in her presence that would have caused concern. This is according to sources familiar with what she said.
This is what they're telling ABC News. Uh yeah. So let's obviously Yeah, that's very
self-erving sounding. Let's reverse that statement for a minute. Yeah, please. Yeah. Right. She says that I didn't meaning
her, she didn't see anything that she found inappropriate. She didn't find sex trafficking
inappropriate. She didn't find raping young girls inappropriate. So, how are we to utilize her judgment
of what is and is not appropriate to determine whether or not she believes someone, Trump or anyone else did
anything appropriate or not? And again, she said very carefully, I didn't
witness anything, which means that if she provided a young 14-year-old to
someone, anyone, right? Let's not say it's Trump. Let's say it's Mr. Jones, and Mr. Jones takes this 14-year-old
behind a closed door. I don't know what's happening behind that closed door, but I have a strong idea what's
happening because of the sex trafficking that I've been doing for the last 10 years. So, look, there are so many ways
that her attorney can coach her to give answers that may be helpful to the administration, but yet are still
subverting the truth. That's why videotapes, documented evidence, that's
what the victims want released, not some liar who's going to testify just to save her skin. Yeah. And I mean those those
files are kind of a motherload, right? I mean they they have a lot of very
important information in there. Absolutely. And I you know this is what the survivors want. This is what they've
been asking for for years. And we've always always advocated the co-conspirators are just as guilty and
should all be brought down and should have been brought down when Epstein was convicted. Yeah.
And um what what do you think is the potential
um if Galain Maxwell is pardoned? If she is set free, what what do you suspect
the the blowback to be like, the reaction to be like? It's it would be absolutely unbelievable
and an atrocious mis miscarriage of justice. I mean, it would just be absolutely awful for something like that
to occur. But again, there are ways that the administration can do it without
having a large blowback. In other words, to minimize the blowback, the administration could say, "Look, if you
testify and keep everything about Trump quiet and say he didn't do anything wrong, then what we'll do is we'll
commute your sentence." And immediately before Trump leaves office, the day before he leaves office, he signs the
commutation and her sentence is over. Thus decreasing her sentence to three
and a half just three and a half years from now or four years from now getting released. Yeah,
that's a way he could do it and not care about the blowback at that point because he's walking out of office.
Yeah. And and in the meantime, he's made her life more comfortable by moving her to this minimum security prison, which I
mean, you know, the Washington Post had a story out this morning. They talked to a variety of, you know, corrections
experts who say, you know, this is, you know, contrary to what Trump says. This is all highly unusual.
Of course it is. It's incredibly unusual. It violates the Department of Justice and Department of Prison's own
standards and protocols for who can be and who cannot be transferred to a
facility like this, which is infamously known as clubfed. I mean, they they get
customized workouts every day and can walk around and and chitchat with the
others and, you know, specialized meals and it's a hotel that they just can't leave.
Yeah. And you know, the other thought that's been on my mind and I I wanted to ask
you about is I mean I I spoke with Jeffrey Epstein's brother Mark Epstein um a couple weeks back and he suspects
and you know if you talk to Julie Brown over at the Miami Herald, she is has feelings on on this as well that that
there there's something fishy with uh Jeffrey Epstein's um suicide as as it's
been described by the authorities. real fishy. Yeah. What What are your thoughts on that? Yeah. So, I mean, I've seen the evidence
when it occurred. Um, you know, I had a number of people that reached out to me because of my connections with the case
for so long and for so many years. I actually had a former guard that uh that
was at a fairly high level uh at the institution where he was being held. Now, the guard that called me made it
clear he wasn't working there at the time. He had left and retired. But the
way he explained it to me was that this was a prison within a prison within a prison. I mean, it was the most secure
prison that we have here on the east coast of the United States. You've got terrorists that bombed, you know, the
the World Trade Center that were being held at this particular prison. There are cameras everywhere.
And for Jeffrey Epstein to be able to allegedly commit suicide in a facility
like this, you would have had to have a massive failure within the system. And
they said that cameras weren't working, right? Two guards fell asleep. His cell was uh
littered with bed sheets and wires and pills and all kinds of things thrown
about his cell. He had just been removed from protective custody on suicide watch
where he would have had a second roommate or a cellmate that was in with him. So all of that had to occur which
means that it was a massive failure on the part of Department of Justice which they never investigated the failures and
nobody has been reprimanded as far as I've heard. Yeah. Or he didn't commit suicide. And the one
piece of physical evidence that has me convinced that it wasn't suicide is a
picture from his autopsy showing the ligature mark on his neck. That is the
most convincing evidence I think I've seen because unfortunately I have seen in my career suicides and autopsies
before. And when you have a liature mark and somebody is hung, the liature mark
is at an angle because they're hanging from the second rung of the bunk bed,
which is where he they claim he had hung himself. And that liature mark is going to be angled. If you look at the liature
mark that he had, it's straight across his neck, almost as though it was from directly
behind him. That again, physical evidence is what I
rely upon, not people and testimony. That physical evidence does not comport with a suicide.
So I it's highly suspect. And you know, look, all I would say is
that I hope Glenn Maxwell has evidence that's protected somewhere, physical evidence that she can use to protect her
own skin because I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't make it out alive either.
Yeah, no, no question about it. I mean, that that's been on my mind, too, is you know, what happens to her. Um, but you
know, the when you mentioned the evidence, the physical evidence uh from the from the prison where where Epstein
was being held. Um, there's also this this issue of missing footage uh missing
security camera footage. Uh Pam Bondi apparently put out this excuse that, you know, one minute of every day there's a
there's a there's a gap in the security camera footage. And then just the other day, CBS News reported, I'm sure you saw
this. Yeah. That the FBI apparently is in possession or the Department of Justice is in possession of the full video that there
there is not a gap missing in that video. And so it just again, it just there are all these crazy questions that
are emerging in this in this case. And it just begs the question, what are they
hiding? What are they covering up? Why won't they release the files? It seems to me the public has a at least the the
oversight committee up on Capitol Hill and the House of Representatives should have the ability to review that footage
and see, you know, what the unedited footage or the unaltered or whatever it is uh footage looks like because that
sounds inside of his cell though. That's right. the footage shows outside
of his cell, people entering or leaving or, you know, that's not going to be the
penultimate footage that you would want to see. You'd want to see the footage from inside of his cell. And apparently those cameras weren't working.
Yeah. Right. So, who the heck knows? And and look, as far as the, you know,
congressional oversight, um, one of the things that I think is important to note that's missing from
the subpoenas that were issued by Congress, I did not see where they have issued a subpoena for Alex Aosta. Alex
Aosta was the lead prosecutor at the Southern District of Florida. He's the one that shut out my clients and didn't
tell them that this deal was going down. He's the one that negotiated the sweetheart deal and signed off on it.
He's the one that the federal judge here in Miami said violated the Crime
Victim's Rights Act by failing to inform the victims that they were negotiating a deal. Yeah. And Trump strangely made him the
labor secretary. I remember this because where is his subpoena? Where is his subpoena? Where is Alex Acasta? And I, as I often point out, no
relation here, but no relation. Yes. No relation. No. But but I uh but I do
think that that's a very important point because you're right, the oversight committee chairman James Comr put out those subpoenas and he asked for Bill
and Hillary Clinton and all these attorneys general and so on, but not Alex Aosta. Why not ask for a lead prosecutor who's
seen all the evidence? He's seen it all because he had to. He prepared a 40count
indictment that we still haven't seen. They buried the indictment. So what's your sense of how this is
going to play out? Um, do you think Maxwell cuts a deal, she's sprung loose,
she's pardoned? Um, I know you thought that maybe it might happen towards the end of his administration, but I I
that's a long time for her to be cooling her heels inside Club Fed. And I just kind of wonder where this
might be heading. And and I guess the larger question is, do you think Donald Trump has something to hide here?
Personally, yes, I absolutely think he does. Without a doubt, I think he has something to
hide. Whether or not it's something that's criminal or whether or not it's just his associations and multiple times
that he appears in the record with regards to Epstein, you know, that we wouldn't know until we actually see the
documents, but he definitely doesn't want his name associated with this pedophile and this sex trafficker. So,
and we do know that his name appears in the record numerous times. We just don't know what context he appears within the
records. And I think that that would be embarrassing to him if it came out that way. So he's trying to avoid that. You
know what I would also point out is they throw up this false concept of security that oh we audio taped the interview.
Okay. Well, I've audiotaped interviews before. How many times do you sit even
for you know for you Jim? Right. We talked before the tape started rolling did we not? And we discussed some issues
before the tape started rolling. Right. Sure. Sure. Sure. It happens all the time. So then the attorney gets in there and says, "Okay,
listen. Here's the deal. If you exonerate Trump, we'll cut you a
deal. And here's the deal. Here's how it's outlined. You can talk about anybody else. Just don't talk about
Trump." You good with that? Okay, I'm good with that. Okay, record.
Yeah, but that's not on the recording. Exactly. You would never know. You would never know. That's why all of this needs to be
in the open. But it's and when they say, "Well, we'll put out grand jury testimony." And I guess she
has said, "No, I don't want the grand jury testimony out there." Probably because she doesn't want more damaging testimony out there that's been
released. Uh, you know, you know, painting the picture of a monster, which is what she is, and she doesn't want
that out there. But, you know, the the the grand jury testimony is not going to tell us anything as it relates to Donald
Trump. I can't imagine that would say anything. There were only four victims in the grand jury. That's it. There were four
victims that were discussed and only two witnesses that testified. It's a very limited uh piece, very small
piece of this entire story. Yeah. And and what is the what is life
like for the survivors? I you know I you use the word victims and that is that is
I know people say, "Oh, we we should call them survivors, but they are victims. I mean that's that's just that's the way it is. They were
victimized. They were um raped and abused and and and so on. But what is
life like for the ones that you've represented? I can't I mean I just have to think their their lives were taken
from them. That's the the awful tragedy of this. Yes. And and I think that that's the
case with some of the victims. And I think it is a um it's very individual
how trauma affects a young child and how that affects them growing up into their
future and adulthood and parenthood and whatnot. It it is individual to each victim. So there is no generic way to
say okay when this happens to a child it's going to affect them this way. Um,
some of the victims have moved on with their lives, put this in their past, basically locked it in a box in the back
of their brain, and I never want to deal with this again. Yeah. And they have families, they're married
with children themselves, but it affects them in ways that uh aren't necessarily
apparent to even them. So, for example, um you know, they have daughters and
they're now in their 30s and their daughter wants to go to a friend's house for a party or an event. You become a
hyperprotective parent because of what happened to you as a child. And that hyper parenting can affect how you
parent your own child. You have other women who were devastated and never really got over it and have
mental issues, um, cope with drugs or alcohol because that's the way they were
able to cope with the trauma that affected them. Um, you know, it's it's a real
cross-section of how it affects everyone. Do they ultimately get justice? Do they
ultimately get the truth?
That would be the hope. Yeah. Um but after 20 years of doing
this, I'm not optimistic. Yeah. It's unfortunate
and and and it has to be stated very clearly, somebody who is standing in the way of
that right now is the president of the United States. Yeah. I mean, as I've said numerous times on different networks, all he has
to do is sign an executive order today. You know, he has no qualms about signing executive orders on a heartbeat. Sign an
executive order releasing everything. That's it. Stroke of a pen. I hereby
direct the Department of Justice and FBI to release all documents and investigative files on Jeffrey Epste and
Glenn Maxwell. Done. You could do it tomorrow. Well, I I don't see that happening, but
uh Spencer Kubin, I I appreciate you giving your time and representing your
clients the way that you have and and just being a you know, a truth teller and all of this. I it it you know this
this cover up is is just crying out for justice and for truth and something for
these survivors, these victims that they can hold on to and say, you know, this this the struggle that I've been dealing
with for all these years did add up to something. I agree. I agree. And he and I would
tell anyone and everyone that can access information on the internet, you know,
uh there were phone message books, phone message pads that were confiscated and taken by police at his mansion in Palm
Beach. I implore everyone to find them and read them. Find out who was calling the house. There's information that I
just can't disclose. But any information that's in the public domain, it's free
and fair game. And the press and individuals should be asking everyone who called that house and who's showing
up on those message pads, why were they calling that house? Yeah, it's a damn good question. Maybe
we'll look into that. Um, Spencer Kubin, thank you very much for your time. Really appreciate it. I am coming to you live from Colorado.
Uh, and so yes, don't have my usual studio behind me. And if it it it seems
like uh you know uh I'm at the airport, it's because I'm at the airport. Uh I uh
wanted to bring this to you earlier today. Had some travel issues and so here I am. But you know what? The news
doesn't stop and neither does this show. Uh and and another neither does our our
quest for the truth when it comes to the Jeffrey Epstein case as we've been calling it, Epstein Gate. Uh, ever since
the Department of Justice about a week ago or so released that Department of Justice memo that basically attempted to
sweep all of this under the rug, um, I have a special guest. I was a little bit
uh, I guess I was a little bit shady in terms of who I was going to have on this afternoon, keeping my cards close to the
vest, but I'm going to bring on now uh, Mark Epstein. He is the brother of Jeffrey Epstein. Uh Mark has asked that
we not show his face. Uh but we are we are going to bring his voice to you so you can hear from him. Uh Mark, can you
hear me? Yes, I can. Marky, uh thank you very much for
joining us. We really appreciate it. Uh I guess first of all just to jump right into this uh your thoughts on how all of
this has been handled since I guess it was a week ago Sunday when the Department of Justice released that memo
uh that tried to make the case that your brother was not murdered, that he
committed suicide uh and that there basically was no grand conspiracy and that they weren't planning on putting
out any kind of uh files or list despite what Pam Bonnie, the attorney general
said. your thoughts on all of that and we'll catch up on some other things in
Okay. Well, as I Okay. As I told you, my major concern is
the circumstances around my brother's what I now refer to as his murder. I used to say his death, but uh ever since
he died, the government has been covering things up, not giving information. And it begs the question,
if this purely was a suicide, why are they being so secretive? And why am I getting the runaround? It's it's uh and
one thing that they don't mention, and it's very important, is that when after Jeffrey died, the next day, they did an
autopsy. The autopsy was performed by Dr. Roman, who was a New York City
pathologist. And I had Dr. Boden there to witness the autopsy because I have the right to have a pathologist there.
And they both came out of the autopsy room saying they couldn't call it a suicide because it looked too much like
a homicide. That's a picture of Jeffree cell door that you just put up. You don't see what we're looking at
here, Mark. Okay. That's the cell door in the in the shoe. It's the maximum security tier of
the That's was Jeffy's cell after he died. They put, you know, do not uh the police tape on it, but that's his cell
door, which you do not see in the video that they released because to get to
that cell door, you have to first enter the maximum security tier. Do you have that? Could you put up that picture with
the staircase and the door to the tier? Yeah, we'll try to put that up. Uh we
have that uh picture and so we can put it up. Yeah.
Okay. They're not you don't hear mention that the actual autopsy when it was performed by Dr. Roman with Dr. Bottom there they
came out saying they could not call this a suicide because it looked too much like a homicide and on the initial death
certificate that day it on cause of death it says pending further investigation because to them
professionals it looked like a homicide and then a few days later uh Dr. Samson,
the chief medical examiner, she calls it a suicide without any explanation of
what further study was done. Bear in mind, she never saw the body. She wasn't at the autopsy. So, what is she basing
that conclusion on? It It's just And she won't speak to anybody about that. It's
like, why? If this was a suicide, why the secrecy? Yeah, that's my Yeah, that's my
question, too. I don't understand this. And you know, for the longest time, I think a lot of folks were not really
paying as close attention to this case as they should have because the government did put out the the line that
uh that this was a suicide. Uh but I talked to Julie Brown, an investigative journalist with Miami Herald last week.
I talked to Tara Paul Mary, another investigative journalist, and they both say that there's reason to believe and
and I think they they point to the medical examiner that you were with, Mark, uh that there's reason to believe
that this was a homicide. And there's the picture of the staircase that you mentioned leading up to the cell. What
What are we looking at here? Okay, that's uh through that barred door
at the top of the stair. That's the tier, the maximum security tier that Jeffrey's cell was on. So to go to
Jeffrey's cell, you have to go up that staircase, enter through that bar door,
and Jeffrey's cell was to the right of that door. Uh when you enter that tier,
it's a like a long corridor, and there are four cells on either side. Uh if you
show the other photograph I uh sent to you, it's a picture of the tier itself,
basically standing when you enter that door, it's a picture of the tier. You see three cells on each side. The
closest one's not visible. Jeffre cell is on to the right side, right? That's
the tier. And if you look at the far wall of that tier, there's a camera on that wall
pointing at you. So, anything that took place on that tier would be captured by
that camera on the far wall. But, as we all know, that camera wasn't working that night. No.
Yeah. What do you make of that? Yeah, Mark. I mean, apparently that we don't have uh that camera in its footage from
that night. There's apparently uh an interruption in some of the other footage. I mean, just, you know, there's
also the issue of the the blankets and the pillows and the mattresses being in the in the cell. Apparently, that wasn't
uh standard operating procedure. It's just a lot of stuff here that doesn't add up. I I know. And in the video they showed a
guy walking and you can't see that that you can't make out that if that's Jeffrey. I don't think it is. It doesn't
look like the way he walked. And if you I try to blow it up. You can't see who that person is. And they said they
walked him over and he went into his cell. Now from the pictures I just showed you, you can't just walk over and
walk into a cell. You have to go up the stairs. You have to go through that bar door. You have then Jeffree cell door
was to the right. So it's not as simple as just walking through a door. So that's why when I first saw that I said
that's not where Jeffrey was. That's not what his uh situation was. So it's it's why. And then the other thing that
really got to me is when Cash Patel came out, you know, recently in the in a
hearing and he you know he listed his credentials and then he said you know you know a suicide when you see it and
my I laughed. I mean how many suicides has this guy seen and what and what's his expertise? He's not a you know
pathologist. He's not a doctor. I joked and I said what does he have a boy scale merit badge you know in first aid you
know and Dr. Bon who has done about 500 autopsies over the last 50 some odd
years that he's been doing this you know he has done prison autopsies for 50 years and Dr. Roman who this was not her
first autopsy. I don't know how many she's done, but they both professional forensic pathologists came out saying to
them this looks like a homicide, not a suicide. That's not mentioned in the justice report at all. And that's also
why not and and why is it do you think that Pam Bonnie the attorney general saying back
in February I have the client list on my desk and then you know she says uh the
other day in the cabinet meeting with Trump oh I was talking about the files there's no way the the Epstein files
could possibly fit on her desk as we know this it's a treasure trove of information and so I mean what do you
make of what Pam Bonnie has been saying? Well like I said I'm not that concerned with his case. I'm not a prosecutor. I'm
not a defense attorney. But it seems like all of Trump lackeyis will say anything they can to please him and and
try to squash this whole issue. And yeah, I use the word lackey because that's what everyone calls him when they
talk to me. Well, and and then there's the matter of Trump himself. I mean, I'm sure you saw
this over the weekend. He put out this lengthy statement on Truth Social, you know, all but begging his supporters as
loyalists uh to give up on this case, to stop focusing on this case. he was
standing up for fan body and so on. What did you think of that when you saw that? Well, to honest with I did not actually
see that. I'm I've been traveling the last week, so I've been on the road. I haven't seen I've heard about it a lot.
And to me, it's sort of like, well, I'm not surprised because, you know, assuming if Jeffrey was
murdered, you know, who was responsible and who were these people covering up for, you know, people are telling me
that it points to Trump. Someone should ask him what he knows about this.
Yeah. Well, if we get the chance to ask him, we'll certainly ask him. But uh but Mark, and and for folks who are just tuning in, I'm talking to uh Mark
Epstein, the brother of Jeffrey Epstein. And and Mark, what about this relationship between Donald Trump and
Jeffrey Epstein. We've seen all the photographs. They're all over social media. People have seen those for years.
Uh your thoughts on that? I I know that they they were they described each other
as being very close friends for a long period of time. They were good friends. They they used
to fly back and forth to Florida on each other's planes. You know, I I'm not going to say frequently, but certainly a
lot more than once. Uh and they used to hang out. And I know in the early 90s,
Donald was in Jeffy's office quite a bit when he was in financial trouble. He was talking to Jeffrey a lot, you know, and
Jeffrey would tell me if something funny happened and that's he was my brother. So, you know, we would relate funny stories to each other. He would tell me
things, you know, with Donald that might have been funny because he said Donald was a funny guy. And uh initially they
had fun hanging out together, but then the relationship soured and um you know, I I was once with them together when we
flew up from Florida and this was back in 1999 before any of this trouble started. But they yeah, they were good
friends. I know Trump is trying to distance distance himself from that, but they were good friends.
Yeah. I mean, what do you make of that? Because now he calls him a creep and and he says all of these things about your
brother now, but I mean, if you look at the footage of them together, we've seen them dancing together on the dance
floor. And I mean, I think Donald Trump told New York Magazine back in 2002 about how they were good friends and
talked about uh Jeffrey's taste in in in women, as a matter of fact, and young ladies. Um, and as it turns out, it was
obviously uh more than that. But, you know, do you think that there's any chance that that Trump is in these files
in a way that he doesn't want to see that information get out? And is he possibly motivate motivated by all of
this? I mean, it sure seems to me he's motivated by all of this and trying to keep this swept under the rug.
Well, it sounds plausible to me. I mean, your your listeners uh their opinion on
this is just as valid as mine. And I wasn't there. I don't know what exactly took place, but I do know that Jeffrey
told me he had dirt on Trump. I don't know what that was, but in the 2016
election, he said, you know, if he said what he knew, they'd have to cancel the election. So, that's a direct quote. So,
uh I I don't know what he certainly. Yeah. And also, at the time, if you
recall, Steve Steve Bannon said that the only person he feared for for Donald Trump's sake was Jeffrey Epstein.
And so what does that mean? Did you Yeah, I know. I remember that. But do you have any sense of what any of that
means? I mean, is it one of those things where we just have to do the math ourselves and we can sort of draw our own conclusions? And I I suppose that's
enough to go to Trump and say, "What gives? What's with all this?" Yeah. Go ask Trump what what does
Jeffrey Epste have? What did Why was Steve Bannon afraid of Jeffrey Epste? What did Jeffrey Epste know that made
Steve Bannon afraid? That's a question I would ask. I think I think the listeners would want
to answer the same question. Oh, I think everybody wants to know now. I mean, Trump you you maybe you saw the footage of him in the cabinet meeting
when somebody asked the question, he tried to shut that down. I will tell I mean I've been around him for a long time over the years. I've been up close
with them. I think I know when he's worried and it looked to me he was freaking out the other day in the
cabinet meeting and if you look at that truth social post which goes on about three pages, he's freaking he's just
obviously freaking out over this case. And to me, it just begs the question, what does he know? What's the deal? It's
like the old Watergate question, what does the president know? What did the president know? When did he know it? And if he had anything to do with directing
the Department of Justice to release that memo, obviously then the questions come back to the White House. Do you
think that this is ever I mean, do do you think that Donald Trump could possibly be behind what happened to your
brother? Does that thought ever cross your mind? I know you mentioned something along these lines to Don. I think it's possible. Yeah,
I I would not dismiss that possibility because you know like I said the people that are making all this thing like Bill
Bar initially, Cash Patel, Pan Bunny, who do they work for? They work for Donald Trump. So, you know, let's let's
assume now like I said, I don't like to speculate, but if you go want to go down that road, assume Trump was responsible.
Okay. Well, then he has his justice department cover it up because who else
would be responsible that would have the power and the uh be in a position to have the justice department,
you know, skewer the facts. You know, when you read the Justice Department report,
there's a lot of inaccuracies in there, you know, about the way Jeffrey was found. And the autopsy doesn't match the
way uh they describe Jeffrey hanging. I mean, for four, almost four years, we
were trying to find out what position Jeffrey was in when he was found. We could never find that out until the
Justice Department report came out. And it seems uh that it really doesn't match
the results of the autopsy, right? Was there also an issue of how he
apparently how it was described that he hung himself? I'm not going to stipulate that he did because we just don't know for sure, but how it was stipulated that
he hung himself that that apparent there there might have been some flaws in that story too. Can you elaborate on that?
Well, yeah. It's um it's this is public information. It's in the Justice Department report. They said when he was
found, he was in a seated position with his legs extended in front of him and he
was hanging from the top bunk in in the cell. And when they either cut him down or tore him down, they said his buttocks
was an inch or an inch and a half off the ground, which means the bulk of his body weight was hanging by the neck.
Now, if you sit in that position with your feet extended, you you have about 20 pounds of weight on your feet. And
Dr. Boden tells me the head weighs about 13 pounds. So there was about 150 pounds
hanging on this liature or with the head 160 somehat pounds hanging on the liature. First of all, I I I I question
whether that liature made out of a bed sheet could support that weight. I've actually was able to purchase some
linings from prisons and tested it and it's really it's questionable whether a
six-in strip of that fabric could hold all that weight. And then if that's the way he was hanging, the mark on his
neck, you know, that was left in his neck should be high up under his chin and go up behind his ears. you know,
like if you make believe, you know, when you're kids, you lift your neck tie up behind your head. Uh, but the mark on
Jeffy's neck is sort of in the center of his neck and go straight back. More like a strangulation than a hanging. Also,
the way he was hanging, and we know he was dead for at least two hours before
he was found. They could tell that by the mark that was left in his neck. Probably more than two hours, but at
least two hours. Well, in that case, he should have what's called levidity on the back of his legs and his buttocks.
You know, when you die, your blood stops circulating and then it just it sinks in
your body. Gravity takes it down to the lowest points and you get like a blotchiness in the skin. Sort of like a
looks like sort of like a port wine stain. And uh the back of his legs and his buttocks should have signs of lidity
in it. Really doesn't. There are signs of lidity on his upper back, you know. So, all these questions don't
make sense. All All these situations don't really add up. And Mark, do you think we're ever going
to Yeah. Do you think we're ever going to get to the truth in all of this?
Oh, I have no idea. I'd like to. I mean, you know, somebody
knows because, you know, for the longest time, I mean, Trump was saying, "Release the Epstein files." JD Vance was saying,
"Release the Epstein files." Cash Patel, the FBI director for peace, saying release the Epstein files. Bonino, you
know, and apparently he was, you know, threatening to to quit his position at the FBI over the last few days and Trump
came out over the weekend and said, "No, no, that's been patched up. That's not going to happen." Now, I mean, this is
I've never seen anything like this before. Isn't that
this government's MO? You know, the way they operate, they say they're going to do something and then two weeks go by,
it doesn't happen. They just keep saying things that sound good, but there's no followthrough. So, am I surprised?
Absolutely not. Because this is this is the pattern of this administration. Yeah. Well, and I know and I know that
uh you haven't read Trump's note from over the weekend, his truth social post, but he's he now is claiming that the
Epstein files are a fake uh that they were written by Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton. I mean, he's he's trying pretty hard to pull the wool over the the eyes
of his supporters, it seems to me. And and you know, when he's saying ridiculous things like that, I mean, do
you have any sense that there are Democratic, you know, people behind writing this thing or covering it up or
Well, well, let me ask you a question. First of all, he was arrested under the Republican administration. The Democrats had nothing to do with that. And if
everything's uh doesn't exist and there's no there's no list and there's no file and there's nothing there. Why
was he in jail? Right.
Obviously there was a case. Obviously there was a file. Um, well, and it just
sounds to me though that you're left with a I mean, obviously with maybe more questions now than ever before because I
I I know before you were trying to prove that it was a murder and that it was
covered up, but now when you have the president of the United States try, you know, who who once said,
"Release the Epstein files, declassify, whatever." now putting himself in front
of those files. This takes on a whole new dimension. It seems to me,
Jim, you know, this is not just my problem. This is a problem for every citizen of the United States. To know
that an American citizen, it looks like, was killed in in a federal prison and
the government's trying to cover it up. That should be of concern to all all the citizens, not just me because I'm his
brother. I'm concerned because I'm a citizen and I don't think that should take place in my country. No matter what
party you're in, you got to say this this shouldn't be taking place here. This shouldn't be taking place. There's
no question about it. And I you know uh your sense of where where should the
trail lead next? What would you like to see uncovered next? What what is it that
stands out to you? There's one thing that just stands out to you that needs to be investigated. What would you
where would you tell investigator? The first thing I would like to see the first thing I would like to see is what
I've asked for after the death. I've you know, Bill Bar referred to the tape that he saw. He said nobody went in or out of
the tier and that convinced him it was a suicide. You know, forget about the fact that there were 12 other prisoners on
the tier that could have killed somebody. Uh, but I've asked for the tape from that camera from 10:00 the
night before until noon the next day because that would show when the last person left that tier about 10:30 at
night or so when they locked up the tier. It would also show in the morning when Michael Thomas the guard went into
the tier. You know, that's when he found Jeffrey's body and it would show when they took Jeffrey's body off the tier.
We see who was there, who who was, you know, what condition he was in, how they handle this. And when I first asked for
that, I was told I couldn't get that footage because it was an ongoing investigation. And I understand that
they keep it, you know, under wraps. But then after the investigation was over, I asked for that footage again. And I was
very specific talking about the camera that showed the door, the the footage that Bill Bar referred to, you know, the
footage from that camera. And then I was told, well, the the two cameras that were working don't show that area.
First, I couldn't get it because it was under investigation, and now it doesn't exist. And now they release a tape
claiming to be the footage from that camera. Again, it's just boggles the mind how how stupid it is that this is
where we ended up. Someone's lying somewhere. Somebody's lying somewhere. There's no
question about it. Um Well, Mark, I appreciate you taking the time and jumping on the phone with us. And we're
showing these these pictures again, these photographs again that you sent to us. you. We're going to stay on it. If
if you can think of anything else that you want to raise, uh, you know, you're you're welcome to come back on my program anytime. I, you know, to me, I
have to say for the longest time, I thought this was really just sort of a fixation of people on the far right and
the fringe and so on, but the more, you know, I look at this, the more that I know other respected investigative
journalists look at this, just doesn't smell right. And now that Trump is trying to get in the way of it, I just
just doesn't make any sense to me. And it makes it it seems to me he's up to something here.
Yeah. Everyone who looks at all the information available or the bulk of it comes to the same conclusion.
Yeah. Something stinks. Yeah. Well, Mark Epste, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.
My safe travels. All right. You as well. I appreciate it. Yeah. I doing my best to travel safe.
I'm in Colorado right now. episode folks noticed that the backdrop behind me is a little different. That was Mark Epstein.
Appreciate your time. Thanks a lot. And everybody, I mean, you know, what can you say? You know, it happens. We're
This is modern era. Uh I'm not going to blame this on the the real world guy who
runs the Department of Transportation. But maybe I should. Maybe that's the reason why my flights got all effed up today. And I I I was going to land over
here and then I landed over there and then I had to get on a bus and I was I had Mark Epstein booked and I thought,
well, I can't, you know, what if I move the booking? You know, the the the TV newsers who are watching can appreciate
this. You know, if you move the booking, do you still have the booking? So, I thought, well, we got Mark, we got to get him on. I want to hear what he has
to say. I haven't spoken to him personally, and I think what he has to what he has to say is very important.
Um, what he's asking is very important. What he's asking is
basically for these files to be released to get to the bottom of what happened to his brother. U not not that he has a
great deal of sympathy for the crimes that were committed, but because I think we're all feeling this at this moment.
What is going on here? Don't we deserve answers? Don't we deserve the truth as
to what is going on with this Jeffrey Epstein case? Why is Donald Trump so
damn worried about it? Why is he freaking out? Why is he throwing Rosie O'Donnell into the mix when he's going
after Rosie O'Donnell? It is the It is. Remember that when the Trump fragrance came out uh over the summer, earlier
this summer, the Trump fragrance. This is the scent of desperation, ladies and gentlemen.
Available in in in all of your tacky stores now, the Trump fragrance, the scent of desperation. That's what you're
smelling right now from Donald Trump. Uh there are lots of things I suppose you can smell, but the what you're smelling
right now is desperation. When he goes after Rosie, he's desperate. And the reason why he's desperate is I think
it's because what Vicki was saying, we just we've never really heard him grilled on this topic and he should he
should be grilled on it. What is Why are you so freaked out about this, Ben? You said you were going to release the
Epstein files. And I'll say it again, dude. Where's my Epstein file, dude?
Where's my Epstein list? And I'll leave it at that. Uh, thanks everybody for putting up with my insanely white hot
background today. There was a It was actually hailing when I got off the bus,
which was necessary because my plane landed in the wrong city. When I got off the bus, it was hailing where I'm in
Colorado right now. And now, of course, it's picture perfect. I could have done this whole thing outside, but then I would have had hail hitting me uh upside
the top of my head. Uh, but in the meantime, thanks everybody for watching. Really appreciate everybody tuning in. If you missed any part of this, of
course, you'll be able to see the recording later here on Substack or on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast. A lot of people were checking
out the Apple podcast over the weekend of my conversation with Julie Brown. That's still available. I think folks
are want to listen to this as well. Mark Epstein, I think, was asking a lot of interesting questions. Uh, until next time, still reporting. I'm Jim Acasta.
Have a good evening, everybody. Take care. Bye-bye.
Jim Acosta
Aug 9, 2025 #TruthMatters #DemocracyDefenders #IndependentMedia
MARK EPSTEIN AND VICTIMS' RIGHTS ATTORNEY KEVIN KUVIN JOIN JIM FOR THIS SPECIAL REPORT.
Transcript
All right, welcome to the Jim Acosta show. It's another day that ends in why in the Epstein gate cover up. Trump said
he would release the Epstein files. That hasn't happened. He's now claiming it's not unusual that his personal attorney
is meeting with Epstein's ex-girlfriend behind bars just before she was moved to a minimum security prison. Not unusual.
Everything is unusual and how Donald Trump is handling all of this. And that's putting it mildly. My big guest
for this hour is Spencer Kubin. He is a personal attorney for several of the uh
survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. Uh Spencer, it's good to talk to you. Really appreciate your time. Um I guess
first of all, how has been the reaction uh from some of these Epstein survivors
that you're in contact with? Uh, I guess ever since this controversy got started, what was it about a month ago when the
Justice Department put out that memo saying there's nothing to see here with the Epstein files and they tried to sweep it under the rug.
Yeah. Well, thank you for having me on, Jim. I do appreciate it. You know, a lot of times what gets forgotten in this
whole story is frankly the victims. We're talking about, you know, the drama surrounding Epstein and all the people
involved with Epstein, but it's really about the victims and what happened to them now going on almost 20 years ago,
right? So, this story has been around since the inception about 20 years ago
when this when this whole thing broke out. You know, these are victims who have been disappointed by the federal
government on repeated occasions. Right? If we go back to the origination of the
story, these victims were disappointed because the state attorney refused to prosecute the case originally. Then the
FBI picked up the case and promised them they would prosecute it and they didn't. And then they're disappointed because
the FBI enters into a sweetheart deal with the US attorney's office in Epstein.
And then they're disappointed again years later when he's rearrested and they allow him to somehow die in jail.
And now they're just being disappointed yet again by the Trump administration promising to release information about
co-conspirators that we know exist. We know they're out there and they're still
playing hide the ball. It's frustrating. They have been continually frustrated
and now for most of their adult lives they have just they've had no justice.
Yeah. And it's very strange the way Trump has behaved in all of this. I mean, you know, he he looks like
somebody who has something to hide. I've said that repeatedly on this show. I I I don't think that that's a stretch. I think that's a perfectly fair thing to
say. I mean, this is somebody who said during the 2024 campaign and before that that he was fine with releasing the
Epstein files. Multiple people who now serve as administration, Cash Patel, Pam Bondi, and so on, all said the same
thing. JD Vance, um, who's apparently having this strategy meeting tonight.
And then, you know, uh, to talk about this FC stuff and how they're going to roll it out, I suppose. But, you know,
then Todd Blanch, Trump's, uh, personal attorney, now Justice Department lawyer,
you know, top lawyer at the Justice Department, uh, goes down to meet with Gain Maxwell, and just a few days later,
she's moved to a minimum security prison. And I'm sure you've seen this, Spencer, but let's play it for the viewers. Trump was trying to blow this
off yesterday. Is no big deal. said it's not unusual that this this whole thing took place. Let's listen to that.
just a very highly thought of person respected by everybody and uh I didn't
talk to him about it but I will tell you that uh whatever he asked would be totally appropriate and it's not an
uncommon thing to do that and I think he probably wants to make sure that you know people that should not be involved
or aren't involved are not hurt by something that would be very very unfortunate very unfair to a lot of
people but I will say this uh Todd Blanch is one of the most highly respected people you'll ever meet. So, I
know this. I didn't discuss it with him, but anything he talked about with her or the fact that he did that, not unusual,
number one, and most importantly is uh something that would be totally above board.
Yeah, not unusual, Trump says. What do you think? I mean, how many different things about
what he just said are just not correct? I I would start with the not unusual part. It is unusual. It's highly
unusual. You know, look, the transfer of her from one facility to another, that
did not occur or the fact that that was going to happen didn't happen after the
interview. My guess is in dealing with these exact kind of cases. In fact, I
had a sex trafficking case where I had to conduct a deposition, sworn testimony of a sex trafficker that was behind bars
in jail just last week. And he came out of his cell. He showed up for the deposition, says, "I'm not talking to
you." They don't have to talk to anyone. Glenn Maxwell did not have to talk to the DOJ. She could have just refused it.
My guess is her lawyer probably said, "If you want her to talk to you, you
better give her something. What can you give her to convince her to talk to you?" and they probably rolled out the
offer of transfer to a nicer facility in Texas and said, "Look, if she gives us
the time and talks to us, we'll agree to a transfer so that she can go to a nicer facility." So, it was a strictly quid
proquo. That's how these things work. When you have a bargaining chip, even if you're an inmate, you're going to play
it. But, yeah, you don't conduct an interview with someone who is a convicted liar. Nothing
that woman says can be trusted. Nothing. Yeah. The only thing that we can trust and the
only thing the victims want to see is the evidence, the physical evidence, the videotapes that we know the FBI has over
thousands of hours of videotapes taken inside the mansions, the documents, right? All of those investigative memos
that the FBI has done. That's what needs to come out. not a lying convicted sex
predator who is going to get up and lie to save her own tail.
Yeah. And and what do you think um they're they're trying to hide here? I mean, what what do we think is in those
files? I mean, is there anything that you can share in terms of what your knowledge is? I mean, I know you
probably can't get into names and that sort of thing, but maybe you can. I don't know. But what what can you share?
What do you think they're hiding? Here's what I can say with certainty because this is generally in the public domain
at this point after this many years of, you know, little bits of information leaking out.
Yeah. We know that a number of people visited the mansions that he had in Manhattan, in Palm Beach, in New Mexico, and in the
Virgin Islands. We know that a number of very famous people, politicians, you
know, actors, um, notable individuals have flown on his jets back and forth to
different locations. royalty, you know, including and up to royalty. So those
people that are out there already, we know that they traveled and were traveling within his circle.
Epstein's orbit always contained young girls wherever he went.
Yeah. Wherever he went, he had young teenage young girls around him everywhere. So if
you're traveling with Jeffrey Epstein to Jeffrey Epstein's home, it would have
been impossible for anyone in that orbit to not see what is happening around you
with these young girls. It's odd, right? Yeah. You should never, if you're a politician
or a famous individuals, want to be caught around somebody who has a cache
of young girls around him. It's just odd. That's even if they didn't do
anything inappropriate. It's just inappropriate to be friends with a guy. And then we know that there
were individuals, including royalty, that were socializing with him. Even after he was convicted here in South
Florida, after my cases were finished and he then plead guilty and got the sweetheart
deal, he still had people that were socializing with him and pretending like it never happened.
Yeah. Well, and and I mean, you know, it's been reported that Donald Trump flew on the plane. Uh, and you know, I I
don't know what you can say about that, but in in the cases that you dealt with, the the victims, the survivors that you
represented, um, were there any dealings with Gla Maxwell? Was she in the picture at that point? And what what what do
those folks, and I feel terrible for them, the these victims, these survivors, what do they say about
Maxwell? So there were two groups of victims um back in the original cases
that I handled in 2007208. Those were all very young local girls
that went to a local high school called Royal Palm Beach High School here in the western community in Palm Beach County.
These girls were ages 14 to 16 years old who were convinced to come out to the
mansion on Palm Beach Island back in the early 2000s and ended up in a situation
where Epstein had them, you know, get undressed and naked massages and whatnot
at his home here in Palm Beach. They did not interact with Maxwell. They interacted with recruiters that were
working in the Palm Beach mansion that were young girls in their 20s who had recruited them essentially working in
this recruiting scheme. Yeah. Those recruiters would work with Maxwell
directly and Maxwell would train the recruiters how to get young girls and
from time to time Maxwell would also reach out and find young girls to recruit and bring back to Epstein and
again to become victims. We had evidence in one of our cases where Miss Maxwell literally was in a car with another
witness and stopped the car in the middle of the streets and saw a young girl walking on the street in a little
high school school uniform. Stopped her, gave her her number and said, "You should call me. I work for uh a guy that
handles models and and we love, you know, you're beautiful and you need to come visit us." That's what she was
doing. She was hunting. In addition to that, I had one victim uh who went
public, Caroline Kaufman in New York, and she was recruited out of a horse show in upstate New York and brought to
the home in Manhattan. And she was actually attacked sexually by not only
Epstein, but in addition, Miss Maxwell. So Maxwell was not only just recruiting
victims, but she was playing a part actively in the abuse of victims. And so
what are your clients saying when when they hear that there's this very strong speculation that Donald Trump is going
to pardon her, that there's going to be a quid proquo? I mean, according to uh according to ABC News during her
interview with Blanch, she said nothing would be harmful to Donald Trump telling
Blanch that Trump had never done anything in her presence that would have caused concern. This is according to sources familiar with what she said.
This is what they're telling ABC News. Uh yeah. So let's obviously Yeah, that's very
self-erving sounding. Let's reverse that statement for a minute. Yeah, please. Yeah. Right. She says that I didn't meaning
her, she didn't see anything that she found inappropriate. She didn't find sex trafficking
inappropriate. She didn't find raping young girls inappropriate. So, how are we to utilize her judgment
of what is and is not appropriate to determine whether or not she believes someone, Trump or anyone else did
anything appropriate or not? And again, she said very carefully, I didn't
witness anything, which means that if she provided a young 14-year-old to
someone, anyone, right? Let's not say it's Trump. Let's say it's Mr. Jones, and Mr. Jones takes this 14-year-old
behind a closed door. I don't know what's happening behind that closed door, but I have a strong idea what's
happening because of the sex trafficking that I've been doing for the last 10 years. So, look, there are so many ways
that her attorney can coach her to give answers that may be helpful to the administration, but yet are still
subverting the truth. That's why videotapes, documented evidence, that's
what the victims want released, not some liar who's going to testify just to save her skin. Yeah. And I mean those those
files are kind of a motherload, right? I mean they they have a lot of very
important information in there. Absolutely. And I you know this is what the survivors want. This is what they've
been asking for for years. And we've always always advocated the co-conspirators are just as guilty and
should all be brought down and should have been brought down when Epstein was convicted. Yeah.
And um what what do you think is the potential
um if Galain Maxwell is pardoned? If she is set free, what what do you suspect
the the blowback to be like, the reaction to be like? It's it would be absolutely unbelievable
and an atrocious mis miscarriage of justice. I mean, it would just be absolutely awful for something like that
to occur. But again, there are ways that the administration can do it without
having a large blowback. In other words, to minimize the blowback, the administration could say, "Look, if you
testify and keep everything about Trump quiet and say he didn't do anything wrong, then what we'll do is we'll
commute your sentence." And immediately before Trump leaves office, the day before he leaves office, he signs the
commutation and her sentence is over. Thus decreasing her sentence to three
and a half just three and a half years from now or four years from now getting released. Yeah,
that's a way he could do it and not care about the blowback at that point because he's walking out of office.
Yeah. And and in the meantime, he's made her life more comfortable by moving her to this minimum security prison, which I
mean, you know, the Washington Post had a story out this morning. They talked to a variety of, you know, corrections
experts who say, you know, this is, you know, contrary to what Trump says. This is all highly unusual.
Of course it is. It's incredibly unusual. It violates the Department of Justice and Department of Prison's own
standards and protocols for who can be and who cannot be transferred to a
facility like this, which is infamously known as clubfed. I mean, they they get
customized workouts every day and can walk around and and chitchat with the
others and, you know, specialized meals and it's a hotel that they just can't leave.
Yeah. And you know, the other thought that's been on my mind and I I wanted to ask
you about is I mean I I spoke with Jeffrey Epstein's brother Mark Epstein um a couple weeks back and he suspects
and you know if you talk to Julie Brown over at the Miami Herald, she is has feelings on on this as well that that
there there's something fishy with uh Jeffrey Epstein's um suicide as as it's
been described by the authorities. real fishy. Yeah. What What are your thoughts on that? Yeah. So, I mean, I've seen the evidence
when it occurred. Um, you know, I had a number of people that reached out to me because of my connections with the case
for so long and for so many years. I actually had a former guard that uh that
was at a fairly high level uh at the institution where he was being held. Now, the guard that called me made it
clear he wasn't working there at the time. He had left and retired. But the
way he explained it to me was that this was a prison within a prison within a prison. I mean, it was the most secure
prison that we have here on the east coast of the United States. You've got terrorists that bombed, you know, the
the World Trade Center that were being held at this particular prison. There are cameras everywhere.
And for Jeffrey Epstein to be able to allegedly commit suicide in a facility
like this, you would have had to have a massive failure within the system. And
they said that cameras weren't working, right? Two guards fell asleep. His cell was uh
littered with bed sheets and wires and pills and all kinds of things thrown
about his cell. He had just been removed from protective custody on suicide watch
where he would have had a second roommate or a cellmate that was in with him. So all of that had to occur which
means that it was a massive failure on the part of Department of Justice which they never investigated the failures and
nobody has been reprimanded as far as I've heard. Yeah. Or he didn't commit suicide. And the one
piece of physical evidence that has me convinced that it wasn't suicide is a
picture from his autopsy showing the ligature mark on his neck. That is the
most convincing evidence I think I've seen because unfortunately I have seen in my career suicides and autopsies
before. And when you have a liature mark and somebody is hung, the liature mark
is at an angle because they're hanging from the second rung of the bunk bed,
which is where he they claim he had hung himself. And that liature mark is going to be angled. If you look at the liature
mark that he had, it's straight across his neck, almost as though it was from directly
behind him. That again, physical evidence is what I
rely upon, not people and testimony. That physical evidence does not comport with a suicide.
So I it's highly suspect. And you know, look, all I would say is
that I hope Glenn Maxwell has evidence that's protected somewhere, physical evidence that she can use to protect her
own skin because I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't make it out alive either.
Yeah, no, no question about it. I mean, that that's been on my mind, too, is you know, what happens to her. Um, but you
know, the when you mentioned the evidence, the physical evidence uh from the from the prison where where Epstein
was being held. Um, there's also this this issue of missing footage uh missing
security camera footage. Uh Pam Bondi apparently put out this excuse that, you know, one minute of every day there's a
there's a there's a gap in the security camera footage. And then just the other day, CBS News reported, I'm sure you saw
this. Yeah. That the FBI apparently is in possession or the Department of Justice is in possession of the full video that there
there is not a gap missing in that video. And so it just again, it just there are all these crazy questions that
are emerging in this in this case. And it just begs the question, what are they
hiding? What are they covering up? Why won't they release the files? It seems to me the public has a at least the the
oversight committee up on Capitol Hill and the House of Representatives should have the ability to review that footage
and see, you know, what the unedited footage or the unaltered or whatever it is uh footage looks like because that
sounds inside of his cell though. That's right. the footage shows outside
of his cell, people entering or leaving or, you know, that's not going to be the
penultimate footage that you would want to see. You'd want to see the footage from inside of his cell. And apparently those cameras weren't working.
Yeah. Right. So, who the heck knows? And and look, as far as the, you know,
congressional oversight, um, one of the things that I think is important to note that's missing from
the subpoenas that were issued by Congress, I did not see where they have issued a subpoena for Alex Aosta. Alex
Aosta was the lead prosecutor at the Southern District of Florida. He's the one that shut out my clients and didn't
tell them that this deal was going down. He's the one that negotiated the sweetheart deal and signed off on it.
He's the one that the federal judge here in Miami said violated the Crime
Victim's Rights Act by failing to inform the victims that they were negotiating a deal. Yeah. And Trump strangely made him the
labor secretary. I remember this because where is his subpoena? Where is his subpoena? Where is Alex Acasta? And I, as I often point out, no
relation here, but no relation. Yes. No relation. No. But but I uh but I do
think that that's a very important point because you're right, the oversight committee chairman James Comr put out those subpoenas and he asked for Bill
and Hillary Clinton and all these attorneys general and so on, but not Alex Aosta. Why not ask for a lead prosecutor who's
seen all the evidence? He's seen it all because he had to. He prepared a 40count
indictment that we still haven't seen. They buried the indictment. So what's your sense of how this is
going to play out? Um, do you think Maxwell cuts a deal, she's sprung loose,
she's pardoned? Um, I know you thought that maybe it might happen towards the end of his administration, but I I
that's a long time for her to be cooling her heels inside Club Fed. And I just kind of wonder where this
might be heading. And and I guess the larger question is, do you think Donald Trump has something to hide here?
Personally, yes, I absolutely think he does. Without a doubt, I think he has something to
hide. Whether or not it's something that's criminal or whether or not it's just his associations and multiple times
that he appears in the record with regards to Epstein, you know, that we wouldn't know until we actually see the
documents, but he definitely doesn't want his name associated with this pedophile and this sex trafficker. So,
and we do know that his name appears in the record numerous times. We just don't know what context he appears within the
records. And I think that that would be embarrassing to him if it came out that way. So he's trying to avoid that. You
know what I would also point out is they throw up this false concept of security that oh we audio taped the interview.
Okay. Well, I've audiotaped interviews before. How many times do you sit even
for you know for you Jim? Right. We talked before the tape started rolling did we not? And we discussed some issues
before the tape started rolling. Right. Sure. Sure. Sure. It happens all the time. So then the attorney gets in there and says, "Okay,
listen. Here's the deal. If you exonerate Trump, we'll cut you a
deal. And here's the deal. Here's how it's outlined. You can talk about anybody else. Just don't talk about
Trump." You good with that? Okay, I'm good with that. Okay, record.
Yeah, but that's not on the recording. Exactly. You would never know. You would never know. That's why all of this needs to be
in the open. But it's and when they say, "Well, we'll put out grand jury testimony." And I guess she
has said, "No, I don't want the grand jury testimony out there." Probably because she doesn't want more damaging testimony out there that's been
released. Uh, you know, you know, painting the picture of a monster, which is what she is, and she doesn't want
that out there. But, you know, the the the grand jury testimony is not going to tell us anything as it relates to Donald
Trump. I can't imagine that would say anything. There were only four victims in the grand jury. That's it. There were four
victims that were discussed and only two witnesses that testified. It's a very limited uh piece, very small
piece of this entire story. Yeah. And and what is the what is life
like for the survivors? I you know I you use the word victims and that is that is
I know people say, "Oh, we we should call them survivors, but they are victims. I mean that's that's just that's the way it is. They were
victimized. They were um raped and abused and and and so on. But what is
life like for the ones that you've represented? I can't I mean I just have to think their their lives were taken
from them. That's the the awful tragedy of this. Yes. And and I think that that's the
case with some of the victims. And I think it is a um it's very individual
how trauma affects a young child and how that affects them growing up into their
future and adulthood and parenthood and whatnot. It it is individual to each victim. So there is no generic way to
say okay when this happens to a child it's going to affect them this way. Um,
some of the victims have moved on with their lives, put this in their past, basically locked it in a box in the back
of their brain, and I never want to deal with this again. Yeah. And they have families, they're married
with children themselves, but it affects them in ways that uh aren't necessarily
apparent to even them. So, for example, um you know, they have daughters and
they're now in their 30s and their daughter wants to go to a friend's house for a party or an event. You become a
hyperprotective parent because of what happened to you as a child. And that hyper parenting can affect how you
parent your own child. You have other women who were devastated and never really got over it and have
mental issues, um, cope with drugs or alcohol because that's the way they were
able to cope with the trauma that affected them. Um, you know, it's it's a real
cross-section of how it affects everyone. Do they ultimately get justice? Do they
ultimately get the truth?
That would be the hope. Yeah. Um but after 20 years of doing
this, I'm not optimistic. Yeah. It's unfortunate
and and and it has to be stated very clearly, somebody who is standing in the way of
that right now is the president of the United States. Yeah. I mean, as I've said numerous times on different networks, all he has
to do is sign an executive order today. You know, he has no qualms about signing executive orders on a heartbeat. Sign an
executive order releasing everything. That's it. Stroke of a pen. I hereby
direct the Department of Justice and FBI to release all documents and investigative files on Jeffrey Epste and
Glenn Maxwell. Done. You could do it tomorrow. Well, I I don't see that happening, but
uh Spencer Kubin, I I appreciate you giving your time and representing your
clients the way that you have and and just being a you know, a truth teller and all of this. I it it you know this
this cover up is is just crying out for justice and for truth and something for
these survivors, these victims that they can hold on to and say, you know, this this the struggle that I've been dealing
with for all these years did add up to something. I agree. I agree. And he and I would
tell anyone and everyone that can access information on the internet, you know,
uh there were phone message books, phone message pads that were confiscated and taken by police at his mansion in Palm
Beach. I implore everyone to find them and read them. Find out who was calling the house. There's information that I
just can't disclose. But any information that's in the public domain, it's free
and fair game. And the press and individuals should be asking everyone who called that house and who's showing
up on those message pads, why were they calling that house? Yeah, it's a damn good question. Maybe
we'll look into that. Um, Spencer Kubin, thank you very much for your time. Really appreciate it. I am coming to you live from Colorado.
Uh, and so yes, don't have my usual studio behind me. And if it it it seems
like uh you know uh I'm at the airport, it's because I'm at the airport. Uh I uh
wanted to bring this to you earlier today. Had some travel issues and so here I am. But you know what? The news
doesn't stop and neither does this show. Uh and and another neither does our our
quest for the truth when it comes to the Jeffrey Epstein case as we've been calling it, Epstein Gate. Uh, ever since
the Department of Justice about a week ago or so released that Department of Justice memo that basically attempted to
sweep all of this under the rug, um, I have a special guest. I was a little bit
uh, I guess I was a little bit shady in terms of who I was going to have on this afternoon, keeping my cards close to the
vest, but I'm going to bring on now uh, Mark Epstein. He is the brother of Jeffrey Epstein. Uh Mark has asked that
we not show his face. Uh but we are we are going to bring his voice to you so you can hear from him. Uh Mark, can you
hear me? Yes, I can. Marky, uh thank you very much for
joining us. We really appreciate it. Uh I guess first of all just to jump right into this uh your thoughts on how all of
this has been handled since I guess it was a week ago Sunday when the Department of Justice released that memo
uh that tried to make the case that your brother was not murdered, that he
committed suicide uh and that there basically was no grand conspiracy and that they weren't planning on putting
out any kind of uh files or list despite what Pam Bonnie, the attorney general
said. your thoughts on all of that and we'll catch up on some other things in
Okay. Well, as I Okay. As I told you, my major concern is
the circumstances around my brother's what I now refer to as his murder. I used to say his death, but uh ever since
he died, the government has been covering things up, not giving information. And it begs the question,
if this purely was a suicide, why are they being so secretive? And why am I getting the runaround? It's it's uh and
one thing that they don't mention, and it's very important, is that when after Jeffrey died, the next day, they did an
autopsy. The autopsy was performed by Dr. Roman, who was a New York City
pathologist. And I had Dr. Boden there to witness the autopsy because I have the right to have a pathologist there.
And they both came out of the autopsy room saying they couldn't call it a suicide because it looked too much like
a homicide. That's a picture of Jeffree cell door that you just put up. You don't see what we're looking at
here, Mark. Okay. That's the cell door in the in the shoe. It's the maximum security tier of
the That's was Jeffy's cell after he died. They put, you know, do not uh the police tape on it, but that's his cell
door, which you do not see in the video that they released because to get to
that cell door, you have to first enter the maximum security tier. Do you have that? Could you put up that picture with
the staircase and the door to the tier? Yeah, we'll try to put that up. Uh we
have that uh picture and so we can put it up. Yeah.
Okay. They're not you don't hear mention that the actual autopsy when it was performed by Dr. Roman with Dr. Bottom there they
came out saying they could not call this a suicide because it looked too much like a homicide and on the initial death
certificate that day it on cause of death it says pending further investigation because to them
professionals it looked like a homicide and then a few days later uh Dr. Samson,
the chief medical examiner, she calls it a suicide without any explanation of
what further study was done. Bear in mind, she never saw the body. She wasn't at the autopsy. So, what is she basing
that conclusion on? It It's just And she won't speak to anybody about that. It's
like, why? If this was a suicide, why the secrecy? Yeah, that's my Yeah, that's my
question, too. I don't understand this. And you know, for the longest time, I think a lot of folks were not really
paying as close attention to this case as they should have because the government did put out the the line that
uh that this was a suicide. Uh but I talked to Julie Brown, an investigative journalist with Miami Herald last week.
I talked to Tara Paul Mary, another investigative journalist, and they both say that there's reason to believe and
and I think they they point to the medical examiner that you were with, Mark, uh that there's reason to believe
that this was a homicide. And there's the picture of the staircase that you mentioned leading up to the cell. What
What are we looking at here? Okay, that's uh through that barred door
at the top of the stair. That's the tier, the maximum security tier that Jeffrey's cell was on. So to go to
Jeffrey's cell, you have to go up that staircase, enter through that bar door,
and Jeffrey's cell was to the right of that door. Uh when you enter that tier,
it's a like a long corridor, and there are four cells on either side. Uh if you
show the other photograph I uh sent to you, it's a picture of the tier itself,
basically standing when you enter that door, it's a picture of the tier. You see three cells on each side. The
closest one's not visible. Jeffre cell is on to the right side, right? That's
the tier. And if you look at the far wall of that tier, there's a camera on that wall
pointing at you. So, anything that took place on that tier would be captured by
that camera on the far wall. But, as we all know, that camera wasn't working that night. No.
Yeah. What do you make of that? Yeah, Mark. I mean, apparently that we don't have uh that camera in its footage from
that night. There's apparently uh an interruption in some of the other footage. I mean, just, you know, there's
also the issue of the the blankets and the pillows and the mattresses being in the in the cell. Apparently, that wasn't
uh standard operating procedure. It's just a lot of stuff here that doesn't add up. I I know. And in the video they showed a
guy walking and you can't see that that you can't make out that if that's Jeffrey. I don't think it is. It doesn't
look like the way he walked. And if you I try to blow it up. You can't see who that person is. And they said they
walked him over and he went into his cell. Now from the pictures I just showed you, you can't just walk over and
walk into a cell. You have to go up the stairs. You have to go through that bar door. You have then Jeffree cell door
was to the right. So it's not as simple as just walking through a door. So that's why when I first saw that I said
that's not where Jeffrey was. That's not what his uh situation was. So it's it's why. And then the other thing that
really got to me is when Cash Patel came out, you know, recently in the in a
hearing and he you know he listed his credentials and then he said you know you know a suicide when you see it and
my I laughed. I mean how many suicides has this guy seen and what and what's his expertise? He's not a you know
pathologist. He's not a doctor. I joked and I said what does he have a boy scale merit badge you know in first aid you
know and Dr. Bon who has done about 500 autopsies over the last 50 some odd
years that he's been doing this you know he has done prison autopsies for 50 years and Dr. Roman who this was not her
first autopsy. I don't know how many she's done, but they both professional forensic pathologists came out saying to
them this looks like a homicide, not a suicide. That's not mentioned in the justice report at all. And that's also
why not and and why is it do you think that Pam Bonnie the attorney general saying back
in February I have the client list on my desk and then you know she says uh the
other day in the cabinet meeting with Trump oh I was talking about the files there's no way the the Epstein files
could possibly fit on her desk as we know this it's a treasure trove of information and so I mean what do you
make of what Pam Bonnie has been saying? Well like I said I'm not that concerned with his case. I'm not a prosecutor. I'm
not a defense attorney. But it seems like all of Trump lackeyis will say anything they can to please him and and
try to squash this whole issue. And yeah, I use the word lackey because that's what everyone calls him when they
talk to me. Well, and and then there's the matter of Trump himself. I mean, I'm sure you saw
this over the weekend. He put out this lengthy statement on Truth Social, you know, all but begging his supporters as
loyalists uh to give up on this case, to stop focusing on this case. he was
standing up for fan body and so on. What did you think of that when you saw that? Well, to honest with I did not actually
see that. I'm I've been traveling the last week, so I've been on the road. I haven't seen I've heard about it a lot.
And to me, it's sort of like, well, I'm not surprised because, you know, assuming if Jeffrey was
murdered, you know, who was responsible and who were these people covering up for, you know, people are telling me
that it points to Trump. Someone should ask him what he knows about this.
Yeah. Well, if we get the chance to ask him, we'll certainly ask him. But uh but Mark, and and for folks who are just tuning in, I'm talking to uh Mark
Epstein, the brother of Jeffrey Epstein. And and Mark, what about this relationship between Donald Trump and
Jeffrey Epstein. We've seen all the photographs. They're all over social media. People have seen those for years.
Uh your thoughts on that? I I know that they they were they described each other
as being very close friends for a long period of time. They were good friends. They they used
to fly back and forth to Florida on each other's planes. You know, I I'm not going to say frequently, but certainly a
lot more than once. Uh and they used to hang out. And I know in the early 90s,
Donald was in Jeffy's office quite a bit when he was in financial trouble. He was talking to Jeffrey a lot, you know, and
Jeffrey would tell me if something funny happened and that's he was my brother. So, you know, we would relate funny stories to each other. He would tell me
things, you know, with Donald that might have been funny because he said Donald was a funny guy. And uh initially they
had fun hanging out together, but then the relationship soured and um you know, I I was once with them together when we
flew up from Florida and this was back in 1999 before any of this trouble started. But they yeah, they were good
friends. I know Trump is trying to distance distance himself from that, but they were good friends.
Yeah. I mean, what do you make of that? Because now he calls him a creep and and he says all of these things about your
brother now, but I mean, if you look at the footage of them together, we've seen them dancing together on the dance
floor. And I mean, I think Donald Trump told New York Magazine back in 2002 about how they were good friends and
talked about uh Jeffrey's taste in in in women, as a matter of fact, and young ladies. Um, and as it turns out, it was
obviously uh more than that. But, you know, do you think that there's any chance that that Trump is in these files
in a way that he doesn't want to see that information get out? And is he possibly motivate motivated by all of
this? I mean, it sure seems to me he's motivated by all of this and trying to keep this swept under the rug.
Well, it sounds plausible to me. I mean, your your listeners uh their opinion on
this is just as valid as mine. And I wasn't there. I don't know what exactly took place, but I do know that Jeffrey
told me he had dirt on Trump. I don't know what that was, but in the 2016
election, he said, you know, if he said what he knew, they'd have to cancel the election. So, that's a direct quote. So,
uh I I don't know what he certainly. Yeah. And also, at the time, if you
recall, Steve Steve Bannon said that the only person he feared for for Donald Trump's sake was Jeffrey Epstein.
And so what does that mean? Did you Yeah, I know. I remember that. But do you have any sense of what any of that
means? I mean, is it one of those things where we just have to do the math ourselves and we can sort of draw our own conclusions? And I I suppose that's
enough to go to Trump and say, "What gives? What's with all this?" Yeah. Go ask Trump what what does
Jeffrey Epste have? What did Why was Steve Bannon afraid of Jeffrey Epste? What did Jeffrey Epste know that made
Steve Bannon afraid? That's a question I would ask. I think I think the listeners would want
to answer the same question. Oh, I think everybody wants to know now. I mean, Trump you you maybe you saw the footage of him in the cabinet meeting
when somebody asked the question, he tried to shut that down. I will tell I mean I've been around him for a long time over the years. I've been up close
with them. I think I know when he's worried and it looked to me he was freaking out the other day in the
cabinet meeting and if you look at that truth social post which goes on about three pages, he's freaking he's just
obviously freaking out over this case. And to me, it just begs the question, what does he know? What's the deal? It's
like the old Watergate question, what does the president know? What did the president know? When did he know it? And if he had anything to do with directing
the Department of Justice to release that memo, obviously then the questions come back to the White House. Do you
think that this is ever I mean, do do you think that Donald Trump could possibly be behind what happened to your
brother? Does that thought ever cross your mind? I know you mentioned something along these lines to Don. I think it's possible. Yeah,
I I would not dismiss that possibility because you know like I said the people that are making all this thing like Bill
Bar initially, Cash Patel, Pan Bunny, who do they work for? They work for Donald Trump. So, you know, let's let's
assume now like I said, I don't like to speculate, but if you go want to go down that road, assume Trump was responsible.
Okay. Well, then he has his justice department cover it up because who else
would be responsible that would have the power and the uh be in a position to have the justice department,
you know, skewer the facts. You know, when you read the Justice Department report,
there's a lot of inaccuracies in there, you know, about the way Jeffrey was found. And the autopsy doesn't match the
way uh they describe Jeffrey hanging. I mean, for four, almost four years, we
were trying to find out what position Jeffrey was in when he was found. We could never find that out until the
Justice Department report came out. And it seems uh that it really doesn't match
the results of the autopsy, right? Was there also an issue of how he
apparently how it was described that he hung himself? I'm not going to stipulate that he did because we just don't know for sure, but how it was stipulated that
he hung himself that that apparent there there might have been some flaws in that story too. Can you elaborate on that?
Well, yeah. It's um it's this is public information. It's in the Justice Department report. They said when he was
found, he was in a seated position with his legs extended in front of him and he
was hanging from the top bunk in in the cell. And when they either cut him down or tore him down, they said his buttocks
was an inch or an inch and a half off the ground, which means the bulk of his body weight was hanging by the neck.
Now, if you sit in that position with your feet extended, you you have about 20 pounds of weight on your feet. And
Dr. Boden tells me the head weighs about 13 pounds. So there was about 150 pounds
hanging on this liature or with the head 160 somehat pounds hanging on the liature. First of all, I I I I question
whether that liature made out of a bed sheet could support that weight. I've actually was able to purchase some
linings from prisons and tested it and it's really it's questionable whether a
six-in strip of that fabric could hold all that weight. And then if that's the way he was hanging, the mark on his
neck, you know, that was left in his neck should be high up under his chin and go up behind his ears. you know,
like if you make believe, you know, when you're kids, you lift your neck tie up behind your head. Uh, but the mark on
Jeffy's neck is sort of in the center of his neck and go straight back. More like a strangulation than a hanging. Also,
the way he was hanging, and we know he was dead for at least two hours before
he was found. They could tell that by the mark that was left in his neck. Probably more than two hours, but at
least two hours. Well, in that case, he should have what's called levidity on the back of his legs and his buttocks.
You know, when you die, your blood stops circulating and then it just it sinks in
your body. Gravity takes it down to the lowest points and you get like a blotchiness in the skin. Sort of like a
looks like sort of like a port wine stain. And uh the back of his legs and his buttocks should have signs of lidity
in it. Really doesn't. There are signs of lidity on his upper back, you know. So, all these questions don't
make sense. All All these situations don't really add up. And Mark, do you think we're ever going
to Yeah. Do you think we're ever going to get to the truth in all of this?
Oh, I have no idea. I'd like to. I mean, you know, somebody
knows because, you know, for the longest time, I mean, Trump was saying, "Release the Epstein files." JD Vance was saying,
"Release the Epstein files." Cash Patel, the FBI director for peace, saying release the Epstein files. Bonino, you
know, and apparently he was, you know, threatening to to quit his position at the FBI over the last few days and Trump
came out over the weekend and said, "No, no, that's been patched up. That's not going to happen." Now, I mean, this is
I've never seen anything like this before. Isn't that
this government's MO? You know, the way they operate, they say they're going to do something and then two weeks go by,
it doesn't happen. They just keep saying things that sound good, but there's no followthrough. So, am I surprised?
Absolutely not. Because this is this is the pattern of this administration. Yeah. Well, and I know and I know that
uh you haven't read Trump's note from over the weekend, his truth social post, but he's he now is claiming that the
Epstein files are a fake uh that they were written by Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton. I mean, he's he's trying pretty hard to pull the wool over the the eyes
of his supporters, it seems to me. And and you know, when he's saying ridiculous things like that, I mean, do
you have any sense that there are Democratic, you know, people behind writing this thing or covering it up or
Well, well, let me ask you a question. First of all, he was arrested under the Republican administration. The Democrats had nothing to do with that. And if
everything's uh doesn't exist and there's no there's no list and there's no file and there's nothing there. Why
was he in jail? Right.
Obviously there was a case. Obviously there was a file. Um, well, and it just
sounds to me though that you're left with a I mean, obviously with maybe more questions now than ever before because I
I I know before you were trying to prove that it was a murder and that it was
covered up, but now when you have the president of the United States try, you know, who who once said,
"Release the Epstein files, declassify, whatever." now putting himself in front
of those files. This takes on a whole new dimension. It seems to me,
Jim, you know, this is not just my problem. This is a problem for every citizen of the United States. To know
that an American citizen, it looks like, was killed in in a federal prison and
the government's trying to cover it up. That should be of concern to all all the citizens, not just me because I'm his
brother. I'm concerned because I'm a citizen and I don't think that should take place in my country. No matter what
party you're in, you got to say this this shouldn't be taking place here. This shouldn't be taking place. There's
no question about it. And I you know uh your sense of where where should the
trail lead next? What would you like to see uncovered next? What what is it that
stands out to you? There's one thing that just stands out to you that needs to be investigated. What would you
where would you tell investigator? The first thing I would like to see the first thing I would like to see is what
I've asked for after the death. I've you know, Bill Bar referred to the tape that he saw. He said nobody went in or out of
the tier and that convinced him it was a suicide. You know, forget about the fact that there were 12 other prisoners on
the tier that could have killed somebody. Uh, but I've asked for the tape from that camera from 10:00 the
night before until noon the next day because that would show when the last person left that tier about 10:30 at
night or so when they locked up the tier. It would also show in the morning when Michael Thomas the guard went into
the tier. You know, that's when he found Jeffrey's body and it would show when they took Jeffrey's body off the tier.
We see who was there, who who was, you know, what condition he was in, how they handle this. And when I first asked for
that, I was told I couldn't get that footage because it was an ongoing investigation. And I understand that
they keep it, you know, under wraps. But then after the investigation was over, I asked for that footage again. And I was
very specific talking about the camera that showed the door, the the footage that Bill Bar referred to, you know, the
footage from that camera. And then I was told, well, the the two cameras that were working don't show that area.
First, I couldn't get it because it was under investigation, and now it doesn't exist. And now they release a tape
claiming to be the footage from that camera. Again, it's just boggles the mind how how stupid it is that this is
where we ended up. Someone's lying somewhere. Somebody's lying somewhere. There's no
question about it. Um Well, Mark, I appreciate you taking the time and jumping on the phone with us. And we're
showing these these pictures again, these photographs again that you sent to us. you. We're going to stay on it. If
if you can think of anything else that you want to raise, uh, you know, you're you're welcome to come back on my program anytime. I, you know, to me, I
have to say for the longest time, I thought this was really just sort of a fixation of people on the far right and
the fringe and so on, but the more, you know, I look at this, the more that I know other respected investigative
journalists look at this, just doesn't smell right. And now that Trump is trying to get in the way of it, I just
just doesn't make any sense to me. And it makes it it seems to me he's up to something here.
Yeah. Everyone who looks at all the information available or the bulk of it comes to the same conclusion.
Yeah. Something stinks. Yeah. Well, Mark Epste, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.
My safe travels. All right. You as well. I appreciate it. Yeah. I doing my best to travel safe.
I'm in Colorado right now. episode folks noticed that the backdrop behind me is a little different. That was Mark Epstein.
Appreciate your time. Thanks a lot. And everybody, I mean, you know, what can you say? You know, it happens. We're
This is modern era. Uh I'm not going to blame this on the the real world guy who
runs the Department of Transportation. But maybe I should. Maybe that's the reason why my flights got all effed up today. And I I I was going to land over
here and then I landed over there and then I had to get on a bus and I was I had Mark Epstein booked and I thought,
well, I can't, you know, what if I move the booking? You know, the the the TV newsers who are watching can appreciate
this. You know, if you move the booking, do you still have the booking? So, I thought, well, we got Mark, we got to get him on. I want to hear what he has
to say. I haven't spoken to him personally, and I think what he has to what he has to say is very important.
Um, what he's asking is very important. What he's asking is
basically for these files to be released to get to the bottom of what happened to his brother. U not not that he has a
great deal of sympathy for the crimes that were committed, but because I think we're all feeling this at this moment.
What is going on here? Don't we deserve answers? Don't we deserve the truth as
to what is going on with this Jeffrey Epstein case? Why is Donald Trump so
damn worried about it? Why is he freaking out? Why is he throwing Rosie O'Donnell into the mix when he's going
after Rosie O'Donnell? It is the It is. Remember that when the Trump fragrance came out uh over the summer, earlier
this summer, the Trump fragrance. This is the scent of desperation, ladies and gentlemen.
Available in in in all of your tacky stores now, the Trump fragrance, the scent of desperation. That's what you're
smelling right now from Donald Trump. Uh there are lots of things I suppose you can smell, but the what you're smelling
right now is desperation. When he goes after Rosie, he's desperate. And the reason why he's desperate is I think
it's because what Vicki was saying, we just we've never really heard him grilled on this topic and he should he
should be grilled on it. What is Why are you so freaked out about this, Ben? You said you were going to release the
Epstein files. And I'll say it again, dude. Where's my Epstein file, dude?
Where's my Epstein list? And I'll leave it at that. Uh, thanks everybody for putting up with my insanely white hot
background today. There was a It was actually hailing when I got off the bus,
which was necessary because my plane landed in the wrong city. When I got off the bus, it was hailing where I'm in
Colorado right now. And now, of course, it's picture perfect. I could have done this whole thing outside, but then I would have had hail hitting me uh upside
the top of my head. Uh, but in the meantime, thanks everybody for watching. Really appreciate everybody tuning in. If you missed any part of this, of
course, you'll be able to see the recording later here on Substack or on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast. A lot of people were checking
out the Apple podcast over the weekend of my conversation with Julie Brown. That's still available. I think folks
are want to listen to this as well. Mark Epstein, I think, was asking a lot of interesting questions. Uh, until next time, still reporting. I'm Jim Acasta.
Have a good evening, everybody. Take care. Bye-bye.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37971
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sun Aug 10, 2025 7:54 am
Van Hollen Brings Epstein Bill to Floor for Vote
Senator Chris Van Hollen
Aug 2, 2025
Transcript
SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: THANK YOU, MR.
PRESIDENT.
THEY HAVE WELL DESCRIBED, I
THINK, ALL THE INAPPROPRIATE
ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING
RECENTLY WITH RESPECT TO THE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO HAD
BEEN DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL
LAWYER CONDUCTING THE SECRET
INTERVIEW WITH THE EPSTEIN
ASSOCIATE MAXWELL.
AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
CONVERSATION TO CONTINUE HERE ON
THE SENATE FLOOR.
WE WERE HERE EARLIER THIS
MORNING WHERE WE DISCUSSED THE
VERY, VERY TROUBLING AND
DISTURBING CASE OF JEFFREY
EPSTEIN AND THE HORRIFYING ABUSE
OF YOUNG WOMEN AND GIRLS.
THOSE WHO WERE SO TERRIBLY
ABUSED AND TREATED DESERVE TO
HAVE THE FULL TRUTH.
THEY DESERVE TO HAVE ALL THE
FACTS COME OUT, AS DO THEIR
LOVED ONES, AS DO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
CAN HAVE SOME KIND OF CONFIDENCE
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
IS PRESENTING THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WITH THE TRUTH, BECAUSE
WE NEED TRANSPARENCY IN ORDER TO
ENSURE FULL ACCOUNTABILITY.
IT USED TO BE THE CASE THAT
DONALD TRUMP AND HIS ATTORNEY
GENERAL PAM BONDI AND OTHERS IN
THIS ADMINISTRATION SAID THEY
WANTED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF
THIS.
IN FACT, THEY SAID THEY WANTED
TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES.
BUT AS WE GOT CLOSER TO ACTUALLY
DOING THAT, THEY SUDDENLY
DECIDED THAT THEY DID NOT WANT
THE PUBLIC TO KNOW AND THAT THEY
DIDN'T WANT EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS TO
KNOW.
AND SO NOW THEY'VE DECIDED NOT
TO BE FORTHCOMING.
THE OBVIOUS QUESTION IS WHAT ARE
THEY HIDING.
AND THAT IS WHY WE TOOK TO THE
FLOOR EARLIER TODAY TO SAY
RELEASE THE DAMNED EPSTEIN
FILES.
WE'VE LEARNED JUST IN THE LAST
48 HOURS THAT AT SOME POINT
ALONG THE WAY THE FBI REDACTED
TRUMP'S NAME FROM THE EPSTEIN
FILES.
WE HAD LEARNED THAT HIS NAME WAS
VERY LIKELY IN THOSE FILES, AND
WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION ASKED THE FBI TO
DO A SEARCH OF HIS NAME IN THE
FILES.
WE NOW KNOW THAT HIS NAME WAS
REDACTED FROM THOSE FILES AT
SOME POINT ALONG THE WAY BY THE
FBI.
AS MY COLLEAGUES FROM RHODE
ISLAND AND CALIFORNIA WERE JUST
DISCUSSING, WE'VE ALSO WITNESSED
IN JUST THE LAST WEEK OR TWO THE
HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE ACTION OF
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD
BLANCHE TO CONDUCT A SECRET
INTERVIEW WITH GHISLAINE
MAXWELL, WHO WAS JEFFREY
EPSTEIN'S PARTNER IN THESE
CRIMES.
AND WHEN HE WAS ASKED AT HIS
CONFIRMATION HEARING BEFORE THE
SENATE ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD A
CONTINUING DUTY OF LOYALTY AND
CONFIDENTIALITY TO DONALD TRUMP,
HIS RESPONSE WAS YES, AS THE
FORMER PERSONAL ATTORNEY OF
DONALD TRUMP, HE HAD AN ONGOING
DUTY OF LOYALTY AND
CONFIDENTIALITY.
CLEARLY THAT DUTY OF LOYALTY AND
CONFIDENTIALITY TO DONALD TRUMP
PUTS HIM IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH
THE INTERESTS OF THE TRUTH AND
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
WHEN IT COMES TO PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
SO IT WAS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE
THAT HE HELD THAT INTERVIEW.
AS THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
JUST POINTED OUT, HE EXCLUDED
FROM THAT INTERVIEW LAWYERS THAT
HAD BEEN WORKING ON THIS CASE
FOR A LONG TIME.
IT IS ALSO A FACT BY AT LEAST
MANY REPORTS THAT HE, TODD
BLANCHE, HAS A VERY CLOSE
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
LAWYER FOR MS. MAXWELL.
AND SO THIS THING STINKS TO HIGH
HEAVEN.
AND ONE THING THEY SHOULD DO IS
IMMEDIATELY RELEASE THE
TRANSCRIPTS OF THIS SECRET
INTERVIEW THAT WAS JUST
CONDUCTED.
RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS.
ACCORDING TO ALL REPORTS, THEY
GAVE GHISLAINE MAXWELL IMMUNITY,
PROPER IMMUNITY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF HER TESTIMONY.
NOTHING SHE SAID IN THAT
INTERVIEW COULD BE USED AGAINST
HER.
SO RELEASE THE INTERVIEW
TRANSCRIPT TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL
ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT BE THE ONE
IN THE ROOM CONDUCTING AN
INTERVIEW WITH SOMEBODY WHO
MIGHT HAVE TESTIMONY THAT
DIRECTLY INCRIMINATES DONALD
TRUMP.
WE'VE ALSO SEEN JUST IN RECENT
DAYS THE QUESTION FLOATED ABOUT
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES WOULD PARDON
GHISLAINE MAXWELL.
WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKED
ABOUT THAT POSSIBILITY, HE
ACKNOWLEDGED HE HAD THAT POWER.
AS I SAID ON THIS FLOOR THIS
MORNING, PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD
IMMEDIATELY TODAY ANNOUNCE THAT
HE WILL NOT USE HIS PARDON POWER
TO PARDON GHISLAINE MAXWELL, WHO
IS SERVING A 20-YEAR SENTENCE
FOR BEING A COCONSPIRATOR IN THE
ABUSE OF YOUNG WOMEN AND GIRLS.
WHAT IS CLEARLY HAPPENING IN
PLAIN VIEW IS VERY DANGEROUS TO
OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.
WHAT IS CLEARLY HAPPENING IS THE
POSSIBILITY THAT GHISLAINE
MAXWELL AND HER LAWYERS ARE
SEEKING A PARDON IN EXCHANGE FOR
HER GIVING THE KIND OF TESTIMONY
THAT WOULD PLEASE
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
ONE OF THE FAMILIES OF THE
VICTIM, ONE OF THE VICTIMS, A
FAMILY FROM VIRGINIA, WHO LOST
THEIR LOVED ONE TO SUICIDE IN
APRIL, HAS SAID,
PRESIDENT TRUMP, DO NOT PARDON
GHISLAINE MAXWELL.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IS
CLEARLY THE SENTIMENT OF THE
OTHER VICTIMS AND THEIR
FAMILIES.
AND SO THE PRESIDENT SHOULD
TODAY ANNOUNCE THAT HE WILL
NEVER DO THAT.
NOW, EARLIER THIS MORNING,
SENATOR MERKLEY OFFERED A
RESOLUTION AND ASKED UNANIMOUS
CONSENT ON IT TO RELEASE THE
EPSTEIN FILES.
AND WE SHOULD DO THAT
IMMEDIATELY.
THAT SHOULD BE DONE IMMEDIATELY.
SENATOR DURBIN AND I WROTE TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LAST WEEK
URGING HER TO DO WHAT SHE SAID
SHE WAS GOING TO DO, WHICH WAS
RELEASE THE FILES.
BUT THAT WAS OBJECTED TO ON THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE.
AND I SEE SENATOR BARASSO ON THE
FLOOR, AND WHEN HE OBJECTED TO
SENATOR MERKLEY THIS MORNING,
THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.
HE SAID, SENATE REPUBLICANS
INCLUDED A PROVISION TO ADDRESS
THIS VERY ISSUE IN AN
APPROPRIATIONS BILL THAT
DEMOCRATS BLOCKED EARLIER THIS
WEEK.
THIS ISSUE WOULD HAVE BEEN
ADDRESSED HERE ON THE UNITED
STATES SENATE FLOOR, YET SENATE
DEMOCRATS CAME TO THE FLOOR AND
OBJECTED TO WHAT WAS IN THIS
BILL.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, MR.
PRESIDENT, I SHOULD CLARIFY THE
FACT THAT IT WAS NOT SENATE
REPUBLICANS WHO INCLUDED THAT
PROVISION IN THE APPROPRIATIONS
BILL TO REQUIRE THAT THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT RETAIN ALL THE
RECORDS WITH REGARD TO THE
EPSTEIN FILES AND THAT THEY
ANSWER CERTAIN QUESTIONS
REGARDING THOSE FILES AND
PROVIDE THOSE RESPONSES TO
CONGRESS.
IT WASN'T SENATE REPUBLICANS.
IN FACT, IT WAS MY AMENDMENT IN
THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE ON THAT VERY ISSUE.
I'M GLAD IT DID PASS
UNANIMOUSLY, AND MOMENTARILY I
WILL ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT ON
THE EXACT SAME PROVISION THAT
WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE,
WORD FOR WORD.
NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT THAT BILL
DID NOT MOVE FORWARD HERE IN THE
SENATE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO
ON FOR THE HOURS THAT WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO TALK ABOUT THE
PROVISIONS IN THE COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, JUSTICE BILL.
SUFFICE IT TO SAY THERE WAS
ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WE DISCUSSED
FOR AN HOUR THE OTHER NIGHT
REGARDING THE FACT THAT THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DECIDED
SEIZE, RESCIND, STEAL, WHATEVER
YOU WANT TO CALL IT,
$1.4 BILLION THAT HAD BEEN SET
ASIDE FOR A SECURE FBI
HEADQUARTERS, AND THEY DECIDED
TO SNATCH THAT MONEY AWAY FROM
THE SELECTED SITE AND PUT IT TO
ANOTHER SITE.
AND MY VIEW IS WHENEVER THE FBI
BUILDS THE NEW HEADQUARTERS, IT
SHOULD BE A SECURE SITE.
THAT WAS A DISAGREEMENT TO --
THAT LED TO THE FACT THAT THAT
BILL DID NOT PASS AT THAT TIME.
WE ALL KNOW, SENATOR BARASSO
KNOWS, THAT THE BILLS TAKE A
LONG TIME TO WIND THEIR WAY
THROUGH THE SENATE, THE HOUSE
AND CONFERENCE, SO THERE'S NO
REASON TO DELAY THE PROVISION IN
THAT BILL WAS WAS UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPTED BY THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, WHICH
SENATOR BARASSO SAID THIS
MORNING, REPUBLICANS INCLUDED.
WELL, IF IT WAS INCLUDED IN THAT
BILL, WE SHOULD DO IT RIGHT NOW.
WE SHOULD GET IT DONE RIGHT NOW.
AND I'M JUST GOING TO IN CLOSING
READ THIS RESOLUTION BECAUSE
IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, MR.
PRESIDENT.
IT SAYS, IN GENERAL, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL RETAIN,
PRESERVE, COMPILE ANY RECORDS
ROW LATED TO ANY INVESTIGATION,
PROSECUTION OR INCARCERATION OF
JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND ANY SERVICE
PROVIDED TO VICTIMS IDENTIFIED
IN SUCH INVESTIGATION.
PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
RETAIN THE RECORDS.
DON'T DESTROY ANY EVIDENCE.
IT ALSO CALLED FOR A REPORT NOT
LATER THAN 60 DAYS AFTER THE
DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL
SUBMIT TO THE COMMITTEE OF
SCIENCE, JUSTICE, AND ROW LATED
AGENCIES A REPORT THAT CLUFDZ --
INCLUDEDS INFORMS ON THE JEFFREY
EPSTEIN, WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE
NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TWO,
INFORMATION OF VICTIMS,
INCLUDING NOTIFICATION OF
VICTIMS UNDER SECTION 3771 OF
TITLE 18 OF THE U.S. CODE, THE
CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT.
THREE, INFORMATION ON ANY
INVESTIGATION OF A COCON
COCONSPIRATOR, FOUR, INFORMATION
ON ANY INTERNAL VIEW OF
MISCONDUCT FINDINGS TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RELATED TO
ANY INVESTIGATIONS RELATED TO
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ANY
INVESTIGATION INTO THE FINANCIAL
TRAFFICKING NETWORKS OF JEFFREY
EPSTEIN, SIX, THE FINANCIAL TIES
OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND ANY
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN JEFFREY
EPSTEIN AND THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT OR FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS AND, SEVEN,
INFORMATION ON THE OVERSIGHT
FAILURES AT THE METROPOLITAN
CORRECTION CENTER IN NEW YORK,
NEW YORK.
FINALLY, SECTION C, PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY REDACT
THE NAMES AND PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIED INFORMATION OF ANY
VICTIM IN THE REPORTED TO
CONGRESS UNDER SUBSECTION C.
I WANTED TO READ IT TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE SO
EVERYONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT THEY
ARE VOTING FOR.
IT'S STRAIGHTFORWARD.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, ATTORNEY
GENERAL BONDI, DO NOT DESTROY
THE EVIDENCE OF THE EPSTEIN
FILES, AND WITHIN 60 DAYS
PRESENT THIS SENATE WITH ANSWERS
TO QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CASE.
THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES.
IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE
AMENDMENT THAT PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY WITH REPUBLICAN AND
DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT OT OF THE --
OUT OF THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE, THE SAME PROVISION
THAT SENATOR BARASSO THIS
MORNING SAID WAS A REPUBLICAN
PROPOSAL, SO I HOPE ALL THE
REPUBLICANS WILL JOIN US IN
SUPPORTING THIS MEASURE.
AND WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, AS
IF IN LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND
NOTWITHSTANDING RULE 22, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
SENATE PROCEED TO THE IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION OF MY BILL AT THE
DESK, FURTHER, THAT THE BILL BE
CONSIDERED READ THREE TIMES AND
PASSED AND THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER BE CONSIDERED MADE
AND LAID UPON THE TABLE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
AN OBJECTION?
MR. BARRASSO: MR. PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
MAJORITY WHIP.
MR. BARRASSO: I OBJECT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: OBJECTION
IS HEARD.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OREGON HAS THE
FLOOR.
THE SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: THANK YOU, MR.
PRESIDENT.
AS I MADE CLEAR THIS WAS THE
VERY PROVISION THAT SENATOR
BARASSO THIS MORNING SAID THAT
REPUBLICANS HAD SUPPORTED AND HE
INDICATED THAT THIS WAS
SOMETHING THAT THEY WANTED TO
SEE MOVE FORWARD.
WELL, THAT WAS THIS MORNING AND
NOW IT'S 6 O'CLOCK THIS EVENING.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHANGED.
BUT THE LANGUAGE IS THE SAME AS
WHAT SENATOR BARASSO TALKED
ABOUT THIS MORNING.
IT'S THE SAME AS WHAT SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE PASSED
ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS.
ALL OF A SUDDEN WHEN IT COMES
TIME TO ACTUALLY GET IT DONE ON
THE SENATE FLOOR, NOT JUST PART
OF AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL THAT'S
GOING TO WIND ITS WAY THROUGH
THIS PLACE WEEKS OR MONTHS, WHEN
IT'S TIME TO ACTUALLY GET IT
DONE, REPUBLICANS ARE OPPOSING
THE IDEA OF TRANSPARENCY.
I FIND THAT QUITE SHAMEFUL.
I UNDERSTAND MY COLLEAGUE FROM
OREGON, SENATOR MERKLEY, IS
INTERESTED IN MAKING SOME POINTS
AND MAYBE ASKING SOME QUESTIONS.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OREGON.
MR. MERKLEY: WOULD MY COLLEAGUE
FROM MARYLAND YIELD TO A
QUESTION?
SO IF I UNDERSTOOD YOUR
PRESENTATION RIGHT, THIS IS WORD
FOR WORD EXACTLY THE SAME, THIS
BILL, AS THE AMENDMENT YOU
PROPOSED IN THE APPROPRIATIONS
MEETING.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: YES, THAT IS
EXACTLY RIGHT.
MR. MERKLEY: I CAN TELL YOU I
READ THROUGH IT AND IT LOOKS
LIKE MIMI EXACTLY -- TO ME
EXACTLY THE SAME AND WE HEARD
FROM OUR COLLEAGUE FROM WYOMING
THAT THIS WAS A REPUBLICAN
PROPOSAL, WHICH YOU CLARIFIED
THAT YOU INTRODUCED IT AND ALSO
OBSERVED THAT IT PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
SO I'M CONFUSED.
IF MY COLLEAGUE FROM WYOMING
LIKED IT SO MUCH THAT HE WANTED
TO CLAIM AUTHORSHIP AND HE
PROCEEDED TO SAY WE LIKED IT SO
MUCH WE PASSED IT UNANIMOUSLY,
WHY IS HE OBJECTING NOW TO
ACTUALLY GETTING IT PASSED?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: WELL, SENATOR
MERKLEY, I DIDN'T HEAR AN
EXPLANATION.
I HEARD THE OBJECTION.
I HAVE NOT HEARD THE EXPLANATION
FOR THE OBJECTION, AND I THINK
IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE
AN EXPLANATION GIVEN THE FACT
THAT THE SENATOR FROM WYOMING
WAS HERE ON THE SENATE OF THE --
ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE
EARLIER, AS YOU POINTED OUT,
EXTOLLING THE VIRTUES OF THIS
AMENDMENT AND IN FACT PARTIALLY
TAKING CREDIT FOR IT.
SAYING REPUBLICANS SUPPORTED
THIS AND WANTED IT.
BUT APPARENTLY THAT WAS THIS
MORNING AND NOW IS NOW AND I
SUSPECT IT'S BECAUSE WHEN IT WAS
INCLUDED IN THE APPROPRIATIONS
BILL, IT'S INCLUDED IN A VEHICLE
THAT, AS WE SAID, WIND ITS WAY
THROUGH A LONG ROAD THROUGH THE
PROCESS.
WHO KNOWS HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL
TRY TO TAKE IT OUT BEHIND CLOSED
DOORS IN CONFERENCE AND THAT'S
WHY WE HAD A CHANCE IN THE LIGHT
OF DAY HERE IN THE UNITED STATES
TO ACTUALLY PASS THIS AND SEND
IT OFF TO THE HOUSE IMMEDIATELY
AND IF THEY PASSED IT, IT COULD
GO TO THE PRESIDENT'S DESK.
MR. MERKLEY: AND IF YOU'D YIELD
TO ANOTHER QUESTION.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: YES.
MR. MERKLEY: THIS SEEMS
EXTREMELY, WELL, MINIMAL THAT
WE'RE PRESERVING THE RECORDS.
EARLIER WE ASKED FOR A VOTE ON A
BILL THAT WOULD BE COMPLETE
DISCLOSURE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE
THAT DISCLOSURE IS MERITED GIVEN
A SET OF EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES, EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE
PRESIDENT TRUMP DANGLING A
POTENTIAL PARDON IN FRONT OF
MS. MAXWELL.
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE
THE FBI ITSELF REDACTING TRUMP'S
NAME FROM DOCUMENTS.
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD
BLANCHE GOING AND PERSONALLY
INTERVIEWING MS. MAXWELL AND NOT
TAKING ALONG THE LAWYERS WHO ARE
EXPERTS IN THIS CASE AND THEN
JUST SHORTLY AFTER SHE'S
TRANSFERRED TO A MINIMUM
SECURITY PRISON IN TEXAS, IN
OTHER WORDS, REWARDED IN A
POWERFUL WAY, A BIG DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A REGULAR PRISON AND
THIS.
SO WE WANTED DISCLOSURE, AND I
THINK AMERICA WANTS DISCLOSURE
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SEE PEOPLE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE WHO PERPETRATED
CRIMES, RAPE AGAINST YOUNG
GIRLS.
AND, YET, ALL YOU'RE ASKING FOR
IS TO PRESERVE THE INFORMATION
THAT IT NOT BE DELETED OR PUT
INTO A SHREDDER OR PUT INTO A
WOOD CHIPPER.
IS THAT RIGHT?
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: THAT'S THE HEART
OF THE AMENDMENT AND I WILL READ
THE FIRST SENTENCE, THE
TOESHL -- ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL
RETAIN, COMPILE TO -- TO
ANYTHING RELATED TO JEFFREY
EPSTEIN AND ANY SERVICE PROVIDED
TO VICTIMS PROVIDED IN SUCH AN
INVESTIGATION.
IT COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR.
IT DOES ASK FOR A REPORT ON
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
REGARDING THE EPSTEIN CASE, BUT
TO YOUR FUNDAMENTAL POINT HERE,
THIS IS SIMPLY A DIRECT ACTIVE
NOT TO -- DIRECTIVE NOT TO
DESTROY EVIDENCE THAT COULD BE
IN THE EPSTEIN FILES.
WE JUST LEARNED AT LEAST IN THE
LAST 48 HOURS THAT SOMEWHERE
ALONG THE ROAD, THE FBI HAD
REDACTED DONALD TRUMP'S NAME
FROM THE EPSTEIN FILES, SO WE
KNOW IT'S IN THERE AND WE KNOW
THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME IT
WAS REDACTED.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THESE
RECORDS ARE NOT DESTROYED.
MR. MERKLEY: ANOTHER QUESTION,
IF I MIGHT.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: YES.
MR. MERKLEY: IF I TURN THE CLOCK
BACK TO THAT APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE HEARING WHERE YOU
PRESENTED YOUR AMENDMENT AND I
WAS PRESENT, WAS THAT NOT VOTED
OUT OF COMMITTEE ON A VOICE
VOTE?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: YES, IT WAS.
IT WAS ADOPTED BY A VOICE VOTE.
MR. MERKLEY: SO THE REPUBLICANS
IN COMMITTEE SAID WE SUPPORT THE
IDEA, BUT LET'S DO IT BY VOICE
VOTE BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO
HAVE OUR NAMES RECORDED YEA OR
NAY, IS THAT SECRET?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: AGAIN, I CANNOT,
SENATOR, READ THE MIND OF ANY OF
OUR COLLEAGUES.
IT WAS A VOICE VOTE.
BUT OF COURSE, THE OBJECTION
WE'RE SEEING HERE ON THE FLOOR
OF THE SENATE TODAY INDICATES
THAT A REPUBLICAN -- OUR
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES DO NOT
WANT TO GO ON RECORD AND VOTE
WHEN IT COMES RIGHT DOWN TO IT
ON THIS PROPOSAL AND MAKING SURE
THAT THE RECORDS ARE NOT
DESTROYED.
MR. MERKLEY: HAD THE SENATOR
FROM WYOMING NOT OBJECTED, WE
COULD HAVE PASSED THIS BILL
TODAY BY VOICE VOTE, NOT
NECESSARILY HAVING A RECORDED
VOTE.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: IT WOULD HAVE
PASSED IMMEDIATELY IF HE HAD NOT
OBJECTED TO IT.
MR. MERKLEY: BECAUSE IT DOESN'T
EVEN GET TO --
MR. VAN HOLLEN: THAT'S RIGHT, IT
WOULD HAVE GONE DIRECTLY TO THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
CORRECT.
MR. MERKLEY: SO, EVEN THOUGH IT
WAS PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE BY
VOICE VOTE AND YOU OFFERED A
PROPOSAL SIMPLY TO KEEP THE
RECORDS INTACT, WHICH I MUST SAY
SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO BE ASKED
ANYWAY, BUT WHY WOULD ANY MEMBER
OF THE SENATE OBJECT TO THE
PRINCIPLE OF PROTECTING THE
RECORDS?
I'M CONFUSED.
DON'T ALL OF US BELIEVE THAT
WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE RELATED
TO A CRIME IT SHOULD NOT BE PUT
INTO A SHREDDER OR A WOOD
CHIPPER?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: IT'S A VERY FAIR
QUESTION, AND AS I INDICATED WE
DIDN'T GET AN EXPLANATION FOR
THE OBJECTION.
WE HAD THE OBJECTION MADE AND NO
FURTHER COMMENT FROM OUR
COLLEAGUES ON THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE.
AND I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT WE UNDERSCORE THE FACT FOR
OUR COLLEAGUES AND ANYBODY
LISTENING THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS
VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, DON'T
DESTROY EVIDENCE.
IT DOES ALSO REQUIRE IN 60 DAYS
THAT A REPORT BE PROVIDED THAT
PROVIDES CERTAIN RELEVANT
INFORMATION REGARDING THE
EPSTEIN CASE.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHY ANYBODY
WOULD NOT WANT THAT INFORMATION
TO BE PRESENTED EITHER.
I MEAN, THIS IS LIKE OPPOSE AN
EFFORT TO SAVE THE RECORDS,
DON'T VOID THE EVIDENCE, AND
ALSO VOTING AGAINST THE IDEA OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PROVIDING
THE UNITED STATES SENATE WITH
ANSWERS TO SOME FUNDAMENTAL
QUESTIONS.
AGAIN, AS WE DISCUSSED THIS
MORNING, THE FASTEST AND MOST
COMPLETE WAY OF DOING IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN TO SUPPORT THE SENATOR
FROM OREGON'S MOTION THIS
MORNING, JUST TO RELEASE ALL THE
FILES, RIGHT?
THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.
WE SHOULD RELEASE THE FILES, AND
THEY SHOULD DO IT NOW.
YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE A
VOTE IN THE HOUSE TO DO THAT.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN DO WHAT
SHE SAID SHE WAS GOING TO DO,
RELEASE THEM.
THAT'S WHAT MANY OF US CALLED
FOR.
THAT'S WHAT THE SENATOR'S MOTION
THIS MORNING WAS ALL ABOUT.
BUT MY GOODNESS, YOU SHOULD BE
RELEASING THEM, BUT FOR GOODNESS
SAKES WHY NOT AT LEAST SEND A
DIRECTIVE SAYING DON'T DESTROY
THE EVIDENCE?
MR. MERKLEY: I APPRECIATE MY
COLLEAGUE FROM MARYLAND BRINGING
THIS FORWARD.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE ABSOLUTE
MINIMUM WE SHOULD DO NOW IS
PROTECT THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
FUTURE.
CERTAINLY, IT SHOULD BE
RELEASED, AS BOTH OF US HAVE
SPOKEN TO.
I REALLY APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE
FROM CALIFORNIA, WHO BROUGHT HIS
LEGAL EXPERTISE, ALONG WITH OUR
COLLEAGUE FROM RHODE ISLAND, WHO
PUT IT OUT HOW EXTRAORDINARY IT
IS THAT A DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL WOULD GO AND SIT IN A
PRISON SFWUFG A KEY --
INTERVIEWING A KEY WITNESS TO
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, AND THAT
MAGICALLY WITHIN HOURS
THEREAFTER SHE'S TRANSFERRED TO
MINIMUM SECURITY, AND THE
PRESIDENT STARTS TALKING ABOUT
THE POSSIBILITY OF A PARDON.
AMERICANS, THIS IS JUST STINKING
TO HIGH HEAVEN.
AND I'LL REPEAT THE POINT I MADE
EARLIER TODAY IS NO ONE SHOULD
BE ABOVE THE LAW.
NO POWERFUL MAN SHOULD BE ABLE
TO RAPE YOUNG GIRLS AND BE
PROTECTED BY FRIENDS IN HIGH
PLACES OR BY LEGIONS OF LAWYERS
OR ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.
LET THE RULE OF LAW COME FORWARD
IN FULL FORCE TO HOLD THOSE WHO
HAVE COMMITTED EGREGIOUS CRIMES
BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: I COULD NOT
AGREE MORE, MR. PRESIDENT.
OUR MESSAGE IS SIMPLE --
RELEASE THE DAMN EPSTEIN FILES,
AND FOR GOD'S SAKES DON'T TRY TO
DESTROY THE FILES
Senator Chris Van Hollen
Aug 2, 2025
Transcript
SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: THANK YOU, MR.
PRESIDENT.
THEY HAVE WELL DESCRIBED, I
THINK, ALL THE INAPPROPRIATE
ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING
RECENTLY WITH RESPECT TO THE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO HAD
BEEN DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL
LAWYER CONDUCTING THE SECRET
INTERVIEW WITH THE EPSTEIN
ASSOCIATE MAXWELL.
AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
CONVERSATION TO CONTINUE HERE ON
THE SENATE FLOOR.
WE WERE HERE EARLIER THIS
MORNING WHERE WE DISCUSSED THE
VERY, VERY TROUBLING AND
DISTURBING CASE OF JEFFREY
EPSTEIN AND THE HORRIFYING ABUSE
OF YOUNG WOMEN AND GIRLS.
THOSE WHO WERE SO TERRIBLY
ABUSED AND TREATED DESERVE TO
HAVE THE FULL TRUTH.
THEY DESERVE TO HAVE ALL THE
FACTS COME OUT, AS DO THEIR
LOVED ONES, AS DO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
CAN HAVE SOME KIND OF CONFIDENCE
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
IS PRESENTING THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WITH THE TRUTH, BECAUSE
WE NEED TRANSPARENCY IN ORDER TO
ENSURE FULL ACCOUNTABILITY.
IT USED TO BE THE CASE THAT
DONALD TRUMP AND HIS ATTORNEY
GENERAL PAM BONDI AND OTHERS IN
THIS ADMINISTRATION SAID THEY
WANTED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF
THIS.
IN FACT, THEY SAID THEY WANTED
TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES.
BUT AS WE GOT CLOSER TO ACTUALLY
DOING THAT, THEY SUDDENLY
DECIDED THAT THEY DID NOT WANT
THE PUBLIC TO KNOW AND THAT THEY
DIDN'T WANT EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS TO
KNOW.
AND SO NOW THEY'VE DECIDED NOT
TO BE FORTHCOMING.
THE OBVIOUS QUESTION IS WHAT ARE
THEY HIDING.
AND THAT IS WHY WE TOOK TO THE
FLOOR EARLIER TODAY TO SAY
RELEASE THE DAMNED EPSTEIN
FILES.
WE'VE LEARNED JUST IN THE LAST
48 HOURS THAT AT SOME POINT
ALONG THE WAY THE FBI REDACTED
TRUMP'S NAME FROM THE EPSTEIN
FILES.
WE HAD LEARNED THAT HIS NAME WAS
VERY LIKELY IN THOSE FILES, AND
WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION ASKED THE FBI TO
DO A SEARCH OF HIS NAME IN THE
FILES.
WE NOW KNOW THAT HIS NAME WAS
REDACTED FROM THOSE FILES AT
SOME POINT ALONG THE WAY BY THE
FBI.
AS MY COLLEAGUES FROM RHODE
ISLAND AND CALIFORNIA WERE JUST
DISCUSSING, WE'VE ALSO WITNESSED
IN JUST THE LAST WEEK OR TWO THE
HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE ACTION OF
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD
BLANCHE TO CONDUCT A SECRET
INTERVIEW WITH GHISLAINE
MAXWELL, WHO WAS JEFFREY
EPSTEIN'S PARTNER IN THESE
CRIMES.
AND WHEN HE WAS ASKED AT HIS
CONFIRMATION HEARING BEFORE THE
SENATE ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD A
CONTINUING DUTY OF LOYALTY AND
CONFIDENTIALITY TO DONALD TRUMP,
HIS RESPONSE WAS YES, AS THE
FORMER PERSONAL ATTORNEY OF
DONALD TRUMP, HE HAD AN ONGOING
DUTY OF LOYALTY AND
CONFIDENTIALITY.
CLEARLY THAT DUTY OF LOYALTY AND
CONFIDENTIALITY TO DONALD TRUMP
PUTS HIM IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH
THE INTERESTS OF THE TRUTH AND
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
WHEN IT COMES TO PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
SO IT WAS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE
THAT HE HELD THAT INTERVIEW.
AS THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
JUST POINTED OUT, HE EXCLUDED
FROM THAT INTERVIEW LAWYERS THAT
HAD BEEN WORKING ON THIS CASE
FOR A LONG TIME.
IT IS ALSO A FACT BY AT LEAST
MANY REPORTS THAT HE, TODD
BLANCHE, HAS A VERY CLOSE
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
LAWYER FOR MS. MAXWELL.
AND SO THIS THING STINKS TO HIGH
HEAVEN.
AND ONE THING THEY SHOULD DO IS
IMMEDIATELY RELEASE THE
TRANSCRIPTS OF THIS SECRET
INTERVIEW THAT WAS JUST
CONDUCTED.
RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS.
ACCORDING TO ALL REPORTS, THEY
GAVE GHISLAINE MAXWELL IMMUNITY,
PROPER IMMUNITY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF HER TESTIMONY.
NOTHING SHE SAID IN THAT
INTERVIEW COULD BE USED AGAINST
HER.
SO RELEASE THE INTERVIEW
TRANSCRIPT TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL
ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT BE THE ONE
IN THE ROOM CONDUCTING AN
INTERVIEW WITH SOMEBODY WHO
MIGHT HAVE TESTIMONY THAT
DIRECTLY INCRIMINATES DONALD
TRUMP.
WE'VE ALSO SEEN JUST IN RECENT
DAYS THE QUESTION FLOATED ABOUT
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES WOULD PARDON
GHISLAINE MAXWELL.
WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKED
ABOUT THAT POSSIBILITY, HE
ACKNOWLEDGED HE HAD THAT POWER.
AS I SAID ON THIS FLOOR THIS
MORNING, PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD
IMMEDIATELY TODAY ANNOUNCE THAT
HE WILL NOT USE HIS PARDON POWER
TO PARDON GHISLAINE MAXWELL, WHO
IS SERVING A 20-YEAR SENTENCE
FOR BEING A COCONSPIRATOR IN THE
ABUSE OF YOUNG WOMEN AND GIRLS.
WHAT IS CLEARLY HAPPENING IN
PLAIN VIEW IS VERY DANGEROUS TO
OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.
WHAT IS CLEARLY HAPPENING IS THE
POSSIBILITY THAT GHISLAINE
MAXWELL AND HER LAWYERS ARE
SEEKING A PARDON IN EXCHANGE FOR
HER GIVING THE KIND OF TESTIMONY
THAT WOULD PLEASE
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
ONE OF THE FAMILIES OF THE
VICTIM, ONE OF THE VICTIMS, A
FAMILY FROM VIRGINIA, WHO LOST
THEIR LOVED ONE TO SUICIDE IN
APRIL, HAS SAID,
PRESIDENT TRUMP, DO NOT PARDON
GHISLAINE MAXWELL.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IS
CLEARLY THE SENTIMENT OF THE
OTHER VICTIMS AND THEIR
FAMILIES.
AND SO THE PRESIDENT SHOULD
TODAY ANNOUNCE THAT HE WILL
NEVER DO THAT.
NOW, EARLIER THIS MORNING,
SENATOR MERKLEY OFFERED A
RESOLUTION AND ASKED UNANIMOUS
CONSENT ON IT TO RELEASE THE
EPSTEIN FILES.
AND WE SHOULD DO THAT
IMMEDIATELY.
THAT SHOULD BE DONE IMMEDIATELY.
SENATOR DURBIN AND I WROTE TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LAST WEEK
URGING HER TO DO WHAT SHE SAID
SHE WAS GOING TO DO, WHICH WAS
RELEASE THE FILES.
BUT THAT WAS OBJECTED TO ON THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE.
AND I SEE SENATOR BARASSO ON THE
FLOOR, AND WHEN HE OBJECTED TO
SENATOR MERKLEY THIS MORNING,
THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.
HE SAID, SENATE REPUBLICANS
INCLUDED A PROVISION TO ADDRESS
THIS VERY ISSUE IN AN
APPROPRIATIONS BILL THAT
DEMOCRATS BLOCKED EARLIER THIS
WEEK.
THIS ISSUE WOULD HAVE BEEN
ADDRESSED HERE ON THE UNITED
STATES SENATE FLOOR, YET SENATE
DEMOCRATS CAME TO THE FLOOR AND
OBJECTED TO WHAT WAS IN THIS
BILL.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, MR.
PRESIDENT, I SHOULD CLARIFY THE
FACT THAT IT WAS NOT SENATE
REPUBLICANS WHO INCLUDED THAT
PROVISION IN THE APPROPRIATIONS
BILL TO REQUIRE THAT THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT RETAIN ALL THE
RECORDS WITH REGARD TO THE
EPSTEIN FILES AND THAT THEY
ANSWER CERTAIN QUESTIONS
REGARDING THOSE FILES AND
PROVIDE THOSE RESPONSES TO
CONGRESS.
IT WASN'T SENATE REPUBLICANS.
IN FACT, IT WAS MY AMENDMENT IN
THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE ON THAT VERY ISSUE.
I'M GLAD IT DID PASS
UNANIMOUSLY, AND MOMENTARILY I
WILL ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT ON
THE EXACT SAME PROVISION THAT
WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE,
WORD FOR WORD.
NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT THAT BILL
DID NOT MOVE FORWARD HERE IN THE
SENATE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO
ON FOR THE HOURS THAT WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO TALK ABOUT THE
PROVISIONS IN THE COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, JUSTICE BILL.
SUFFICE IT TO SAY THERE WAS
ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WE DISCUSSED
FOR AN HOUR THE OTHER NIGHT
REGARDING THE FACT THAT THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DECIDED
SEIZE, RESCIND, STEAL, WHATEVER
YOU WANT TO CALL IT,
$1.4 BILLION THAT HAD BEEN SET
ASIDE FOR A SECURE FBI
HEADQUARTERS, AND THEY DECIDED
TO SNATCH THAT MONEY AWAY FROM
THE SELECTED SITE AND PUT IT TO
ANOTHER SITE.
AND MY VIEW IS WHENEVER THE FBI
BUILDS THE NEW HEADQUARTERS, IT
SHOULD BE A SECURE SITE.
THAT WAS A DISAGREEMENT TO --
THAT LED TO THE FACT THAT THAT
BILL DID NOT PASS AT THAT TIME.
WE ALL KNOW, SENATOR BARASSO
KNOWS, THAT THE BILLS TAKE A
LONG TIME TO WIND THEIR WAY
THROUGH THE SENATE, THE HOUSE
AND CONFERENCE, SO THERE'S NO
REASON TO DELAY THE PROVISION IN
THAT BILL WAS WAS UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPTED BY THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, WHICH
SENATOR BARASSO SAID THIS
MORNING, REPUBLICANS INCLUDED.
WELL, IF IT WAS INCLUDED IN THAT
BILL, WE SHOULD DO IT RIGHT NOW.
WE SHOULD GET IT DONE RIGHT NOW.
AND I'M JUST GOING TO IN CLOSING
READ THIS RESOLUTION BECAUSE
IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, MR.
PRESIDENT.
IT SAYS, IN GENERAL, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL RETAIN,
PRESERVE, COMPILE ANY RECORDS
ROW LATED TO ANY INVESTIGATION,
PROSECUTION OR INCARCERATION OF
JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND ANY SERVICE
PROVIDED TO VICTIMS IDENTIFIED
IN SUCH INVESTIGATION.
PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
RETAIN THE RECORDS.
DON'T DESTROY ANY EVIDENCE.
IT ALSO CALLED FOR A REPORT NOT
LATER THAN 60 DAYS AFTER THE
DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL
SUBMIT TO THE COMMITTEE OF
SCIENCE, JUSTICE, AND ROW LATED
AGENCIES A REPORT THAT CLUFDZ --
INCLUDEDS INFORMS ON THE JEFFREY
EPSTEIN, WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE
NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TWO,
INFORMATION OF VICTIMS,
INCLUDING NOTIFICATION OF
VICTIMS UNDER SECTION 3771 OF
TITLE 18 OF THE U.S. CODE, THE
CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT.
THREE, INFORMATION ON ANY
INVESTIGATION OF A COCON
COCONSPIRATOR, FOUR, INFORMATION
ON ANY INTERNAL VIEW OF
MISCONDUCT FINDINGS TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RELATED TO
ANY INVESTIGATIONS RELATED TO
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ANY
INVESTIGATION INTO THE FINANCIAL
TRAFFICKING NETWORKS OF JEFFREY
EPSTEIN, SIX, THE FINANCIAL TIES
OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND ANY
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN JEFFREY
EPSTEIN AND THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT OR FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS AND, SEVEN,
INFORMATION ON THE OVERSIGHT
FAILURES AT THE METROPOLITAN
CORRECTION CENTER IN NEW YORK,
NEW YORK.
FINALLY, SECTION C, PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY REDACT
THE NAMES AND PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIED INFORMATION OF ANY
VICTIM IN THE REPORTED TO
CONGRESS UNDER SUBSECTION C.
I WANTED TO READ IT TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE SO
EVERYONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT THEY
ARE VOTING FOR.
IT'S STRAIGHTFORWARD.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, ATTORNEY
GENERAL BONDI, DO NOT DESTROY
THE EVIDENCE OF THE EPSTEIN
FILES, AND WITHIN 60 DAYS
PRESENT THIS SENATE WITH ANSWERS
TO QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CASE.
THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES.
IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE
AMENDMENT THAT PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY WITH REPUBLICAN AND
DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT OT OF THE --
OUT OF THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE, THE SAME PROVISION
THAT SENATOR BARASSO THIS
MORNING SAID WAS A REPUBLICAN
PROPOSAL, SO I HOPE ALL THE
REPUBLICANS WILL JOIN US IN
SUPPORTING THIS MEASURE.
AND WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, AS
IF IN LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND
NOTWITHSTANDING RULE 22, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
SENATE PROCEED TO THE IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION OF MY BILL AT THE
DESK, FURTHER, THAT THE BILL BE
CONSIDERED READ THREE TIMES AND
PASSED AND THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER BE CONSIDERED MADE
AND LAID UPON THE TABLE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
AN OBJECTION?
MR. BARRASSO: MR. PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
MAJORITY WHIP.
MR. BARRASSO: I OBJECT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: OBJECTION
IS HEARD.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OREGON HAS THE
FLOOR.
THE SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: THANK YOU, MR.
PRESIDENT.
AS I MADE CLEAR THIS WAS THE
VERY PROVISION THAT SENATOR
BARASSO THIS MORNING SAID THAT
REPUBLICANS HAD SUPPORTED AND HE
INDICATED THAT THIS WAS
SOMETHING THAT THEY WANTED TO
SEE MOVE FORWARD.
WELL, THAT WAS THIS MORNING AND
NOW IT'S 6 O'CLOCK THIS EVENING.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHANGED.
BUT THE LANGUAGE IS THE SAME AS
WHAT SENATOR BARASSO TALKED
ABOUT THIS MORNING.
IT'S THE SAME AS WHAT SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE PASSED
ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS.
ALL OF A SUDDEN WHEN IT COMES
TIME TO ACTUALLY GET IT DONE ON
THE SENATE FLOOR, NOT JUST PART
OF AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL THAT'S
GOING TO WIND ITS WAY THROUGH
THIS PLACE WEEKS OR MONTHS, WHEN
IT'S TIME TO ACTUALLY GET IT
DONE, REPUBLICANS ARE OPPOSING
THE IDEA OF TRANSPARENCY.
I FIND THAT QUITE SHAMEFUL.
I UNDERSTAND MY COLLEAGUE FROM
OREGON, SENATOR MERKLEY, IS
INTERESTED IN MAKING SOME POINTS
AND MAYBE ASKING SOME QUESTIONS.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OREGON.
MR. MERKLEY: WOULD MY COLLEAGUE
FROM MARYLAND YIELD TO A
QUESTION?
SO IF I UNDERSTOOD YOUR
PRESENTATION RIGHT, THIS IS WORD
FOR WORD EXACTLY THE SAME, THIS
BILL, AS THE AMENDMENT YOU
PROPOSED IN THE APPROPRIATIONS
MEETING.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: YES, THAT IS
EXACTLY RIGHT.
MR. MERKLEY: I CAN TELL YOU I
READ THROUGH IT AND IT LOOKS
LIKE MIMI EXACTLY -- TO ME
EXACTLY THE SAME AND WE HEARD
FROM OUR COLLEAGUE FROM WYOMING
THAT THIS WAS A REPUBLICAN
PROPOSAL, WHICH YOU CLARIFIED
THAT YOU INTRODUCED IT AND ALSO
OBSERVED THAT IT PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
SO I'M CONFUSED.
IF MY COLLEAGUE FROM WYOMING
LIKED IT SO MUCH THAT HE WANTED
TO CLAIM AUTHORSHIP AND HE
PROCEEDED TO SAY WE LIKED IT SO
MUCH WE PASSED IT UNANIMOUSLY,
WHY IS HE OBJECTING NOW TO
ACTUALLY GETTING IT PASSED?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: WELL, SENATOR
MERKLEY, I DIDN'T HEAR AN
EXPLANATION.
I HEARD THE OBJECTION.
I HAVE NOT HEARD THE EXPLANATION
FOR THE OBJECTION, AND I THINK
IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE
AN EXPLANATION GIVEN THE FACT
THAT THE SENATOR FROM WYOMING
WAS HERE ON THE SENATE OF THE --
ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE
EARLIER, AS YOU POINTED OUT,
EXTOLLING THE VIRTUES OF THIS
AMENDMENT AND IN FACT PARTIALLY
TAKING CREDIT FOR IT.
SAYING REPUBLICANS SUPPORTED
THIS AND WANTED IT.
BUT APPARENTLY THAT WAS THIS
MORNING AND NOW IS NOW AND I
SUSPECT IT'S BECAUSE WHEN IT WAS
INCLUDED IN THE APPROPRIATIONS
BILL, IT'S INCLUDED IN A VEHICLE
THAT, AS WE SAID, WIND ITS WAY
THROUGH A LONG ROAD THROUGH THE
PROCESS.
WHO KNOWS HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL
TRY TO TAKE IT OUT BEHIND CLOSED
DOORS IN CONFERENCE AND THAT'S
WHY WE HAD A CHANCE IN THE LIGHT
OF DAY HERE IN THE UNITED STATES
TO ACTUALLY PASS THIS AND SEND
IT OFF TO THE HOUSE IMMEDIATELY
AND IF THEY PASSED IT, IT COULD
GO TO THE PRESIDENT'S DESK.
MR. MERKLEY: AND IF YOU'D YIELD
TO ANOTHER QUESTION.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: YES.
MR. MERKLEY: THIS SEEMS
EXTREMELY, WELL, MINIMAL THAT
WE'RE PRESERVING THE RECORDS.
EARLIER WE ASKED FOR A VOTE ON A
BILL THAT WOULD BE COMPLETE
DISCLOSURE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE
THAT DISCLOSURE IS MERITED GIVEN
A SET OF EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES, EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE
PRESIDENT TRUMP DANGLING A
POTENTIAL PARDON IN FRONT OF
MS. MAXWELL.
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE
THE FBI ITSELF REDACTING TRUMP'S
NAME FROM DOCUMENTS.
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD
BLANCHE GOING AND PERSONALLY
INTERVIEWING MS. MAXWELL AND NOT
TAKING ALONG THE LAWYERS WHO ARE
EXPERTS IN THIS CASE AND THEN
JUST SHORTLY AFTER SHE'S
TRANSFERRED TO A MINIMUM
SECURITY PRISON IN TEXAS, IN
OTHER WORDS, REWARDED IN A
POWERFUL WAY, A BIG DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A REGULAR PRISON AND
THIS.
SO WE WANTED DISCLOSURE, AND I
THINK AMERICA WANTS DISCLOSURE
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SEE PEOPLE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE WHO PERPETRATED
CRIMES, RAPE AGAINST YOUNG
GIRLS.
AND, YET, ALL YOU'RE ASKING FOR
IS TO PRESERVE THE INFORMATION
THAT IT NOT BE DELETED OR PUT
INTO A SHREDDER OR PUT INTO A
WOOD CHIPPER.
IS THAT RIGHT?
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: THAT'S THE HEART
OF THE AMENDMENT AND I WILL READ
THE FIRST SENTENCE, THE
TOESHL -- ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL
RETAIN, COMPILE TO -- TO
ANYTHING RELATED TO JEFFREY
EPSTEIN AND ANY SERVICE PROVIDED
TO VICTIMS PROVIDED IN SUCH AN
INVESTIGATION.
IT COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR.
IT DOES ASK FOR A REPORT ON
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
REGARDING THE EPSTEIN CASE, BUT
TO YOUR FUNDAMENTAL POINT HERE,
THIS IS SIMPLY A DIRECT ACTIVE
NOT TO -- DIRECTIVE NOT TO
DESTROY EVIDENCE THAT COULD BE
IN THE EPSTEIN FILES.
WE JUST LEARNED AT LEAST IN THE
LAST 48 HOURS THAT SOMEWHERE
ALONG THE ROAD, THE FBI HAD
REDACTED DONALD TRUMP'S NAME
FROM THE EPSTEIN FILES, SO WE
KNOW IT'S IN THERE AND WE KNOW
THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME IT
WAS REDACTED.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THESE
RECORDS ARE NOT DESTROYED.
MR. MERKLEY: ANOTHER QUESTION,
IF I MIGHT.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: YES.
MR. MERKLEY: IF I TURN THE CLOCK
BACK TO THAT APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE HEARING WHERE YOU
PRESENTED YOUR AMENDMENT AND I
WAS PRESENT, WAS THAT NOT VOTED
OUT OF COMMITTEE ON A VOICE
VOTE?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: YES, IT WAS.
IT WAS ADOPTED BY A VOICE VOTE.
MR. MERKLEY: SO THE REPUBLICANS
IN COMMITTEE SAID WE SUPPORT THE
IDEA, BUT LET'S DO IT BY VOICE
VOTE BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO
HAVE OUR NAMES RECORDED YEA OR
NAY, IS THAT SECRET?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: AGAIN, I CANNOT,
SENATOR, READ THE MIND OF ANY OF
OUR COLLEAGUES.
IT WAS A VOICE VOTE.
BUT OF COURSE, THE OBJECTION
WE'RE SEEING HERE ON THE FLOOR
OF THE SENATE TODAY INDICATES
THAT A REPUBLICAN -- OUR
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES DO NOT
WANT TO GO ON RECORD AND VOTE
WHEN IT COMES RIGHT DOWN TO IT
ON THIS PROPOSAL AND MAKING SURE
THAT THE RECORDS ARE NOT
DESTROYED.
MR. MERKLEY: HAD THE SENATOR
FROM WYOMING NOT OBJECTED, WE
COULD HAVE PASSED THIS BILL
TODAY BY VOICE VOTE, NOT
NECESSARILY HAVING A RECORDED
VOTE.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: IT WOULD HAVE
PASSED IMMEDIATELY IF HE HAD NOT
OBJECTED TO IT.
MR. MERKLEY: BECAUSE IT DOESN'T
EVEN GET TO --
MR. VAN HOLLEN: THAT'S RIGHT, IT
WOULD HAVE GONE DIRECTLY TO THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
CORRECT.
MR. MERKLEY: SO, EVEN THOUGH IT
WAS PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE BY
VOICE VOTE AND YOU OFFERED A
PROPOSAL SIMPLY TO KEEP THE
RECORDS INTACT, WHICH I MUST SAY
SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO BE ASKED
ANYWAY, BUT WHY WOULD ANY MEMBER
OF THE SENATE OBJECT TO THE
PRINCIPLE OF PROTECTING THE
RECORDS?
I'M CONFUSED.
DON'T ALL OF US BELIEVE THAT
WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE RELATED
TO A CRIME IT SHOULD NOT BE PUT
INTO A SHREDDER OR A WOOD
CHIPPER?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: IT'S A VERY FAIR
QUESTION, AND AS I INDICATED WE
DIDN'T GET AN EXPLANATION FOR
THE OBJECTION.
WE HAD THE OBJECTION MADE AND NO
FURTHER COMMENT FROM OUR
COLLEAGUES ON THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE.
AND I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT WE UNDERSCORE THE FACT FOR
OUR COLLEAGUES AND ANYBODY
LISTENING THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS
VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, DON'T
DESTROY EVIDENCE.
IT DOES ALSO REQUIRE IN 60 DAYS
THAT A REPORT BE PROVIDED THAT
PROVIDES CERTAIN RELEVANT
INFORMATION REGARDING THE
EPSTEIN CASE.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHY ANYBODY
WOULD NOT WANT THAT INFORMATION
TO BE PRESENTED EITHER.
I MEAN, THIS IS LIKE OPPOSE AN
EFFORT TO SAVE THE RECORDS,
DON'T VOID THE EVIDENCE, AND
ALSO VOTING AGAINST THE IDEA OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PROVIDING
THE UNITED STATES SENATE WITH
ANSWERS TO SOME FUNDAMENTAL
QUESTIONS.
AGAIN, AS WE DISCUSSED THIS
MORNING, THE FASTEST AND MOST
COMPLETE WAY OF DOING IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN TO SUPPORT THE SENATOR
FROM OREGON'S MOTION THIS
MORNING, JUST TO RELEASE ALL THE
FILES, RIGHT?
THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.
WE SHOULD RELEASE THE FILES, AND
THEY SHOULD DO IT NOW.
YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE A
VOTE IN THE HOUSE TO DO THAT.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN DO WHAT
SHE SAID SHE WAS GOING TO DO,
RELEASE THEM.
THAT'S WHAT MANY OF US CALLED
FOR.
THAT'S WHAT THE SENATOR'S MOTION
THIS MORNING WAS ALL ABOUT.
BUT MY GOODNESS, YOU SHOULD BE
RELEASING THEM, BUT FOR GOODNESS
SAKES WHY NOT AT LEAST SEND A
DIRECTIVE SAYING DON'T DESTROY
THE EVIDENCE?
MR. MERKLEY: I APPRECIATE MY
COLLEAGUE FROM MARYLAND BRINGING
THIS FORWARD.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE ABSOLUTE
MINIMUM WE SHOULD DO NOW IS
PROTECT THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
FUTURE.
CERTAINLY, IT SHOULD BE
RELEASED, AS BOTH OF US HAVE
SPOKEN TO.
I REALLY APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE
FROM CALIFORNIA, WHO BROUGHT HIS
LEGAL EXPERTISE, ALONG WITH OUR
COLLEAGUE FROM RHODE ISLAND, WHO
PUT IT OUT HOW EXTRAORDINARY IT
IS THAT A DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL WOULD GO AND SIT IN A
PRISON SFWUFG A KEY --
INTERVIEWING A KEY WITNESS TO
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, AND THAT
MAGICALLY WITHIN HOURS
THEREAFTER SHE'S TRANSFERRED TO
MINIMUM SECURITY, AND THE
PRESIDENT STARTS TALKING ABOUT
THE POSSIBILITY OF A PARDON.
AMERICANS, THIS IS JUST STINKING
TO HIGH HEAVEN.
AND I'LL REPEAT THE POINT I MADE
EARLIER TODAY IS NO ONE SHOULD
BE ABOVE THE LAW.
NO POWERFUL MAN SHOULD BE ABLE
TO RAPE YOUNG GIRLS AND BE
PROTECTED BY FRIENDS IN HIGH
PLACES OR BY LEGIONS OF LAWYERS
OR ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.
LET THE RULE OF LAW COME FORWARD
IN FULL FORCE TO HOLD THOSE WHO
HAVE COMMITTED EGREGIOUS CRIMES
BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: I COULD NOT
AGREE MORE, MR. PRESIDENT.
OUR MESSAGE IS SIMPLE --
RELEASE THE DAMN EPSTEIN FILES,
AND FOR GOD'S SAKES DON'T TRY TO
DESTROY THE FILES
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37971
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sun Aug 10, 2025 8:10 pm
China DUMPS US Bonds, Dollar COLLAPSES as Trump Panics | Richard Wolff & Sean Foo
by Danny Haiphong
Aug 10, 2025 #richardwolff #dollar #china
Economists Richard Wolff & Sean Foo detail how China has been rapidly dumping US bonds in a move that has Donald Trump in panic mode. The US dollar is rapidly losing trust and value, and what happens from here will send shockwaves across the world economy and geopolitical spheres.
Transcript
Amid all of this trade war hysterics uh
coming mainly from the Trump
administration, the Financial Times
shared uh what should be alarming both
to the Trump administration and for uh
perhaps the US economic elite as a whole
where uh China's treasury holdings of US
treasury bonds has been sinking for
quite some time and uh in 2010 China was
the undisputed number one holder of US
treasuries. Now, uh its holdings of US
treasuries is below that of the United
Kingdom. And of course, this comes amid
uh Professor Wolf, if you want to begin,
uh this never-ending trade war, which of
course is now in high gear as the Trump
administration unsurprisingly is
focusing mainly on countries in Asia and
China's periphery. So, Professor Wolf,
what is your reaction to to this
development and its overall impact on
the US economic situation and position
in the world?
Well, my reaction is quite similar to
that of most of the things that Mr.
Trump's government is now doing. Uh, I
see it as primarily
uh designed for the political
um success he hopes it will have
domestically here in the United States.
His position as president is shakier now
than it has been uh since he took the
oath of office half a year ago. Uh his
polling numbers reflect that. Uh the
desperation with which he is casting
about for almost anything that can
distract the public from the issues that
are driving down his popularity. And
those issues are uh inflation which
while it is still not serious is ongoing
and looking like it will speed up in the
second half of the year which is very
very bad news for him. the fact that he
didn't bring as he had promised the war
in Ukraine to an end and on the contrary
it seems to be getting worse that he's
initiated a whole new war uh in Iran
that he has done nothing to stop the
horrors of of Gaza and the Middle East.
Uh and now he's caught up in a scandal
in which the promised transparency of
his government is clearly
uh upended by the fact that they're
trying to hide everything having to do
with uh the pedophile financier
uh Jeffrey Epstein. So he is in very bad
trouble and he is casting about for
almost anything that can look at least a
little positive or at least a little
moving in the direction he had promised.
Uh to give you one final example,
uh over the last two days, he has
effectively and in literally accused
President Obama of treason, which is a
uh crime punishable by death in the
United States. It is very extraordinary
to say the least for a president uh I'm
not sure it's ever happened in American
history uh for a president to suggest
let alone to declare uh a prior
president especially one still living uh
to have committed a treasonous uh crime.
You only would do that if you're
desperate to distract. So, the deal with
Japan announced a few hours ago, um,
which looks good, is another effort to
suggest, well, I'm at least succeeding
somewhere over here in getting countries
to submit to tariffs that are higher
than what they used to have, uh, higher
than what people thought they ever would
agree to. And here it is. I can claim
that I agreed to it. Uh I think that's
the way to understand this. I'm not
clear why the Japanese went along with
it except of course their government has
its own uh crisis to deal with. Now, and
a final point, it is not uncommon in
international dealings
for there to be not only the signing of
official documents,
but also the signing of secret documents
that are not p made public for a long
time. I think it would be wise for
everyone to keep in reserve at least the
question were other things done or given
to Japan in this case to help it make a
decision to sign the official agreement
to uh to a tariff as high as they agreed
to. Could you talk about the
significance of what it means for China
to be letting go of US treasuries at the
rate that it has over this last several
years and especially in the last couple
of years and and under the Trump
administration? What does it mean and
and why is it significant?
I think China now is under no illusions
that the Trump regime, even the Biden
administration and the entire US as a
whole is out to get them. You know,
China used to work on the old order of
vendor financing, right? They would sell
a lot of stuff to the US. The US would
then send them dollars and then the
dollars will get recycled back into US
treasury bonds. And that is how the old
world order used to be. So there are two
things that Trump is actually doing that
is breaking this entire recycling uh
scheme on. Now the first thing when
Trump decides to impose a 30% tariff on
China on top of whatever existing
tariffs there are and in some products
we are looking at 70 80 or even 100%. So
suddenly China has a they are going to
lose a lot of revenue over the next uh
year 5 years 10 years. So a lot of money
earnings from the US is going to drop.
Now if we look at the trade the exports
of China all the way to the US has
dropped anywhere from 20 to 30%
uh in aggregate and 40%
in some categories. So now China is
earning less dollars. So as a
consequence right now they have less
money to invest back into US treasury
bonds and what's really the point of
holding um US debt. Now firstly as we
all know the dollar has been dropping
has lost around 8 to 10% of its value.
So just on an economic fiscal standpoint
it's not a good investment right who
knows how much more it'll drop over the
next 3 to 5 years and secondly China has
seen what has happened to the enemies of
the US more specifically what has
happened to the Russian reserves. Now
this is something that we cannot take
lightly. And when the US under the Biden
administration went in and took away
around $30 billion worth of Russian
sovereign assets, this was a big wakeup
call to everyone, not just not just
China, but the bricks as a whole. So
right now, China has very important
questions that has to be answered,
right? Yes, they're making a lot of
money. Their trade surplus is around
trillion dollars a year. and where are
they going to put their money into? And
that's why over the last
I think since December 2024,
China has been aggressively increasing
their gold stock piles because it's a
neutral asset and we can see China going
out there in the world buying up a lot
of uh physical resource mineral mines
because that is hard assets that at the
end of the day can't be debased by uh US
fiscal spending the out of control
spending by Washington. And in another
sense, we have to understand that every
dollar that China doesn't recycle back
into US assets is money denied to the
Treasury market, denied to US equities.
That actually adds more pressure on this
entire system. And the US economy is
very hyper financialized
um network of gear so to speak. So as we
can see over the past six months when
the tariff war just started it caused a
lot of chaos to happen. Bond use started
to skyrocket and that itself caused
Trump to push the panic button and enact
a 90-day pause if I'm not wrong. So
China I'm not saying that China is out
there dumping treasuries to crash the US
economy. But the weakness of the US
economy is a byproduct of its inherent
weakness. China knows this. A lot of
countries knows this and by getting out
of Treasury bonds, well, it's no it's no
love loss for them if the US economy
starts to tank as a consequence of that.
A lot of these policies that are
supposedly economic in nature, for
example, the trade war has backfired
dramatically. What's your assessment?
Well, I I think that in the long run,
uh this is an unmitigated disaster. I I
I'll say a few words about it in a
moment. In the short run, and I think
that's what's going on in the short run,
he's desperate for political points, and
you're getting behavior that goes with
that. He's looking for whatever
agreement he can get, whether it's with
Japan or the Philippines or Vietnam or
what whatever it is, uh that can make it
look like he's getting what he was out
there for. uh can stoke up his image as
a powerful leader who can bully uh the
rest of the world to go on. But let's
take a look at what underlies the
bullying because that's the longer run.
And the longer run is I think the way to
look at this is as follows. The United
States has serious economic difficulties
and it is an empire in decline.
And those two things end up meaning
that this empire to slow its own decline
is willing to sacrifice
the relationships it had with many many
other countries.
And it is willing to do that in a stark
and kind of unforgiving way that is
teaching all of those c countries
friendly, neutral, hostile, teaching
them a lesson they have to acknowledge.
And the same is true for other
corporations,
companies, capitalists in all these
different countries. you can't do
business with the United States the way
you once thought you could. The tariff
shows you that. Uh the in insistence on
a tariff shows you that. The threat
which has been articulated by Mr. Trump
repeatedly that if you're a country that
retaliates
to the tariff imposed or the tariff
increase imposed by the United States,
well then we will hit you again by
raising the tariff in a kind of
escalating
uh procedure. We are going to hurt you
economically
if we can.
Yes, it's American companies importing
all this stuff that have to pay the tax.
But we all know if we do a little bit of
economics that those companies that face
a rising cost because they have to give
Uncle Sam a tariff for everything they
bring in, they will do everything in
their power to reduce, shift, get rid of
this extra cost just like they would
with every other cost that they
encounter and that they've always done.
So here's the things they will do. They
will push it forward. Charge the final
consumer a higher price. That's one way
to to to relieve the burden on you. And
the other one is to go back uh to the
source country from whom you buy and try
to get them to give you a lower price so
that they absorb the tariff. But Mr.
Trump's problem is either way, however
each company does it, he will lose. He
will get hostility from the rest of the
world and he will get a loss of support
from his own consumer uh public base.
He's caught. This is not a solution
except in the posture of what he's doing
because if you've noticed he likes to
talk about tariffs as if the victim of
them was unilaterally obviously and
totally the country of origin which is
not only bad economics but is in the
short run
even in the short run a very shortterm
advantage until people pay the higher
prices or the hostility of other
countries shows up in the fact that they
cut the United States out of their
growth plans. And I know that that is
happening from companies I'm I'm
associated with. That's already underway
in many other parts of the world. And
here's a footnote. The graph you showed
us at the beginning, it's really
unspeakable.
the the worst economy in Europe right
now by many measures is the United
Kingdom. For them to be accumulating
dollar holdings
when they are in desperate need of using
those dollars to develop their own
economy out of the hole into which it
has sunk
is a screaming comment on the Starmer
government and on the conservatives uh
that went before. what a disaster that
place has become.
Some of the nuts and bolts, for example,
of uh Trump's latest uh trade deal with
Japan, for example, because Japan is a
very key cog in the US's overall uh
strategy, which includes both economic
and military war plans. And it appears
Japan has just signed on to something
that uh as Donald Trump said in the
beginning of my monologue is uh big
points uh that he's willing to give up
for opening up to the United States.
What exactly is happening uh there? How
does it relate to to the fact that uh
China itself appears to be the target?
Now if we look at the Japanese deal,
right, it's it's a tragedy. It's a
travesty.
So the original plan Trump was going to
impose on Japan was a 25% tariff. Now if
we look into the details of the deal, we
can see that it's absolutely horrendous.
Even though the tariff has dropped from
25% down to 15%, if we look and pick
apart the entire deal, we can see that
Japan is actually paying much more than
they anticipated. Now people in
Washington in Capitol Hills, Scott
Bassen, they are all elated about the
deal because Japan in my humble opinion
is really on the back end of this. So
what do we have? Tokyo has to buy an
additional 100 Boeing planes. Well, why?
To help Trump's favorite company stay
afloat. Now, in addition to that, which
is quite hilarious, they have to buy
more American rice and spend like $10
billion more in US food imports. The
defense contracts with the American
military-industrial complex will
increase by at at least $3 billion.
And there's another aspect of the
Japanese deal which is actually very out
uh outstanding for the US and astounding
for me just to realize Japan is going to
set up a kind of fund to invest half a
trillion dollars into the US economy. So
we can see that Trump uh the U US
administration they're doing their very
best to squeeze their allies of their
capital of their money so that the US
can essentially escape scot-free from
their problems. Now as what uh Richard
Wolf said right it's true that it's
going to backfire down the road. What
you're doing is that you're squeezing
your allies, you're squeezing countries
around the world. You're using economic
policy to influence state craft and this
is going to build up a lot of hatred, a
lot of resentment around the world and
it's going to backfire. Just look at the
situation in Europe. You know, a lot of
people over there, they're stopping,
they are reducing their purchase of
Tesla cars. There's a soft boycott going
on of US products. And when we shift our
attention to Asia, sooner or later,
we'll be able to see countries from
Japan, even South Korea, they'll be
moving more of their business, more of
their partnerships to the brakes because
brakes, well, they're going to be a
growing block over the next 5 to 10
years, 20 years, even beyond that. And
just think about it in a very simple
way. So Japan they will need to sell to
the US at a 15% tariff right we all know
that the majority of the tariff will be
absorbed by the American people
companies uh will pass down the
additional cost to consumers
but there's going to be quite a few
companies in Japan who will have to eat
some of the tariffs as well right I mean
a 15% tariff is very punitive when you
consider big Japanese car brands like
Toyota, Nissan, Honda, their margins are
like 10 to 15% at best. So their profits
are going to come down and the only way
for Japan, maybe South Korea once they
sign the deal, which I reckon is going
to be quite horrible as well, is to
bring down their cost of production. And
where and the only other outlet they can
go to is China. And it's quite
fascinating when we see you know the
trade flows of China their exports to
the US is going down but on aggregate
everything is going up and why is that
the case that's because other countries
in the world whether they like China or
not whether it's the Europeans whether
it's the Middle East whether some
American companies themselves they need
to trade with China to bring down uh
their manufacturing costs because if
they don't their profits are going to
collapse layoffs are going happen.
American consumers, they'll be facing
higher prices and that really delivers a
cascading effect to the US economy. So
Trump's tariff war is punitive not just
to the world, not just the US allies,
it's helping China in fact, but it's
more or less destroying the US economy
in real time.
Yeah. Just another point to to what Sean
has said.
Yeah. Every government in the world,
every go I don't think there's a single
exception where they have which almost
every government does domestic economic
difficulties of one kind or another with
their exports, with their imports, with
their financial situation, with their
unemployment.
Every leader will now be able to say to
his or her own people, "Yes, we are
having difficulty.
Blame the Americans
because what the Americans are doing is
making things more difficult for
everybody."
And so there's enough plausibility,
you know, it it'll be an exaggeration,
but it'll be an exaggeration based on
something that is real, that is in the
newspapers all the time, that they know
about, hear about. And what you're
therefore doing is it's not that you're
not doing so-called soft power. The way
they used to call this, you are undoing
half a century of soft power. You are
transforming the United States from the
the interesting place where you can buy,
you know, jeans or clothing or movies or
all the all the elements of ideological
transformation
are now being put in reverse. The United
States is becoming a villain.
you know the stories of treating the
immigrants the way they are or for that
matter people who aren't immigrants have
to worry when they cross the you know
arrive at an American airport what will
happen to them all of this is a process
in which you are undoing
the position of the United States and
that's going to hurt American exports in
a major way it's it's going to have all
kinds of consequences
scientists leaving one part of the world
and moving their careers to another. I
could go go on. We're seeing it already
starting and this is a very again this
is so stark that it makes me wonder that
the level of anxiety about the
conditions here in the United States
among the people at the top may be much
more advanced than we know because they
work very hard not to have us see what
the problem is. And so even we are taken
in with our critical approach not to see
just how bad this is this situation.
Otherwise why would they do this?
by Danny Haiphong
Aug 10, 2025 #richardwolff #dollar #china
Economists Richard Wolff & Sean Foo detail how China has been rapidly dumping US bonds in a move that has Donald Trump in panic mode. The US dollar is rapidly losing trust and value, and what happens from here will send shockwaves across the world economy and geopolitical spheres.
Transcript
Amid all of this trade war hysterics uh
coming mainly from the Trump
administration, the Financial Times
shared uh what should be alarming both
to the Trump administration and for uh
perhaps the US economic elite as a whole
where uh China's treasury holdings of US
treasury bonds has been sinking for
quite some time and uh in 2010 China was
the undisputed number one holder of US
treasuries. Now, uh its holdings of US
treasuries is below that of the United
Kingdom. And of course, this comes amid
uh Professor Wolf, if you want to begin,
uh this never-ending trade war, which of
course is now in high gear as the Trump
administration unsurprisingly is
focusing mainly on countries in Asia and
China's periphery. So, Professor Wolf,
what is your reaction to to this
development and its overall impact on
the US economic situation and position
in the world?
Well, my reaction is quite similar to
that of most of the things that Mr.
Trump's government is now doing. Uh, I
see it as primarily
uh designed for the political
um success he hopes it will have
domestically here in the United States.
His position as president is shakier now
than it has been uh since he took the
oath of office half a year ago. Uh his
polling numbers reflect that. Uh the
desperation with which he is casting
about for almost anything that can
distract the public from the issues that
are driving down his popularity. And
those issues are uh inflation which
while it is still not serious is ongoing
and looking like it will speed up in the
second half of the year which is very
very bad news for him. the fact that he
didn't bring as he had promised the war
in Ukraine to an end and on the contrary
it seems to be getting worse that he's
initiated a whole new war uh in Iran
that he has done nothing to stop the
horrors of of Gaza and the Middle East.
Uh and now he's caught up in a scandal
in which the promised transparency of
his government is clearly
uh upended by the fact that they're
trying to hide everything having to do
with uh the pedophile financier
uh Jeffrey Epstein. So he is in very bad
trouble and he is casting about for
almost anything that can look at least a
little positive or at least a little
moving in the direction he had promised.
Uh to give you one final example,
uh over the last two days, he has
effectively and in literally accused
President Obama of treason, which is a
uh crime punishable by death in the
United States. It is very extraordinary
to say the least for a president uh I'm
not sure it's ever happened in American
history uh for a president to suggest
let alone to declare uh a prior
president especially one still living uh
to have committed a treasonous uh crime.
You only would do that if you're
desperate to distract. So, the deal with
Japan announced a few hours ago, um,
which looks good, is another effort to
suggest, well, I'm at least succeeding
somewhere over here in getting countries
to submit to tariffs that are higher
than what they used to have, uh, higher
than what people thought they ever would
agree to. And here it is. I can claim
that I agreed to it. Uh I think that's
the way to understand this. I'm not
clear why the Japanese went along with
it except of course their government has
its own uh crisis to deal with. Now, and
a final point, it is not uncommon in
international dealings
for there to be not only the signing of
official documents,
but also the signing of secret documents
that are not p made public for a long
time. I think it would be wise for
everyone to keep in reserve at least the
question were other things done or given
to Japan in this case to help it make a
decision to sign the official agreement
to uh to a tariff as high as they agreed
to. Could you talk about the
significance of what it means for China
to be letting go of US treasuries at the
rate that it has over this last several
years and especially in the last couple
of years and and under the Trump
administration? What does it mean and
and why is it significant?
I think China now is under no illusions
that the Trump regime, even the Biden
administration and the entire US as a
whole is out to get them. You know,
China used to work on the old order of
vendor financing, right? They would sell
a lot of stuff to the US. The US would
then send them dollars and then the
dollars will get recycled back into US
treasury bonds. And that is how the old
world order used to be. So there are two
things that Trump is actually doing that
is breaking this entire recycling uh
scheme on. Now the first thing when
Trump decides to impose a 30% tariff on
China on top of whatever existing
tariffs there are and in some products
we are looking at 70 80 or even 100%. So
suddenly China has a they are going to
lose a lot of revenue over the next uh
year 5 years 10 years. So a lot of money
earnings from the US is going to drop.
Now if we look at the trade the exports
of China all the way to the US has
dropped anywhere from 20 to 30%
uh in aggregate and 40%
in some categories. So now China is
earning less dollars. So as a
consequence right now they have less
money to invest back into US treasury
bonds and what's really the point of
holding um US debt. Now firstly as we
all know the dollar has been dropping
has lost around 8 to 10% of its value.
So just on an economic fiscal standpoint
it's not a good investment right who
knows how much more it'll drop over the
next 3 to 5 years and secondly China has
seen what has happened to the enemies of
the US more specifically what has
happened to the Russian reserves. Now
this is something that we cannot take
lightly. And when the US under the Biden
administration went in and took away
around $30 billion worth of Russian
sovereign assets, this was a big wakeup
call to everyone, not just not just
China, but the bricks as a whole. So
right now, China has very important
questions that has to be answered,
right? Yes, they're making a lot of
money. Their trade surplus is around
trillion dollars a year. and where are
they going to put their money into? And
that's why over the last
I think since December 2024,
China has been aggressively increasing
their gold stock piles because it's a
neutral asset and we can see China going
out there in the world buying up a lot
of uh physical resource mineral mines
because that is hard assets that at the
end of the day can't be debased by uh US
fiscal spending the out of control
spending by Washington. And in another
sense, we have to understand that every
dollar that China doesn't recycle back
into US assets is money denied to the
Treasury market, denied to US equities.
That actually adds more pressure on this
entire system. And the US economy is
very hyper financialized
um network of gear so to speak. So as we
can see over the past six months when
the tariff war just started it caused a
lot of chaos to happen. Bond use started
to skyrocket and that itself caused
Trump to push the panic button and enact
a 90-day pause if I'm not wrong. So
China I'm not saying that China is out
there dumping treasuries to crash the US
economy. But the weakness of the US
economy is a byproduct of its inherent
weakness. China knows this. A lot of
countries knows this and by getting out
of Treasury bonds, well, it's no it's no
love loss for them if the US economy
starts to tank as a consequence of that.
A lot of these policies that are
supposedly economic in nature, for
example, the trade war has backfired
dramatically. What's your assessment?
Well, I I think that in the long run,
uh this is an unmitigated disaster. I I
I'll say a few words about it in a
moment. In the short run, and I think
that's what's going on in the short run,
he's desperate for political points, and
you're getting behavior that goes with
that. He's looking for whatever
agreement he can get, whether it's with
Japan or the Philippines or Vietnam or
what whatever it is, uh that can make it
look like he's getting what he was out
there for. uh can stoke up his image as
a powerful leader who can bully uh the
rest of the world to go on. But let's
take a look at what underlies the
bullying because that's the longer run.
And the longer run is I think the way to
look at this is as follows. The United
States has serious economic difficulties
and it is an empire in decline.
And those two things end up meaning
that this empire to slow its own decline
is willing to sacrifice
the relationships it had with many many
other countries.
And it is willing to do that in a stark
and kind of unforgiving way that is
teaching all of those c countries
friendly, neutral, hostile, teaching
them a lesson they have to acknowledge.
And the same is true for other
corporations,
companies, capitalists in all these
different countries. you can't do
business with the United States the way
you once thought you could. The tariff
shows you that. Uh the in insistence on
a tariff shows you that. The threat
which has been articulated by Mr. Trump
repeatedly that if you're a country that
retaliates
to the tariff imposed or the tariff
increase imposed by the United States,
well then we will hit you again by
raising the tariff in a kind of
escalating
uh procedure. We are going to hurt you
economically
if we can.
Yes, it's American companies importing
all this stuff that have to pay the tax.
But we all know if we do a little bit of
economics that those companies that face
a rising cost because they have to give
Uncle Sam a tariff for everything they
bring in, they will do everything in
their power to reduce, shift, get rid of
this extra cost just like they would
with every other cost that they
encounter and that they've always done.
So here's the things they will do. They
will push it forward. Charge the final
consumer a higher price. That's one way
to to to relieve the burden on you. And
the other one is to go back uh to the
source country from whom you buy and try
to get them to give you a lower price so
that they absorb the tariff. But Mr.
Trump's problem is either way, however
each company does it, he will lose. He
will get hostility from the rest of the
world and he will get a loss of support
from his own consumer uh public base.
He's caught. This is not a solution
except in the posture of what he's doing
because if you've noticed he likes to
talk about tariffs as if the victim of
them was unilaterally obviously and
totally the country of origin which is
not only bad economics but is in the
short run
even in the short run a very shortterm
advantage until people pay the higher
prices or the hostility of other
countries shows up in the fact that they
cut the United States out of their
growth plans. And I know that that is
happening from companies I'm I'm
associated with. That's already underway
in many other parts of the world. And
here's a footnote. The graph you showed
us at the beginning, it's really
unspeakable.
the the worst economy in Europe right
now by many measures is the United
Kingdom. For them to be accumulating
dollar holdings
when they are in desperate need of using
those dollars to develop their own
economy out of the hole into which it
has sunk
is a screaming comment on the Starmer
government and on the conservatives uh
that went before. what a disaster that
place has become.
Some of the nuts and bolts, for example,
of uh Trump's latest uh trade deal with
Japan, for example, because Japan is a
very key cog in the US's overall uh
strategy, which includes both economic
and military war plans. And it appears
Japan has just signed on to something
that uh as Donald Trump said in the
beginning of my monologue is uh big
points uh that he's willing to give up
for opening up to the United States.
What exactly is happening uh there? How
does it relate to to the fact that uh
China itself appears to be the target?
Now if we look at the Japanese deal,
right, it's it's a tragedy. It's a
travesty.
So the original plan Trump was going to
impose on Japan was a 25% tariff. Now if
we look into the details of the deal, we
can see that it's absolutely horrendous.
Even though the tariff has dropped from
25% down to 15%, if we look and pick
apart the entire deal, we can see that
Japan is actually paying much more than
they anticipated. Now people in
Washington in Capitol Hills, Scott
Bassen, they are all elated about the
deal because Japan in my humble opinion
is really on the back end of this. So
what do we have? Tokyo has to buy an
additional 100 Boeing planes. Well, why?
To help Trump's favorite company stay
afloat. Now, in addition to that, which
is quite hilarious, they have to buy
more American rice and spend like $10
billion more in US food imports. The
defense contracts with the American
military-industrial complex will
increase by at at least $3 billion.
And there's another aspect of the
Japanese deal which is actually very out
uh outstanding for the US and astounding
for me just to realize Japan is going to
set up a kind of fund to invest half a
trillion dollars into the US economy. So
we can see that Trump uh the U US
administration they're doing their very
best to squeeze their allies of their
capital of their money so that the US
can essentially escape scot-free from
their problems. Now as what uh Richard
Wolf said right it's true that it's
going to backfire down the road. What
you're doing is that you're squeezing
your allies, you're squeezing countries
around the world. You're using economic
policy to influence state craft and this
is going to build up a lot of hatred, a
lot of resentment around the world and
it's going to backfire. Just look at the
situation in Europe. You know, a lot of
people over there, they're stopping,
they are reducing their purchase of
Tesla cars. There's a soft boycott going
on of US products. And when we shift our
attention to Asia, sooner or later,
we'll be able to see countries from
Japan, even South Korea, they'll be
moving more of their business, more of
their partnerships to the brakes because
brakes, well, they're going to be a
growing block over the next 5 to 10
years, 20 years, even beyond that. And
just think about it in a very simple
way. So Japan they will need to sell to
the US at a 15% tariff right we all know
that the majority of the tariff will be
absorbed by the American people
companies uh will pass down the
additional cost to consumers
but there's going to be quite a few
companies in Japan who will have to eat
some of the tariffs as well right I mean
a 15% tariff is very punitive when you
consider big Japanese car brands like
Toyota, Nissan, Honda, their margins are
like 10 to 15% at best. So their profits
are going to come down and the only way
for Japan, maybe South Korea once they
sign the deal, which I reckon is going
to be quite horrible as well, is to
bring down their cost of production. And
where and the only other outlet they can
go to is China. And it's quite
fascinating when we see you know the
trade flows of China their exports to
the US is going down but on aggregate
everything is going up and why is that
the case that's because other countries
in the world whether they like China or
not whether it's the Europeans whether
it's the Middle East whether some
American companies themselves they need
to trade with China to bring down uh
their manufacturing costs because if
they don't their profits are going to
collapse layoffs are going happen.
American consumers, they'll be facing
higher prices and that really delivers a
cascading effect to the US economy. So
Trump's tariff war is punitive not just
to the world, not just the US allies,
it's helping China in fact, but it's
more or less destroying the US economy
in real time.
Yeah. Just another point to to what Sean
has said.
Yeah. Every government in the world,
every go I don't think there's a single
exception where they have which almost
every government does domestic economic
difficulties of one kind or another with
their exports, with their imports, with
their financial situation, with their
unemployment.
Every leader will now be able to say to
his or her own people, "Yes, we are
having difficulty.
Blame the Americans
because what the Americans are doing is
making things more difficult for
everybody."
And so there's enough plausibility,
you know, it it'll be an exaggeration,
but it'll be an exaggeration based on
something that is real, that is in the
newspapers all the time, that they know
about, hear about. And what you're
therefore doing is it's not that you're
not doing so-called soft power. The way
they used to call this, you are undoing
half a century of soft power. You are
transforming the United States from the
the interesting place where you can buy,
you know, jeans or clothing or movies or
all the all the elements of ideological
transformation
are now being put in reverse. The United
States is becoming a villain.
you know the stories of treating the
immigrants the way they are or for that
matter people who aren't immigrants have
to worry when they cross the you know
arrive at an American airport what will
happen to them all of this is a process
in which you are undoing
the position of the United States and
that's going to hurt American exports in
a major way it's it's going to have all
kinds of consequences
scientists leaving one part of the world
and moving their careers to another. I
could go go on. We're seeing it already
starting and this is a very again this
is so stark that it makes me wonder that
the level of anxiety about the
conditions here in the United States
among the people at the top may be much
more advanced than we know because they
work very hard not to have us see what
the problem is. And so even we are taken
in with our critical approach not to see
just how bad this is this situation.
Otherwise why would they do this?
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37971
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Mon Aug 11, 2025 2:46 am
Part 4 of 4
Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper on the True History of Jeffrey Epstein and Ongoing Cover-Up by Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper Streamed live on Jul 17, 2025 The Tucker Carlson Show [Lightly edited]
The ruling class, or the elite classes, have for a long time distinguished themselves from ordinary people by their adherence to a different code of morality: the Marquis de Sade.
Yes. And that became like a mark of distinction because look, I am one of the most powerful Democrat politicians in the country. I can invite other people who are powerful. I can invite them over to my house, and have them walk by my paintings of dead little girls, and they're going to go home smiling. That's what I can do.
And then you think of a guy like Jeffrey Epstein who takes it one step further and says, I wonder what else I could get away with?
I had one of the most interesting conversations I've ever had with a very spiritually attuned, very smart friend of mine. And I was saying that I'm a man who hates lying, and I just want to be honest about it. They're people who do bad sexual stuff. And I don't judge that much, because in the wrong circumstance, we're capable of anything. But I said to this person, I don't get the underage girl thing. Maybe I have too many kids or something. I'm not being selfish, just being honest. I just don't get that. I don't see any appeal at all to this pathological obsession. I mean, Epstein was into girls with braces specifically. So what is that about? I think this is really revealing, because it's not about sex. It's a spiritual thing. And I asked, what is that? And this friend of mine said, it's the thrill of destroying innocence. That's what it is. And that is the definition of evil. That is Satan. It was about taking something that is pure.
Maybe I'm the only person who ever thought of this, or maybe you have already. It's not just a sexual attraction. Like, "Oh, I think underage girls with braces are hot." They're not. No normal person thinks that. That's bizarre. The idea is that they are destroying something that's pure. That's Satan acting. Throughout history, people have looked at child sacrifice as something that confers power. And exactly where people get that idea from, I don't know, but it's apparently deeply ingrained enough that it's a spiritual reality. And it's the core of the Christian message where Satan says that at the end of the 40 days of temptation to Christ, bow down before me and I'll give you all this power. And that's clearly the arrangement, whether it is explicit or not. When leaders kill in a wanton way, which most of them do, and when they destroy beauty and innocence, you're doing that in exchange for power. And it is a real trade. Like totally real. You do become more powerful. And in a way, the Epsteins of the world, the people who are really pathological, everybody knows and accepts that they're Jeffrey Dahmers out there, they're just people who have broken minds, who do things that none of us can understand. I think for me, and for a lot of people, the more important question is how does Alex Acosta not resign when he's told to drop this case? And how does he wind up as labor secretary? D.C. is the most cutthroat town in the country. They will take anything out of context if they want to destroy you. And you got this guy, who's literally displaying pictures of dead kids on his wall, and it never even comes up. It's all just normal, all good.
The people that are more interesting to me are the quote, unquote, "ordinary" people who went to the Podesta party, and thought that what they were looking at was normal.
So let's get into some of the specifics. After Epstein gets out of his fake jail sentence in the county jail --
Is that what it was?
Yeah, county jail. He was just spending the night, six days a week. And by the way, a private investigator that was hired by the victim's lawyers were watching him during that period of time. He went to all sorts of places. And regarding his jail sentence, it was supposed to be two years. He served 13 months after that, and then was put on probation. He's supposed to report all his travels. He would leave the country, go to Paris, go to the Virgin Islands, leave the state. They documented him doing this. They would go to the authorities, these private investigators and lawyers, and say, look, we got pictures. We got this, we got that. They don't care. It was fine.
That's unbelievable. I mean, ask anybody. I happen to know a lot of people who have been on parole, or probation, and, boy, they're very afraid of violating it, because you wind up back in a halfway house, or in prison. But Epstein wasn't afraid at all. So has anyone ever been punished for that? It seems on a par with the sex stuff. Like, if you're a public official entrusted with upholding our system of law, and you ignore this crime on Epstein's behalf, then you should be punished for that. Has anyone ever been punished? The excuse that I was just following orders only stops working when you lose the war. As long as that doesn't happen, then the excuse holds up. Everyone passes it to the person upstairs, and eventually it gets to the level where a person has enough juice to just shut the question down altogether.
"The excuse that I was just following orders only stops working when you lose the war." So as long as your party, or culture, organization, whatever it is, the power structure, as long as you're still in power, you never have to answer these questions, because who's going to make you?
And don't underestimate the ability of the human mind to adapt to this kind of situation. If you are an ordinary person who joined the Department of Justice, if you're a prosecutor, and you're being told to drop the case against this guy who is a major predator, who's harming girls on the regular, gosh darn it, you got a family. You've got tuition to pay. You got to put food on your kids table. And you got to balance all that out against whether or not you're going to be able to sleep at night. And in order for you to be able to sleep at night, the human mind is very adaptable, even for minor things. We drive to church on Sundays, and we go under an overpass, and there's a bunch of completely destitute, homeless people laying on the ground. I think the right answer to that is, "Oh, there's my church today. I'm gonna deal with this, and do what I can here. That's church today." But we have to tell ourselves a lot of stories to be able to just drive past that, and drive home, and go to breakfast, and still think of ourselves as human beings. And the mind's very, very, very good at coming up with stories like that for ourselves.
So during the Afghanistan war, there was an army captain, his name slips my mind at this point, but he's a hero in my book. He actually got kicked out of the army. They eventually reinstated him, I think, but initially he was disciplined. Kicked out of the army because he came upon an Afghan army commander, or police official, I can't remember which one, raping a little boy. And he beat the hell out of him. And he got in trouble for that. He got kicked out of the army for doing that. And then the rest of the soldiers that went to Afghanistan were given stand downs and told that this was a practice called bacha bazi. It's horrible. It's awful. "We are not here to reform these people's culture. We've got an enemy we're trying to fight here, a counterinsurgency. If we start stepping in every time something like this happens, it's going to undermine the effort. And so you guys are just going to have to look the other way when you come across a grown man raping a little boy." How about no I'm not. So, if you think back to instances where we sent troops to remote Afghan villages to violently put down uprisings that had happened, because we told them they had to have a certain number of women on their village council, and that's not their culture, we're willing to alienate the local population to impose feminism on a remote village. But child rape, that's just kind of a cultural thing.
The Taliban had banned that, and actually had death squads roaming the country. Imagine the propaganda the Taliban were putting out. We destroyed all their poppy fields, and we banned their practice of bacha bazi, which was systematic child rape. A New York Times article I read was hilarious the way it was framed, because it was, "look at what the evil Taliban are doing." They were manipulating boys who were kept as sex slaves at police checkpoints into shooting their commanders and guards, and then coming out to fight for the Taliban. And when I read it, it sounded to me like they were liberating these boys. And it was very widespread. They looked at like three or four hundred police checkpoints. Every one of them had a stable of little boys that when people get hired to become an officer at a place, they would often demand Bacha bazi boys at their checkpoints, or the stations where they were assigned, as a perk of the job. And we went along with that. And that's how somebody at the Department of Justice, or in the intelligence community can say, yeah, this guy in his free time does this. But look, we're trying to fight a war. That's how they explain it to themselves. It's a really rotten, decadent culture at the top.
And as evidence of that, Epstein gets out of jail in 2008-ish. And between then and 2019, 10 or 11 years, he's roaming around.
We have records of a lot of famous people hanging with him on his plane, on his island during those years, correct?
Yes. Post conviction, post public humiliation. Riding a Lolita express. Everybody knew.
And so who are those people? Can you name some? Bill Clinton is on record riding Epstein's plane 26 times. And for reference on that, one of Epstein's buddies and partners in crime was a French guy named Jean Luc Brunel, who ran a modeling and talent scout agency, and used it the way that Jeffrey Epstein used Victoria's Secret. In fact, Jeffrey Epstein provided the seed money for the agency, which would bring girls in, and use that environment to sexually abuse them, and take advantage of them. When Jeffrey Epstein was in jail for those 13 months, in 13 months Jean Luc Brunel visited him 70 times. He didn't ride on his plane as often as Bill Clinton did. So that's just a reference point.
And Jean Luc Brunel, by the way, after Epstein got arrested, immediately went into hiding, and was caught trying to cross the border fleeing France, and got put in jail. And I will give you one guess and one guess only, what happened to him? Everybody watching got it right. He hanged himself in his cell.
No.
Yes, he did.
No, he didn't. Wow.
How did all the people watching get that right on the first guess?
You are making it up.
I'm not making it up. Just like Robert Maxwell killed himself, just like Jeffrey Epstein did, just like the DC madam.
So let's get to Epstein's death. What do we know about that, and what don't we know about it?
One of the interesting things about the Epstein story that we've been telling tonight, about money laundering, intelligence agency connections in the 80s and 90s, a lot of that is circumstantial evidence, but it's enough that you can draw a pretty firm narrative with it. When you get to the 2010s, we don't have nearly as much solid information on crimes he commits, or high level things going on. One of the things we do have is that he was very, very close with Ehud Barak, the former Israeli Prime Minister. He was the head of military intelligence for quite a while. In fact, he was head of military intelligence back when Jeffrey Epstein, Adnan Khashoggi, and these people were operating, back in their heyday. He was very close with him. Ehud Barak was photographed going into Jeffrey Epstein's house one time disguised. He stayed over for long stretches of time. Jeffrey Epstein provided the seed money for a tech company that Ehud Barak started up with a bunch of guys who were veterans of unit 8200, which is the Israeli NSA, which was basically a tech company. And when Epstein was in control of the Wexner foundation, he gave Ehud Barak $2.3 million to write two papers, only one of which apparently got written. They never asked for their money back. So big money was changing hands. There are victims who say that they were forced to have sex with Ehud Barak. But I haven't vetted those claims, so I don't want to make that claim. So that's one of the things we do have.
But beyond that, we have a lot of celebrities, a lot of political figures like Bill Clinton, and a lot of it is framed as a rehab tour for Epstein. He's giving a lot of money to scientific causes, things like that, trying to rebuild public goodwill. And that's the reason he was arrested again, is because the lawyers, God bless them, of victims from the first case, were really, really upset about what happened, especially because it took a lot of courage for these girls to come out. The people who did this were terrifying. Ghislaine Maxwell would tell the girls when they tried to get away how easy it would be to get rid of them. These are stories that the victims tell. They would threaten their lives, threaten their families. And then they're watching this guy get protected at the highest levels. They're watching him get a nothing sentence for all he did. So they think this must be an incredibly powerful guy. They're terrified. It took a lot of courage to come out. Not only the lead prosecutor, but the victims and their lawyers, the deal was signed in secret before anybody knew about it, including the Department of Justice lead prosecutor. So the victims were really angry, because the DOJ had been telling these girls, "look, I know it's scary, but you got to do this. And don't worry, we got this guy. He is going away for the rest of his life. You don't have anything to worry about." And to have that sweetheart deal happen behind their backs made them really angry. And they said, "look, there is something out there called the victim's rights act. You are legally bound to inform victims when you do something like this. You did not do that. That makes your deal invalid." And eventually a federal judge found that indeed the government "had engaged in a conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein to make this illegitimate, illegal deal." So it got stricken, which allowed him to be rearrested. And that's why he was arrested in 2019, by the feds. He was coming back from Paris, his plane landed, and Bill Barr, who had just taken over the Department of Justice in February 2019 or so right after the midterms, arrested him. Then everybody kind of knows the outlines of the story after he's put in jail.
There was the story of him being assaulted in his cell by this gorilla who was put in with him. He was a corrupt NYPD police officer who was in for a double murder of two drug dealers that he was offing for another drug deal. He's a giant bodybuilder dude, a monster of a guy. And they put little Jeffrey Epstein, who is known for all of his evils, but not known for being a violent criminal, in a cell with him.
The guy assaults him, and then Epstein ends up dead under circumstances that we've all gone over again and again. And for years we were told that there was no footage, that all three of the cameras that were relevant to that area had somehow malfunctioned, or gone out of service at the same time. And the guards who were on duty that night fell asleep, and the pages of their logbook for the pertinent time period somehow went missing. And we're like, "come on."
So maybe Jeffrey Epstein was told that the best course of action for him was to go ahead and commit suicide now. But we have this set of circumstances that's entirely implausible. And pretty much everybody who knew him, including his lawyers, point out to this day that this guy's hubris was off the charts. He had already gotten away with this once.
I just don't buy into the accusations of Trump having anything to do with Epstein. It doesn't strike me that Trump has the personality type that would do that kind of thing. But there are pictures of him out there. There was a relationship that maybe could have been leveraged, strings to pull. It wasn't as if his appeals were exhausted, so why would he kill himself? He had so many cards to play, and he had gotten away with it before. And nobody who was close to him during that time period, including his lawyers, believes that he committed suicide. One lawyer I spoke to said he thought Epstein was going to get out on appeal any day.
It's also interesting that the Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice, has never released the names of the inmates who were in lockup with him. He was supposedly in the cell by himself, but there were 11 or so other inmates in the maximum security cell block in the Federal Detention center, and several were transferred out shortly after. And they can't tell us their names because of HIPAA or something. It doesn't make sense. The guards who fell asleep were not punished. They lied about the tape. And most damning of all, Bill Barr flat out participated in the cover up. And in his memoir he says that as soon as this happened, his first concern was people thinking Epstein had been murdered. When you're the chief law enforcement officer, you should hold open every possibility, including the most obvious, which is that he was murdered. So if your goal was to convince people of something you didn't know was true, you're not pursuing the truth. You are in fact, by definition, participating in a cover up. That's my view. I'd love to know the other side of it. Bill Barr won't talk to me about it though. He attacked me for saying it, but Bill Barr is participating in the cover up. So what the hell is that about?
And Bill Barr has a history of covering things up for the intelligence community, both Iran Contra as Attorney General in the early 90s, and as the CIA legal liaison to Congress during the Church and Pike Committee hearings. There's history there of covering things up that have embarrassing ties to the intelligence community. If he was your neighbor, he'd probably be a good neighbor. I've always thought he was a super nice, friendly guy. Everybody who knows him thinks he's a good man. But what matters is how you use your power. That's how you're judged.
And again, go back to how people justify things to themselves. Most people are not comfortable thinking of themselves as evil human beings, or as people who are participating in doing evil. So they tell themselves stories to say it's not true. To me, a pervert like Jeffrey Epstein is just one small part of this story. There's the whole constellation of forces around him that protect him, and confuse the issue. And to this day, Jeffrey Epstein has become a proxy for other important things. If there's anyone at the White House, or anyone close to Epstein watching right now, he's a proxy for holding these people accountable. Like Donald Trump's presidency in general, certainly the immigration thing was important, but these people have gotten so out of control, and so out of touch with the rest of us, and so unconcerned with what's going on with us, we need to bring in a wrecking ball to shake things up, and tear this thing down. People are not listening to us because we're irrelevant. We don't have any say in our government. There is no democratic control in the United States. The population's views don't matter. That's the feeling that people have. And this whole story that you've told for 2 hours and 37 minutes confirms that we are right to be concerned. Because what you're describing is an informally organized force, or series of forces, that operate outside and above the U.S. Government, and every other global government, or most of them anyway. And when a U.S. attorney, a federal prosecutor, in one of our biggest states, is told to back off, everybody beneath him backs off also. So what is that? It's a force bigger than the U.S. Government. And I think that can't continue. And if you polled Americans, and asked "what's the worst crime?," I think pedophilia would be the answer. So when they tell you we bombed a car in Kabul and killed a family of 10 during the Afghanistan withdrawal, but they can't really get into all of the details because of sources, and methods, and so forth, people don't like that. But a child's innocence is sacred. And sacred means there is no compromise with regard to that. If exposing information about somebody like Jeffrey Epstein means that a Dr. Strangelove style nuclear device goes off and destroys the planet, too bad, let justice be done.
Even if the heavens fall down, or something like that. Because the crime is beyond the pale. It's something that for all normal people, the excuse of national security, what does a pedophile have to do with national security? We have a journalist with a source saying that Epstein belonged to intelligence. There are all these ties over the years that provide more circumstantial evidence to back that up. If the U.S. government had anything to do with this guy, if foreign governments operating on our soil had anything to do with this guy, we don't care what their excuse is. We're talking about a man who was raping children. And if our government, the people who pass laws that we have to follow or else men with guns show up to our house and drag us off to a cage somewhere, the men and women who make these rules, need to draw a line in the sand and say, this is too far. You are going to stop doing this, and we don't care what happens. We want an explanation of what was going on here, and we're not going to take no for an answer. This is too far. It's too emblematic. It's too severe of a crime. And I really hope that people will keep that mentality, and not let this die until we get a good, satisfactory answer on what was going on.
Amen to that.
And everything that you have said was said, I think, in a really measured, restrained way. I also notice about you, as I've noticed before, your total determination to see things through the eyes of the people you're talking about, whether you agree or disagree with them. You add humanity to history, which is why I value your historical analysis. I think it's the humane way.
My last question, and I just can't help this because I'm not as good a person as you are, Mark Levin described you as a propagandist, a demagogue. That you shouldn't have a platform. You should be silenced. I've listened to you now for 2 hours and 40 minutes. What is it about what you just said, that would make Mark Levin call for you to be silenced, and call you a criminal? I mean, here you are arguing against child molestation. You are not attacking anybody, certainly on the basis of religion or ethnicity, or anything like that. You're not even attacking any governments. That's my read on what you're saying. Why would your 2 hour and 40 minute description of this news story, why would that make someone like Mark Levin so angry?
I think when you see the constellation of commentators and personalities that have immediately jumped on the side of there's nothing to see here; it's all over with; let's drop the case, they are the same people who told us we were traitors if we didn't want to bomb Iran just a few weeks ago. The funny thing about it is that people like Mark, people like Ben Shapiro, a lot of these folks, are actually afraid. They have something like the pop understanding of what Jeffrey Epstein was in their heads, and they're afraid that exposing the case will show his ties to Israeli intelligence. I actually have a much more conservative view on the whole thing than they probably do. I think he did work for Israeli intelligence, but I think he was a freelancer who also worked for the CIA, and did work for a lot of intelligence agencies. They were probably independent criminals.
It sounds like you're right. It's clearly not just about Israel. It is in part about Israel, but it's not only about Israel. It's about our government covering up Epstein's freaking crimes in 2007. It says a lot about Levin and his priorities. And I would say anyone who doesn't want to get to the bottom of this, why is that? I don't think there is a good answer to that question.
I agree that we should not compromise on this.
We will get a satisfactory answer, or figuratively, we will burn this place down. Don't come knocking on my door, FBI. But we're not going to let this go, because this is a line in the sand. You will be honest with us about this, because if you can't, then it means that this thing cannot be fixed, and if you can't be honest with us about this, we can't trust anything you say. If you're willing to lie to our faces in such a brazen way about a guy who was raping children, if you'll do that, then there's just nothing more to talk about with the ruling class.
You know, I can't improve on that.
Darryl Cooper. Thank you. I'm always grateful when you come. This is the second time. I hope it won't be the last.
Thank you very much. Always a pleasure.
Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper on the True History of Jeffrey Epstein and Ongoing Cover-Up by Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper Streamed live on Jul 17, 2025 The Tucker Carlson Show [Lightly edited]
The ruling class, or the elite classes, have for a long time distinguished themselves from ordinary people by their adherence to a different code of morality: the Marquis de Sade.
Yes. And that became like a mark of distinction because look, I am one of the most powerful Democrat politicians in the country. I can invite other people who are powerful. I can invite them over to my house, and have them walk by my paintings of dead little girls, and they're going to go home smiling. That's what I can do.
And then you think of a guy like Jeffrey Epstein who takes it one step further and says, I wonder what else I could get away with?
I had one of the most interesting conversations I've ever had with a very spiritually attuned, very smart friend of mine. And I was saying that I'm a man who hates lying, and I just want to be honest about it. They're people who do bad sexual stuff. And I don't judge that much, because in the wrong circumstance, we're capable of anything. But I said to this person, I don't get the underage girl thing. Maybe I have too many kids or something. I'm not being selfish, just being honest. I just don't get that. I don't see any appeal at all to this pathological obsession. I mean, Epstein was into girls with braces specifically. So what is that about? I think this is really revealing, because it's not about sex. It's a spiritual thing. And I asked, what is that? And this friend of mine said, it's the thrill of destroying innocence. That's what it is. And that is the definition of evil. That is Satan. It was about taking something that is pure.
Maybe I'm the only person who ever thought of this, or maybe you have already. It's not just a sexual attraction. Like, "Oh, I think underage girls with braces are hot." They're not. No normal person thinks that. That's bizarre. The idea is that they are destroying something that's pure. That's Satan acting. Throughout history, people have looked at child sacrifice as something that confers power. And exactly where people get that idea from, I don't know, but it's apparently deeply ingrained enough that it's a spiritual reality. And it's the core of the Christian message where Satan says that at the end of the 40 days of temptation to Christ, bow down before me and I'll give you all this power. And that's clearly the arrangement, whether it is explicit or not. When leaders kill in a wanton way, which most of them do, and when they destroy beauty and innocence, you're doing that in exchange for power. And it is a real trade. Like totally real. You do become more powerful. And in a way, the Epsteins of the world, the people who are really pathological, everybody knows and accepts that they're Jeffrey Dahmers out there, they're just people who have broken minds, who do things that none of us can understand. I think for me, and for a lot of people, the more important question is how does Alex Acosta not resign when he's told to drop this case? And how does he wind up as labor secretary? D.C. is the most cutthroat town in the country. They will take anything out of context if they want to destroy you. And you got this guy, who's literally displaying pictures of dead kids on his wall, and it never even comes up. It's all just normal, all good.
The people that are more interesting to me are the quote, unquote, "ordinary" people who went to the Podesta party, and thought that what they were looking at was normal.
So let's get into some of the specifics. After Epstein gets out of his fake jail sentence in the county jail --
Is that what it was?
Yeah, county jail. He was just spending the night, six days a week. And by the way, a private investigator that was hired by the victim's lawyers were watching him during that period of time. He went to all sorts of places. And regarding his jail sentence, it was supposed to be two years. He served 13 months after that, and then was put on probation. He's supposed to report all his travels. He would leave the country, go to Paris, go to the Virgin Islands, leave the state. They documented him doing this. They would go to the authorities, these private investigators and lawyers, and say, look, we got pictures. We got this, we got that. They don't care. It was fine.
That's unbelievable. I mean, ask anybody. I happen to know a lot of people who have been on parole, or probation, and, boy, they're very afraid of violating it, because you wind up back in a halfway house, or in prison. But Epstein wasn't afraid at all. So has anyone ever been punished for that? It seems on a par with the sex stuff. Like, if you're a public official entrusted with upholding our system of law, and you ignore this crime on Epstein's behalf, then you should be punished for that. Has anyone ever been punished? The excuse that I was just following orders only stops working when you lose the war. As long as that doesn't happen, then the excuse holds up. Everyone passes it to the person upstairs, and eventually it gets to the level where a person has enough juice to just shut the question down altogether.
"The excuse that I was just following orders only stops working when you lose the war." So as long as your party, or culture, organization, whatever it is, the power structure, as long as you're still in power, you never have to answer these questions, because who's going to make you?
And don't underestimate the ability of the human mind to adapt to this kind of situation. If you are an ordinary person who joined the Department of Justice, if you're a prosecutor, and you're being told to drop the case against this guy who is a major predator, who's harming girls on the regular, gosh darn it, you got a family. You've got tuition to pay. You got to put food on your kids table. And you got to balance all that out against whether or not you're going to be able to sleep at night. And in order for you to be able to sleep at night, the human mind is very adaptable, even for minor things. We drive to church on Sundays, and we go under an overpass, and there's a bunch of completely destitute, homeless people laying on the ground. I think the right answer to that is, "Oh, there's my church today. I'm gonna deal with this, and do what I can here. That's church today." But we have to tell ourselves a lot of stories to be able to just drive past that, and drive home, and go to breakfast, and still think of ourselves as human beings. And the mind's very, very, very good at coming up with stories like that for ourselves.
Bacha bāzī(Persian[a]: بچه بازی, lit. 'boy play'), refers to a decreasingly visible pederastic practice in Afghanistan and in historical Turkestan, in which men exploit and enslave adolescent boys sometimes for sexual abuse, and/or coercing them to cross-dress in attire traditionally only worn by women and girls. The man exploiting the young boy is called a bacha baz (literally "boy player"). Typically, the bacha baz forces the bacha (young boy) to dress in women's clothing and dance for entertainment.
Bacha bazi, by Wikipedia
So during the Afghanistan war, there was an army captain, his name slips my mind at this point, but he's a hero in my book. He actually got kicked out of the army. They eventually reinstated him, I think, but initially he was disciplined. Kicked out of the army because he came upon an Afghan army commander, or police official, I can't remember which one, raping a little boy. And he beat the hell out of him. And he got in trouble for that. He got kicked out of the army for doing that. And then the rest of the soldiers that went to Afghanistan were given stand downs and told that this was a practice called bacha bazi. It's horrible. It's awful. "We are not here to reform these people's culture. We've got an enemy we're trying to fight here, a counterinsurgency. If we start stepping in every time something like this happens, it's going to undermine the effort. And so you guys are just going to have to look the other way when you come across a grown man raping a little boy." How about no I'm not. So, if you think back to instances where we sent troops to remote Afghan villages to violently put down uprisings that had happened, because we told them they had to have a certain number of women on their village council, and that's not their culture, we're willing to alienate the local population to impose feminism on a remote village. But child rape, that's just kind of a cultural thing.
The Taliban had banned that, and actually had death squads roaming the country. Imagine the propaganda the Taliban were putting out. We destroyed all their poppy fields, and we banned their practice of bacha bazi, which was systematic child rape. A New York Times article I read was hilarious the way it was framed, because it was, "look at what the evil Taliban are doing." They were manipulating boys who were kept as sex slaves at police checkpoints into shooting their commanders and guards, and then coming out to fight for the Taliban. And when I read it, it sounded to me like they were liberating these boys. And it was very widespread. They looked at like three or four hundred police checkpoints. Every one of them had a stable of little boys that when people get hired to become an officer at a place, they would often demand Bacha bazi boys at their checkpoints, or the stations where they were assigned, as a perk of the job. And we went along with that. And that's how somebody at the Department of Justice, or in the intelligence community can say, yeah, this guy in his free time does this. But look, we're trying to fight a war. That's how they explain it to themselves. It's a really rotten, decadent culture at the top.
And as evidence of that, Epstein gets out of jail in 2008-ish. And between then and 2019, 10 or 11 years, he's roaming around.
We have records of a lot of famous people hanging with him on his plane, on his island during those years, correct?
Yes. Post conviction, post public humiliation. Riding a Lolita express. Everybody knew.
And so who are those people? Can you name some? Bill Clinton is on record riding Epstein's plane 26 times. And for reference on that, one of Epstein's buddies and partners in crime was a French guy named Jean Luc Brunel, who ran a modeling and talent scout agency, and used it the way that Jeffrey Epstein used Victoria's Secret. In fact, Jeffrey Epstein provided the seed money for the agency, which would bring girls in, and use that environment to sexually abuse them, and take advantage of them. When Jeffrey Epstein was in jail for those 13 months, in 13 months Jean Luc Brunel visited him 70 times. He didn't ride on his plane as often as Bill Clinton did. So that's just a reference point.
And Jean Luc Brunel, by the way, after Epstein got arrested, immediately went into hiding, and was caught trying to cross the border fleeing France, and got put in jail. And I will give you one guess and one guess only, what happened to him? Everybody watching got it right. He hanged himself in his cell.
No.
Yes, he did.
No, he didn't. Wow.
How did all the people watching get that right on the first guess?
You are making it up.
I'm not making it up. Just like Robert Maxwell killed himself, just like Jeffrey Epstein did, just like the DC madam.
So let's get to Epstein's death. What do we know about that, and what don't we know about it?
One of the interesting things about the Epstein story that we've been telling tonight, about money laundering, intelligence agency connections in the 80s and 90s, a lot of that is circumstantial evidence, but it's enough that you can draw a pretty firm narrative with it. When you get to the 2010s, we don't have nearly as much solid information on crimes he commits, or high level things going on. One of the things we do have is that he was very, very close with Ehud Barak, the former Israeli Prime Minister. He was the head of military intelligence for quite a while. In fact, he was head of military intelligence back when Jeffrey Epstein, Adnan Khashoggi, and these people were operating, back in their heyday. He was very close with him. Ehud Barak was photographed going into Jeffrey Epstein's house one time disguised. He stayed over for long stretches of time. Jeffrey Epstein provided the seed money for a tech company that Ehud Barak started up with a bunch of guys who were veterans of unit 8200, which is the Israeli NSA, which was basically a tech company. And when Epstein was in control of the Wexner foundation, he gave Ehud Barak $2.3 million to write two papers, only one of which apparently got written. They never asked for their money back. So big money was changing hands. There are victims who say that they were forced to have sex with Ehud Barak. But I haven't vetted those claims, so I don't want to make that claim. So that's one of the things we do have.
But beyond that, we have a lot of celebrities, a lot of political figures like Bill Clinton, and a lot of it is framed as a rehab tour for Epstein. He's giving a lot of money to scientific causes, things like that, trying to rebuild public goodwill. And that's the reason he was arrested again, is because the lawyers, God bless them, of victims from the first case, were really, really upset about what happened, especially because it took a lot of courage for these girls to come out. The people who did this were terrifying. Ghislaine Maxwell would tell the girls when they tried to get away how easy it would be to get rid of them. These are stories that the victims tell. They would threaten their lives, threaten their families. And then they're watching this guy get protected at the highest levels. They're watching him get a nothing sentence for all he did. So they think this must be an incredibly powerful guy. They're terrified. It took a lot of courage to come out. Not only the lead prosecutor, but the victims and their lawyers, the deal was signed in secret before anybody knew about it, including the Department of Justice lead prosecutor. So the victims were really angry, because the DOJ had been telling these girls, "look, I know it's scary, but you got to do this. And don't worry, we got this guy. He is going away for the rest of his life. You don't have anything to worry about." And to have that sweetheart deal happen behind their backs made them really angry. And they said, "look, there is something out there called the victim's rights act. You are legally bound to inform victims when you do something like this. You did not do that. That makes your deal invalid." And eventually a federal judge found that indeed the government "had engaged in a conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein to make this illegitimate, illegal deal." So it got stricken, which allowed him to be rearrested. And that's why he was arrested in 2019, by the feds. He was coming back from Paris, his plane landed, and Bill Barr, who had just taken over the Department of Justice in February 2019 or so right after the midterms, arrested him. Then everybody kind of knows the outlines of the story after he's put in jail.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 18 U.S.C ; 2241 by sexually and physically abusing Plaintiff Johnson by forcing her to engage in various perverted and depraved sex acts by threatening physical harm to Plaintiff Johnson and also her family.
6. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, also did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.; 1985 by conspiring to deny Plaintiff Johnson her Civil Rights by making her their sex slave.
7. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was subject to extreme sexual and physical abuse by the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, including forcible rape during a four month time span covering the months of June-September 1994 when Plaintiff Johnson was still only a minor of age 13.
8. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career to attend a series of underage sex parties held at the New York City residence of Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein and attended by Defendant Donald J. Trump.
9. On the first occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to manually stimulate Defendant Trump with the use of her hand upon Defendant Trump's erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm.
10. On the second occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing her mouth upon Defendant Trump's erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm.
11. On the third occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was forced to engage in an unnatural lesbian sex act with her fellow minor and sex slave, Maria Doe age 12, for the sexual enjoyment of Defendant Trump. After this sex act, both minors were forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing their mouths simultaneously on his erect penis until he achieved sexual orgasm. After zipping up his pants, Defendant Trump physically pushed both minors away while angrily berating them for the "poor" quality of their sexual performance.
12.On the fourth and final sexual encounter with the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was tied to a bed by Defendant Trump who then proceeded to forcibly rape Plaintiff Johnson. During the course of this savage sexual attack, Plaintiff Johnson loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to "please wear a condom". Defendant Trump responded by violently striking Plaintiff Johnson in the face with his open hand and screaming that "he would do whatever he wanted" as he refused to wear protection. After achieving sexual orgasm, the Defendant, Donald J. Trump put his suit back on and when the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, in tears asked Defendant Trump what would happen if he had impregnated her, Defendant Trump grabbed his wallet and threw some money at her and screamed that she should use the money "to get a fucking abortion".
13. On the first occasion involving the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to disrobe into her bra and panties and to give a full body massage to Defendant Epstein while he was completely naked. During the massage, Defendant Epstein physically forced Plaintiff Johnson to touch his erect penis with her bare hands and to clean up his ejaculated semen after he achieved sexual orgasm.
14. On the second occasion involving the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was again forced to disrobe into her bra and panties while giving Defendant Epstein a full body massage while he was completely naked. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was also present as he was getting his own massage from another minor, Jane Doe, age 13. Defendant Epstein forced Plaintiff Johnson to touch his erect penis by physically placing her bare hands upon his sex organ and again forced Plaintiff Johnson to clean up his ejaculated semen after he achieved sexual orgasm.
15. Shortly after this sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, Plaintiff Johnson was still present while the two Defendants were arguing over who would be the one to take Plaintiff Johnson's virginity. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was clearly heard referring to Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, as a "Jew Bastard" as he yelled at Defendant Epstein, that clearly, he, Defendant Trump, should be the lucky one to "pop the cherry" of Plaintiff Johnson.
16. The third and final sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Kati Johnson, took place after Plaintiff Johnson had been brutally and savagely raped by Defendant Trump. While receiving another full body massage from Plaintiff Johnson, while in the nude, Defendant Epstein became so enraged after finding out that Defendant Trump had been the one to take Plaintiff Johnson's virginity, that Defendant Epstein also violently raped Plaintiff Johnson. After forcing Plaintiff Johnson to disrobe into her bra and panties, while receiving a massage from the Plaintiff, Defendant Epstein attempted to enter Plaintiff Johnson's anal cavity with his erect penis while trying to restrain her. Plaintiff Johnson attempted to push Defendant Epstein away, at which time Defendant Epstein attempted to enter Plaintiff Johnson's vagina with his erect penis. This attempt to brutally sodomize and rape Plaintiff Johnson by Defendant Epstein was finally repelled by Plaintiff Johnson but not before Defendant Epstein was able to achieve sexual orgasm. After perversely sodomizing and raping the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, attempted to strike her about the head with his closed fists while he angrily screamed at Plaintiff Johnson that he, Defendant Epstein, should have been the one who "took her cherry, not Mr. Trump", before she finally managed to break away from Defendant Epstein.
17. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was fully warned on more than one occasion by both Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, that were she ever to reveal any of the details of the sexual and physical abuse that she had suffered as a sex slave for Defendant Trump and Defendant Epstein, that Plaintiff Johnson and her family would be in mortal danger. Plaintiff Johnson was warned that this would mean certain death for herself and Plaintiff Johnson's family unless she remained silent forever on the exact details of the depraved and perverted sexual and physical abuse she had been forced to endure from the Defendants.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
18. Tiffany Doe, a former trusted employee of the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, has agreed to provide sworn testimony in this civil case and any other future civil or criminal proceedings, fully verifying the authenticity of the claims of the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson. Witness Tiffany Doe was employed by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, for more than 10 years as a party planner for his underage sex parties. Despite being subject to constant terroristic threats by Defendants Epstein and Trump to never reveal the details of these underage sex parties at which scores of teenagers, and pre-teen girls were used as sex slaves by Defendant Epstein and Defendant Trump, witness Tiffany Doe refuses to be silent any longer. She has agreed to fully reveal the extent of the sexual perversion and physical cruelty that she personally witnessed at these parties by Defendants Epstein and Trump.
19. Material witness Tiffany Doe fully confirms all of Plaintiff Katie Johnson's allegations of physical and sexual abuse by Defendants Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein. Tiffany Doe was physically present at each of the four occasions of sexual abuse by Defendant Trump upon the person of Plaintiff Johnson, as it was her job to witness all of the sexual escapades of Defendant Epstein's guests at these underage sex parties and later reveal all of the sordid details directly to Defendant Epstein. Defendant Epstein also demanded that Tiffany Doe tell him personally everything she had overheard at these parties explaining to her that "knowledge was king" in the financial world. As a result of these underage sex parties, Defendant Epstein was able to accumulate inside business knowledge that he otherwise would never have been privy to in order to amass his huge personal fortune.
20. Material witness Tiffany Doe will testify that she was also present or had direct knowledge of each of the three instances on which Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein physically and sexually abused the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson. Tiffany Doe will testify to the fact that the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was extremely fortunate to have survived all of the physical and sexual horrors inflicted upon her by Defendants Epstein and Trump.
-- KATIE JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. DONALD J. TRUMP and JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant(s). COMPLAINT FOR CLAIM RELIEF DUE TO: 1. SEXUAL ABUSE UNDER THREAT OF HARM; 2. CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE CIVIL RIGHTS, Case Number: ED CV16-00797 DMG *(KSX), FILED: 2016 APR 26 AM 11:12
There was the story of him being assaulted in his cell by this gorilla who was put in with him. He was a corrupt NYPD police officer who was in for a double murder of two drug dealers that he was offing for another drug deal. He's a giant bodybuilder dude, a monster of a guy. And they put little Jeffrey Epstein, who is known for all of his evils, but not known for being a violent criminal, in a cell with him.
The Istanbul Convention (Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating Violence Against Women [VAW] and domestic violence) of the Council of Europe describes VAW as "a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women" and defines VAW as "all acts of gender-based violence that result in or are likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological, or economic harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion, or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life".
-- Violence against women, by Wikipedia
The guy assaults him, and then Epstein ends up dead under circumstances that we've all gone over again and again. And for years we were told that there was no footage, that all three of the cameras that were relevant to that area had somehow malfunctioned, or gone out of service at the same time. And the guards who were on duty that night fell asleep, and the pages of their logbook for the pertinent time period somehow went missing. And we're like, "come on."
So maybe Jeffrey Epstein was told that the best course of action for him was to go ahead and commit suicide now. But we have this set of circumstances that's entirely implausible. And pretty much everybody who knew him, including his lawyers, point out to this day that this guy's hubris was off the charts. He had already gotten away with this once.
I just don't buy into the accusations of Trump having anything to do with Epstein. It doesn't strike me that Trump has the personality type that would do that kind of thing. But there are pictures of him out there. There was a relationship that maybe could have been leveraged, strings to pull. It wasn't as if his appeals were exhausted, so why would he kill himself? He had so many cards to play, and he had gotten away with it before. And nobody who was close to him during that time period, including his lawyers, believes that he committed suicide. One lawyer I spoke to said he thought Epstein was going to get out on appeal any day.
It's also interesting that the Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice, has never released the names of the inmates who were in lockup with him. He was supposedly in the cell by himself, but there were 11 or so other inmates in the maximum security cell block in the Federal Detention center, and several were transferred out shortly after. And they can't tell us their names because of HIPAA or something. It doesn't make sense. The guards who fell asleep were not punished. They lied about the tape. And most damning of all, Bill Barr flat out participated in the cover up. And in his memoir he says that as soon as this happened, his first concern was people thinking Epstein had been murdered. When you're the chief law enforcement officer, you should hold open every possibility, including the most obvious, which is that he was murdered. So if your goal was to convince people of something you didn't know was true, you're not pursuing the truth. You are in fact, by definition, participating in a cover up. That's my view. I'd love to know the other side of it. Bill Barr won't talk to me about it though. He attacked me for saying it, but Bill Barr is participating in the cover up. So what the hell is that about?
And Bill Barr has a history of covering things up for the intelligence community, both Iran Contra as Attorney General in the early 90s, and as the CIA legal liaison to Congress during the Church and Pike Committee hearings. There's history there of covering things up that have embarrassing ties to the intelligence community. If he was your neighbor, he'd probably be a good neighbor. I've always thought he was a super nice, friendly guy. Everybody who knows him thinks he's a good man. But what matters is how you use your power. That's how you're judged.
And again, go back to how people justify things to themselves. Most people are not comfortable thinking of themselves as evil human beings, or as people who are participating in doing evil. So they tell themselves stories to say it's not true. To me, a pervert like Jeffrey Epstein is just one small part of this story. There's the whole constellation of forces around him that protect him, and confuse the issue. And to this day, Jeffrey Epstein has become a proxy for other important things. If there's anyone at the White House, or anyone close to Epstein watching right now, he's a proxy for holding these people accountable. Like Donald Trump's presidency in general, certainly the immigration thing was important, but these people have gotten so out of control, and so out of touch with the rest of us, and so unconcerned with what's going on with us, we need to bring in a wrecking ball to shake things up, and tear this thing down. People are not listening to us because we're irrelevant. We don't have any say in our government. There is no democratic control in the United States. The population's views don't matter. That's the feeling that people have. And this whole story that you've told for 2 hours and 37 minutes confirms that we are right to be concerned. Because what you're describing is an informally organized force, or series of forces, that operate outside and above the U.S. Government, and every other global government, or most of them anyway. And when a U.S. attorney, a federal prosecutor, in one of our biggest states, is told to back off, everybody beneath him backs off also. So what is that? It's a force bigger than the U.S. Government. And I think that can't continue. And if you polled Americans, and asked "what's the worst crime?," I think pedophilia would be the answer. So when they tell you we bombed a car in Kabul and killed a family of 10 during the Afghanistan withdrawal, but they can't really get into all of the details because of sources, and methods, and so forth, people don't like that. But a child's innocence is sacred. And sacred means there is no compromise with regard to that. If exposing information about somebody like Jeffrey Epstein means that a Dr. Strangelove style nuclear device goes off and destroys the planet, too bad, let justice be done.
Even if the heavens fall down, or something like that. Because the crime is beyond the pale. It's something that for all normal people, the excuse of national security, what does a pedophile have to do with national security? We have a journalist with a source saying that Epstein belonged to intelligence. There are all these ties over the years that provide more circumstantial evidence to back that up. If the U.S. government had anything to do with this guy, if foreign governments operating on our soil had anything to do with this guy, we don't care what their excuse is. We're talking about a man who was raping children. And if our government, the people who pass laws that we have to follow or else men with guns show up to our house and drag us off to a cage somewhere, the men and women who make these rules, need to draw a line in the sand and say, this is too far. You are going to stop doing this, and we don't care what happens. We want an explanation of what was going on here, and we're not going to take no for an answer. This is too far. It's too emblematic. It's too severe of a crime. And I really hope that people will keep that mentality, and not let this die until we get a good, satisfactory answer on what was going on.
Amen to that.
And everything that you have said was said, I think, in a really measured, restrained way. I also notice about you, as I've noticed before, your total determination to see things through the eyes of the people you're talking about, whether you agree or disagree with them. You add humanity to history, which is why I value your historical analysis. I think it's the humane way.
My last question, and I just can't help this because I'm not as good a person as you are, Mark Levin described you as a propagandist, a demagogue. That you shouldn't have a platform. You should be silenced. I've listened to you now for 2 hours and 40 minutes. What is it about what you just said, that would make Mark Levin call for you to be silenced, and call you a criminal? I mean, here you are arguing against child molestation. You are not attacking anybody, certainly on the basis of religion or ethnicity, or anything like that. You're not even attacking any governments. That's my read on what you're saying. Why would your 2 hour and 40 minute description of this news story, why would that make someone like Mark Levin so angry?
I think when you see the constellation of commentators and personalities that have immediately jumped on the side of there's nothing to see here; it's all over with; let's drop the case, they are the same people who told us we were traitors if we didn't want to bomb Iran just a few weeks ago. The funny thing about it is that people like Mark, people like Ben Shapiro, a lot of these folks, are actually afraid. They have something like the pop understanding of what Jeffrey Epstein was in their heads, and they're afraid that exposing the case will show his ties to Israeli intelligence. I actually have a much more conservative view on the whole thing than they probably do. I think he did work for Israeli intelligence, but I think he was a freelancer who also worked for the CIA, and did work for a lot of intelligence agencies. They were probably independent criminals.
It sounds like you're right. It's clearly not just about Israel. It is in part about Israel, but it's not only about Israel. It's about our government covering up Epstein's freaking crimes in 2007. It says a lot about Levin and his priorities. And I would say anyone who doesn't want to get to the bottom of this, why is that? I don't think there is a good answer to that question.
I agree that we should not compromise on this.
We will get a satisfactory answer, or figuratively, we will burn this place down. Don't come knocking on my door, FBI. But we're not going to let this go, because this is a line in the sand. You will be honest with us about this, because if you can't, then it means that this thing cannot be fixed, and if you can't be honest with us about this, we can't trust anything you say. If you're willing to lie to our faces in such a brazen way about a guy who was raping children, if you'll do that, then there's just nothing more to talk about with the ruling class.
You know, I can't improve on that.
Darryl Cooper. Thank you. I'm always grateful when you come. This is the second time. I hope it won't be the last.
Thank you very much. Always a pleasure.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37971
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue Aug 12, 2025 5:13 am
Judge Says DOJ/Pam Bondi Made "Demonstrably False" Arguments in Epstein/Maxwell Case
Glenn Kirschner
8/11/25
Aug 11, 2025 All the "King's" Men: Trump's lackeys and their disservice to America
A New York federal court judge just rejected the motion filed by DOJ/Pam Bondi/Todd Blanche to release the grand jury transcripts in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.
According the ABC News, Judge Paul Engelmayer issued a lengthy opinion, criticizing the "Department of Justice for using 'demonstrably false' reasoning to justify the release of grand jury testimony." The judge also said release the transcripts would not reveal new information of any consequence, and that it looked like an effort by DOJ to give the illusion of transparency and full disclosure, adding that "there is no there, there."
[Glenn Kirschner] Friends, talk about the mother of all
distractions.
Today, a federal judge condemned Donald
Trump and Pam Bondi's Department of
Justice for their conduct in the Epstein
litigation, filing those motions to
unseal the Epstein and Ghislain Maxwell
grand jury transcripts with the judge
saying that DOJ was using quote
demonstrably false reasoning
and was creating a quote diversion
and adding that there's no there there.
So Donald Trump needs another diversion.
What does he do?
He sends soldiers into the streets of
Washington DC and seizes control of the
local city police department, the DC
city cops, MPD, the Metropolitan Police
Department. They were my partners in
local crime fighting for decades when I
was a prosecutor in Washington DC. But
guess what?
we will not be distracted.
So, let's talk about that federal
judge's condemnation of Donald Trump and
Pam Bondi's Department of Justice
because justice
matters.
[Music]
Hey all, Glen Kirschner here. So friends,
we're about to discuss some of the most
scathing remarks imaginable from a
federal judge. Remarks condemning the
unethical conduct of Pam Bondi and her
Department of Justice. conduct intended
to deceive the American people regarding
the true state of affairs in the Trump
Epstein Maxwell scandal. Conduct
designed to use the power of the
Department of Justice to cover up for
Donald Trump. So friends, I want to go
slowly and methodically through this new
reporting because I don't want it to get
lost amidst the latest Trump attempt to
distract.
So let's turn to today's reporting. This
from ABC News. Judge rejects Trump
administration's request to unseal grand
jury testimony in Ghislain Maxwell case.
And that article begins, "A federal
judge in New York has denied the Trump
administration's motion to unseal grand
jury testimony from the criminal case
against Jeffrey Epstein associate
Ghislain Maxwell. The Trump
administration has been seeking to
release materials related to the
investigation into Epstein, the wealthy
financier and convicted sex offender
who died in jail in 2019
following the blowback it received from
MAGA supporters after it announced last
month that no additional files would be
released. Maxwell, a longtime associate
of Epstein, is currently serving a
20-year prison sentence for sex
trafficking and other offenses in
connection with Epstein. In his 31-page
opinion, US District Judge Paul Engel,
Mayor of the Southern District of New
York, criticized the Department of
Justice for using demonstrably false
reasoning to justify the release of
grand jury testimony. The transcripts
would not reveal new information of any
consequence about Epstein and Maxwell's
crimes. According to Judge Angel Mayor,
who suggested that the Trump
administration's push to release
documents might be an intentional
diversion.
quote, "Its entire premise that the
Maxwell grand jury materials would bring
to light meaningful new information
about Epstein's and Maxwell's crimes or
the government's DOJ's investigation
into them is demonstrably false," the
judge wrote.
Engel wrote that the transcripts contain
material already in the public record
and lack any firsthand information about
Epstein's and Maxwell's crimes. The
records do not identify anyone other
than Epstein or Maxwell who had sexual
contact with a minor, mention any
clients, shed light on their methods, or
provide new information about Epstein's
death. Angel Mayer wrote, "Judge Engel
Mayer also suggested that the only
reason that might justify the release of
the records would be to expose as
disingenuous
the government's DOJ's public
explanations for moving to unseal." In
other words, the judge said, "There is
no there there."
this further quote from the judge. A
member of the public appreciating that
the Maxwell grand jury materials do not
contribute anything to public knowledge
might conclude that the government's
motion for their unsealing was aimed not
at transparency but at diversion, aimed
not at full disclosure but at the
illusion of such, the judge wrote. So
friends, you might ask, well, in this
Epstein Maxwell grand jury litigation,
who at the Department of Justice is
responsible for making those quote
demonstrably false arguments?
Pam Bondi, Todd Blanch, and Jay Clayton.
Three Donald Trump political appointees.
No career DOJ lawyers. no permanent
federal prosecutors. The men and women
who go into federal court, you know, all
across the country every day
representing the interests of the
American people, none of them were on
this court filing. No, just three Trump
appointees, two of whom were Donald
Trump's personal attorneys previously.
And frankly, I think it's fair to say
given the way they're conducting
themselves, they are still acting like
Donald Trump's personal lawyers, Pam
Bondi and Todd Blanch. So, if these were
just ordinary, run-of-the-mill DOJ
lawyers, what would happen to them once
a federal judge had said they're making
demonstrably false arguments? They are
using diversions and distractions.
Attorneys who are misusing DOJ's power
and the courts as a diversion,
misleading the public because there's no
there there. What would happen to those
attorneys? Those attorneys would be
referred to their state bar, the state
in which they are licensed to practice
law, referred for an ethics
investigation and possible sanctions up
to and including potentially being
disbarred.
That's what should happen to attorneys
who make demonstrably false arguments to
a court. You know why?
You know why?
Because justice
matters.
And friends, I also want to talk about
Donald Trump's latest attempt to
distract the American people from this
scathing rebuke, the ongoing cover up of
the Trump Epstein Maxwell scandal. And
I'll be talking about that in another
video either later today or early
tomorrow. But right now, I just want to
let this story sit because this is what
Donald Trump is trying to distract the
American people from by, you know,
deploying troops to the streets of our
nation's capital and claiming he's going
to seize control of the local police
department and goodness knows what else.
But let's remain focused on a scandal
that seems to have legs like no other
Trump scandal that is the ongoing cover
up of the Trump Epstein Maxwell scandal
which you know has got his MAGA
supporters up in arms which has
Republicans in Congress bucking Donald
Trump's desire to stop talking about it.
Let's just let this one sit for a
minute.
And as always friends, please stay safe,
please stay tuned, and I look forward to
talking with you all again tomorrow.
[Music]
[Applause]
[Music]
Glenn Kirschner
8/11/25
Aug 11, 2025 All the "King's" Men: Trump's lackeys and their disservice to America
A New York federal court judge just rejected the motion filed by DOJ/Pam Bondi/Todd Blanche to release the grand jury transcripts in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.
According the ABC News, Judge Paul Engelmayer issued a lengthy opinion, criticizing the "Department of Justice for using 'demonstrably false' reasoning to justify the release of grand jury testimony." The judge also said release the transcripts would not reveal new information of any consequence, and that it looked like an effort by DOJ to give the illusion of transparency and full disclosure, adding that "there is no there, there."
[Glenn Kirschner] Friends, talk about the mother of all
distractions.
Today, a federal judge condemned Donald
Trump and Pam Bondi's Department of
Justice for their conduct in the Epstein
litigation, filing those motions to
unseal the Epstein and Ghislain Maxwell
grand jury transcripts with the judge
saying that DOJ was using quote
demonstrably false reasoning
and was creating a quote diversion
and adding that there's no there there.
So Donald Trump needs another diversion.
What does he do?
He sends soldiers into the streets of
Washington DC and seizes control of the
local city police department, the DC
city cops, MPD, the Metropolitan Police
Department. They were my partners in
local crime fighting for decades when I
was a prosecutor in Washington DC. But
guess what?
we will not be distracted.
So, let's talk about that federal
judge's condemnation of Donald Trump and
Pam Bondi's Department of Justice
because justice
matters.
[Music]
Hey all, Glen Kirschner here. So friends,
we're about to discuss some of the most
scathing remarks imaginable from a
federal judge. Remarks condemning the
unethical conduct of Pam Bondi and her
Department of Justice. conduct intended
to deceive the American people regarding
the true state of affairs in the Trump
Epstein Maxwell scandal. Conduct
designed to use the power of the
Department of Justice to cover up for
Donald Trump. So friends, I want to go
slowly and methodically through this new
reporting because I don't want it to get
lost amidst the latest Trump attempt to
distract.
So let's turn to today's reporting. This
from ABC News. Judge rejects Trump
administration's request to unseal grand
jury testimony in Ghislain Maxwell case.
And that article begins, "A federal
judge in New York has denied the Trump
administration's motion to unseal grand
jury testimony from the criminal case
against Jeffrey Epstein associate
Ghislain Maxwell. The Trump
administration has been seeking to
release materials related to the
investigation into Epstein, the wealthy
financier and convicted sex offender
who died in jail in 2019
following the blowback it received from
MAGA supporters after it announced last
month that no additional files would be
released. Maxwell, a longtime associate
of Epstein, is currently serving a
20-year prison sentence for sex
trafficking and other offenses in
connection with Epstein. In his 31-page
opinion, US District Judge Paul Engel,
Mayor of the Southern District of New
York, criticized the Department of
Justice for using demonstrably false
reasoning to justify the release of
grand jury testimony. The transcripts
would not reveal new information of any
consequence about Epstein and Maxwell's
crimes. According to Judge Angel Mayor,
who suggested that the Trump
administration's push to release
documents might be an intentional
diversion.
quote, "Its entire premise that the
Maxwell grand jury materials would bring
to light meaningful new information
about Epstein's and Maxwell's crimes or
the government's DOJ's investigation
into them is demonstrably false," the
judge wrote.
Engel wrote that the transcripts contain
material already in the public record
and lack any firsthand information about
Epstein's and Maxwell's crimes. The
records do not identify anyone other
than Epstein or Maxwell who had sexual
contact with a minor, mention any
clients, shed light on their methods, or
provide new information about Epstein's
death. Angel Mayer wrote, "Judge Engel
Mayer also suggested that the only
reason that might justify the release of
the records would be to expose as
disingenuous
the government's DOJ's public
explanations for moving to unseal." In
other words, the judge said, "There is
no there there."
this further quote from the judge. A
member of the public appreciating that
the Maxwell grand jury materials do not
contribute anything to public knowledge
might conclude that the government's
motion for their unsealing was aimed not
at transparency but at diversion, aimed
not at full disclosure but at the
illusion of such, the judge wrote. So
friends, you might ask, well, in this
Epstein Maxwell grand jury litigation,
who at the Department of Justice is
responsible for making those quote
demonstrably false arguments?
Pam Bondi, Todd Blanch, and Jay Clayton.
Three Donald Trump political appointees.
No career DOJ lawyers. no permanent
federal prosecutors. The men and women
who go into federal court, you know, all
across the country every day
representing the interests of the
American people, none of them were on
this court filing. No, just three Trump
appointees, two of whom were Donald
Trump's personal attorneys previously.
And frankly, I think it's fair to say
given the way they're conducting
themselves, they are still acting like
Donald Trump's personal lawyers, Pam
Bondi and Todd Blanch. So, if these were
just ordinary, run-of-the-mill DOJ
lawyers, what would happen to them once
a federal judge had said they're making
demonstrably false arguments? They are
using diversions and distractions.
Attorneys who are misusing DOJ's power
and the courts as a diversion,
misleading the public because there's no
there there. What would happen to those
attorneys? Those attorneys would be
referred to their state bar, the state
in which they are licensed to practice
law, referred for an ethics
investigation and possible sanctions up
to and including potentially being
disbarred.
That's what should happen to attorneys
who make demonstrably false arguments to
a court. You know why?
You know why?
Because justice
matters.
And friends, I also want to talk about
Donald Trump's latest attempt to
distract the American people from this
scathing rebuke, the ongoing cover up of
the Trump Epstein Maxwell scandal. And
I'll be talking about that in another
video either later today or early
tomorrow. But right now, I just want to
let this story sit because this is what
Donald Trump is trying to distract the
American people from by, you know,
deploying troops to the streets of our
nation's capital and claiming he's going
to seize control of the local police
department and goodness knows what else.
But let's remain focused on a scandal
that seems to have legs like no other
Trump scandal that is the ongoing cover
up of the Trump Epstein Maxwell scandal
which you know has got his MAGA
supporters up in arms which has
Republicans in Congress bucking Donald
Trump's desire to stop talking about it.
Let's just let this one sit for a
minute.
And as always friends, please stay safe,
please stay tuned, and I look forward to
talking with you all again tomorrow.
[Music]
[Applause]
[Music]
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37971
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu Aug 14, 2025 5:45 am
Michael Cohen Makes SHOCKING Admission About Trump & Epstein to @TaraPalmeri
The Young Turks
Aug 13, 2025 #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews #TYT
Independent Journalist @TaraPalmeri joins TYT to discuss her recent interview with Trump's fixer Michael Cohen. Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur discuss on The Young Turks.
Transcript
Tara Palmeri reflects on interview with Michael Cohen
And I'll tell you this, more women than
you think are staying quiet about
Epstein. So the idea that there are no
third parties, it's just it's just
ridiculous.
So Tara, you're saying that there were
active open investigations and people
might have been tried and and charged
soon and then Trump shut down all the
case.
That's what I understand from my source.
All right, we got a great interview for
you guys now. Terara Pomeary. Uh she's
the author of the red letter on Substack
which sounds which matches Anna's dress
today and so it's appropriate and makes
a lot of sense.
Uh and a host of the Tara Palary show
unsurprisingly on YouTube. All right. Uh
Tara is an expert on the Epcene case and
recently interviewed Michael Cohen uh
Donald Trump's former fixer and joins us
now. Tara, welcome back.
Ah no problem. Uh so uh let's talk about
your Michael Cohen interview. Uh, so he
used to be Donald Trump's lawyer. He
told you something interesting. What was
that?
Yeah, I think this is a pretty big
breakthrough actually in terms of
understanding why President Trump might
not want the Epstein files out there.
Um, and it's actually been really
underplayed. You know, I was thinking
about it as I saw Michael Cohen on a
number of shows saying, you know,
President Trump doesn't doodle. His
doodle sell at auction on the basis.
This was after the Wall Street Journal
reported that uh President Trump gave
Jeffrey Epstein a doodle of a woman, a
naked woman with a you know some like
Katie Johnson case
sort of a suggestion that they both knew
about sexual trrists. And then you know
we find out that they sell an auction.
Um he also says he doesn't use the word
enigma. We have clips of Trump using the
word enigma. He said there's no way that
Trump went on the island. We don't have
any proof of Trump on the island.
Epstein's island by the way. It's not in
the flight records, but he was just
saying I know this because I know Trump.
Okay. So, it's like, you know, right,
you were the fixer. And there was a case
right before the election. There was a
woman named Katie Johnson, which is not
a real name. It is a Jane Doe name. She
came through in three lawsuits right
before the 2016 election, alleging that
she was raped by President Trump in
Jeffrey Epstein's house in 1994 in his
townhouse when she was a 13-year-old
trying to be a model. The case was
dropped right before the election in
November. um 2016 and she cited intim
intimidation and um I thought to myself,
well, who would have handled something
like that? And at the time, Michael
Cohen was Donald Trump's fixer, right?
He handled the Stormmy Daniels case the
exact same time. That was the hush money
case that actually led to him going to
prison for campaign finance violations.
He also dealt with the uh Karen
McDougall payments through the National
Enquirer, another attempt to keep an
affair quiet before the elections. And
um you know I first talked to him on his
Substack and he was very defensive. He
said, "I don't know anything. I don't
know anything. I don't know anything
about Jeffrey Epstein and then he
finally said there was one complaint of
Michael Cohen recounts complaint against Trump & Epstein
an he called her an infant
alleging rape um of President Trump and
that he sent a private investigator to
try to find this Jane Doe."
So Tara,
first of all,
I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we
actually have that portion of your
interview with Michael Cohen. So, I kind
of if it's okay, I'd like to play that
for the audience so they can hear what
he said out of his own mouth and then
we'll discuss. Let's take a look.
Okay.
The only case that I was involved with
was a Jane Doe, an infant, um, by and
through her mom, Mary Jane Doe, right,
as legal guardian. That case was
dismissed not because of anything that I
sp well well I spoke to the lawyers and
I've talked to every I've talked about
this a million times.
I turn around and I receive this summon
in a complaint and the averments in it
are awful. They're despicable. It talks
about uh basically rate of an underage
female,
claiming and alleging that Donald was
involved in it and all that other
nonsense.
I ended up
taking a private investigator
and trying to find out who this person
was. and we went to the address that
allegedly this minor lived at in the
Bronx.
Well, lo and behold, the investigator
responds back and says, "The only thing
that's there is an empty parking lot.
It's there's no building there. It's an
empty lot."
Wow. So, so what was the takeaway uh
from what he admitted there? First of
all, he's never admitted that before.
Literally, he says, "I know nothing
about Jeffrey Epste." And that was how
he spent the first four minutes of the
conversation, saying, "I know nothing
about Jeffrey Epste. I know nothing
about Jeffrey Epste. I know nothing
about Jeffrey Epstein." And then finally
admits that he worked on a Jeffrey
Epstein complaint. The reason that Jane
Doe's might use an empty parking lot, a
place they don't live, is to protect
themselves from private investigators
and harassment. It is a known fact that
they decide to be Jane Doe's because
they are afraid of intimidation of
threats. Uh Courtney Wild, who was a
very brave survivor of Jeffrey Epstein,
when she decided to uh you know file a
suit against him, his private
investigators were so aggressive they
almost ran her off the road. This is a
very common tactic when trying to
intimidate Jane Doe's. Now, the fact
that this Jane Doe led to a undisclosed
location, a lot of them just choose
their lawyer's law firm. You know, that
doesn't mean anything. I'm not saying
that President Trump raped this woman.
This is an allegation of rape. But what
I'm saying is just because it led to a
um an undisclosed
a parking lot doesn't change the case.
Um he's very he's very obtuse in this in
this interview. He won't confirm that it
is the Katie Johnson case, even though
that is the only case that was filed at
that time, the only complaint that was
filed against Trump in relationship to
Epstein before the before the campaign.
And he he says it was dropped around the
same time, just days before the
election. He says he doesn't remember
very well. He says that the lawyers
apologized to him when they dropped the
case, but that the case was withdrawn,
citing intimidation. And I just think
this is just such a um a bombshell in a
lot of ways. And I asked Michael, you
know, what did President Trump say when
you asked him about it? Because you
often know, you have to know what your
client says about this, right? They're
friends. There's tons of pictures
together from that period of time. Um
and he said, "Michael, it's nothing.
Handle it." And he's like, "And then I
took care of it." And I said, "And you
believed him?" And he said, "100%."
H okay. So, uh well, part of your theory
is that uh private investigators get
hired and that's why they hide their
address. And in this case, uh they did
hire a private investigator. So, that
kind of proves the point. And if it
turned out she had used her real
address, the private investigator would
have tracked her from there on. So, or
like already this is super
uncomfortable. I mean, I think that
there's another part of the story that
we're kind of missing here, which is so
Donald Trump hired a private
investigator to track one of the victims
from Epstein.
Exactly.
Who had uh, you know, had allegations
against him. That's kind of a big story,
right?
That's a big deal. Yeah.
And and no one in the mainstream media
is covering it. And yet it's in his own
words. It's not me with a single source
saying a source told me this that
Michael Cohen did this. This is Michael
Cohen's own words.
Yeah. I mean, and do we know if the
private investigator eventually did find
her because she pulls the lawsuit saying
intimid intimidation. Now, we know there
was a private investigator. Maybe they
they did find her. Maybe they did
intimidate her. We don't know that, but
we certainly don't know the opposite
either given uh the situation here. So,
that leads me to a broad question. I
know
Cohen Cohen said that she didn't exist.
That's what Cohen said, that this woman
didn't exist and that his lawyer said
that they had never met her before.
But she had three lawyer. If it's the
same case of Katie Johnson, she had
three cases. This the entire interview
for everyone who wants to watch it. It's
on my YouTube channel. Um it completely
devolves into him screaming at me,
telling me that I'm wrong and that the
tr and and and debating the truth for
just asking these really simple
questions.
Um it's it's it's really something.
Sounds like the tone of someone who has
nothing to hide.
Yeah. This is crazy. This is I mean the
behavior of Donald Trump as it pertains
to the potential release of the Epstein
files is super shady. I mean super sh He
couldn't have handled it worse if he
wants people to think he has nothing to
do uh with Epstein or any of the
disgusting loome criminality he had
engaged in. And the it really does beg
the question why are we not getting the
Epstein files? Uh, what did Trump's
personal lawyer Todd Blanch talk to
Galain Maxwell about? And why was she
moved from like a higher security prison
to like the club med of of prisons? You
know, considering the fact that she was
uh the person who recruited these
minors, uh, groomed these minors, and in
some cases even sexually assaulted these
minors, you know, what kind of favor was
done there? So, I I I just think the
whole thing is so deeply shady. Um, did
you have a question, Jake?
Yeah. Uh, so so he's Michael Cohen's
yelling at you, which is kind of curious
because he's obviously turned on Donald
Trump. He's been on this show a couple
times and on every other show. And so,
like, if Trump was implicated,
presumably he wouldn't be angry about
that if it didn't involve him. But it
does involve him. He was a lawyer in
that case, right? he was a fixer in that
case.
So that might be why he's reacting in
such a hostile way when it's otherwise
like if it was just a junk lawsuit, easy
to say, hey, you know what, nothing of
it. Uh if he if he's not involved in it,
he might go, "Yeah, look at Trump,
right?" Because he's he's certainly not
on Trump's side. It's But we're all
guessing here. So, uh my question is
about the the actual allegations. I
remember when they came out and most of
mainstream media treated it as
outlandish. There's no way it's true.
And then the case was dismissed. And I
have to confess I that was my reaction.
The the charges were so you know like
significant that I thought really is
this possible and then when it went away
I thought well okay I guess you know
there's a lot of people who don't like
Donald Trump. Maybe it was one of those.
Now, I know there's no way you could
know, right? But what is your educated
guess on like how real that lawsuit was?
I mean, the lawsuit was filed three
times and the lawsuit was dropped citing
intimidation.
I, you know, I I can't say that I have
spoken to this Jane Doe, um, Katie
Johnson. It's her decision if she wants
to come out, but like I've said before,
a lot of these Jane Does do this. I
mean, this is the power source. If she
wanted to go out and speak out about the
allegations right now, she's going up
against the most powerful person in the
world.
And that takes
that's I think that explains a lot.
Um, and yeah, there's a lot of fear.
This is I do a lot my my focus on the
Epstein story is on the survivors
um and what they have been through and
trying to put the pieces together for
them. Right. So,
and it's really hard. It is not easy.
The intimidation is a huge part of why
women stay quiet. And I'll tell you
this, more women than you think are
staying quiet about Epstein.
H interesting. So, okay, Roana and Tom
Massie are going to do a press
conference on September 3rd with some of
the victims. Uh, and they want the
Epstein files released. So, the victims
are out there and there's a lot of them.
I mean, from what I understand, there
are hundreds of them, right? So
thousand
thousand over a thousand. So I mean I
guess last question here. Do do you know
how to what degree they've have they all
been interviewed? Uh have do we know how
many of them have named other people
other than Epstein and Maxwell? Because
to me the bottom line is always
yeah you could pretend that the file is
not there. You could pretend that
there's no actual list per se, right?
You can pretend a lot of things, but you
can't pretend that there aren't over a
thousand victims. There are. And
those are the FBI's old own words. They
estimated that. They said there about a
thousand victims. There are Well, first
of all, we know the file exists. It's on
the FBI's website right now. You
couldn't see it. It's just all black.
That is the Epstein file. You just can't
read it because it's all redacted.
And the victims have lists of the men
that they were that they were sexually
abused by. I mean, even just Virginia
Grey's um if you look well, you can't
read it because the men fought to redact
their names, but if you actually look at
her at her depositions in the case
against Maxwell, it names a number of
men that she was trafficked to. This
isn't there. This isn't something that's
just contained. Um so the idea that
there are no third parties,
it's just it's just ridiculous.
Yeah. I mean, it's ludicrous to say that
it was just Epstein and Maxwell with
over a thousand girls. And by the way,
that might mean that there were a couple
of dozen or a couple of hundred clients
or it might mean there were a couple of
thousand clients because they could
have, you know, unfortunately pedled the
same girl to to multiple men, right? So,
I I'm just
like, okay, I keep saying last question,
but Tara, has no one ever like even
like I know they didn't bring a case
against anyone else, but that seems so
unbelievable
that like I'm struggling to find a way
in. Is there um any case brought by any
local authority, federal authority,
anyone who thought about bringing a case
and then a criminal case and then pulled
it back or has it been from day one the
US government saying we're never going
to prosecute any of these by their
actions, right? Not by by by their
words, which they eventually did say
those words, but by their deeds. No
effort to prosecute a single one of
these. A massive amount of clients from
Epste.
Okay. So Jenk, I was on the show. I
think I was on the show this earlier
this summer and I was explaining that
there is no master list, right? That
there's no one list that Jeffrey Epstein
held on to and it was all the guys that
he trafficked women to, right? That it
was mostly the women that had these
lists and yes, there is no master list.
And I actually started going back to
some of my FBI sources after we talked,
senior FBI sources, senior law
enforcement sources, just because I
wanted to see, well, what's happening
with that? you know, are they actually
pursuing this this case? There's 3,000
gigabytes of files that they're hanging
on to at Virginia
told me that her lawyer brought her to
the FBI to try to identify her body
among the bodies of girls with men above
them. And this person said, "Yes, we
have files. We have documents where h,
you know, we're still working on it.
We're going to be up against the most
powerful defense attorneys in the world
and prosecutors when they want to bring
when they want to, you know, try someone
in court, when they want to prosecute
them, they want to have a strong case.
These are really powerful people. And
then it's case closed just like a week
or two later after I made that phone
call. It was crazy to me. Case closed
from
no third parties. So, Tara, you're
saying that there were active open
investigations and people might have
been tried and and charged soon and then
Trump shut down all the cases.
That's what I understand from my source
that they were still investigating it
very much so at least at the FBI level.
Hadn't maybe reached to the DOJ and
prosecutors were working on it, but at
least at the FBI level, they were very
much still investigating. All right,
everybody check out Tara Pomey's channel
on YouTube. She covers uh this material
along with a lot of other good
investigative journalism and news. Uh
and uh check out that interview with
Michael Cole. We'll put a link down
below in the description box and check
out. Yeah, no problem. And check out
Red.
Thank you for being brave enough to talk
about it, too. I feel like that's why
this is such a great place for people to
come to because it's, you know, the
mainstream media doesn't want to touch
it. It's like
Yeah, that is weird. I mean,
well, thank you for your focus on the on
the victims because they are out there
and, you know, they're they're not being
represented. It's disgusting.
Yeah. And by the way, Terara's worked at
a number of major mainstream media
outlets, ABC Politico, etc., and been a
White House correspondent. So, it's not
like, oh, there she's a rabble rouser
and so they can't talk to her about it.
It I mean, it's it easily the biggest
story of the year and mainstream media
not wanting to talk about it is strange.
Yeah. All right, Tara, you're awesome.
We appreciate you. Thank you.
Thank you, guys.
Every time you ring the bell below, an
angel gets his wings. Totally not true,
but it does keep you updated on our live
shows.
The Young Turks
Aug 13, 2025 #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews #TYT
Independent Journalist @TaraPalmeri joins TYT to discuss her recent interview with Trump's fixer Michael Cohen. Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur discuss on The Young Turks.
Transcript
Tara Palmeri reflects on interview with Michael Cohen
And I'll tell you this, more women than
you think are staying quiet about
Epstein. So the idea that there are no
third parties, it's just it's just
ridiculous.
So Tara, you're saying that there were
active open investigations and people
might have been tried and and charged
soon and then Trump shut down all the
case.
That's what I understand from my source.
All right, we got a great interview for
you guys now. Terara Pomeary. Uh she's
the author of the red letter on Substack
which sounds which matches Anna's dress
today and so it's appropriate and makes
a lot of sense.
Uh and a host of the Tara Palary show
unsurprisingly on YouTube. All right. Uh
Tara is an expert on the Epcene case and
recently interviewed Michael Cohen uh
Donald Trump's former fixer and joins us
now. Tara, welcome back.
Ah no problem. Uh so uh let's talk about
your Michael Cohen interview. Uh, so he
used to be Donald Trump's lawyer. He
told you something interesting. What was
that?
Yeah, I think this is a pretty big
breakthrough actually in terms of
understanding why President Trump might
not want the Epstein files out there.
Um, and it's actually been really
underplayed. You know, I was thinking
about it as I saw Michael Cohen on a
number of shows saying, you know,
President Trump doesn't doodle. His
doodle sell at auction on the basis.
This was after the Wall Street Journal
reported that uh President Trump gave
Jeffrey Epstein a doodle of a woman, a
naked woman with a you know some like
Katie Johnson case
sort of a suggestion that they both knew
about sexual trrists. And then you know
we find out that they sell an auction.
Um he also says he doesn't use the word
enigma. We have clips of Trump using the
word enigma. He said there's no way that
Trump went on the island. We don't have
any proof of Trump on the island.
Epstein's island by the way. It's not in
the flight records, but he was just
saying I know this because I know Trump.
Okay. So, it's like, you know, right,
you were the fixer. And there was a case
right before the election. There was a
woman named Katie Johnson, which is not
a real name. It is a Jane Doe name. She
came through in three lawsuits right
before the 2016 election, alleging that
she was raped by President Trump in
Jeffrey Epstein's house in 1994 in his
townhouse when she was a 13-year-old
trying to be a model. The case was
dropped right before the election in
November. um 2016 and she cited intim
intimidation and um I thought to myself,
well, who would have handled something
like that? And at the time, Michael
Cohen was Donald Trump's fixer, right?
He handled the Stormmy Daniels case the
exact same time. That was the hush money
case that actually led to him going to
prison for campaign finance violations.
He also dealt with the uh Karen
McDougall payments through the National
Enquirer, another attempt to keep an
affair quiet before the elections. And
um you know I first talked to him on his
Substack and he was very defensive. He
said, "I don't know anything. I don't
know anything. I don't know anything
about Jeffrey Epstein and then he
finally said there was one complaint of
Michael Cohen recounts complaint against Trump & Epstein
an he called her an infant
alleging rape um of President Trump and
that he sent a private investigator to
try to find this Jane Doe."
So Tara,
first of all,
I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we
actually have that portion of your
interview with Michael Cohen. So, I kind
of if it's okay, I'd like to play that
for the audience so they can hear what
he said out of his own mouth and then
we'll discuss. Let's take a look.
Okay.
The only case that I was involved with
was a Jane Doe, an infant, um, by and
through her mom, Mary Jane Doe, right,
as legal guardian. That case was
dismissed not because of anything that I
sp well well I spoke to the lawyers and
I've talked to every I've talked about
this a million times.
I turn around and I receive this summon
in a complaint and the averments in it
are awful. They're despicable. It talks
about uh basically rate of an underage
female,
claiming and alleging that Donald was
involved in it and all that other
nonsense.
I ended up
taking a private investigator
and trying to find out who this person
was. and we went to the address that
allegedly this minor lived at in the
Bronx.
Well, lo and behold, the investigator
responds back and says, "The only thing
that's there is an empty parking lot.
It's there's no building there. It's an
empty lot."
Wow. So, so what was the takeaway uh
from what he admitted there? First of
all, he's never admitted that before.
Literally, he says, "I know nothing
about Jeffrey Epste." And that was how
he spent the first four minutes of the
conversation, saying, "I know nothing
about Jeffrey Epste. I know nothing
about Jeffrey Epste. I know nothing
about Jeffrey Epstein." And then finally
admits that he worked on a Jeffrey
Epstein complaint. The reason that Jane
Doe's might use an empty parking lot, a
place they don't live, is to protect
themselves from private investigators
and harassment. It is a known fact that
they decide to be Jane Doe's because
they are afraid of intimidation of
threats. Uh Courtney Wild, who was a
very brave survivor of Jeffrey Epstein,
when she decided to uh you know file a
suit against him, his private
investigators were so aggressive they
almost ran her off the road. This is a
very common tactic when trying to
intimidate Jane Doe's. Now, the fact
that this Jane Doe led to a undisclosed
location, a lot of them just choose
their lawyer's law firm. You know, that
doesn't mean anything. I'm not saying
that President Trump raped this woman.
This is an allegation of rape. But what
I'm saying is just because it led to a
um an undisclosed
a parking lot doesn't change the case.
Um he's very he's very obtuse in this in
this interview. He won't confirm that it
is the Katie Johnson case, even though
that is the only case that was filed at
that time, the only complaint that was
filed against Trump in relationship to
Epstein before the before the campaign.
And he he says it was dropped around the
same time, just days before the
election. He says he doesn't remember
very well. He says that the lawyers
apologized to him when they dropped the
case, but that the case was withdrawn,
citing intimidation. And I just think
this is just such a um a bombshell in a
lot of ways. And I asked Michael, you
know, what did President Trump say when
you asked him about it? Because you
often know, you have to know what your
client says about this, right? They're
friends. There's tons of pictures
together from that period of time. Um
and he said, "Michael, it's nothing.
Handle it." And he's like, "And then I
took care of it." And I said, "And you
believed him?" And he said, "100%."
H okay. So, uh well, part of your theory
is that uh private investigators get
hired and that's why they hide their
address. And in this case, uh they did
hire a private investigator. So, that
kind of proves the point. And if it
turned out she had used her real
address, the private investigator would
have tracked her from there on. So, or
like already this is super
uncomfortable. I mean, I think that
there's another part of the story that
we're kind of missing here, which is so
Donald Trump hired a private
investigator to track one of the victims
from Epstein.
Exactly.
Who had uh, you know, had allegations
against him. That's kind of a big story,
right?
That's a big deal. Yeah.
And and no one in the mainstream media
is covering it. And yet it's in his own
words. It's not me with a single source
saying a source told me this that
Michael Cohen did this. This is Michael
Cohen's own words.
Yeah. I mean, and do we know if the
private investigator eventually did find
her because she pulls the lawsuit saying
intimid intimidation. Now, we know there
was a private investigator. Maybe they
they did find her. Maybe they did
intimidate her. We don't know that, but
we certainly don't know the opposite
either given uh the situation here. So,
that leads me to a broad question. I
know
Cohen Cohen said that she didn't exist.
That's what Cohen said, that this woman
didn't exist and that his lawyer said
that they had never met her before.
But she had three lawyer. If it's the
same case of Katie Johnson, she had
three cases. This the entire interview
for everyone who wants to watch it. It's
on my YouTube channel. Um it completely
devolves into him screaming at me,
telling me that I'm wrong and that the
tr and and and debating the truth for
just asking these really simple
questions.
Um it's it's it's really something.
Sounds like the tone of someone who has
nothing to hide.
Yeah. This is crazy. This is I mean the
behavior of Donald Trump as it pertains
to the potential release of the Epstein
files is super shady. I mean super sh He
couldn't have handled it worse if he
wants people to think he has nothing to
do uh with Epstein or any of the
disgusting loome criminality he had
engaged in. And the it really does beg
the question why are we not getting the
Epstein files? Uh, what did Trump's
personal lawyer Todd Blanch talk to
Galain Maxwell about? And why was she
moved from like a higher security prison
to like the club med of of prisons? You
know, considering the fact that she was
uh the person who recruited these
minors, uh, groomed these minors, and in
some cases even sexually assaulted these
minors, you know, what kind of favor was
done there? So, I I I just think the
whole thing is so deeply shady. Um, did
you have a question, Jake?
Yeah. Uh, so so he's Michael Cohen's
yelling at you, which is kind of curious
because he's obviously turned on Donald
Trump. He's been on this show a couple
times and on every other show. And so,
like, if Trump was implicated,
presumably he wouldn't be angry about
that if it didn't involve him. But it
does involve him. He was a lawyer in
that case, right? he was a fixer in that
case.
So that might be why he's reacting in
such a hostile way when it's otherwise
like if it was just a junk lawsuit, easy
to say, hey, you know what, nothing of
it. Uh if he if he's not involved in it,
he might go, "Yeah, look at Trump,
right?" Because he's he's certainly not
on Trump's side. It's But we're all
guessing here. So, uh my question is
about the the actual allegations. I
remember when they came out and most of
mainstream media treated it as
outlandish. There's no way it's true.
And then the case was dismissed. And I
have to confess I that was my reaction.
The the charges were so you know like
significant that I thought really is
this possible and then when it went away
I thought well okay I guess you know
there's a lot of people who don't like
Donald Trump. Maybe it was one of those.
Now, I know there's no way you could
know, right? But what is your educated
guess on like how real that lawsuit was?
I mean, the lawsuit was filed three
times and the lawsuit was dropped citing
intimidation.
I, you know, I I can't say that I have
spoken to this Jane Doe, um, Katie
Johnson. It's her decision if she wants
to come out, but like I've said before,
a lot of these Jane Does do this. I
mean, this is the power source. If she
wanted to go out and speak out about the
allegations right now, she's going up
against the most powerful person in the
world.
And that takes
that's I think that explains a lot.
Um, and yeah, there's a lot of fear.
This is I do a lot my my focus on the
Epstein story is on the survivors
um and what they have been through and
trying to put the pieces together for
them. Right. So,
and it's really hard. It is not easy.
The intimidation is a huge part of why
women stay quiet. And I'll tell you
this, more women than you think are
staying quiet about Epstein.
H interesting. So, okay, Roana and Tom
Massie are going to do a press
conference on September 3rd with some of
the victims. Uh, and they want the
Epstein files released. So, the victims
are out there and there's a lot of them.
I mean, from what I understand, there
are hundreds of them, right? So
thousand
thousand over a thousand. So I mean I
guess last question here. Do do you know
how to what degree they've have they all
been interviewed? Uh have do we know how
many of them have named other people
other than Epstein and Maxwell? Because
to me the bottom line is always
yeah you could pretend that the file is
not there. You could pretend that
there's no actual list per se, right?
You can pretend a lot of things, but you
can't pretend that there aren't over a
thousand victims. There are. And
those are the FBI's old own words. They
estimated that. They said there about a
thousand victims. There are Well, first
of all, we know the file exists. It's on
the FBI's website right now. You
couldn't see it. It's just all black.
That is the Epstein file. You just can't
read it because it's all redacted.
And the victims have lists of the men
that they were that they were sexually
abused by. I mean, even just Virginia
Grey's um if you look well, you can't
read it because the men fought to redact
their names, but if you actually look at
her at her depositions in the case
against Maxwell, it names a number of
men that she was trafficked to. This
isn't there. This isn't something that's
just contained. Um so the idea that
there are no third parties,
it's just it's just ridiculous.
Yeah. I mean, it's ludicrous to say that
it was just Epstein and Maxwell with
over a thousand girls. And by the way,
that might mean that there were a couple
of dozen or a couple of hundred clients
or it might mean there were a couple of
thousand clients because they could
have, you know, unfortunately pedled the
same girl to to multiple men, right? So,
I I'm just
like, okay, I keep saying last question,
but Tara, has no one ever like even
like I know they didn't bring a case
against anyone else, but that seems so
unbelievable
that like I'm struggling to find a way
in. Is there um any case brought by any
local authority, federal authority,
anyone who thought about bringing a case
and then a criminal case and then pulled
it back or has it been from day one the
US government saying we're never going
to prosecute any of these by their
actions, right? Not by by by their
words, which they eventually did say
those words, but by their deeds. No
effort to prosecute a single one of
these. A massive amount of clients from
Epste.
Okay. So Jenk, I was on the show. I
think I was on the show this earlier
this summer and I was explaining that
there is no master list, right? That
there's no one list that Jeffrey Epstein
held on to and it was all the guys that
he trafficked women to, right? That it
was mostly the women that had these
lists and yes, there is no master list.
And I actually started going back to
some of my FBI sources after we talked,
senior FBI sources, senior law
enforcement sources, just because I
wanted to see, well, what's happening
with that? you know, are they actually
pursuing this this case? There's 3,000
gigabytes of files that they're hanging
on to at Virginia
told me that her lawyer brought her to
the FBI to try to identify her body
among the bodies of girls with men above
them. And this person said, "Yes, we
have files. We have documents where h,
you know, we're still working on it.
We're going to be up against the most
powerful defense attorneys in the world
and prosecutors when they want to bring
when they want to, you know, try someone
in court, when they want to prosecute
them, they want to have a strong case.
These are really powerful people. And
then it's case closed just like a week
or two later after I made that phone
call. It was crazy to me. Case closed
from
no third parties. So, Tara, you're
saying that there were active open
investigations and people might have
been tried and and charged soon and then
Trump shut down all the cases.
That's what I understand from my source
that they were still investigating it
very much so at least at the FBI level.
Hadn't maybe reached to the DOJ and
prosecutors were working on it, but at
least at the FBI level, they were very
much still investigating. All right,
everybody check out Tara Pomey's channel
on YouTube. She covers uh this material
along with a lot of other good
investigative journalism and news. Uh
and uh check out that interview with
Michael Cole. We'll put a link down
below in the description box and check
out. Yeah, no problem. And check out
Red.
Thank you for being brave enough to talk
about it, too. I feel like that's why
this is such a great place for people to
come to because it's, you know, the
mainstream media doesn't want to touch
it. It's like
Yeah, that is weird. I mean,
well, thank you for your focus on the on
the victims because they are out there
and, you know, they're they're not being
represented. It's disgusting.
Yeah. And by the way, Terara's worked at
a number of major mainstream media
outlets, ABC Politico, etc., and been a
White House correspondent. So, it's not
like, oh, there she's a rabble rouser
and so they can't talk to her about it.
It I mean, it's it easily the biggest
story of the year and mainstream media
not wanting to talk about it is strange.
Yeah. All right, Tara, you're awesome.
We appreciate you. Thank you.
Thank you, guys.
Every time you ring the bell below, an
angel gets his wings. Totally not true,
but it does keep you updated on our live
shows.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37971
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 81 guests